B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gan v. Yap (1958) Gan v. Yap (1958)
I. Recit ready
Felicidad Yap, the testator, died of heart failure leaving properties in Pulilan,
Bulacan and in Manila. Fausto Gan, the nephew of Felicidad, then filed for the
probate of her holographic will. Fausto claimed that the will was written in secret
because Felicidad did not want her husband, who allegedly had violent tendencies, to
know about the will. Thus, as a law student reviewing for the bar, Fausto
recommended to Felicidad to write a holographic will which would be valid without
the presence of witnesses. The will was allegedly prepared by Felicidad in the
presence of Felina Esguerra then it was read by Primitivo Reyes. Nine days later, the
will was then allegedly read by Socorro Olarte and Rosario Gan Jimenez. These
witnesses were presented by Fausto as his evidence during the probate of the will
since the will was allegedly lost.
On the other hand, this petition for probate was opposed by the widower of
Felicidad. He claimed that Felicidad did not execute any will.
The issue is W/N oral evidence may be admitted to prove the authenticity of a
holographic will – NO
[see NOTES for table of comparison between holographic and ordinary wills]
If oral testimony were admissible, only one man could engineer the fraud by making
a clever or passable imitation of the handwriting and signature of the deceased then
purposely lose it by “accident”. The oppositors would then have no way to expose
the
forgery because the document itself is not at hand.
In this case, It is hard to believe the dubious circumstances specifically that Felicidad
would show her will precisely to relatives who had received nothing from it: Soccoro
Olarte and Primitivo Reyes. They could pester her into amending her will to give
them a share, or threaten to reveal its execution to her husband Ildefonso Yap.
Furthermore, if she wanted to conceal the will from her husband, why did she not
entrust it to her beneficiaries? Opportunity to do so was not lacking: for instance, her
husband's trip to Davao, a few days after the alleged execution of the will.
Petition is dismissed.
II. Facts of the case
G.R. NO: L-12190
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: May a holographic will probated upon the testimony of the witnesses?
[August 30, 1958]
On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died in UST Hospital due to
heart failure. Following this, Fausto E. Gan (nephew of the deceased) filed for the
probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by the deceased covering properties
in Pulilan, Bulacan, and Manila City. This was opposed by Ildefonso Yap (husband
of the deceased) saying his wife did not leave any will nor testament. Because of
this, the probate was denied.
Instead of presenting the will on appeal, Fausto presented witnesses (Felina
Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes, Socorro Olarte, Rosario Gan Jimenez) to establish its
supposed contents and due execution. They testified that sometime in 1950, the
deceased mentioned to Vicente Esguerra (her first cousin) that she desired to make a
will but was afraid of her husband finding out, as it would be rendered useless.
Vicente then consulted with Fausto who was a law student. Fausto advised that the
deceased could execute the will without any witnesses so long as it was entirely in
her handwriting, signed, and dated by her. The deceased followed Fausto’s advice
and executed the holographic will in the presence of Felina (Vicente’s daughter and
one of the witnesses). Felina and the other witnesses were all able to read the
contents of the will. Over a year passed and the deceased was confined in UST
Hospital. During such time, she entrusted the will, which was inside a purse, to
Felina. However, Ildefonso demanded the purse from Felina. As she was afraid of
his violent temper, she gave it to him. It was then returned to her then demanded
again, but before finally giving it to Ildefonso, she made sure to read the contents of
the will one last time.
In contrast to the witnesses’ testimonies, Ildefonso alleged that the deceased had
been suffering from heart disease in the years leading up to her death. They even
travelled to the US for her treatment. During this time, she suffered multiple heart
attacks. When they returned, she suffered the fatal attack. Ildefonso and the
deceased’s personal attendant swore that the deceased did not execute any will.
The lower court rejected the testimonies of Fausto’s witnesses for several reasons.
First, it was odd that the deceased still executed the will in the presence of Felina
when she was aware that she did not need any witnesses. Second, it was not proven
that Felina was even a confidant of the deceased making it hard to believe that she
would be allowed to read the will several times. Third, it is also odd that the
deceased would allow the other witnesses to read her will, as she was afraid of
Ildefonso finding out. Fourth, it is also unlikely that she would be carrying the will
around in her purse if she really intended to conceal it from Ildefonso, as it could
easily be taken by her husband whenever she suffered an attack. Fifth, if Ildefonso
PONENTE: Bengzon
DIGEST MAKER: Mauiwowie
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED [August 30, 1958]

Gan v. Yap (1958) Gan v. Yap (1958)

demanded the purse from Felina in UST Hospital, it is unlikely that he returned it
without first destroying the will, as it was alleged that the will was executed without
his knowledge for fear that it would be rendered useless (i.e., destroyed).

G.R. NO: L-12190 PONENTE: Bengzon

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: May a holographic will probated upon the testimony of the witnesses? DIGEST MAKER: Mauiwowie
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED [August 30, 1958]
Gan v. Yap (1958) Gan v. Yap (1958)
III. Issue/s Lower court judgment AFFIRMED.
VI. Notes
W/N oral evidence, such as the testimonies of Fausto’s witnesses, may be admitted Proving the validity of a notarial
to establish the authenticity of a holographic will – NO will
- Wills must be subscribed by the
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis testator and three credible
witnesses in each and every page
In order for a holographic will to be authenticated, it must be presented before the - Such witnesses must attest to the
court. Presentation of the will, as a requirement, may be inferred from Article 689, number of sheets used and to the
691, and 693 of the Civil Code. Under said provisions, the will must be protocoled fact that the testator signed in
and presented to the judge who shall subscribe it and require its identity to be their presence and that they
established by the three witnesses who testify that they have no reasonable doubt that signed in the presence of the
the will was written by the deceased. If the judge considers such identity has been testator and of each other.
proven, he/she shall order that it be filed. In this case, the will was not submitted. - For that purpose the testimony of
Thus, the means of assessing the evidence and the only guaranty of authenticity had one of the subscribing witnesses
disappeared. would be sufficient if there is no
oppositionIf there is, the three
As a result of the non-presentation of the will, the witnesses of the petitioner cannot must testify, if available. From
testify as to whether they have no reasonable doubt that the will was handwritten and the testimony of such witnesses
signed by the deceased. In contrast, the oppositor (Ildefonso) cannot do anything to (and of other additional
disprove the deceased’s handwriting and signature. He/she would thus be at the witnesses) the court may form its
mercy of the other party. opinion as to the genuineness
and authenticity of the testament,
Without establishing the authenticity of the will, it cannot be used as basis to and the circumstances its due
distribute the property of the deceased. If oral testimony were allowed, someone execution.
perpetuating fraud could easily forge the handwriting and signature of the deceased - The testimony of the subscribing
then claim to accidentally lose it leaving no way for oppositors to expose the forgery. witnesses may guarantee the
authenticity of the will.
The rule under Rule 77, Rules of Court allowing testimony of witnesses to prove a - If the will is lost, the subscribing
lost or destroyed will does not apply to holographic wills. witnesses are available to
authenticate the will.
Assuming oral testimony was enough to establish the authenticity of the will, this - The three subscribing witnesses
case is still tainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies that would negate its would be testifying to a fact
existence. Overall, the Supreme Court agrees with the apprehensions of the lower which they saw, namely the of
court. It is unlikely the deceased would show the will to Fausto’s witnesses the testator of subscribing the
(especially the distant relatives), as they could easily coerce her into giving them a will
share in exchange for not telling Ildefonso about it. She could have easily entrusted
the will to her beneficiaries during the time Ildefonso was out of town in Davao.
V. Disposition
G.R. NO: L-12190 PONENTE: Bengzon
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: May a holographic will probated upon the testimony of the witnesses? DIGEST MAKER: Mauiwowie
Proving the validity of a holographic
will
- No such guaranties of truth and
veracity are demanded, since as stated,
they need no witnesses; provided
however, that they are "entirely
written, dated, and signed by the hand
of the testator himself."
- At least one witness who knows the
handwriting and signature of the
testator explicitly declare that the will
and the signature are in the
handwriting of the testator. If the will
is contested, at least three such
witnesses shall be required.
- In the absence of any such witnesses,
and if the court deem it necessary,
expert testimony may be resorted to
- The witnesses so presented do not
need to have seen the execution of the
holographic will.
- The oppositor may present other
witnesses who also know the testator's
handwriting, or some expert
witnesses, who after comparing the
will with other writings or letters of
the deceased, have come to the
conclusion that such will has not been
written by the hand of the deceased.
- The only guarantee of authenticity is
the handwriting itself
- The loss of a holographic will entails
the loss of the only medium proof.
- The witnesses would testify as to their
opinion of the handwriting which they
allegedly saw, an opinion which can
not be tested in court, nor directly
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED [August 30, 1958]

Gan v. Yap (1958) Gan v. Yap (1958)

contradicted by the oppositors,

because the handwriting itself is not at
hand.

G.R. NO: L-12190 PONENTE: Bengzon

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: May a holographic will probated upon the testimony of the witnesses? DIGEST MAKER: Mauiwowie