wills digest 3

8/9/2019 Wills Digest 3

1/10

Gan v. Yap

104 P 509

FACTS:

Felicidad Yap died of a heart failure, leaving properties in Pulilan, Bulacan, and in Manila.

Fausto E. an, her nephe!, initiated the proceedings in the Manila "F# !ith a petition for the pro$ate of a

holographic !ill allegedl% e&ecuted $% the deceased.

'he !ill !as not presented $ecause Felicidad(s hus$and, #ldefonso, supposedl% too) it. *hat !as

presented !ere !itness accounts of relatives !ho )ne! of her intention to +a)e a !ill and allegedl% sa!

it as !ell. ccording to the !itnesses, Felicidad did not !ant her hus$and to )no! a$out it, $ut she had

+ade )no!n to her other relatives that she +ade a !ill.

-pposing the petition, her surviving hus$and #ldefonso Yap asserted that the deceased had not left an%

!ill, nor e&ecuted an% testa+ent during her lifeti+e.

fter hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the udge refused to pro$ate the alleged !ill on

account of the discrepancies arising fro+ the facts. For one thing, it is strange that Felicidad +ade her

!ill )no!n to so +an% of her relatives !hen she !anted to )eep it a secret and she !ould not have carried

it in her purse in the hospital, )no!ing that her hus$and +a% have access to it. 'here !as also no

evidence presented that her niece !as her confidant.

#n the face of these i+pro$a$ilities, the trial /udge had to accept the oppositor(s evidence that Felicidad

did not and could not have e&ecuted such holographic !ill.

ISSUE:

1. Ma% a holographic !ill $e pro$ated upon the testi+on% of !itnesses !ho have allegedl% seen it and

!ho declare that it !as in the hand!riting of the testator

. *23 Felicidad could have e&ecuted the holographic !ill.

HELD:

1. 3o. 'he !ill +ust $e presented.

'he 3e! "ivil "ode effective in 1950 revived holographic !ills in its arts. 1014. 6 person +a%

e&ecute a holographic !ill !hich +ust $e entirel% !ritten, dated, and signed $% the hand of the testator

hi+self. #t is su$/ect to no other for+ and +a% $e +ade in or out of the Philippines, and need not $e!itnessed.7

'his is a radical departure fro+ the for+ and sole+nities provided for !ills under ct 190, !hich for fift%

%ears 8fro+ 1901 to 1950 re:uired !ills to $e su$scri$ed $% the testator and three credi$le !itnesses in

each and ever% page; such !itnesses to attest to the nu+$er of sheets used and to the fact that the testator

signed in their presence and that the% signed in the presence of the testator and of each other. uthenticit%

and due e&ecution is the do+inant re:uire+ents to $e fulfilled !hen such !ill is su$+itted to the courts


2/10

for allo!ance. For that purpose the testi+on% of one of the su$scri$ing !itnesses !ould $e sufficient if

there is no opposition 8>. #f there is, the three +ust testif%, if availa$le. Fro+ the testi+on%

of such !itnesses 8and of other additional !itnesses the court +a% for+ its opinion as to the genuineness

and authenticit% of the testa+ent, and the circu+stances its due e&ecution.

*ith regard to holographic !ills, no such guaranties of truth and veracit% are de+anded, since as stated,the% need no !itnesses; provided ho!ever, that the% are 6entirel% !ritten, dated, and signed $% the hand

of the testator hi+self.7

6#n the pro$ate of a holographic !ill7 sa%s the 3e! "ivil "ode, 6it shall $e necessar% that at least one

!itness !ho )no!s the hand!riting and signature of the testator e&plicitl% declare that the !ill and the

signature are in the hand!riting of the testator. #f the !ill is contested, at least three such !itnesses shall

$e re:uired. #n the a$sence of an% such !itnesses, 8fa+iliar !ith decedent(s hand!riting and if the court

dee+ it necessar%, e&pert testi+on% +a% $e resorted to.7

'he !itnesses need not have seen the e&ecution of the holographic !ill, $ut the% +ust $e fa+iliar !ith the

decedent(s hand!riting. -$viousl%, !hen the !ill itself is not su$+itted, these +eans of opposition, and

of assessing the evidence are not availa$le. nd then the onl% guarant% of authenticit% ? the testator(s

hand!riting ? has disappeared.

'he =ules of "ourt, 8=ule >> approved in 1940 allo! proof 8and pro$ate of a lost or destro%ed !ill $%

secondar% ? evidence the testi+on% of !itnesses, in lieu of the original docu+ent. Yet such =ules could

not have conte+plated holographic !ills !hich could not then $e validl% +ade here. "ould =ule >> $e

e&tended, $% analog%, to holographic !ills 83-


3/10

nature of the !ills. #n the first, the onl% guarantee of authenticit% is the hand!riting itself; in the second,

the testi+on% of the su$scri$ing or instru+ental !itnesses 8and of the notar%, no!. 'he loss of the

holographic !ill entails the loss of the onl% +ediu+ of proof; if the ordinar% !ill is lost, the su$scri$ing

!itnesses are availa$le to authenticate.

#n the case of ordinar% !ills, it is :uite hard to convince three !itnesses 8four !ith the notar% deli$eratel%to lie. nd then their lies could $e chec)ed and e&posed, their !herea$outs and acts on the particular da%,

the li)elihood that the% !ould $e called $% the testator, their inti+ac% !ith the testator, etc. nd if the%

!ere inti+ates or trusted friends of the testator the% are not li)el% to end the+selves to an% fraudulent

sche+e to distort his !ishes. Cast $ut not least, the% can not receive an%thing on account of the !ill.

*hereas in the case of holographic !ills, if oral testi+on% !ere ad+issi$le onl% one +an could engineer

the fraud this !a% after +a)ing a clever or passa$le i+itation of the hand!riting and signature of the

deceased, he +a% contrive to let three honest and credi$le !itnesses see and read the forger%; and the

latter, having no interest, could easil% fall for it, and in court the% !ould in all good faith affir+ its

genuineness and authenticit%. 'he !ill having $een lost ? the forger +a% have purposel% destro%ed it in

an 6accident7 ? the oppositors have no !a% to e&pose the tric) and the error, $ecause the docu+ent itself

is not at hand. nd considering that the holographic !ill +a% consist of t!o or three pages, and onl% one

of the+ need $e signed, the su$stitution of the unsigned pages, !hich +a% $e the +ost i+portant ones,

+a% go undetected.

#f testi+onial evidence of holographic !ills $e per+itted, one +ore o$/ectiona$le feature ? feasi$ilit% of

forger% ? !ould $e added to the several o$/ections to this )ind of !ills listed $% "astan, , sec. @.

. 3o. Even if oral testi+on% !ere ad+issi$le to esta$lish and pro$ate a lost holographic !ill, !e thin)

the evidence su$+itted $% herein petitioner is so tainted !ith i+pro$a$ilities and inconsistencies that it

fails to +easure up to that 6clear and distinct7 proof re:uired $% =ule >>, sec. @.

Feb 9, 2013

Rodelas v. Arana D!"es#

Rodelas v. Arana

$.R. %o. L&'('09 De)e*ber +, 19(2
http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/02/rodelas-v-aranza-digest.htmlhttp://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/02/rodelas-v-aranza-digest.html


4/10

Relova, J. (Ponente)

Facts

1. 'he appellant filed a petition for the pro$ate of the holographic !ill of =icardo Bonilla in 19>>. 'he

petition !as opposed $% the appellees on the ground that the deceased did not leave an% !ill, holographicor other!ise.

. 'he lo!er court dis+issed the petition for pro$ate and held that since the original !ill !as lost, a

photostatic cop% cannot stand in the place of the original.

#ssue *hether or not a holographic !ill can $e proved $% +eans of a photocop%

=C#3 Yes. photocop% of the lost or destro%ed holographic !ill +a% $e ad+itted $ecause the

authenticit% of the hand!riting of the deceased can $e deter+ined $% the pro$ate court !ith the standard

!ritings of the testator.

Azaola v. Singson

109 P 10

FACTS:

Fortunata


5/10

*23 rticle 11 of the "ivil "ode is +andator% or per+issive.

HELD:

rticle 11 is +erel% per+issive and not +andator%.


6/10

the case $earing the signature of the deceased.

'he second !itness !as election registrar !ho !as +ade to produce and identif% the voter(s affidavit, $ut

failed to as the sa+e !as alread% destro%ed and no longer availa$le.

'he third, the deceased(s niece, clai+ed that she had ac:uired fa+iliarit% !ith the deceased(s signature

and hand!riting as she used to acco+pan% her in collecting rentals fro+ her various tenants ofco++ercial $uildings and the deceased al!a%s issued receipts. 'he niece also testified that the deceased

left a holographic !ill entirel% !ritten, dated and signed $% said deceased.

'he fourth !itness !as a for+er la!%er for the deceased in the intestate proceedings of her late hus$and,

!ho said that the signature on the !ill !as si+ilar to that of the deceased $ut that he can not $e sure.

'he fifth !as an e+plo%ee of the E3= !ho testified that she !as fa+iliar !ith the signature of the

deceased !hich appeared in the latter(s application for pasture per+it. 'he fifth, respondent Evangeline

"aluga%, clai+ed that she had lived !ith the deceased since $irth !here she had $eco+e fa+iliar !ith her

signature and that the one appearing on the !ill !as genuine.

"odo% and =a+onal(s de+urrer to evidence !as granted $% the lo!er court. #t !as reversed on appeal

!ith the "ourt of ppeals !hich granted the pro$ate.

ISSUE:

1. *23 rticle 11 of the "ivil "ode, providing that at least three !itnesses e&plicitl% declare the

signature in a contested !ill as the genuine signature of the testator, is +andator% or director%.

. *hether or not the !itnesses sufficientl% esta$lish the authenticit% and due e&ecution of the deceased(s

holographic !ill.

HELD:

1. YE


7/10

'he election registrar !as not a$le to produce the voter(s affidavit for verification as it !as no longer

availa$le.

'he deceased(s niece sa! preprepared receipts and letters of the deceased and did not declare that she

sa! the deceased sign a docu+ent or !rite a note.

'he !ill !as not found in the personal $elongings of the deceased $ut !as in the possession of the said

niece, !ho )ept the fact a$out the !ill fro+ the children of the deceased, putting in issue her +otive.

Evangeline "aluga% never declared that she sa! the decreased !rite a note or sign a docu+ent.

'he for+er la!%er of the deceased e&pressed dou$ts as to the authenticit% of the signature in the

holographic !ill.

8s it appears in the foregoing, the three!itness re:uire+ent !as not co+plied !ith.

visual e&a+ination of the holographic !ill convinces that the stro)es are different !hen co+pared !ithother docu+ents !ritten $% the testator.

'he records are re+anded to allo! the oppositors to adduce evidence in support of their opposition.

'he o$/ect of sole+nities surrounding the e&ecution of !ills is to close the door against $ad faith and

fraud, to avoid su$stitution of !ills and testa+ents and to guarant% their truth and authenticit%. 'herefore,

the la!s on this su$/ect should $e interpreted in such a !a% as to attain these pri+ordial ends. But, on the

other hand, also one +ust not lose sight of the fact that it is not the o$/ect of the la! to restrain and curtail

the e&ercise the right to +a)e a !ill.

Ho!ever, !e cannot eli+inate the possi$ilit% of a false docu+ent $eing ad/udged as the !ill of the

testator, !hich is !h% if the holographic !ill is contested, the la! re:uires three !itnesses to declare that

the !ill !as in the hand!riting of the deceased.

rticle 11, paragraph 1. provides 6#n the pro$ate of a holographic !ill, it shall $e necessar% that at least

one !itness !ho )no!s the hand!riting and signature of the testator e&plicitl% declare that the !ill and

the signature are in the hand!riting of the testator. #f the !ill is contested, at least three of such !itnesses

shall $e re:uired.7

'he !ord 6shall7 connotes a +andator% order, an i+perative o$ligation and is inconsistent !ith the idea

of discretion and that the presu+ption is that the !ord 6shall7, !hen used in a statute, is +andator%.

$allanosa v. Ar)an"el D!"es#

$allanosa v. Ar)an"el

Facts
http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/02/gallanosa-v-arcangel-digest.htmlhttp://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/02/gallanosa-v-arcangel-digest.html


8/10


9/10

#n 190, Ma&ine filed a petition pra%ing for the pro$ate of the t!o !ills 8alread% pro$ated in tah, that

the partition approved $% the intestate court $e set aside and the letters of ad+inistration revo)ed, that

Ma&ine $e appointed e&ecutri& and Ethel $e ordered to account for the properties received $% the+ and

return the sa+e to Ma&ine. Ma&ine alleged that the% !ere defrauded due to the +achinations of Ethel,

that the co+pro+ise agree+ent !as illegal and the intestate proceeding !as void $ecause ri++ died

testate so partition !as contrar% to the decedent(s !ills.

Ethel filed a +otion to dis+iss the petition !hich !as denied $% udge Ceonidas for lac) of +erit.

ISSUE:

*hether the /udge co++itted grave a$use of discretion a+ounting to lac) of /urisdiction in den%ing

Ethel(s +otion to dis+iss.

HELD:

*e hold that respondent /udge did not co++it an% grave a$use of discretion, a+ounting to lac) of

/urisdiction, in den%ing Ethel(s +otion to dis+iss.

testate proceeding is proper in this case $ecause ri++ died !ith t!o !ills and 6no !ill shall pass

either real or personal propert% unless it is proved and allo!ed7 8rt. I, "ivil "ode; sec. 1, =ule >5,

=ules of "ourt.

'he pro$ate of the !ill is +andator%. #t is ano+alous that the estate of a person !ho died testate should $e

settled in an intestate proceeding. 'herefore, the intestate case should $e consolidated !ith the testate

proceeding and the /udge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the t!o cases.

%eo*)eno v. CA D!"es#s

%eo*)eno v. Cor# o Aeals

Facts

1. Martin Hugo died on 19>4 and he left a !ill !herein he instituted


10/10

and a$solute. iven e&ceptional circu+stances, the pro$ate court is not po!erless to do !hat the situation

constrains it to do and +a% pass upon certain provisions of the !ill. 'he !ill itself ad+itted on its face the

relationship $et!een the testator and the petitioner.

'he !ill !as validl% e&ecuted in accordance !ith la! $ut the court didnLt find it to serve a practicalpurpose to re+and the nullified provision in a separate action for that purpose onl% since in the pro$ate of

a !ill, the court does not ordinaril% loo) into the intrinsic validit% of its provisions.

'he devisee is invalid $% virtue of rt. >I9 !hich voids a donation +ade $et!een persons guilt% of

adulter%2concu$inage at the ti+e of the donations. nder rt, 10 it is also prohi$ited.

Buha% e =o+a v. " 8ul% I, 19>

Fa)#s "andeleria e =o+a adopted t!o daughters, Buha% and =osalinda.

wills digest 3

Documents