DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

ISSUE

Whether the alleged holographic will of one Melecio Labrador is dated, as provided for in Article 8102
of the New Civil Code. (YES)

RULING

It is worthy of note to quote the first paragraph of the second page of the holographic will, viz:

And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the
respective assignment of the said fishpond, and 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. (emphasis supplied) (p. 46,
Rollo)

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. These
requirements are present in the subject will.

Respondents claim that the date 17 March 1968 in the will was when the testator and his
beneficiaries entered into an agreement among themselves about "the partitioning and assigning the
respective assignments of the said fishpond," and was not the date of execution of the holographic
will; hence, the will is more of an "agreement" between the testator and the beneficiaries thereof to
the prejudice of other compulsory heirs like the respondents. This was thus a failure to comply with
Article 783 which defines a will as "an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities
prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his
death."

Respondents are in error. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of the
will is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the
will was not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he
was executing was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning as the
testator's instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of the
nature of the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means
to control the disposition of his estate.

SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, Petitioners, -versus – THE COURT OF APPEALS AND
CLEMENTE SAND, Respondents.
G.R. No. 106720, SECOND DIVISION, September 15, 1994, PUNO, J.

A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code 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.

Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the
holographic will or on testator's signature, their presence does not invalidate the will itself. The lack of
authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes.

63
 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

FACTS
The holographic will of Annie Sand who died on November 25, 1982 was submitted for probate.
Petitioners alleged that at the time of its execution, testator was of sound and disposing mind, not
acting under duress, fraud or undue influence, and was in every respect capacitated to dispose of her
estate by will.

Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament's body nor the
signature therein was in decedent's 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 likewise opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero. He contested the
disposition in the will of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte. He claimed that
said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.

Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court admitted the decedent's holographic will to probate.
On appeal, said Decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, and the petition for probate of
decedent's will was dismissed. The Court of Appeals found that, "the holographic will fails to meet
the requirements for its validity." It held that the decedent did not comply with Articles 813 and 814
of the New Civil Code.

ISSUE

Whether the CA erred in holding that Articles 813 and 814 of the NCC were not complied with. (YES)

RULING

In Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil. 476, 479 (1919), the Supreme Court held that:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith
and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity.
Therefore, the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial
ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law
to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given
assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more
requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be
disregarded.

For purposes of probating non-holographic wills, these formal solemnities include the subscription,
attestation, and acknowledgment requirements under Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code.

In the case of holographic wills, on the other hand, what assures authenticity is the requirement that
they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself, as provided under Article 810 of
the New Civil Code, thus:

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

64
 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will
that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator.

A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code 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. In the case of Kalaw vs. Relova 132 SCRA 237 242 (1984), the Court held:
Ordinarily, when a number of 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. Manresa
gave an identical commentary when he said "la omission de la salvedad no anula el testamento, segun
la regla de jurisprudencia establecida en la sentencia de 4 de Abril de 1985." (Citations omitted.)

Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of
the holographic will or on testator's 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 (Articles 813 and 814) separate from that which provides for the
necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810). The distinction can be
traced to Articles 678 and 688 of the Spanish Civil Code, from which the present provisions covering
holographic wills are taken. They read as follows:

Art. 678: A will is called holographic when the testator writes it himself in the form and with
the requisites required in Article 688.

Art. 688: Holographic wills may be executed only by persons of full age.

In order that the will be valid it must be drawn on stamped paper corresponding to the year of its
execution, written in its entirety by the testator and signed by him, and must contain a statement of
the year, month and day of its execution.

If it should contain any erased, corrected, or interlined words, the testator must identify them over
his signature.
Foreigners may execute holographic wills in their own language.

This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the requirements of
Article 810 of the New Civil Code — and not those found in Articles 813 and 814 of the same Code —
are essential to the probate of a holographic will.

65