82. FEDERICO AZAOLA vs.
CESARIO SINGSON (2) that the testatrix did not seriously intend the instrument
GR No. ​L-14003, August 5, 1960
Ponente: ​REYES, J.B.L., ​J​.
Digest Author: Dizon
Topic: ​Special Requirements for Holographic Wills
Relevant Law: ​Article 811, NCC
Doctrine: ​see underlined texts
FACTS: ​This is an appeal from a decision of the CFI QC in its
Special Proceedings involving the determination of the
quantity of evidence required for the probate of the
holographic will of Fortunate Vda. de Yance.
● Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance died at 13 Luskot, QC, known
to be the last residence of said testatrix.
● Petitioner Francisco Azaola submitted the said will
whereby - Maria Milagros Azaola was made the sole heir
as against the nephew of deceased Cesario Singson.
● Witness Francisco Azaola testified that he saw the
holographic will 1 month, more or less, before the death
of the testatrix, as the same was handed to him and his
wife.
○ The witness testified that he recognized all the
signatures appearing in the holographic will as the
handwriting of the testatrix and to reinforce said
statement, witness presented the mortgage, the
special power of the attorney, and the general
power of attorney, besides the deeds of sale
including an affidavit.
● Further exhibited in court were 2 residence certificates
to show the signatures of the testatrix, for comparison
purposes.
○ Witness Azaola testified that the writing and
signatures appearing in the documentary evidence is
in the handwriting of the testatrix.
○ Also, witness answered to a question of his counsel
admitting that the holographic will was handed to
him by the testatrix, "apparently it must have been
written by her".
● However, on the same transcript of the stenographic
notes,
○ when the same witness was asked by counsel if he
was familiar with the penmanship and handwriting
of the deceased Fortunata, he answered in the
affirmative and
○ when was asked again whether the penmanship
referred to in the previous answer as appearing in
the will was the testatrix’s, he answered, "I would
definitely say it is hers".
It was also established that the assessed value of the
property of the deceased in Luskot, Quezon City, is in the
amount of P7,000.00.
The opposition to the probate was upon the following:
(1) the execution of the will was procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence on the part of the petitioner
and his wife, and
to be her last will, and that the same was actually written
either on the 5th or 6th day of August 1957 and not on
November 20, 1956 as appears on the will.
The probate was denied -
● on the ground that under ​Article 811 of the Civil Code,
the proponent must present 3 witnesses who could
declare that the will and the signature are in the writing
of the testatrix, the probate being contested​; and
● because the lone witness presented by the proponent
"did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was
written in the handwriting of the testatrix."
The proponent appealed, urging that:
(1) he was not bound to produce more than 1 witness
because the will's authenticity was not questioned; and
(2) that Article 811 does not mandatorily require the
production of 3 witnesses to identify the handwriting and
signature of a holographic will, even if its authenticity should
be denied by the adverse party.
ART. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be
necessary that 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 of such
witnesses shall be required.
In the absence of any competent witnesses referred to in the
preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it necessary,
expert testimony may be resorted to. (691a).
ISSUE:
WoN the rule under paragraph 1 of Article 811 of the Civil
Code is merely directory or is mandatory. MERELY
DIRECTORY.
RULING:
The Court agrees with the appellant that since the
authenticity of the will was not contested, he was not
required to produce more than 1 witness;
but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were
contested, Article 811 cannot be interpreted as to require the
compulsory presentation of 3 witnesses to identify the
handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the
probate denied.
Since no witness may have been present at the execution of a
holographic will, none being required by law (Art. 810), it
becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing the
requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the
proponent.
It is not merely a question of finding and producing any 3
witnesses; they must be witnesses "who know the
handwriting and signature of the testator" and who can
declare, truthfully, "that the will and the signature are in the
handwriting of the testator".
Page 1 or 15
There may be no available witness of the testator's hand; or
even if there is, the witnesses may be unwilling to give a The decision appealed from is set aside, and the records
positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of ordered remanded to the Court of origin, with instructions to
Article 811 may thus be impossible. hold a new trial.

That is evidently the reason why paragraph 2 of Article 811

prescribes that —
in the absence of any competent witness referred to
in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it
necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.

As can be seen, the law foresees the possibility that no

qualified witness may be found, and provides for resort to
expert evidence to supply the deficiency.

It may be true that the rule of this article was derived from
the rule established for ordinary testaments, but it ​cannot be
ignored that the requirement can be considered mandatory
only in the case of ordinary testaments​, ​precisely because the
presence of at least 3 witnesses at the execution of ordinary
wills is made by law essential to their validity (Art. 805).
Where the will is holographic, no witness need be present
(Art. 10), and the rule requiring production of 3 witnesses
must be deemed merely permissive if absurd results are to be
avoided.

As mentioned in Article 811, the resort to expert evidence is

conditioned by the words "if the Court deem it necessary",
which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the
Court should be convinced of the will's authenticity.

Where the prescribed number of witnesses is produced and

the court is convinced by their testimony that the ill is
genuine, it may consider it unnecessary to call for expert
evidence.

On the other hand, if no competent witness is available, or

none of those produced is convincing, the Court may still, and
in fact it should, resort to handwriting experts.

The duty of the Court, in fine, is to exhaust all available lines

of inquiry, for the state is as much interested as the
proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried
into effect.

Since the law leaves it to the trial court if experts are still
needed, no unfavorable inference can be drawn from a
party's failure to offer expert evidence, until and unless the
court expresses dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay
witnesses.

In conclusion, the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811 of the

Civil Code is merely directory and is not mandatory.

Considering, however, that this is the first occasion in which

this Court has been called upon to construe the import of said
article, the interest of justice would be better served by giving
the parties ample opportunity to adduce additional evidence,
including expert witnesses, should the Court deem them
necessary.
Page 2 or 15
83. CODOY v CALUGAY
GR No. 123486
Date ​August 12, 1999
Ponente: Pardo, J.
Digest Author: LAI
Topic in the Syllabus:
Testamentary Succession: Special Requirements for
Holographic Wills
Relevant Law:
ARTICLE 811.​ In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be
necessary that 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 of such
witnesses shall be required.
In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the
preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary,
expert testimony may be resorted to.
FACTS:
● In 1990 Resps Calugay, Salcedo and Patigas,
○ who are devisees and legatees of the holographic
will of the deceased Ramonal who died on Jan 1990
○ filed with the RTC a petition for probate of the
holographic will of Ramonal
○ In the petition, respondents claimed that the
deceased Ramonal was of sound and disposing mind
when she executed the will on August 1978
● The assessed value of the decedent's property, (real and
personal) = P400k at the time of her death.
● Thereafter, Pets Codoy and Ramonal filed an opposition
to the petition for probate
○ They allege that the holographic will was a forgery
and that the same is even illegible.
○ This gives an impression that a "third hand" of an
interested party other than the "true hand" of
Ramonal executed the holographic will.
● Respondents presented 6 witnesses
● Pets: If the deceased was the one who executed the will,
and was not forced, the dates and the signature should
appear at the bottom after the dispositions, as regularly
done and not after every disposition.
○ And assuming that the holographic will is in the
handwriting of the deceased, it was procured by
undue and improper pressure and influence on the
part of the beneficiaries, or through fraud and
trickery
RTC:​ In favor of the Petitioners; petition for probate of will
DENIED.
CA: ​In favor of Resps; appeal GRANTED;
● Authenticity of the holographic will and the handwriting
and signature is sustained, allowing the will to probate
● As provided in the case of Azaola v Singson:
○ The rule requiring 3 witnesses be presented if the
will is contested and only 1 if uncontested although
may be true was derived from the rule requiring for
ordinary testaments.
○ But it can not be ignored that the requirement can
be considered mandatory only in case of ordinary
testaments, ​precisely because the presence of at
least three witnesses at the execution of ordinary
wills is made by law essential to their validity ​(Art.
805).
○ Where the will is holographic, no witness need be
present, and the rule requiring production of three
witnesses must be deemed merely permissive if
absurd results are to be avoided.
● What the law deems essential is that the court should be
convinced of the will's authenticity.
○ Where the prescribed number of witnesses is
produced and the court is convinced by their
testimony that the will is genuine, it may consider it
unnecessary to call for expert evidence.
ISSUES:
WON the provisions of Art 811 requiring at least 3 witness
explicitly declare that the signature in the will is the genuine
signature of the testator is mandatory
RULING: YES
The language used in Article 811 NCC is mandatory as "shall"
connotes a mandatory order.​ ​Laws are enacted to achieve a
goal intended and to guide against an evil or mischief that
aims to prevent.
In the case at bar, the goal to achieve is to give effect to the
wishes of the deceased and the evil to be prevented is the
possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit
will employ means to defeat the wishes of the testator.
It will be noted that ​not ​all the witnesses presented by the
respondents testified explicitly that they were familiar with
the handwriting of testator.
The Court ​cannot eliminate the possibility of a false
document being adjudged as the will of the testator, which is
why if the holographic will is contested, that law requires
three witnesses to declare that the will was in the
handwriting of the deceased
The will was found not in the personal belongings of the
deceased but with one of the respondents, who kept it even
before the death of the deceased. In the testimony of Ms.
Binanay, she revealed that the will was in her possession as
early as 1985, or five years before the death of the deceased.
There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the
signature and the handwriting of the deceased with other
documents signed and executed by her during her lifetime.
○ Even the former lawyer of the deceased expressed
doubts as to the authenticity of the signature in the
holographic will.
Page 3 or 15
Comparing the signature in the holographic will and the
signatures in several documents such as the application letter
for pasture permit and a letter the strokes are different.
○ In the letters, there are continuous flows of the strokes,
evidencing that there is no hesitation in writing unlike
that of the holographic will.

CA decision is set aside, remanded to the court of origin to

allow petitioners adduce evidence in support of their
opposition to the probate

Page 4 or 15
84. GAN v. YAP
GR No. L-12190
Date ​Aug 30, 1958
Ponente: Bengzon, J
Digest Author: Lim
Topic in the Syllabus:
Special Requirements for holographic wills - Art 810-814
Relevant Law:
Art. 810. A person may execute a holographic will which must
be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the
testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be
made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.
Art. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be
necessary that 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 of such
witnesses shall be required.
In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the
preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary,
expert testimony may be resorted to.
Doctrine:
The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed
holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of
witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself
must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The
law regards the document itself as material proof of
authenticity.
Parties:
Petitioner-appellant: Fausto E. Gan
Oppositor-appellee: Ildefonso Yap (husband of deceased)
FACTS:
● Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of heart failure in the
UST hospital on Nov 20, 1951
○ She left properties in Pulilan, Bulacan and in the City
of Manila
● On March 17, 1952 Fausto E. Gan initiated proceedings in
Manila with a petition for probate of the holographic will
allegedly executed by the deceased.
Supposed Holographic will:
Nobyembre 5, 1951
Ako, si Felicidad E. Alto-Yap, may asawa, at ganap na pagiisip,
ay nagsasalaysay na ang aking kayamanan sa bayan ng
Pulilan, Bulacan ay aking ipinamamana sa aking mga
kamaganakang sumusunod:
Vicente Esguerra, Sr. 5 Bahagi:
Fausto E. Gan 2 Bahagi
Rosario E. Gan 2 Bahagi
Filomena Alto 1 Bahagi
Beatriz Alto 1 Bahagi
'At ang aking lahat ng ibang kayamanan sa Maynila at iba
pang lugar ay aking ipinamamana sa aking asawang si
Ildefonso D. Yap sa kondisyong siya'y magpapagawa ng isang
Health Center na nagkakahalaga ng di kukulangin sa halagang
P60,000.00 sa bayan ng Pulilan, Bulacan, na nakaukit ang
aking pañgalang Felicidad Esguerra-Alto. At kung ito ay may
kakulañgan man ay bahala na ang aking asawa ang magpuno
upang matupad ang aking kagustuhan.'
(Lagda) Felicidad E. Alto-Yap"
● Deceased’s husband, Ildefonso Yap, opposed the
petition, and asserted that the deceased had not left any
will nor executed any testament during her lifetime
● Trial Court refused to probate the alleged will
● The will itself was not presented
● Petitioner Fausto Gan tried to establish the supposed will
by statements of Felina Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes,
Socorro Olarte, and Rosario Gan Jimenez.
Summarized Testimonies​:
● Sometime in 1950 after her last trip abroad, Felicidad
Esguerra mentioned to her first cousin, Vicente Esguerra,
her desire to make a will.
○ She confided however that it would be useless if her
husband discovered or knew about it.
● Vicente consulted with Fausto E. Gan, nephew of
Felicidad, who was then preparing for the bar
examinations.
○ The latter replied it could be done without any
witness, provided the document was entirely in her
handwriting, signed and dated by her.
● In the morning of November 5, 1951, in her residence at
Juan Luna Street, Manila, Felicidad wrote, signed and
dated a holographic will -
○ substantially of the tenor above transcribed,
○ in the presence of her niece, Felina Esguerra
(daughter of Vicente), who was invited to read it.
● In the afternoon of that day, Felicidad was visited by a
distant relative, Primitivo Reyes, and she allowed him to
read the will in the presence of Felina Esguerra, who
again read it.
● Nine days later, he had other visitors: Socorro Olarte a
cousin, and Rosario Gan Jimenez, a niece.
○ To these she showed the will, again in the presence
of Felina Esguerra, who read it for the third time.
● When on November 19, 1951, Felicidad was confined at
the U.S.T. Hospital for her last illness, she entrusted the
said will, which was contained in a purse, to Felina
Esguerra.
● But a few hours later, Ildefonso Yap, her husband, asked
Felina for the purse;
○ and being afraid of him by reason of his well-known
violent temper, she- delivered it to him.
● Thereafter, in the same day, Ildefonso Yap returned the
purse to Felina, only to demand it the next day shortly
before the death of Felicidad.
Page 5 or 15
 ○ Again, Felina handed it to him but not before she
and authenticity.
had taken the purse to the toilet, opened it and
read the will for the last time.

ISSUES: DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

Whether a holographic will may be probated upon testimony Wherefore, the rejection of the alleged will must be
of witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who declare that sustained. Judgment affirmed, and with costs against
it was in the handwriting of the testator? NO petitioner.

RULING:

The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed

holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of
witnesses who have seen and/or read such will

According to Art 811.​ In the probate of a holographic will, it

shall be necessary that 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 of such
witnesses shall be required.

In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the

preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary,
expert testimony may be resorted to.

For Art 811 to apply, it is necessary that the will itself be

presented.

The loss of the holographic will entails the loss of the only
medium of proof

Difference why ordinary wills may be proved by testimonial

evidence when lost or destroyed:

Holographic will Ordinary will

1. Nature: the only 1. The testimony of the

guarantee of authenticity is subscribing witnesses and
the handwriting itself of the nototary

2. Entails the loss of the 2. If the ordinary will is lost

only medium of proof
3. If oral testimony were
admissible only one man
could engineer the whole
fraud this way: after making
a clever or passable
imitation of the handwriting
and signature of the
deceased, he may contrive
to let three honest and
credible witnesses see and
read the forgery; and the
latter, having no interest,
could easily fall for it, and in
court they would in all good
faith affirm its genuineness
the subscribing witnesses
are available to
authenticate.
3. It is quite hard to
convince three witnesses
(four with the notary)
deliberately to lie. And then
their lies could be checked
and exposed, their
whereabouts and acts on
the particular day, the
likelihood that they would
be called by the testator,
their intimacy with the
testator, etc

Page 6 or 15
85. RODELAS V. ARANZA
GR No. L-58509
Date ​December 7, 1982
Ponente: Relova, J.
Digest Author: Lo
Topic in the Syllabus:
Special Requirements for Holographic Wills
Relevant Law:
Art. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be
necessary that 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 of such
witnesses shall be required.
In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the
preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary,
expert testimony may be resorted to.
Doctrine:
A photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may
be allowed because comparison can be made with the
standard writings of the testator.
Decedent:​ Ricardo B. Bonilla
Will: ​YES.
Parties:​(Relationship to the decedent was not indicated)
● MARCELA RODELAS, ​petitioner-appellant,
● AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL., ​oppositors-appellees,
ATTY. LORENZO SUMULONG, ​intervenor.
FACTS:
● On January 11, 1977, appellant filed a petition with the
Court of First Instance of Rizal for the probate of the
holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of
letters testamentary in her favor.
● Such was opposed by the appellees Amparo Aranza
Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes Expedita Bonilla Frias
and Ephraim Bonilla on the following grounds:
(1) Appellant was estopped from claiming that the
deceased left a will by failing to produce the will
within twenty days of the death of the testator as
required by Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules of Court;
(2) The alleged copy of the alleged holographic will did
not contain a disposition of property after death and
was not intended to take effect after death, and
therefore it was not a will
(3) The alleged holographic will itself, and not an
alleged copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it
would produce no effect, as held in Gam v. Yap, 104
Phil. 509;​ and
(4 ) The deceased did not leave any will, holographic or
otherwise, executed and attested as required by law.
● Such case was consolidated with another case.
● Appellees likewise filed MTD the petition for probate of a
will alleging that Lost or destroyed holographic wills
cannot be proved by secondary evidence unlike ordinary
wills.
● MTD was denied. Appellees then filed MR. Court granted
MR stating : “It is our considered opinion that once the
original copy of the holographic will is lost, a copy
thereof cannot stand in lieu of the original.”
● Appellant's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Hence, 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 jurisprudence.
ISSUES:
WON a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found
can be proved by means of a photostatic copy ​- NO.
RULING:
Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of
holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the court
after its due execution has been proved.
The probate may be uncontested or not.
If uncontested, at least one Identifying witness is required
and, if no witness is available, experts may be resorted to.
If contested, at least three Identifying witnesses are required.
However, if the holographic 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 handwriting of the
testator in said will. It is necessary that there be a comparison
between sample handwritten statements of the testator and
the handwritten will. ​But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy
of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison
can be made with the standard writings of the testator.
In the case of Gam vs. Yap, the Court ruled that "the
execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic
will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses
who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be
presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law
regards the document itself as material proof of
authenticity."
But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps it
may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a
mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if
any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the
deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate
court,"
Evidently, the ​photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or
destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then
the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be
determined by the probate court.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court dated October 3,
1979, denying appellant's motion for reconsideration dated
August 9, 1979, of the Order dated July 23, 1979, dismissing
her petition to approve the will of the late Ricardo B. Bonilla,
is hereby SET ASIDE.
Page 7 or 15
Page 8 or 15
86. IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANDRES
AND BIBIANA ROXAS DE JESUS v. ANDRES DE JESUS JR.
GR No. 38338
Date: 28 JANUARY 1985
Ponente: GUTIERREZ, JR.
Digest Author: Vener Margallo
Topic in the Syllabus:
Special Requirements for Holographic Wills
Relevant Law:
Art. 810
A person may execute a holographic will which must be
entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator
himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or
out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed."​
Doctrine:
As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should
include the day, month, and year of its execution. However,
when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud,
bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticity
of the Will is established and the only issue is whether or not
the date "FEB./61" appearing on the holographic Will is a
valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code, probate of
the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of
substantial compliance.
Decedent: BIBIANA ROXAS DE JESUS
Will: YES.
The will is dated "FEB./61"
and states: "This is my will which I want to be respected altho
it is not written by a lawyer. . . "
Parties:
Testator: Bibiana Roxas De Jesus (+)
Administrator: Simeon R. Roxas, brother (​Petitioner​)
Oppositor: Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir
(​Respondent​)
FACTS:
● After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and
Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, Special Proceeding entitled "In
the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. de Jesus
and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus" was filed by petitioner
Simeon R. Roxas, the brother of the deceased Bibiana
Roxas de Jesus.
● Simeon R. Roxas was appointed administrator.
○ After Letters of Administration had been granted to
the petitioner, he delivered to the lower court a
document purporting to be the holographic Will of
the deceased Bibiana Roxas due Jesus.
○ Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testified that after his
appointment as administrator,
■ he found a notebook belonging to the deceased
Bibiana R. de Jesus and
■ that on pages 21, 22, 23 and 24 thereof, a
letter-will addressed to her children and entirely
written and signed in the handwriting of the
deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was found.
● The will is dated "FEB./61" and states: ​"This is my will
which I want to be respected altho it is not written by a
lawyer. . . "
● The testimony of Simeon R. Roxas was corroborated by
the testimonies of Pedro Roxas de Jesus and Manuel
Roxas de Jesus, sons of the deceased.
● Respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir filed
an "opposition to probate" assailing the purported
holographic Will of Bibiana R. de Jesus because — (a) it
was not executed in accordance with law… xxx
● Respondent Judge Jose C. Colayco issued an order
allowing the probate of the holographic Will which he
found to have been duly executed in accordance with
law.
● Respondent Luz Roxas de Jesus filed a motion for
reconsideration alleging inter alia that the alleged
holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was
not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code.
○ She contends that the law requires that the Will
should contain the day, month, and year of its
execution and that this should be strictly complied
with.
● Respondent Judge Colayco reconsidered his earlier order
and disallowed the probate of the holographic Will on
the ground that the word "dated" has generally been
held to include the month, day, and year.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the date "FEB./61" appearing on the
holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a
valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code
RULING: YES.
The present Civil Code omitted the phrase "Año, mes y dia"
and simply requires that the holographic Will should simply
be dated.
If the testator, in executing his Will, attempts to comply with
all the requisites, although compliance is not literal, it is
sufficient if the objective or purpose sought to be
accomplished by such requisite is actually attained by the
form followed by the testator.
In particular, a complete date is required to provide against
such contingencies as that of two competing Wills executed
on the same day, or of a testator becoming insane on the day
on which a Will was executed (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720).
There is no such contingency in this case.
There is no question that the holographic Will of the
deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus was entirely written, dated,
and signed by the testatrix herself and in a language known
to her.
There is also no question as to its genuineness and due
execution. All the children of the testatrix agree on the
genuineness of the holographic Will of their mother and that
Page 9 or 15
she had the testamentary capacity at the time of the
execution of said Will.

The objection interposed by the oppositor-respondent Luz

Henson is that the holographic Will is fatally defective
because the date "FEB./61" appearing on the holographic Will
is not sufficient compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code.
This objection is too technical to be entertained.

As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should

include the day, month, and year of its execution.

However, when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance

of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the
authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is
whether or not the date "FEB./61" appearing on the
holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the
Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed
under the principle of substantial compliance.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The order

appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the order
allowing the probate of the holographic Will of the deceased
Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is reinstated.

Page 10 or 15
89. BAGTAS v. PAGUIO ISSUES:
GR No. L-6801 WON the testator was in full enjoyment and use of his mental
Date: March 14, 1912 faculties to execute a valid will - ​ YES
Ponente: Trent, J.
Digest Author: Abby Martinez RULING:

Topic in the Syllabus: The law does not require that a person shall continue in the
Purpose of requirements – to close the door full enjoyment and use of his pristine physical and mental
to bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of powers in order to execute a valid will.
wills, and to guarantee their truth and ● The testator’s infirmities were of a very serious
authenticity. character. However, it ​cannot be concluded​ from
this that he was wanting in the necessary mental
Relevant Law: capacity to dispose of his property by will.
● If such were the legal standard, few indeed would be
Doctrine: the number of wills that could meet such exacting
Perfect soundness of mind is not essential to testamentary requirements.
capacity ● To constitute a ​sound and disposing mind​, it is not
necessary that the mind shall be wholly unbroken,
Decedent: ​Pioquinto Paguio y Pizarro unimpaired, or unshattered by disease or otherwise,
Will: ​Yes, but it’s not stated or that the testator should be in the full possession
of his reasoning faculties
Parties:
Testamentary Witnesses​: Agustin Paguio, Anacleto Paguio Perfect soundness of mind is not essential to testamentary
(+), and Pedro Paguio, and Atty. Señor Marco (+) capacity.
Other Witness:​ Florentino Ramos. ● Failure of memory is not sufficient unless it be total
Executrix:​ Juliana Bagtas (widow of decedent) or extends to his immediate family or property.
Opposer: ​son and grandchildren of Pioquinto by former ● Mere weakness of mind and body​, induced by age
marriage and disease ​do not render​ a person ​incapable​ of
making a will. As long as mind and memory is
FACTS: sufficiently sound to know and understand what he
● The subject here is the will of Pioquinto Paguio y was doing at the time of making the will
Pizarro which was executed in Pueblo Pilar, Bataan.
● Juliana Bagtas, the executrix, filed before the CFI for DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
probate of the said will. The order probating the will should be and the same is
● Oppositors claim that testator was not in full hereby affirmed, with costs of this instance against the
enjoyment and use of his mental faculties and was appellants.
without mental capacity necessary to execute a will.
● Records show that Pioquinto had a paralysis 15 years
before his death.
● The paralysis causes impairment of his hearing and
speech. Because of the paralysis of some muscles,
his head fell to one side and saliva continuously drips
from his mouth.
● The testator died a year and 5 months following the
date of the execution of the will.
● At the time of the execution of the will, there were
four testamentary witnesses
● It appears that the testator made notes disposition
he desires to make his property, from which his
attorney, Atty. Senor Marco prepared a formal will
which was then read to the testator, who assented
to it section by section.
○ After which the whole will is read in a loud voice
and is then signed by the testator and four
witnesses in the presence of each other.
● The son and grandchildren of Pioqiuinto by former
marriage, opposed by saying that Pioquinto was not
in full enjoyment and use of his mental faculties and
has no mental capacity.

Page 11 or 15
90. DE GUZMAN V BENITEZ
169 SCRA 284
Date: ​January 20, 1989
Ponente:​ Grino-Aquino, J.
Digest Author:​ Ollero
Topic:​ Testamentary Succession
Doctrine:
The cardinal rule on that point is that the trial court's
assessment of the credibility of witnesses while testifying is
generally binding on the appellate court because of its
superior advantage in observing their conduct and demeanor
and its findings, when supported by convincingly credible
evidence.
Parties:
Decedent: Francisco Benitez
Peritioners:
Dionisia Valenzuela and her brother;
Melquiades Valenzuela, first-cousins of the deceased
Oppositors:
Emiterio de Guzman, substituted by his heirs, Fidel De
Guzman, Cresencia De Guzman and
Rosalia De Guzman
WILL​: None
FACTS:
● On December 10, 1970, Dionisia Valenzuela and her
brother, Melquiades Valenzuela, first-cousins of the
deceased Francisco Benitez, filed in the Court of First
Instance of Laguna, a petition for administration of his
intestate estate and for the issuance of letters of
administration to Dionisia who, during the lifetime of the
deceased, had been administering the said estate as
Judicial guardian of his person and property.
● Francisco Benitez was the only surviving child of the
spouses Tiu Cuaco, alias Pascual Benitez, and Camila
Valenzuela whose brother was the father of private
respondents, Dionisia Valenzuela and Melquiades
Valenzuela.
○ He died single at the age of 61 years on November 6,
1970, without descendants, nor ascendants, nor
brothers and sisters.
○ He left an estate consisting of fourteen (14) parcels
of coconut land in Laguna, with a total area of 34
hectares, a residential lot on S. Crisostomo Street in
the poblacion of Pagsanjan, Laguna, and a small
savings account (P3,843.08) in the Philippine
National Bank.
● The petition for administration was opposed by Emiterio
de Guzman on the ground that the deceased left a will
bequeathing his entire estate to him (De Guzman).
○ Emiterio de Guzman died on April 20, 1973 and was
substituted by his heirs, Fidel, Cresencia and Rosalia,
all surnamed De Guzman, in both proceedings.
● In support of the petition for probate the petitioner Fidel
de Guzman and two attesting witnesses of the will,
Pelagio Lucena and Judge Damaso Tengco who prepared
the will, gave evidence.
● The oppositors presented six (6) witnesses, namely,
Marcial Mendoza, Pedro Cabela, Porfirio Reyes, Dionisia
Valenzuela, Honoria Recalde Leonardo and Prudencio
Leonardo, who identified the transcript of the testimony
by Dr. Jose A. Fernandez for the guardianship of
Francisco Benitez for incompetence on account of
insanity.
● On April 4, 1975, Judge Maximo Maceren rendered
judgment disallowing the will and appointing Dionisia
Valenzuela administratrix of the intestate estate of the
deceased.
The evidence shows that from January 18, 1929 up to March
12, 1941 Francisco Benitez was confined at the National
Mental Hospital for varying periods of time as follows:
​DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF DISCHARGE
January 18, 1929 March 12, 1929
March 7, 1931 June 6, 1931
November 12, 1936 November 29, 1937
February 16, 1938 August 16, 1939
July 9, 1940 March 12, 1941
Trial Court​:
At the time Francisco Benitez executed his supposed will on
August 18, 1945 he was not possessed of a sound and
disposing mind.
The will was not allowed to be probated.
CA​: Affirmed the decision of the Trial Court.
ISSUE:
WON testator possess a sound and disposing mind upon
execution of the will.
HELD:
The decision of the Court of Appeals reveals that the court
carefully weighed the evidence on the question of the
testamentary capacity, or lack of it, of the deceased Francisco
Benitez and found "no compelling reason to disturb the lower
court's findings and conclusions."
The resolution of that question hinged on the credibility of
the witnesses​. The cardinal rule on that point is that the trial
court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses while
testifying is generally binding on the appellate court
because of its superior advantage in observing their conduct
and demeanor and its findings, when supported by
convincingly credible evidence.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: ​WHEREFORE, the petition for review
is denied for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners Fidel,
Cresencia and Rosalia de Guzman.
Page 12 or 15
91. ALSUA-BETTS V. COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. L-46430-31
Date ​July 30, 1970
Ponente: Guerrero, J.
Digest Author: Pajo L.
Topic in the Syllabus:
Relevant Law:
Doctrine/s:
● Estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings
● Escritura de Particion of 1949 is null and void
(necessity of a prior will before the testator can
partition his properties among his heirs)
● No valid donation to the children of the other half
reserved as the free portion of Don Jesus and Dona
Tinay
● The probate of the holographic will did not prevent
the testator from executing a new will
● Intrinsic validity of the notarial will
● Disposition of properties to Francesca was valid,
even if it resulted to an uneven distribution of
properties, since the legitimes of the siblings were
not impaired
● Testamentary capacity of Don Jesus at the time of
execution of the notarial will; Validity of the sale to
Francisca
Decedent: None at the beginning of the probate
proceedings (Living Probate) 1st Decedent Dona
Florentina (1959) subsequently by Don Jesus (1964)
Will: ​Don Jesus Alsua and Dona Florentina Ralla
Parties:
● Petitioner: Francisco Alsua-Betts
● Oppositors:
○ Pablo Alsua
○ Fernando Alsua
○ Amparo Alsua
FACTS:
● Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, Doña Florentina Ralla,
both of Ligao, Albay, together with all their living
children, Francisca Alsua-Betts, Pablo Alsua,
Fernando Alsua thru his judicial guardian Clotilde
Samson, and Amparo Alsua de Buenviaje, entered
into a duly notarized agreement, ​Escritura​ d​ e
Particion Extrajudicial​, over the then present and
existing properties of the spouses Don Jesus and
Doña Florentina enumerated in a prepared
inventory. (1949)
● Don Jesus and Doña Florentina, also known as Doña
Tinay separately executed their respective
holographic wills (1955)
○ The provisions of which were in conformity
and in implementation of the extrajudicial
partition
○ Their holographic wills similarly provided
for the institution of the other to his or her
share in the conjugal properties, the other
half of the conjugal assets having been
partitioned to constitute their legitime
among their four living children in the
Extrajudicial Partition of 1949. The wills
also declared that in the event of future
acquisitions of other properties by either of
them, one-half thereof would belong to the
other spouse, and the other half shall be
divided equally among the four children.
● On 1956, the spouses Don Jesus and Doña Tinay filed
before the CFI Albay their respective petitions for
the probate of their respective holographic wills
which were docketed as Special Proceedings No. 484
(Jesus Alsua, Petitioner) and Special Proceedings No.
485 (Doña Florentina Ralla de Alsua, Petitioner).
● The spouses executed their mutual and reciprocal
codicils amending and supplementing their
respective holographic wills.
○ Each spouse also declared that should she
or he be the surviving spouse, whatever
belongs to him or her or would pertain to
him or her, would be divided equally among
the four children.
● Upon the death of Doña Tinay on, 1959, Don Jesus
was named executor.
○ Thereafter, Don Jesus cancelled his
holographic will in the presence of his
bookkeeper and secretary, Esteban
Ramirez. His lawyer, Atty. Gregorio
Imperial, Sr. was then instructed to draft a
new notarial will (1959) which was duly
signed by Don Jesus and his attesting
witnesses.
● Don Jesus, submitted to the probate court for
approval a deed of partition which essentially
confirmed the provisions of the Escritura de
Particion. The court approved the partition and
declared the termination of the proceedings on the
estate of Doña Tinay.
● On 1964, Don Jesus Alsua died.
FACTS STATING THE PROBLEM
● Francisca Alsua-Betts (Petitioner), as the executrix
named in the notarial will of November 14, 1959,
Page 13 or 15
 filed a petition for the probate of said new will of
Don Jesus Alsua.
● Oppositions thereto were filed by petitioner's
siblings (Pablo, Amparo and Fernando) alleging that
the notarial will contravened the Escritura de
Particion of 1949.
● Petitioner filed with the Probate Court an inventory
of the properties of the estate which, according to
the oppositors, did not include some properties
appearing in the Escritura de Particion of 1949.
● Respondents stated that Francisca claimed that she
bought the properties from their father and
presented the 2 Deeds of Sale now being assailed,
one dated August 26, 1961 purporting to show the
sale of the 33 parcels of agricultural land to Francisca
by their father for the price of P70,000 and the other
dated November 26, 1962 evidencing the sale of the
four urban lots for the sum of P80,000.
● Claiming fraud in the sales, the oppositors filed a civil
case seeking the annulment of the two deeds of sale,
with damages.
● After a joint hearing of the merits of the two cases
(probate and annulment of sale), the CFI probate
court rendered a decision allowing the November
14, 1959 notarial will and declared the sales to
Francisca as lawful and valid sales. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals reversed. Hence, the present
petition.
ISSUES:
1. Are the oppositors estopped? No
2. Did CA commit an error in ruling that the testator
Don Jesus cannot revoke his previous will? No
3. Did CA commit an error in annulling the 2 deeds of
sales? Yes
RULING:
● ​Estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings
○ The principle of estoppel is not applicable in
probate proceedings, a ruling laid down in
the case of Obispo vs. Obispo (50 O.G. 614)
penned by Justice J.B.L. Reyes which
declared that “probate proceedings involve
public interest, and the application therein
of the rule of estoppel, when it will block
the ascertainment of the truth as to the
circumstances surrounding the execution of
a testament, would seem inimical to public
policy.”
● Escritura de Particion of 1949 is null and void
(necessity of a prior will before the testator can
partition his properties among his heirs)
○ The Court holds that the Escritura de
Particion of November 25, 1949 is null and
void under Article 1056 in relation to Article
1271 of the old Civil Code
○ 'Art. 1056. If the testator should make a
partition of his property by an act inter
vivos, or by will, such partition shall stand in
so far as it does not prejudice the legi​time of
the forced heirs.'
○ Article 1056 specifically uses the word
"testator" from which the clear intent of the
law may be deduced that t​he privilege of
partitioning one's estate by acts inter vivos
is restricted only to one who has made a
prior will or testament.​ In other words,
Article 1056 being an exception cannot be
given a wider scope as to include in the
exception any person whether he has made
a will or not. In​Legasto vs. Verzosa​, the
Supreme Court categorically declared the
necessity of a prior will before the testator
can partition his properties among his heirs.
● No valid donation to the children of the other half
reserved as the free portion of Don Jesus and Doña
Tinay
○ There was substantial compliance with the
rules on donations inter vivos under the old
Civil Code (Article 633). On the other hand,
there could have been no valid donation to
the children of the other half reserved as
the free portion of Don Jesus and Doña
Tinay which, as stated in the deed, was to
be divided equally among the children for
the simple reason that the property or
properties were not specifically described in
the public instrument, an essential
require​ment under Article 633
○ Upon the death of Doña Tinay, her share in
the free portion was distributed in
accordance with her holographic will and
codicil. It must be stressed here that the
distribution of her properties was subject to
her holographic will and codicil,
independently of the holographic will and
codicil of Don Jesus executed by him on the
same date. This is fundamental because
otherwise, ​to consider both wills and
codicils jointly would be to circumvent the
prohibition of the Civil Code on joint wills
(Art. 818) ​and secondly because upon the
death of Doña Tinay, only her estate was
being settled, and not that of Don Jesus.
○ In the holographic will and codicil of Doña
Tinay, there is no indication whatsoever
that Doña Tinay expressly or impliedly
instituted both the husband and her
children as heirs to her free portion of her
share in the conjugal assets.
○ Doña Tinay did not oblige her husband to
give equally to the children, upon his death,
all such properties she was bequeathing
him​. It follows that a​ ll the properties of
Doña Tinay bequeathed to Don Jesus under
her holographic will and codicil became part
of Don Jesus' estate unburdened by any
condition, obligation or proviso​.
Page 14 or 15
● The probate of the holographic will did not prevent ○ The Civil Code itself provides under Article
the testator from executing a new will 798 that in order to make a will, it is
○ Art. 828 of the new Civil Code is clear: ​"A essential that the testator be of sound mind
will may be revoked by the testator at any at the time of its execution, and under
time before his death. Any waiver or Article 800, the law presumes that every
restriction of this right is void.​" There can person is of sound mind in the absence of
be no restriction that may be made on his proof to the contrary. In the case at bar, the
absolute freedom to revoke his holographic acceptance by the CA of the findings of fact
will and codicil previously made.​ This would of the trial court on the due execution of
still hold true even if such previous will had the last will and testament of Don Jesus has
as in the case at bar already been probated​. foreclosed any and all claim to the contrary
(Palacios v. Palacios) that the will was not executed in
● Intrinsic validity of the notarial will accordance with the requirements of the
○ A close scrutiny of the properties law.
distributed to the children under the
Escritura de Particion of 1949 and those
distributed under the notarial will of Don DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Jesus does not show that the former had in WHEREFORE​, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision
fact been included in the latter. appealed from is hereby set aside. The decision of the Court
○ This being so, it must be presumed that the of First Instance of Albay in Special Proceedings No. 699 and
intention of Don Jesus in his last will was Civil Case No. 3068 is hereby reinstated, with costs against
not to revoke the donations already made respondents.
in the Deed of 1949 but only to redistribute
his remaining estate, or that portion of the SO ORDERED.
conjugal assets totally left to his free
disposal and that which he received as his
inheritance from Doña Tinay. The legitimes
of the forced heirs were left unimpaired, as
in fact, not one of said forced heirs claimed
or intimated other​wise.
○ The properties that were disposed of in the
contested will belonged wholly to Don Jesus
Alsua's free portion and may be disposed of
by him to whomsoever he may choose.
● Disposition of properties to Francesca was valid,
even if it resulted to an uneven distribution of
properties, since the legitimes of the siblings were
not impaired
○ If Don Jesus now favored Francisca more,
the Court cannot and may not sit in
judgment upon the motives and senti​ments
of Don Jesus in doing so. As held in
Bustamante vs. Arevalo:​ “It would be a
dangerous precedent to strain the
interpretation of a will in order to effect
what the court believes to be an equitable
division of the estate of a deceased person.
The only functions of the courts in these
cases is to carry out the intention of the
deceased as manifested in the will. Once
that intention has been determined
through a careful reading of the will or wills,
and provided the law on legitimes has not
been violated, it is beyond the place of
judicial cognizance to inquire into the
fairness or unfairness of any devise or
bequeast.”
● Testamentary capacity of Don Jesus at the time of
execution of the notarial will

Page 15 or 15