Requisites of Revocation by Physical Destruction

1. There must be an overt act specified by the law.

2. There must be a completion at least of the subjective phase of the overt act
3. There must be an animus revocandi or intent to revoke
4. The testator at the time of revoking must have capacity to make a will.
5. The revocation must be done by the testator himself, or by some other person in his
presence and by his express direction.

 In order that an act shall have the effect of revoking a will, the intention to
revoke must appear clearly and unequivocally; a will is not revoked by any act
of destruction not deliberately done animo revocandi.

 A revocation by an act to the document comprehends the performance of one

or more of the acts specified in the statute as a means of revocation, with the
intent to revoke. A symbolical destruction, cancellation or obliteration will not
suffice. There must be the act as well as the intention. A literal destruction of
the instrument, however, is not essential to effect a revocation.

 Intention requires that the testator has mental capacity. The degree of
capacity is the same as is required to make a will: the testator must have a
sound and disposing mind and memory.

 Maloto vs Maloto

Under Art. 830, the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this
case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the
destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator.

Perkes vs Perkes

The records show that the testator, having had some quarrel with the principal
beneficiary under his will, in a fit of passion, took the will from his desk, and then,
with intent of revoking it, began to tear it. He was able to tear it twice through, but
before he could tear it for the third time, he was persuaded by the pleas of the
beneficiary and of some friends who were around to desist. He returned the torn
will to his desk, declaring that it is still a good will.

Tearing is one of the modes by which a will may be cancelled; but it cannot be
contended that every tearing is a cancellation for if it were, a testator, who took
his will into his hands with intent to tear it, must, if he should tear it in the smallest
degree and then stop, be considered as having cancelled it. The real question in
these cases is whether the act be complete. If the testator here, after tearing it
twice through, had thrown the fragments on the grounds, it might have been
properly considered, that he in- tended to go no farther, and that the cancellation
was complete; but here there is evidence, that he intended to go farther, and that
he was only stopped from proceeding by an appeal made to his compassion by
the person who was one of the objects of his bounty.
  Tearing vs Burning
In the latter, the revocation is always total, while in the former, the
revocation is total if it is directed against an essential part of the will and
partial if it is directed against a nonessential part of the will.

In this case, there is no revocation when the destruction of the will was not
completed and the animus revocandi was not shown clearly and unequivocally.

Article 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:

(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of
revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by
his express direction. If burned, torn, cancelled, or obliterated by some other person,
without the express direction of the testator, the will may still be established, and the
estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due execution, and the
fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are established
according to the Rules of Court.

In order that an act shall have the effect of revoking a will, the intention to revoke
must appear clearly and unequivocally; a will is not revoked by any act of destruction
not deliberately done animo revocandi.

A symbolical destruction, cancellation or obliteration will not suffice. There must be

the act as well as the intention. A literal destruction of the instrument, however, is not
essential to effect a revocation.

Congressman Cayetano in a fit of passion and anger took the will, burnt it and
placed it in the trash bin. However, the overt act was not completed when upon
reconciling with the staff. They were able to retrieve the will as a whole and even
placed it back in his drawer.

Burning is one of the modes of destruction and revocation of the will, but not every
burning is a revocation especially when from the circumstances it cannot be inferred
that the intent of the testator is not clear and unequivocal.