This document summarizes a court case regarding the probate of an alleged holographic will. The petitioner sought to probate a holographic will allegedly executed by Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Ya, who died of heart failure. However, the deceased's surviving husband opposed the will, asserting she did not leave any will. The trial court refused to probate the alleged holographic will due to various improbabilities in the petitioner's evidence. The petitioner appealed but the court found the evidence did not sufficiently establish the holographic will was validly executed.
This document summarizes a court case regarding the probate of an alleged holographic will. The petitioner sought to probate a holographic will allegedly executed by Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Ya, who died of heart failure. However, the deceased's surviving husband opposed the will, asserting she did not leave any will. The trial court refused to probate the alleged holographic will due to various improbabilities in the petitioner's evidence. The petitioner appealed but the court found the evidence did not sufficiently establish the holographic will was validly executed.
This document summarizes a court case regarding the probate of an alleged holographic will. The petitioner sought to probate a holographic will allegedly executed by Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Ya, who died of heart failure. However, the deceased's surviving husband opposed the will, asserting she did not leave any will. The trial court refused to probate the alleged holographic will due to various improbabilities in the petitioner's evidence. The petitioner appealed but the court found the evidence did not sufficiently establish the holographic will was validly executed.
This document summarizes a court case regarding the probate of an alleged holographic will. The petitioner sought to probate a holographic will allegedly executed by Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Ya, who died of heart failure. However, the deceased's surviving husband opposed the will, asserting she did not leave any will. The trial court refused to probate the alleged holographic will due to various improbabilities in the petitioner's evidence. The petitioner appealed but the court found the evidence did not sufficiently establish the holographic will was validly executed.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12190 August 30, 1958
TESTATE ESTATE OF FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALTO-YA !"#"$s"!. FAUSTO E. GAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. ILDEFONSO YA, oppositor-appellee. Benedicto C. Belran, Crispin D. Baizas and Roberto H. Benitez for appellant. Arturo M. Tolentino for appellee. %ENG&ON, J.' On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Es!erra Alto "ap died o# $eart #ail!re in t$e %niversit& o# 'anto (omas )ospital, leavin properties in *!lilan, B!lacan, and in t$e Cit& o# +anila. On +arc$ 1,, 1952, Fa!sto E. -an initiated t$em proceedins in t$e +anila co!rt o# #irst instance .it$ a petition #or t$e probate o# a $olorap$ic .ill alleedl& e/ec!ted b& t$e deceased, s!bstantiall& in t$ese .ords0 Nob&embre 5, 1951. A1o, si Felicidad E. Alto-"ap, ma& asa.a, at anap na pa-iisip, a& nasasala&sa& na an a1in 1a&amanan sa ba&an n *!lilan, B!lacan a& a1in ipinamamana sa a1in ma 1ama- ana1an s!m!s!nod0 2icente Es!erra, 'r. ............................................. 5 Ba$ai Fa!sto E. -an ......................................................... 2 Ba$ai 3osario E. -an ......................................................... 2 Ba$ai Filomena Alto .......................................................... 1 Ba$ai Beatri4 Alto .............................................................. 1 Ba$ai At an a1in la$at n iban 1a&amanan sa +a&nila at iba panl!ar a& a1in ipinamamana sa a1in asa.an si 5del#onso 6. "ap sa 1ondis&on si&a7& mapapaa.a n isan )ealt$ Center na na1a1a$alaa n di 1!1!lanin sa $alaan *80,000.00 sa ba&an n *!lilan, B!lacan, na na1a!1it an a1in panalan Felicidad Es!erra-Alto. At 1!n ito a& ma& 1a1!lanan man a& ba$ala na an a1in asa.a an map!no !pan mat!pad an a1in 1a!st!$an. 9:ada; Felicidad E. Alto-"ap. Opposin t$e petition, $er s!rvivin $!sband 5lde#onso "ap asserted t$at t$e deceased $ad not le#t an& .ill, nor e/ec!ted an& testament d!rin $er li#etime. A#ter $earin t$e parties and considerin t$eir evidence, t$e )on. 3amon 3. 'an <ose, <!de, 1 re#!sed to probate t$e alleed .ill. A sevent&-pae motion #or reconsideration #ailed. )ence t$is appeal. ($e .ill itsel# .as not presented. *etitioner tried to establis$ its contents and d!e e/ec!tion b& t$e statements in open co!rt o# Felina Es!erra, *rimitivo 3e&es, 'ocorro Olarte and 3osario -an <imene4, .$ose testimonies ma& be s!mmari4ed as #ollo.s0 'ometime in 1950 a#ter $er last trip abroad, Felicidad Es!erra mentioned to $er #irst co!sin, 2icente Es!erra, $er desire to ma1e a .ill. '$e con#ided $o.ever t$at it .o!ld be !seless i# $er $!sband discovered or 1ne. abo!t it. 2icente cons!lted .it$ Fa!sto E. -an, nep$e. o# Felicidad, .$o .as t$en preparin #or t$e bar e/aminations. ($e latter replied it co!ld be done .it$o!t an& .itness, provided t$e doc!ment .as entirel& in $er $and.ritin, sined and dated b& $er. 2icente Es!erra lost no time in transmittin t$e in#ormation, and on t$e strent$ o# it, in t$e mornin o# November 5, 1951, in $er residence at <!an :!na 'treet, +anila, Felicidad .rote, sined and dated a $olorap$ic .ill s!bstantiall& o# t$e tenor above transcribed, in t$e presence o# $er niece, Felina Es!erra 9da!$ter o# 2icente;, .$o .as invited to read it. 5n t$e a#ternoon o# t$at da&, Felicidad .as visited b& a distant relative, *rimitivo 3e&es, and s$e allo.ed $im to read t$e .ill in t$e presence o# Felina Es!erra, .$o aain read it. Nine da&s later, $e $ad ot$er visitors0 'ocorro Olarte a co!sin, and 3osario -an <imene4, a niece. (o t$ese s$e s$o.ed t$e .ill, aain in t$e presence o# Felina Es!erra, .$o read it #or t$e t$ird time. =$en on November 19, 1951, Felicidad .as con#ined at t$e %.'.(. )ospital #or $er last illness, s$e entr!sted t$e said .ill, .$ic$ .as contained in a p!rse, to Felina Es!erra. B!t a #e. $o!rs later, 5lde#onso "ap, $er $!sband, as1ed Felina #or t$e p!rse0 and bein a#raid o# $im b& reason o# $is .ell-1no.n violent temper, s$e delivered it to $im. ($erea#ter, in t$e same da&, 5lde#onso "ap ret!rned t$e p!rse to Felina, onl& to demand it t$e ne/t da& s$ortl& be#ore t$e deat$ o# Felicidad. Aain, Felina $anded it to $im b!t not be#ore s$e $ad ta1en t$e p!rse to t$e toilet, opened it and read t$e .ill #or t$e last time. 2 From t$e oppositor7s proo# it appears t$at Felicidad Es!erra $ad been s!##erin #rom $eart disease #or several &ears be#ore $er deat$> t$at s$e $ad been treated b& prominent p$&sicians, 6r. Aerico 'ison, 6r. A!stin :iboro and ot$ers> t$at in +a& 1950 $!sband and .i#e ?o!rne&ed to t$e %nited 'tates .$erein #or several .ee1s s$e .as treated #or t$e disease> t$at t$erea#ter s$e #elt .ell and a#ter visitin interestin places, t$e co!ple ret!rned to t$is co!ntr& in A!!st 1950. )o.ever, $er ailment rec!rred, s$e s!##ered several attac1s, t$e most serio!s o# .$ic$ $appened in t$e earl& mornin o# t$e #irst +onda& o# November 1951 9Nov. 5;. ($e .$ole $o!se$old .as s!rprised and alarmed, even t$e teac$ers o# t$e )arvardian Collees occ!p&in t$e lo.er #loors and o# b& t$e "ap spo!ses. *$&sician7s $elp .as $!rriedl& called, and 6r. (an?!a@!io arrived at abo!t A000 a.m., #o!nd t$e patient $ardl& breat$in, l&in in bed, $er $ead $eld $i$ b& $er $!sband. 5n?ections and o/&en .ere administered. Follo.in t$e doctor7s advice t$e patient sta&ed in bed, and did not$in t$e .$ole da&, $er $!sband and $er personal attendant, +rs. Banti@!e, constantl& at $er side. ($ese t.o persons s.ore t$at +rs. Felicidad Es!erra "ap made no .ill, and co!ld $ave made no .ill on t$at da&. ($e trial ?!de re#!sed to credit t$e petitioner7s evidence #or several reasons, t$e most important o# .$ic$ .ere t$ese0 9a; i# accordin to $is evidence, t$e decedent .anted to 1eep $er .ill a secret, so t$at $er $!sband .o!ld not 1no. it, it is strane s$e e/ec!ted it in t$e presence o# Felina Es!erra, 1no.in as s$e did t$at .itnesses .ere !nnecessar&> 9b; in t$e absence o# a s$o.in t$at Felina .as a con#idant o# t$e decedent it is $ard to believe t$at t$e latter .o!ld $ave allo.ed t$e #ormer to see and read t$e .ill several times> 9c; it is improbable t$at t$e decedent .o!ld $ave permitted *rimitivo 3e&es, 3osario -an <imene4 and 'ocorro Olarte to read $er .ill, .$en s$e precisel& .anted its contents to remain a secret d!rin $er li#etime> 9d; it is also improbable t$at $er p!rpose bein to conceal t$e .ill #rom $er $!sband s$e .o!ld carr& it aro!nd, even to t$e $ospital, in $er p!rse .$ic$ co!ld #or one reason or anot$er be opened b& $er $!sband> 9e; i# it is tr!e t$at t$e $!sband demanded t$e p!rse #rom Felina in t$e %.'.(. )ospital and t$at t$e .ill .as t$ere, it is $ard to believe t$at $e ret!rned it .it$o!t destro&in t$e .ill, t$e t$eor& o# t$e petitioner bein precisel& t$at t$e .ill .as e/ec!ted be$ind $is bac1 #or #ear $e .ill destro& it. 5n t$e #ace o# t$ese improbabilities, t$e trial ?!de $ad to accept t$e oppositor7s evidence t$at Felicidad did not and co!ld not $ave e/ec!ted s!c$ $olorap$ic .ill. 5n t$is appeal, t$e ma?or portion o# appellant7s brie# disc!ssed t$e testimon& o# t$e oppositor and o# $is .itnesses in a vioro!s e##ort to discredit t$em. 5t appears t$at t$e same ar!ments, or most o# t$em, .ere presented in t$e motion to reconsider> b!t t$e& #ailed to ind!ce t$e co!rt a quoto c$ane its mind. ($e oppositor7s brie#, on t$e ot$er $and, aptl& ans.ers t$e criticisms. =e deem it !nnecessar& to o over t$e same matters, beca!se in o!r opinion t$e case s$o!ld be decided not on t$e .ea1ness o# t$e opposition b!t on t$e strent$ o# t$e evidence o# t$e petitioner, .$o $as t$e b!rden o# proo#. ($e 'panis$ Civil Code permitted t$e e/ec!tion o# $olorap$ic .ills alon .it$ ot$er #orms. ($e Code o# Civil *roced!re 9Act 190; approved A!!st ,, 1901, adopted onl& one #orm, t$ereb& repealin t$e ot$er #orms, incl!din $olorap$ic .ills. ($e Ne. Civil Code e##ective in 1950 revived $olorap$ic .ills in its arts. A10-A1B. CA person ma& e/ec!te a $olorap$ic .ill .$ic$ m!st be entirel& .ritten, dated, and sined b& t$e $and o# t$e testator $imsel#. 5t is s!b?ect to no ot$er #orm and ma& be made in or o!t o# t$e *$ilippines, and need not be .itnessed.C ($is is indeed a radical depart!re #rom t$e #orm and solemnities provided #or .ills !nder Act 190, .$ic$ #or #i#t& &ears 9#rom 1901 to 1950; re@!ired .ills to be s!bscribed b& t$e testator and t$ree credible .itnesses in eachand every pae> s!c$ .itnesses to attest to t$e n!mber o# s$eets !sed and to t$e #act t$at t$e testator sined in t$eir presence and t$at t$e& sined in t$e presence o# t$e testator and o# eac$ ot$er. ($e ob?ect o# s!c$ re@!irements it $as been said, is to close t$e door aainst bad #ait$ and #ra!d, to prevent s!bstit!tion o# .ills, to !arantee t$eir tr!t$ and a!t$encit& 9Abanan vs. Abanan, B0 *$il., B,8; and to avoid t$ose .$o $ave no ri$t to s!cceed t$e testator .o!ld s!cceed $im and be bene#ited .it$ t$e probate o# same. 9+endo4a vs. *ilapil, B0 O##. -a4., 1A55;. )o.ever, #ormal imper#ections ma& be br!s$ed aside .$en a!t$enticit& o# t$e instr!ment is d!l& proved. 93odri!e4 vs "ap, B0 O##. -a4. 1st '!pp. No. D p. 19B.; A!t$enticit& and d!e e/ec!tion is t$e dominant re@!irements to be #!l#illed .$en s!c$ .ill is s!bmitted to t$e co!rts #or allo.ance. For t$at p!rpose t$e testimon& o# one o# t$e s!bscribin .itnesses .o!ld be s!##icient i# t$ere is no opposition 9'ec. 5, 3!le ,,;. 5# t$ere is, t$e t$ree m!st testi#&, i# available. 9Caban vs. 6el#inado, DB *$il., 291> (olentino vs. Francisco, 5, *$il., ,B2;. From t$e testimon& o# s!c$ .itnesses 9and o# ot$er additional .itnesses; t$e co!rt ma& #orm its opinion as to t$e en!ineness and a!t$enticit& o# t$e testament, and t$e circ!mstances its d!e e/ec!tion. No., in t$e matter o# $olorap$ic .ills, no s!c$ !aranties o# tr!t$ and veracit& are demanded, since as stated, t$e& need no .itnesses> provided $o.ever, t$at t$e& are Centirel& .ritten, dated, and sined b& t$e $and o# t$e testator $imsel#.C ($e la., it is reasonable to s!ppose, reards the docu!ent itselfas material proo# o# a!t$enticit&, and as its o.n sa#e!ard, since it co!ld at an& time, be demonstrated to be E or not to be E in t$e $ands o# t$e testator $imsel#. C5n t$e probate o# a $olorap$ic .illC sa&s t$e Ne. Civil Code, Cit s$all be necessar& t$at at least one .itness .$o 1no.s t$e $and.ritin and sinat!re o# t$e testator e/plicitl& declare t$at t$e .ill and t$e sinat!re are in t$e $and.ritin o# t$e testator. 5# t$e .ill is contested, at least t$ree s!c$ .itnesses s$all be re@!ired. 5n t$e absence o# an& s!c$ .itnesses, 9#amiliar .it$ decedent7s $and.ritin; and i# t$e co!rt deem it necessar&, e/pert testimon& ma& be resorted to.C ($e .itnesses so presented do not need to $ave seen t$e e/ec!tion o# t$e $olorap$ic .ill. ($e& ma& be mista1en in t$eir opinion o# t$e $and.ritin, or t$e& ma& deliberatel& lie in a##irmin it is in t$e testator7s $and. )o.ever, t$e oppositor ma& present ot$er .itnesses .$o also 1no. t$e testator7s $and.ritin, or some e/pert .itnesses, .$o a#ter comparin t$e .ill .it$ ot$er .ritins or letters o# t$e deceased, $ave come to t$e concl!sion t$at s!c$ .ill $as not been .ritten b& t$e $and o# t$e deceased. 9'ec. 50, 3!le 12D;. And t$e co!rt, in vie. o# s!c$ contradictor& testimon& ma& !se its o.n vis!al sense, and decide in the face of the docu!ent, .$et$er t$e .ill s!bmitted to it $as indeed been .ritten b& t$e testator. Obvio!sl&, .$en t$e .ill itsel# is not s!bmitted, t$ese !eans of opposition, and of assessin the evidenceare not available. And t$en t$e onl& !arant& o# a!t$enticit& D E t$e testator7s $and.ritin E $as disappeared. ($ere#ore, t$e @!estion presents itsel#, !ay a holoraphic "ill be probated upon the testi!ony of "itnesses.$o $ave alleedl& seen it and .$o declare t$at it .as in t$e $and.ritin o# t$e testatorF )o. can t$e oppositor prove t$at s!c$ doc!ment .as not in t$e testator7s $and.ritinF )is .itnesses .$o 1no. testator7s $and.ritin $ave not e/amined it. )is e/perts can not testi#&, beca!se t$ere is no .a& to compare t$e alleed testament .it$ ot$er doc!ments admittedl&, or proven to be, in t$e testator7s $and. ($e oppositor .ill, t$ere#ore, be ca!$t bet.een t$e !pper millstone o# $is lac1 o# 1no.lede o# t$e .ill or t$e #orm t$ereo#, and t$e net$er millstone o# $is inabilit& to prove its #alsit&. Aain t$e proponent7s .itnesses ma& be $onest and tr!t$#!l> b!t t$e& ma& $ave been s$o.n a #a1ed doc!ment, and $avin no interest to c$ec1 t$e a!t$enticit& t$ereo# $ave ta1en no pains to e/amine and compare. Or t$e& ma& be per?!rers boldl& testi#&in, in t$e 1no.lede t$at none co!ld convict t$em o# per?!r&, beca!se no one co!ld prove t$at t$e& $ave not Cbeen s$o.nC a doc!ment .$ic$ they believed .as in t$e $and.ritin o# t$e deceased. O# co!rse, t$e competenc& o# s!c$ per?!red .itnesses to testi#& as to t$e $and.ritin co!ld be tested b& e/$ibitin to t$em ot$er .ritins s!##icientl& similar to t$ose .ritten b& t$e deceased> b!t .$at .itness or la.&er .o!ld not #oresee s!c$ a move and prepare #or itF )is 1no.lede o# t$e $and.ritin establis$ed, t$e .itness 9or .itnesses; co!ld simpl& stic1 to $is statement0 $e $as seen and read a doc!ment .$ic$ $e believed .as in t$e deceased7s $and.ritin. And t$e co!rt and t$e oppositor .o!ld practicall& be at t$e merc& o# s!c$ .itness 9or .itnesses; not onl& as to t$e e/ec!tion, b!t also as to the contentso# t$e .ill. 6oes t$e la. permit s!c$ a sit!ationF ($e 3!les o# Co!rt, 93!le ,,; approved in 19B0 allo. proo# 9and probate; o# a lost or destro&ed .ill b& secondar& E evidence t$e testimon& o# .itnesses, in lie! o# t$e oriinal doc!ment. "et s!c$ 3!les co!ld not $ave contemplated $olorap$ic .ills .$ic$ co!ld not t$en be validl& made $ere. 9'ee also 'ec. B8, 3!le 12D> Art. AD0-Ne. Civil Code.; Co!ld 3!le ,, be e/tended, b& analo&, to $olorap$ic .illsF 'panis$ commentators aree t$at one o# t$e reatest ob?ections to t$e $olorap$ic .ill is t$at it ma& be lost or stolen B E an implied admission t$at s!c$ loss or t$e#t renders it !seless.. ($is m!st be so, beca!se t$e Civil Code re@!ires it to be protocoled and presented to t$e ?!de, 9Art. 8A9; .$o s$all s!bscribe it and re@!ire itsidentit& to be establis$ed b& t$e t$ree .itnesses .$o depose t$at t$e& $ave no reasonable do!bt t$at the "ill.as .ritten b& t$e testator 9Art. 891;. And i# t$e ?!de considers t$at t$e identit& o# t$e .ill $as been proven $e s$all order t$at it be #iled 9Art. 89D;. All t$ese, impl& presentation o# t$e .ill itsel#. Art. 892 bears t$e same implication, to a reater deree. 5t re@!ires t$at t$e s!rvivin spo!se and t$e leitimate ascendants and descendants be s!mmoned so t$at t$e& ma& ma1e Can& statement t$e& ma& desire to s!bmit .it$ respect to t$e a!t$enticit& o# t$e .ill.C As it is !niversall& admitted t$at t$e $olorap$ic .ill is !s!all& done b& t$e testator and b& $imsel# alone, to prevent ot$ers #rom 1no.in eit$er its e/ec!tion or its contents, t$e above article 892 co!ld not $ave t$e idea o# simpl& permittin s!c$ relatives to state .$et$er t$e& 1no. o# t$e .ill, b!t .$et$er in the face of the docu!ent itselft$e& t$in1 t$e testator .rote it. Obvio!sl&, t$is t$e& can7t do !nless the "ill itselfis presented to t$e Co!rt and to t$em. %ndo!btedl&, t$e intention o# t$e la. is to ive t$e near relatives t$e c$oice o# eit$er compl&in .it$ t$e .ill i# t$e& t$in1 it a!t$entic, or to oppose it, i# t$e& t$in1 it sp!rio!s. 5 '!c$ p!rpose is #r!strated .$en t$e doc!ment is not presented #or t$eir e/amination. 5# it be ar!ed t$at s!c$ c$oice is not essential, beca!se an&.a& t$e relatives ma& oppose, t$e ans.er is t$at t$eir opposition .ill be at a distinct disadvantae, and t$e& $ave the riht and privileeto compl& .it$ t$e .ill, i# en!ine, a riht "hich theys$o!ld not be denied b& .it$$oldin inspection t$ereo# #rom t$em. =e #ind con#irmation o# t$ese ideas--abo!t e/$ibition o# t$e doc!ment itsel#--in t$e decision o# t$e '!preme Co!rt o# 'pain o# <!ne 5, 1925, .$ic$ deniedprotocoli4ation or probate to a doc!ment containin testamentar& dispositions in t$e $and.ritin o# t$e deceased, b!t apparentl& m!tilated, the sinature and so!e "ords havin been torn fro! it. Even in t$e #ace o# alleations and testimonial evidence 9.$ic$ .as controverted;, ascribin t$e m!tilation to t$e opponents o# t$e .ill. ($e a#oresaid trib!nal declared t$at, in accordance .it$ t$e provision o# t$e Civil Code 9'panis$; t$e .ill itsel#, .$ole and !nm!tilated, m!st be presented> ot$er.ise, it s$all prod!ce no e##ect. Considerando @!e sentado lo anterior, & estableciendose en el parra#o se!ndo del artic!lo 8AA del Codio civil, @!e para @!e sea valido el testamento olora#o debera estar escrito todo el & #irmado por testador, con e/pression del aGo, mes & dia en @!e se otor@!e, res!lta evidente @!e para la valide4 & e#icacia de esos testamentos, no basta la demostracion mas o menos c!mplida de @!e c!ando se otoraron se #lenaron todos esos requisitos, sino que de la e$presada redaccion el precepto leal, & por el tiempo en @!e el verbo se emplea, se desprende la necesidad de que el docu!ento se encuentreen dic$as condiciones en el momento de ser presentado a la Autoridad co!petente, para a! adveracion & protocoli4acion> & como consec!encia inel!dible de ello, #or4oso es a##irmar que el de autos carece de validez y aficacia, por no estar#irmado por el testador, c!al@!iera @!e sea la ca!sa de la #alta de #irma, & sin per?!icio de las acciones @!e p!edan e?ercitar los per?!dicados, bien para pedir indemni4acion por el per?!icio a la persona c!lpable, si la $!biere, o s! castio en via criminal si procediere, por constituir dicha o!ision un defecto insubsanable . . . . ($is $oldin alins .it$ t$e ideas on $olorap$ic .ills in t$e F!ero <!4o, admittedl& t$e basis o# t$e 'panis$ Civil Code provisions on t$e matter. 8 *3ECE6EN(E' :E-A:E'--F!ero <!4o, libro se!ndo, tit!lo 2, le& 15--E dep!es @!e los $erederos e s!s #i?os ovieren esta manda, #asta ... annos m!estrenla al obispo de la tierra, o al ?!e4 #asta 25 meses & el obispo o el ?!e4 tomen otros tales tres escritos, @!e #!esen #ec$os por s! mano da@!el @!e #i4o la manda> e por a@!ellos escriptos, si sem?ara la letra de la manda, sea con#irmada la manda. E dep!es @!e todo esto #!ere connoscido, el obispo o el ?!e4, o otras testimonios con#irmen el escripto de la manda otra ve4, & en esta manera vala la manda. 9Art. 8A9, 'caevola--Codio Civil.; 9Accordin to t$e F!ero above, t$e .ill itsel# m!st be compared .it$ specimens o# t$e testators $and.ritin.; All o# .$ic$ can onl& mean0 t$e co!rts .ill not distrib!te t$e propert& o# t$e deceased in accordance .it$ $is $olorap$ic .ill, !nless t$e& are s$o.n $is $and.ritin and sinat!re. , *arent$eticall&, it ma& be added t$at even t$e Frenc$ Civil :a. considers t$e loss o# t$e $olorap$ic .ill to be #atal. 9*laniol & 3ipert, 6erec$o Civil Frances, trad!ccion por 6ia4 Cr!4, 19B8, (omo 2, pae 555;. (a1in all t$e above circ!mstances toet$er, .e reac$ t$e concl!sion t$at t$e e/ec!tion and t$e contents o# a lost or destro&ed $olorap$ic .ill ma& not be proved b& t$e bare testimon& o# .itnesses .$o $ave seen andHor read s!c$ .ill. A %nder t$e provisions o# Art. ADA o# t$e Ne. Civil Code, .e are empo.ered to adopt t$is opinion as a 3!le o# Co!rt #or t$e allo.ance o# s!c$ $olorap$ic .ills. =e $esitate, $o.ever, to ma1e t$is 3!le decisive o# t$is controvers&, sim!ltaneo!sl& .it$ its prom!lation. An&.a&, decision o# t$e appeal ma& rest on t$e s!##icienc&, rat$er t$e ins!##icienc&, o# t$e evidence presented b& petitioner Fa!sto E. -an. At t$is point, be#ore proceedin #!rt$er, it mi$t be convenient to e/plain .$&, !nli1e $olorap$ic .ills, ordinar& .ills ma& be proved b& testimonial evidence .$en lost or destro&ed. ($e di##erence lies in t$e nat!re o# t$e .ills. 5n t$e #irst, t$e onl& !arantee o# a!t$enticit& is t$e $and.ritin itsel#> in t$e second, t$e testimon& o# t$e s!bscribin or instr!mental .itnesses 9and o# t$e notar&, no.;. ($e loss o# t$e $olorap$ic .ill entails t$e loss o# t$e onl& medi!m o# proo#> i# t$e ordinar& .ill is lost, t$e s!bscribin .itnesses are available to a!t$enticate. 5n t$e case o# ordinar& .ills, it is @!ite $ard to convince t$ree .itnesses 9#o!r .it$ t$e notar&; deliberatel& to lie. And t$en t$eir lies co!ld be c$ec1ed and e/posed, t$eir .$ereabo!ts and acts on t$e partic!lar da&, t$e li1eli$ood t$at t$e& .o!ld be called b& t$e testator, t$eir intimac& .it$ t$e testator, etc. And i# t$e& .ere intimates or tr!sted #riends o# t$e testator t$e& are not li1el& to end t$emselves to an& #ra!d!lent sc$eme to distort $is .is$es. :ast b!t not least, t$e& can not receive an&t$in on acco!nt o# t$e .ill. =$ereas in t$e case o# $olorap$ic .ills, i# oral testimon& .ere admissible 9 onl& one man co!ld enineer t$e #ra!d t$is .a&0 a#ter ma1in a clever or passable imitation o# t$e $and.ritin and sinat!re o# t$e deceased, $e ma& contrive to let t$ree $onest and credible .itnesses see and read t$e #orer&> and t$e latter, $avin no interest, co!ld easil& #all #or it, and in co!rt t$e& .o!ld in all ood #ait$ a##irm its en!ineness and a!t$enticit&. ($e .ill $avin been lost E t$e #orer ma& $ave p!rposel& destro&ed it in an CaccidentC E t$e oppositors $ave no .a& to e/pose t$e tric1 and t$e error, beca!se t$e doc!ment itsel# is not at $and. And considerin t$at t$e $olorap$ic .ill ma& consist o# t.o or t$ree paes, and only oneo# t$em need be sined, t$e s!bstit!tion o# t$e !nsined paes, .$ic$ ma& be t$e most important ones, ma& o !ndetected. 5# testimonial evidence o# $olorap$ic .ills be permitted, one more ob?ectionable #eat!re E #easibilit& o# #orer& E .o!ld be added to t$e several ob?ections to t$is 1ind o# .ills listed b& Castan, 'anc$e4 3oman and 2alverde and ot$er .ell-1no.n 'panis$ Commentators and teac$ers o# Civil :a.. 10 One more #!ndamental di##erence0 in t$e case o# a lost .ill, t$e t$ree s!bscribin .itnesses .o!ld be testi#&in to a fact.$ic$ t$e& sa., namel& t$e act o# t$e testator o# s!bscribin t$e .ill> .$ereas in t$e case o# a lost $olorap$ic .ill, t$e .itnesses .o!ld testi#& as to their opiniono# t$e $and.ritin .$ic$ t$e& alleedl& sa., an opinion .$ic$ can not be tested in co!rt, nor directl& contradicted b& t$e oppositors, beca!se t$e $and.ritin itsel# is not at $and. (!rnin no. to t$e evidence presented b& t$e petitioner, .e #ind o!rselves s$arin t$e trial ?!de7s disbelie#. 5n addition to t$e d!bio!s circ!mstances described in t$e appealed decision, .e #ind it $ard to believe t$at t$e deceased s$o!ld s$o. $er .ill precisel& to relatives .$o $ad received not$in #rom it0 'ocorro Olarte and *rimitivo 3e&es. ($ese co!ld pester $er into amendin $er .ill to ive t$em a s$are, or t$reaten to reveal its e/ec!tion to $er $!sband 5lde#onso "ap. And t$is leads to anot$er point0 i# s$e .anted so m!c$ to conceal t$e .ill #rom $er $!sband, .$& did s$e not entr!st it to $er bene#iciariesF Opport!nit& to do so .as not lac1in0 #or instance, $er $!sband7s trip to 6avao, a #e. da&s a#ter t$e alleed e/ec!tion o# t$e .ill. 5n #ine, even i# oral testimon& .ere admissible to establis$ and probate a lost $olorap$ic .ill, .e t$in1 t$e evidence s!bmitted b& $erein petitioner is so tainted .it$ improbabilities and inconsistencies t$at it #ails to meas!re !p to t$at Cclear and distinctC proo# re@!ired b& 3!le ,,, sec. 8. 11 =$ere#ore, t$e re?ection o# t$e alleed .ill m!st be s!stained. <!dment a##irmed, .it$ costs aainst petitioner. %aras, C. &., %adilla, Monte!ayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Anelo, Concepcion, Reyes, &. B. '., (ndencia and )eli$, &&., conc!r.
Green Anoles - How to Raise Green Anoles as a Real Life Hobby: A Successful Reptile Enthusiast Tells You His Secrets on How to Successfully Raise Green Anole Lizards for Fun as House and Garden Pets