Ramon D. Villanueva Jr.

JD-3A

Gan v. Yap
G.R. No. L-12190, 30 August 1958, 104:509

FACTS:

Felicidad Yap died of a heart failure, leaving properties in Pulilan, Bulacan, and in Manila. Fausto E. Gan, her
nephew, initiated the proceedings in the Manila CFI with a petition for the probate of a holographic will allegedly
executed by the deceased. Her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap opposed the petition and asserted that the
deceased had not left any will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime.

During the probate, the alleged will itself was not presented. Petitioner tried to establish its contents and due
execution by the statements in open court of Felina Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes, Socorro Olarte and Rosario Gan
Jimenez who testified Felicidad’s intention to make a will and allegedly saw it as well. According to the witnesses,
Felicidad did not want her husband to know about it, but she had made known to her other relatives that she made a
will. After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the Hon. Ramon R. San Jose, Judge,refused to
probate the alleged will on account of the discrepancies arising from the facts. For one thing, it is strange that
Felicidad made her will known to so many of her relatives when she wanted to keep it a secret and she would not
have carried it in her purse in the hospital, knowing that her husband may have access to it. In the face of these
improbabilities, the trial judge had to accept the oppositor’s evidence that Felicidad did not and could not have
executed such holographic will.

ISSUE:May a holographic will be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who
declare that it was in the handwriting of the testator?

HELD:

The SC 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 New Civil Code effective in 1950 revived holographic wills in its arts. 810-814. “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.”

Holographic will is a radical departure from the form and solemnities provided for wills. With regard to holographic
wills, no such guaranties of truth and veracity are demanded, since as stated, they need no witnesses; provided
however, that they are “entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself.”

“In the probate of a holographic will” says the New Civil Code, “it shall be necessary that at least one witness who
knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the
handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least three such witnesses shall be required. In the absence of
any such witnesses, (familiar with decedent’s handwriting) and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may
be resorted to.”
The witnesses need not have seen the execution of the holographic will, but they must be familiar with the
decedent’s handwriting. Obviously, when the will itself is not submitted, these means of opposition, and of assessing
the evidence are not available. And then the only guaranty of authenticity — the testator’s handwriting — has
disappeared.

Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Evena 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.
Rodelas v. Aranza Digest
Rodelas v. Aranza 
G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982
Relova, J. (Ponente)

Facts:
1. The appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla in 1977. The petition was
opposed by the appellees on the ground that the deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise.

2. The lower court dismissed the petition for probate and held that since the original will was lost, a photostatic copy
cannot stand in the place of the original.

Issue: Whether or not a holographic will can be proved by means of a photocopy

RULING: Yes. A photocopy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because the authenticity of the
handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court with the standard writings of the testator.

The only question here is whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by
means of a photostatic copy. Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is the
allowance of the will by the court after its due execution has been proved. The probate may be uncontested
or not. If uncontested, at least one Identifying witness is required and, if no witness is available, experts
may be resorted to. If contested, at least three Identifying witnesses are required. However, if the
holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will can not be probated
because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary that there
be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will. But, 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.
Ajero v. CA
236 SCRA 488
FACTS:
The holographic will of Annie San was submitted for probate.
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 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 decedent’s 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 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 he 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 decedent’s 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; and
4.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
authographic or handwritten by the testator himself. Failure to strictly observe other formalities will no
result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionable handwritten by the testator.