Labradorvs.

CA
184 SCRA 170

FACTS:

Melecio died leaving behind a parcel of land to his heirs. However, during probate proceedings,
Jesus and Gaudencio filed an opposition on the ground that the will has been extinguished by
implication of law alleging that before Melecio’s death, the land was sold to them evidenced by
TCT No. 21178. Jesus eventually sold it to Navat.
Trial court admitted the will to probate and declared the TCT null and void. However, the CA on
appeal denied probate on the ground that it was undated.

ISSUE:

W/N the alleged holographic will is dated, as provided for in Article 810 of CC.

HELD:

YES. The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will.
The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the
testator.

The intention to show March 17 1968 as the date of the execution is plain from the tenor of the
succeeding words of the paragraph. It states that “this being in the month of March 17th day, in
the year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the
one who made this writing is no other than Melecio Labrador, their father.” This clearly shows
that this is a unilateral act of Melecio who plainly knew that he was executing a will.