G.R. No.

L-58509 December 7, 1982

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROE THE !ILL OF RI"ARDO #. #ONILLA
$ece%&e$, MAR"ELA RODELA', petitioner-appellant,
vs.
AMPARO ARAN(A, ET AL., oppositors-appellees, ATT). LOREN(O '*M*LONG, intervenor.
Luciano A. Joson for petitioner-appellant.
Cesar Paralejo for oppositor-appellee.

RELOA, J.:
This case was certified to this Tribunal by the Court of Appeals for final determination pursuant to
Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court.
As found by the Court of Appeals!
... "n #anuary $$, $%&&, appellant filed a petition with the Court of 'irst (nstance of
Ri)al for the probate of the holo*raphic will of Ricardo +. +onilla and the issuance of
letters testamentary in her favor. The petition, doc,eted as Sp. -roc. .o. /031, was
opposed by the appellees Amparo Aran)a +onilla, 2ilferine +onilla Treyes 34pedita
+onilla 'rias and 3phraim +onilla on the followin* *rounds!
5$6 Appellant was estopped from claimin* that the deceased left a will by failin* to
produce the will within twenty days of the death of the testator as re7uired by Rule
&5, section 1 of the Rules of Court8
516 The alle*ed copy of the alle*ed holo*raphic will did not contain a disposition of
property after death and was not intended to ta,e effect after death, and therefore it
was not a will
536 The alle*ed hollo*raphic will itself,and not an alle*ed copy thereof, must be
produced, otherwise it would produce no effect, as held in 9am v. :ap, $0 -hil.
5%8 and
50 6 The deceased did not leave any will, holo*raphic or otherwise, e4ecuted and
attested as re7uired by law.
The appellees li,ewise moved for the consolidation of the case with another case Sp.
-roc. .o, /1&56. Their motion was *ranted by the court in an order dated April 0,
$%&&.
"n .ovember $3, $%&/, followin* the consolidation of the cases, the appellees
moved a*ain to dismiss the petition for the probate of the will. They ar*ued that!
5$6 The alle*ed holo*raphic was not a last will but merely an instruction as to the
mana*ement and improvement of the schools and colle*es founded by decedent
Ricardo +. +onilla8 and
516 ;ost or destroyed holo*raphic wills cannot be proved by secondary evidence
unli,e ordinary wills.
<pon opposition of the appellant, the motion to dismiss was denied by the court in its
order of 'ebruary 13, $%&%.
The appellees then filed a motion for reconsideration on the *round that the order
was contrary to law and settled pronouncements and rulin*s of the Supreme Court,
to which the appellant in turn filed an opposition. "n #uly 13, $%&%, the court set
aside its order of 'ebruary 13, $%&% and dismissed the petition for the probate of the
will of Ricardo +. +onilla. The court said!
... (t is our considered opinion that once the ori*inal copy of the holo*raphic will is
lost, a copy thereof cannot stand in lieu of the ori*inal.
(n the case of 9am vs. :ap, $0 -hil. 5%, 511, the Supreme Court held that =in the
matter of holo*raphic wills the law, it is reasonable to suppose, re*ards the
document itself as the material proof of authenticity of said wills.
>"R3"?3R, this Court notes that the alle*ed holo*raphic will was e4ecuted on
#anuary 15, $%@1 while Ricardo +. +onilla died on >ay $3, $%&@. (n view of the lapse
of more than $0 years from the time of the e4ecution of the will to the death of the
decedent, the fact that the ori*inal of the will could not be located shows to our mind
that the decedent had discarded before his death his alle*edly missin* Aolo*raphic
2ill.
Appellant=s motion for reconsideration was denied. Aence, an appeal to the Court of Appeals in
which it is contended that the dismissal of appellant=s petition is contrary to law and well-settled
Burisprudence.
"n #uly &, $%/, appellees moved to forward the case to this Court on the *round that the appeal
does not involve 7uestion of fact and alle*ed that the trial court committed the followin* assi*ned
errors!
(. TA3 ;"23R C"<RT 3RR3C (. A";C(.9 TAAT A ;"ST A";"9RA-A(C 2(;;
>A: ."T +3 -R"?3C +: A C"-: TA3R3"'8
((. TA3 ;"23R C"<RT 3RR3C (. A";C(.9 TAAT TA3 C3C3C3.T AAS
C(SCARC3C +3'"R3 A(S C3ATA TA3 >(SS(.9 A";"9RA-A(C 2(;;8
(((. TA3 ;"23R C"<RT 3RR3C (. C(S>(SS(.9 A--3;;A.T=S 2(;;.
The only 7uestion here is whether a holo*raphic will which was lost or cannot be found can be
proved by means of a photostatic copy. -ursuant to Article /$$ of the Civil Code, probate of
holo*raphic wills is the allowance of the will by the court after its due e4ecution has been proved.
The probate may be uncontested or not. (f uncontested, at least one (dentifyin* witness is re7uired
and, if no witness is available, e4perts may be resorted to. (f contested, at least three (dentifyin*
witnesses are re7uired. Aowever, if the holo*raphic will has been lost or destroyed and no other
copy is available, the will can not be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwritin*
of the testator in said will. (t is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten
statements of the testator and the handwritten will. +ut, a photostatic copy or 4ero4 copy of the
holo*raphic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writin*s of the
testator. (n the case of 9am vs. :ap, $0 -A(;. 5%, the Court ruled that Dthe e4ecution and the
contents of a lost or destroyed holo*raphic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of
witnesses who have seen andEor read such will. The will itself must be presented8 otherwise, it shall
produce no effect. The law re*ards the document itself as material proof of authenticity.D +ut, in
'ootnote / of said decision, it says that D-erhaps it may be proved by a photo*raphic or photostatic
copy. 3ven a mimeo*raphed or carbon copy8 or by other similar means, if any, whereby the
authenticity of the handwritin* of the deceased may be e4hibited and tested before the probate
court,D 3vidently, the photostatic or 4ero4 copy of the lost or destroyed holo*raphic will may be
admitted because then the authenticity of the handwritin* of the deceased can be determined by the
probate court.
2A3R3'"R3, the order of the lower court dated "ctober 3, $%&%, denyin* appellant=s motion for
reconsideration dated Au*ust %, $%&%, of the "rder dated #uly 13, $%&%, dismissin* her petition to
approve the will of the late Ricardo +. +onilla, is hereby S3T AS(C3.
S" "RC3R3C.
Teehankee, Actg. C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasque an! "utierre, Jr., JJ., concur.