In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. De Jesus andBibiana Roxa de Jesus, Simeon R. ROXAS and Pedro ROXAS de Jesus, petitionersvs. Andres R. de JESUS, Jr.G.R. No. L-38338, January 28, 1985FACTS:After the death of spouses Andres and Bibiana de Jesus, a special proceeding was instituted by Simeon, brother of Bibiana. Simeon was then appointed administrator of the estate and consequently, he delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic will of Bibiana which was then set for a hearing. Luz Henson, one of the compulsory heirs filed an opposition to probate assailing the purported holographic Will of Bibiana was not executed in accordance with law. However, the lower court issued an order allowing the probate which was found to have been duly executed in accordance with law. A motion for reconsideration was then filed by Luz assailing that the alleged holographic will was not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code and contending 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. The court then reconsidered its 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. ISSUE:Whether or not the date (FEB/61) appearing on the holographic will of the deceased Bibian Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code.RULING: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.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.

Labrador v. CA 184 SCRA 170FACTS:Melecio died leaving behind a parcel of land to his heirs. However, during probate proceedings, Jesus and Gaudencio filed an opposition on the ground that the will has been extinguished by implication of law alleging that before Melecios death, the land was sold to them evidenced by TCT No. 21178. Jesus eventually sold it to Navat.Trial court admitted the will to probate and declared the TCT null and void. However, the CA on appeal denied probate on the ground that it was undated.ISSUE:W/N the alleged holographic will is dated, as provided for in Article 810 of CC.

HELD:YES. 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.The intention to show March 17 1968 as the date of the execution is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. It states that 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. This clearly shows that this is a unilateral act of Melecio who plainly knew that he was executing a will.

TESTATE ESTATE OF FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALTO-YAP deceased. FAUSTO E. GAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. ILDEFONSO YAP, opposition-appellee.G.R. No. L-12190, August 30, 1958FACTS:After the death of Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap, Fausto Gan filed a petition for the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by the fomer. Opposing the petition, her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that the deceased had not left any will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime. The will itself was not presented. Gan tried to establish its contents and due execution by the statements of allegedly four (4) witnesses to the execution of the alleged will. After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the court refused to probate the alleged will. Due to the denial of motion for reconsideration, Gan appealed.ISSUE: Whether or not a holographic will may be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in the handwriting of the testator.RULING:The Rules of Court allow proof (and probate) of a lost or destroyed will by secondary evidence the testimony of witnesses in lieu of the original document. Yet such Rules could not have contemplated holographic wills which could not then be validly made here.The difference between holographic wills and ordinary will lies in the nature of the wills. In the first, the only guarantee of authenticity is the handwriting itself, in the second, the testimony of the subscribing or instrumental witnesses (and of the notary). The loss of the holographic will entails the loss of the only medium of proof, if the ordinary will is lost, the subscribing witnesses are available to authenticate.The evidence of presented by Gan is refused to be credited. In addition to the dubious circumstance described in the appealed decision, we find it hard to believe that the deceased should show her will precisely to relative who had received nothing from it. These could pester her into amending her will to give them a share, or threaten to reveal its execution to her husband. Further, if she wanted so much to conceal the will from her husband, why did she not entrust it to her beneficiaries? In fine, even if oral testimony were admissible to establish and probate a lost holographic will, we think the evidence submitted by petitioner is so tainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to that :clear and distinct proof required by the Rules of Court.

Marcela Rodelas v. Amparo Aranza G.R. No. L-58509; December 7, 1982 Facts:Petitioner-appellant filed a petition with the CFI-Rizal for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. The petition was opposed by appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes, Expedita Bonilla Frias and Ephraim Bonilla. The grounds of their opposition are as follows: 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. 2. The alleged copy of the will did not contain a disposition of property after death and was not intended to take effect. 3. The original must be presented and not the copy thereof. 4. The deceased did not leave any will. The appellees also moved for the dismissal of the petition for the probate of the will. The appellees' motions were denied. They filed a Motion for recon. Motion for Recon was approved. Appellant's motion for recon was denied. Appellant appealed the case to the CA which certified the case to the SC on the ground that the appeal does not involve questions of fact. Issue: Whether or not a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a Photostatic copy. Ruling: Yes. 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, 104 PHIL. 509, 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.

Azaola v. SingsonFACTS: Fortunata S. Vda. De Yance died in Quezon City on September 9, 1957. Petitioner submitted for probate her holographic will, in which Maria Azaola was made the sole heir as against the nephew, who is the defendant. Only one witness, Francisoco Azaola, was presented to testify on the handwriting of the testatrix. He testified that he had seen it one month, more or less, before the death of the testatrix, as it was given to him and his wife; and that it was in the testatrixs handwriting. He presented the mortgage, the special power of the attorney, and the general power of attorney, and the deeds of sale including an affidavit to reinforce his statement. Two residence certificates showing the testatrixs signature were also exhibited for comparison purposes. The probate was opposed on the ground that (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(2) That the testatrix did not seriously intend the instrument to be her last will, and that the same was actually written either on the 5th or 6thday 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 three 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 "did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix." Petitioner appealed, urging: first, that he was not bound to produce more than one witness because the will's authenticity was not questioned; and second, that Article 811 does not mandatorily require the production of three witnesses to identify the handwriting and signature of a holographic will, even if its authenticity should be denied by the adverse party.ISSUE: W/N Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory or permissive.HELD: Article 811 is merely permissive and not mandatory. Since the authenticity of the will was not contested, petitioner was not required to produce more than one witness; but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, Article 811 cannot be interpreted to require the compulsory presentation of three 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, new Civil Code), it becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. For itis not merely a question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be witnesses "who know the handwriting and signature of the testator" and who can declare (truthfully, of course, even if the law does not so express) "that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator". There may be no available witness of the testator's hand; or even if so familiarized, the witnesses may be unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811 may thus become an impossibility. This is the reason why the 2nd paragraph of Article 811 allows the court to resort to expert evidence. The law foresees the possibility that no qualified witness may be found (or what amounts to the same thing, that no competent witness may be willing to testify to the authenticity of the will), and provides for resort to expert evidence to supply the deficiency. 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. 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.Eugenia Codoy v. Evangeline CalugayFacts:Calugay, Salcedo and Patigas, devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seno filed with the RTC of Misamis Oriental, a petition for probate of the holographic will of the deceased. Codoy and Ramonal filed an opposition to the petition for probate, alleging that the holographic will was a forgery. Petitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated or appearing on will after every disposition is out of the ordinary. 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. Petitioners filed a demurrer. The TC granted the demurrer. The CA reversed the Trial Courts decision.Issues:WON the provisions of Article 811 are permissive or mandatory.Ruling:Yes. The word "shall" connotes a mandatory order. We have ruled that "shall" in a statute commonly denote an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the word "shall," when used in a statute is mandatory. We 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. 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. The only chance at comparison was during the cross-examination of Ms. Binanay when the lawyer of petitioners asked Ms. Binanay to compare the documents which contained the signature of the deceased with that of the holographic will and she is not a handwriting expert. Even the former lawyer of the deceased expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the signature in the holographic will. A visual examination of the holographic will convince us that the strokes are different when compared with other documents written by the testator. The signature of the testator in some of the disposition is not readable. There were uneven strokes, retracing and erasures on the will. 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. We, therefore, cannot be certain that ruling holographic will was in the handwriting by the deceased.

Ajero v. CA236 SCRA 488FACTS:The holographic will of Annie San was submitted for probate.Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testaments body nor the signature therein was in decedents handwriting; it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent; and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence.The petition was also contested by Dr. Ajero with respect to the disposition in the will of a house and lot. He claimed that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.However, the trial court still admitted the decedents holographic will to probate.The trial court held that since it must decide only the question of the identity of the will, its due execution and the testamentary capacity of the testatrix, it finds no reason for the disallowance of the will for its failure to comply with the formalities prescribed by law nor for lack of testamentary capacity of the testatrix.On appeal, the CA reversed said Decision holding that the decedent did not comply with Articles 313 and 314 of the NCC. It found that certain dispositions in the will were either unsigned or undated, or signed by not dated. It also found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations made had not been authenticated by decedent.ISSUE:Whether the CA erred in holding that Articles 813 and 814 of the NCC were not complies with.HELD:YES. A reading of Article 813 shows that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole testament void.Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814.Unless the authenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on testators signature, their presence does not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes.

It is also proper to note that the requirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Article 813 and 814) separate from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810).This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the requirements of Article 810 of the NCC and not those found in Articles 813 and 814 are essential to the probate of a holographic will.Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court and Article 839 of the Civil Code enumerate the grounds for disallowance of wills. These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to disallow a will.In a petition to admit a holographic will, the only issues to be resolved are:1. Whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedents last will and testament;2. Whether said will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law;3. Whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed; and4. Whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts of the decedent.The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud; accordingly, laws on this subject should be interpreted to attain these primordial ends.In the case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity is the requirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself. Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionable handwritten by the testator.

Rosa K. Kalaw, petitioner, vs.Hon. Judge Benjamin RELOVAand Gregorio K. KALAW, respondents.G.R. No. L-40207, September 28, 1984.FACTS:Natividad K. Kalaw made a holographic will executed on December 24, 1968. Originally, the will named Rosa K. Kalaw, sister of Natividad, as the sole heir. However, Natividad eventually changed the name on the will by crossing out Rosas name and replacing it with Gregorio K. Kalaw as sole heir instead. Natividad failed to properly authenticate such alteration with her full signature.Because of this, the parties decided to submit the holographic will for an examination by the National Bureau of Investigation. The Bureaus findings confirmed that the original writings and those of the alterations were written by the same person. Rosa argued that the probate should be denied since the alteration on the will is invalid for failing to comply with Art. 814 which states that In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature. Further, Rosa asserted that the will should be probated on its original content before the alteration was made.Gregorio contends that the mere fact that Rosa agreed to submit the will for examination estoppes her from questioning the validity of the alteration and invoking Art. 814 of the Civil Code.Judge Benjamin Relova denied the probate on the will.Rosa now sought for the probate on the will as to its original unaltered text.ISSUE:May the will, in case of alterations, corrections, or cancellations, without the proper authentication, be submitted for probate as to the original content prior to such alteration, correction, or cancellation.RULING:No, this cannot be done.Ordinarily, when anumberof erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will have not been noted under his signature, the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined. However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after that which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. But that change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature. As it is, with the erasures, cancellations and alterations made by the testatrix herein, her real intention cannot be determined with certitude.

Paula DE LA CERNA, et al., petitioners, vs.Manuela REBACA-POTOT, et al., and the HONORABLECOURT OF APPEALS, respondents.G.R. No. L-20234, December 23, 1964FACTS:Spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a joint last will and testament whereby they willed that their two parcels of land acquired during their marriage together with all improvements thereon shall be given to Manuela Rebaca, their niece. Bernabe died and the will was probated in 1939 after due publication as required by law and there being no opposition. Upon the death of Gervasia Rebaca, another petition for the probate of the same will insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed by Manuela but the court dismissed it for failure of Manuela to appear. Paula de la Cerna questioned for the nullity of the joint will of Bernabe being prohibited in the Philippine law. The Court of First Instance ordered the petition heard and declared the testament null and void, for being executed contrary to the prohibition of joint wills in the Civil Code but on appeal by the testamentary heir, the Court of Appeals reversed, on the ground that the decree of probate in 1939 was issued by a court of probate jurisdiction and conclusive on the due execution of the testament. Hence, this appeal.ISSUES:1. Whether or not an error of law affects the conclusive effect of its decision.2. Whether or not the joint will is valid as to the share of Gervasia who died later than Bernabe.RULING:The appealed decision correctly held that the final decree of probate, entered in 1939 by the Court of First Instance of Cebu (when the testator, Bernabe de la Cerna, died), has conclusive effect as to his last will and testament despite the fact that even then the Civil Code already decreed the invalidity of joint wills, whether in favor of the joint testators, reciprocally, or in favor of a third party (Art. 669, old Civil Code). A final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world.The probate decree in 1989 could only affect the share of the deceased husband, Bernabe de la Cerna. It could not include the disposition of the share of the wife, Gervasia Rebaca, who was then still alive, and over whose interest in the conjugal properties the probate court acquired no jurisdiction, precisely because her estate could not then be in issue. Be it remembered that prior to the new Civil Code, a will could not be probated during the testator's lifetime. It follows that the validity of the joint will, in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned, must be, on her death, reexamined and adjudicated de novo, since a joint will is considered a separate will of each testator. Therefore, the undivided interest of Gervasia Rebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs intestate, and not exclusively to the testamentary heir, unless some other valid will in her favor is shown to exist, or unless she be the only heir intestate of said Gervasia.

Rizalina Gabriel GONZALES, petitioner, vs.Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and Lutgarda SANTIAGO, respondents.G.R. No. L-37453, May 25, 1979FACTS:Lutgarda Santiago and Rizalina Gonzales are nieces of the late Isabel Andres Gabriel. Lutgarda filed a petition for the probate of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased and designated Lutgarda as the principal beneficiary and executrix. There is no dispute that Isabel died as a widow and without issue. The will submitted consists of five (5) pages and includes the pages whereon the attestation clause and the acknowledgment of the notary public were written. The signatures of the deceased Isabel Gabriel appear at the end of the will on page four and at the left margin of all the pages. The petition was opposed by Rizalina assailing that the will is not genuine and was not executed and attested as required by law. The lower court disallowed the probate of said will and as a consequence, Lutgarda appealed to Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts decision and allowed the probate of the will. Rizalina filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence this present action.ISSUE:Whether or not the will was executed and attested as required by law.RULING:Article 820 of the Civil Code provides for the qualifications of a witness to the execution of wills while Article 821 sets forth the disqualification from being a witness to a will. In probate proceedings, the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses for they merely attest the execution of a will or testament and affirm the formalities attendant to said execution. And we agree with the respondent that the rulings laid down in the cases cited by petitioner concerning character witnesses in naturalization proceedings are not applicable to instrumental witnesses to wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines.In the case at bar, the finding that each and everyone of the three instrumental witnesses are competent and credible is satisfactorily supported by the evidence as found by the respondent Court of Appeals, which findings of fact this Tribunal is bound to accept and rely upon. Moreover, petitioner has not pointed to any disqualification of any of the said witnesses.