holographic wills cases

8/13/2019 Holographic Wills Cases

1/13

Codoy v. Calugay

-On 6 April 1990, Evangeline Calugay,

Josephine Salcedo and EufemiaPaigas, devisees and legaees of heholographic !ill of he deceased"ailde Se#o $da% de &amonal, filed apeiion for pro'ae of he said !ill%

-(hey aesed o he genuineness and

due e)ecuion of he !ill on *0 Augus19+%-Eugenio &amonal Codoy and "anuel&amonal filed heir opposiion claimingha he !ill !as a forgery and ha hesame is even illegi'le%

-(hey raised dou's as regards he

repeaed appearing on he !ill aferevery disposiion, calling he same ouof he ordinary%

- -f he !ill !as in he hand!riing of hedeceased, i !as improperly procured%

-Evangeline Calugay, ec% presened 6!inesses and various documenary

evidence%

-(he firs !iness !as he clerk ofcourt of he pro'ae cour !hoproduced and idenified he records ofhe case 'earing he signaure of hedeceased%

-(he second !iness !as electionregistrar !ho !as made o produceand idenify he voer.s affidavi, 'ufailed o as he same !as already

desroyed and no longer availa'le%-(he hird, he deceaseds niece,claimed ha she had ac/uiredfamiliariy !ih he deceased.ssignaure and hand!riing as she usedo accompany her in collecing renalsfrom her various enans of commercial

'uildings and he deceased al!aysissued receips%

-(he niece also esified ha hedeceased lef a holographic !ill enirely!rien, daed and signed 'y saiddeceased%

-(he fourh !iness !as a former

lawyer for he deceased in he


2/13

inesae proceedings of her laehus'and, !ho said ha he signaureon he !ill !as similar o ha of he

deceased 'u ha he can no 'e sure%-(he fifh !as an employee of theDENR !ho esified ha she !asfamiliar !ih he signaure of hedeceased !hich appeared in helaer.s applicaion for pasure permi%

-

(he fifh, respondent EvangelineCalugay, claimed ha she had lived!ih he deceased since 'irh !hereshe had 'ecome familiar !ih hersignaure and ha he one appearingon he !ill !as genuine%

-Codoy and &amonal.s demurrer o

evidence !as graned 'y he lo!ercour% - !as reversed on appeal !ihhe Cour of Appeals !hich graned hepro'ae%

heher or no Aricle 11 of he CivilCode, providing ha a leas hree

!inesses e)plicily declare he

signaure in a conesed !ill as hegenuine signaure of he esaor, ismandaory or direcory%

-ES% (he !ord 2shall3 connoes amandaory order, an imperaiveo'ligaion and is inconsisen !ih heidea of discreion and ha hepresumpion is ha he !ord 2shall3,!hen used in a saue, is mandaory%

-

-n he case a 'ar, he goal o 'eachieved 'y he la!, is o give effec ohe !ishes of he deceased and heevil o 'e prevened is he possi'iliyha unscrupulous individuals !ho forheir 'enefi !ill employ means odefea he !ishes of he esaor%

-(he paramoun consideraion in hepresen peiion is o deermine he rueinen of he deceased%

heher or no he !inesses sufficienlyesa'lish he auheniciy and duee)ecuion of he deceased.s holographic

!ill%


3/13

-4O% e canno 'e cerain ha heholographic !ill !as in he hand!riingof he deceased%

-(he cler5 of cour !as no presened odeclare e)plicily ha he signaureappearing in he holographic !ill !asha of he deceased%

-(he elecion regisrar !as no a'le oproduce he voer.s affidavi for

verificaion as i !as no longeravaila'le%-(he deceased.s niece sa! preprepared receips and leers of hedeceased and did no declare ha shesa! he deceased sign a documen or!rie a noe%

-(he !ill !as no found in he personal'elongings of he deceased 'u !as inhe possession of he said niece, !ho5ep he fac a'ou he !ill from hechildren of he deceased, puing inissue her moive%

-Evangeline Calugay never declaredha she sa! he decreased !rie anoe or sign a documen%

-(he former la!yer of he deceasede)pressed dou's as o he auheniciyof he signaure in he holographic !ill%

- 7As i appears in he foregoing, hehree!iness re/uiremen !as nocomplied !ih%8

-

A visual e)aminaion of he holographic!ill convinces ha he sro5es aredifferen !hen compared !ih oherdocumens !rien 'y he esaor%

-(he records are remandedo allo! heopposiors o adduce evidence insuppor of heir opposiion%

-(he o'ec of solemniies surroundinghe e)ecuion of !ills is o close hedoor agains 'ad faih and fraud, oavoid su'siuion of !ills andesamens and o guarany heir ruhand auheniciy% (herefore, he la!son his su'ec should 'e inerpreed in

such a !ay as o aain hese


4/13

primordial ends% :u, on he oherhand, also one mus no lose sigh ofhe fac ha i is no he o'ec of he

la! o resrain and curail he e)ercisehe righ o ma5e a !ill%

-;o!ever, !e canno eliminae hepossi'iliy of a false documen 'eingadudged as he !ill of he esaor,!hich is !hy if he holographic !ill is

conesed, he la! re/uires hree!inesses o declare ha he !ill !as inhe hand!riing of he deceased%

-Aricle 11, paragraph 1% provides< 2-nhe pro'ae of a holographic !ill, ishall 'e necessary ha a leas one!iness !ho 5no!s he hand!riing

and signaure of he esaor e)plicilydeclare ha he !ill and he signaureare in he hand!riing of he esaor% -fhe !ill is conesed, a leas hree ofsuch !inesses shall 'e re/uired%3

(he !ord 2shall3 connoes a mandaoryorder, an imperaive o'ligaion and is

inconsisen !ih he idea of discreion

and ha he presumpion is ha he!ord 2shall3, !hen used in a saue, ismandaory%

Gan v. Yap

- On 4ovem'er =0, 19>1, ?elicidadEsguerra Alo ap died of hear failurein he @S( hospial leaving properies

in :ulacan and in "anila%- On "arch 1+, 19>=, ?auso E% aniniiaed hese proceedings in C?-"anila for pro'ae he holographic !ille)ecued allegedly 'y he deceased%

- -n opposiion o said proceedings, hesurviving hus'and -ldefonso ap

assered ha he deceased had no lefany !ill, nor e)ecued any esamenduring her lifeime%

-Afer hearing he paries, he courrefused o pro'ae he alleged !ill% (he!ill iself !as no presened%

- Someime in 19>0, ?elicidad Esguerra

menioned o her firs cousin $icene


5/13

Esguerra her desire o ma5e a !ill%;o!ever, she !aned i o 'e a secre'ecause she said ha i !ould 'e

useless if her hus'and discovered or5ne! a'ou i%

- So $icene consuled !ih he nephe!of ?elicidad and found ou ha i could'e done provided ha he documen!as enirely in her hand!riing, signed

and daed 'y her%-As a resul of his, ?elicidad proceeded!ih he ma5ing of her !ill% (hough i!as a secre, she !ould sho! people!ho !ould visi her !ill%

-Afer evaluaing he pieces of evidencepresened 'efore he cour, he rial

udge had o accep he opposior.sevidence ha ?elicidad did no andcould no have e)ecued suchholographic !ill%

- ;ence his appeal%

O4, a los holographic !ill can 'e

admied o pro'ae%

- 4o% Aricles 101B governholographic !ills% - is saed ha, 2Aperson may e)ecue a holographic !ill

!hich mus 'e enirely !rien, daedand signed 'y he hand of he esaorhimself% It is subject to no other formand may be made in our out of thePhilippines, and need not bewitnessed.

-

@nli5e ordinary !ills, holographic !illsneed no o'serve he rules laid do!n inAr% 0> for is compliance !ih he la!%As long as i is !rien enirely, daedand signed 'y he esaor himself, heni !ill 'e sufficien proof ha i has 'eene)ecued in accordance !ih la!%

-;o!ever, !inesses may 'e 'rough inso as o verify ha he !ill and hesignaure are in he hand!riing of heesaor% (he !inesses so preseneddo no need o have seen hee)ecuion of he holographic !ill%

- -n he case hand ho!ever, he !ill

holographic !ill !as no presened o


6/13

he cour% O'viously, !hen he !ill iselfis no su'mied, hese means ofopposiion and, of assessing he

evidence are no availa'le% And henhe only guarany of auheniciy heesaor.s hand!riing hasdisappeared%

- - is herefore o 'e concluded ha hee)ecuion and he conens of a los or

desroyed holographic !ill may no 'eproved 'y he 'are esimony of!inesses !ho have seen andD or readsuch !ill%

- (his is 'ecause he only guarany ofhe auheniciy is he hand!riing iself%(he loss of he holographic !ill enails

he loss of he only medium of proof%- (ha even if oral esimony !ereadmissi'le o esa'lish and pro'ae alos holographic !ill, he evidencesu'mied 'y he peiioner is so ained!ih impro'a'iliies and inconsisenciesha i fails o measure up o ha clear

and disinc proof re/uired 'y &ule ++%

- &eecion of he alleged !ill mus 'esusained

- (he e)ecuion and he conens of a

los or desroyed holographic !ill mayno 'e proved 'y 'are esimony of!inesses !ho have seen andDor readsuch !ill% (he !ill iself mus 'epresened oher!ise, i shall produceno effec% (he la! regards he

documen iself as maerial proof ofauheniciy%

Rodelas v. Aranza

- (he pro'ae cour ordered hedismissal of &odelas. peiion for he

allo!ance of he holographic !ill ofdeceased &icardo :% :onilla on heground ha he alleged phoosaiccopy of he !ill !hich !as presenedfor pro'ae, canno sand in lieu of helos original, for he la! regards hedocumen iself as he maerial proof of

he auheniciy of he said !ill%


7/13

heher a holographic !ill !hich !aslos or can no 'e found can 'e proved

'y means of a phoosaic copy- Pursuan o Aricle 11 of he CivilCode, pro'ae of holographic !ills ishe allo!ance of he !ill 'y he courafer is due e)ecuion has 'eenproved%

-

(he pro'ae may 'e unconesed orno% -f unconesed, a leas oneidenifying !iness is re/uired and, if no!iness is availa'le, e)pers may 'eresored o% -f conesed, a leas hreeidenifying !inesses are re/uired%

- ;o!ever, if he holographic !ill has

'een los or desroyed and no ohercopy is availa'le, he !ill can no 'epro'aed 'ecause he 'es and onlyevidence is he hand!riing of heesaor in said !ill% - is necessary hahere 'e a comparison 'e!eensample hand!rien saemens of he

esaor and he hand!rien !ill%

- :u, a phoosaic copy or )ero) copyof he holographic !ill may 'e allo!ed'ecause comparison can 'e made !ih

he sandard !riings of he esaor%Even a mimeographed or car'on copyor 'y oher similar means, if any,!here'y he auheniciy of hehand!riing of he deceased may 'ee)hi'ied and esed 'efore he pro'ae

cour, may 'e allo!ed%-f he holographic !ill has 'een los ordesroyed and no oher copy isavaila'le, he will can not be probated'ecause he 'es and only evidence ishe hand!riing of he esaor in said!ill%

Azaola v. Singson

- (he su'ec of his case is heholographic !ill of ?ounaa ance%

- ?rancisco AFaola su'mied he saidholographic !ill !here'y "aria AFaola


8/13


9/13


10/13

- (o sae ha he !ill as firs !rienshould 'e given efficacy is o disregardhe seeming change of mind of he

esari)% :u ha change of mind canneiher 'e given effec 'ecause shefailed o auhenicae i in he mannerre/uired 'y la! 'y affi)ing her fullsignaure%

- hen a num'er of unauhenicaederasures, correcions andinerlineaions are made 'y he esaorin a holographic !ill, he same is nohere'y invalidaed as a !hole, 'u amos only as respecs he paricular!ords erased, correced or inerlined%Except ho!ever, if afer all he

aleraions !ere voided, nohingremains in he !ill%

Commens (he holding ha heinserion of he name of regorio canno'e given effec for no having 'een donein accordance !ih he re/uiremen of

Ar1B is 'eyond /uesion% hy,

ho!ever, !as he cancellaion of heoriginal esamenary insiuion giveneffecH (ha cancellaion !as no done

in he !ay mandaed 'y he aricle%(o say, as he decision does, ha 2osae ha he !ill as firs !rien should'e given efficacy is o disregard heseeming change of mind of heesari),3 is no argumen, 'ecause i isno enough ha he esaor manifes hisinen he mus manifes in a mannerre/uired 'y la!%

Ajero v CA

- (he holographic !ill of Annie San !as

su'mied for pro'ae%- Privae responden opposed hepeiion on he grounds ha< neiher heesamen.s 'ody nor he signaureherein !as in deceden.s hand!riingi conained aleraions and correcions!hich !ere no duly signed 'y

deceden and, he !ill !as procured


11/13

'y peiioners hrough improperpressure and undue influence%

- (he peiion !as also conesed 'y Ir%

Aero !ih respec o he disposiion inhe !ill of a house and lo% ;e claimedha said propery could no 'econveyed 'y deceden in is enirey,as she !as no is sole o!ner%

- ;o!ever, he rial cour sill admiedhe deceden.s holographic !ill opro'ae%

- (he rial cour held ha since i musdecide only he /uesion of he ideniyof he !ill, is due e)ecuion and heesamenary capaciy of he esari), ifinds no reason for he disallo!ance of

he !ill for is failure o comply !ih heformaliies prescri'ed 'y la! nor forlac5 of esamenary capaciy of heesari)%

- On appeal, he CA reversed saidIecision holding ha he deceden didno comply !ih Aricles *1* and *1B of

he 4CC% - found ha cerain

disposiions in he !ill !ere eiherunsigned or undaed, or signed 'y nodaed% - also found ha he erasures,

aleraions and cancellaions made hadno 'een auhenicaed 'y deceden%

- ;ence, his appeal%

heher he CA erred in holding haAricles 1* and 1B of he 4CC !ereno complies !ih%

- ES% (he SC reversed he decision ofCA%

-A reading of Aricle 1* sho!s ha isre/uiremen affecs he validiy of hedisposiions conained in heholographic !ill, 'u no is pro'ae% -f

he esaor fails o sign and dae someof he disposiions, he resul is hahese disposiions canno 'eeffecuaed% Such failure, ho!ever,does no render he !hole esamenvoid%

- i5e!ise, a holographic !ill can sill 'e

admied o pro'ae no!ihsanding


12/13

noncompliance !ih he provisions ofAricle 1B%- @nless he auhenicaed aleraions,

cancellaions or inserions !ere madeon he dae of he holographic !ill or onesaor.s signaure, heir presencedoes no invalidae he !ill iself% (helac5 of auhenicaion !ill only resul indisallo!ance of such changes%

- - is also proper o noe ha here/uiremens of auhenicaion ofchanges and signing and daing ofdisposiions appear in provisions7Aricle 1* and 1B8 separae fromha !hich provides for he necessarycondiions for he validiy of he

holographic !ill 7Aricle 108%- (his separaion and disincion addssuppor o he inerpreaion ha onlyhe re/uiremens of Aricle 10 of he4CC and no hose found in Aricles1* and 1B are essenial o hepro'ae of a holographic !ill%

- Secion 9, &ule +6 of he &ules ofCour and Aricle *9 of he Civil Codeenumerae he grounds for

disallo!ance of !ills% (hese liss aree)clusive no oher grounds can serveo disallo! a !ill%

- -n a peiion o admi a holographic !ill,he only issues o 'e resolved are

holographic wills cases

Documents