IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF MELECIO LABRADOR.

SAGRADO
LABRADOR (Deceased), substituted by ROSITA LABRADOR, ENRICA LABRADOR, and CRISTOBAL
LABRADOR, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, GAUDENCIO LABRADOR, and JESUS LABRADOR, respondents-appellees.
1

G.R. Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990

FACTS:

Melecio Labrador passed away, leaving behind a parcel of land and a holographic will. He had several heirs:
Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria, and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador.

On July 28, 1975, Sagrado, Enrica, and Cristobal filed a petition in court (Special Proceeding No. 922-I) to probate
Melecio Labrador's holographic will.

Later, Jesus and Gaudencio opposed the petition, claiming that Melecio had sold the land to them before his death,
rendering the will void. They alleged that Melecio had executed a Deed of Absolute Sale selling the Lot to them.
Jesus had then sold the land to Navat in 1973.

In response, Sagrado filed a case (Civil Case No. 934-I) against his brothers Jesus and Gaudencio, seeking to
annul the Deed of Absolute Sale, arguing it was fictitious and that he had acquired the land through inheritance from
their father.

After both sides presented their evidence, the trial court ruled on February 28, 1985, to allow the probate of the
holographic will and declared the Deed of Absolute Sale void. The court also ordered Jesus and Gaudencio to
reimburse Sagrado for the amount he paid for the property.

The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on March 10, 1988, modified the decision by denying the
probate of the will due to lack of a date and reversing the reimbursement order. The petitioners' motion for
reconsideration was denied on June 13, 1988. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the alleged holographic will of one Melecio Labrador is dated, as provided for in Article 8102
of the New Civil Code.

RULING:

Yes, the will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810. It is
1âwphi1

worthy of note to quote the first paragraph of the second page of the holographic will, viz:

And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the respective
assignment of the said fishpond, and 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. (emphasis supplied) (p. 46, Rollo)

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. These requirements are present in the
subject will.

FURTHER:

Respondents argue that the date mentioned in the will, March 17, 1968, was actually when the testator and
beneficiaries agreed on dividing a fishpond, not when the will was written. They claim this makes the document
more of an agreement than a will, which goes against the legal definition of a will.

However, this interpretation is incorrect. The context of the paragraph clearly indicates that March 17, 1968,
was intended as the date of the will's execution. Melecio Labrador's actions indicate he understood he was making a
will, not just an agreement. His instructions for partitioning and his declaration of those instructions as his decision
show he was fully aware of the nature of the property and the purpose of the will—to control how his estate would
be distributed after his death.