Gan v Yap, 104 Phil 509

FACTS: Felicidad Yap died of a heart failure, leaving properties in Pulilan, Bulacan, and
in Manila. Fausto E. Gan, her nephew, initiated with the CFI of Manila a petition for
the probate of a holographic will which was allegedly executed by the deceased.

However, the will could not be presented allegedly because Felicidad’s husband,
Ildefonso took it. What was presented were witness accounts of relatives who knew
of her intention and allegedly saw the will as well. According to the witnesses,
Felicidad did not want her husband to know about it, but she had made the will
known to her other relatives.

Opposing the petition, her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that the
deceased had not left any will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime.

After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the Judge refused to probate
the alleged will on account of the discrepancies arising from the facts. There was also
no evidence presented that her niece was her confidant.

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:
1. 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? -No
2. Whether Felicidad could have executed the holographic will - No.

RULING:
1. No. The will must be presented.

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."

In the matter of holographic wills, they need no witnesses; provided, that they are
"entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself." The law, it is
reasonable to suppose, regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity,
and as its own safeguard, since it could at any time, be demonstrated to be — or not
to be — in the hands 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 so presented do not need to have seen the execution of the
holographic will. They may be mistaken in their opinion of the handwriting, or they
may deliberately lie in affirming it is in the testator’s hand. However, the oppositor
may present other witnesses who also know the testator’s handwriting, or some
expert witnesses, who after comparing the will with other writings or letters of the
deceased, have come to the conclusion that such will has not been written by the
hand of the deceased. (Sec. 50, Rule 123). And the court, in view of such contradictory
testimony may use its own visual sense, and decide in the face of the document,
whether the will submitted to it has indeed been written by the testator.

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
has disappeared.

The Rules of Court, Rule 77 allow proof (and probate) of a lost or destroyed will by
secondary evidence such as the testimony of witnesses, in lieu of the original
document. Yet such Rules could not have contemplated holographic wills.

Spanish commentators agree that one of the greatest objections to the holographic
will is that it may be lost or stolen — an implied admission that such loss or theft
renders it useless.

This must be so, because the Civil Code requires it to be protocoled and presented to
the judge, (Art. 689) who shall subscribe it and require its identity to be established by
the three witnesses who depose that they have no reasonable doubt that the will was
written by the testator (Art. 691). And if the judge considers that the identity of the
will has been proven he shall order that it be filed (Art. 693). All these, imply
presentation of the will itself. Art. 692 bears the same implication, to a greater
degree. It requires that the surviving spouse and the legitimate ascendants and
descendants be summoned so that they may make "any statement they may desire to
submit with respect to the authenticity of the will." As it is universally admitted that
the holographic will is usually done by the testator and by himself alone, to prevent
others from knowing either its execution or its contents, the above article 692 could
not have the idea of simply permitting such relatives to state whether they know of
the will, but whether in the face of the document itself they think the testator wrote
it. Obviously, this they can’t do unless the will itself is presented to the Court.

Undoubtedly, the intention of the law is to give the near relatives the choice of either
complying with the will if they think it authentic, or to oppose it, if they think it
spurious. Such purpose is frustrated when the document is not presented.

The courts will not distribute the property of the deceased in accordance with his
holographic will, unless they are shown his handwriting and signature.

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.

Unlike holographic wills, ordinary wills may be proved by testimonial evidence when
lost or destroyed. The difference 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. 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.

In the case of ordinary wills, it is quite hard to convince 3 witnesses (4 with the
notary) deliberately to lie. And then their lies could be checked and exposed. And if
they were intimates or trusted friends of the testator they are not likely to lend
themselves to any fraudulent scheme to distort his wishes. Lastly, they can not
receive anything on account of the will.

Whereas in the case of holographic wills, if oral testimony were admissible only one
man could engineer the whole fraud this way: after making a clever or passable
imitation of the handwriting and signature of the deceased, he may contrive to let
three honest and credible witnesses see and read the forgery; and the latter, having
no interest, could easily fall for it, and in court they would in all good faith affirm its
genuineness and authenticity. The will having been lost — the forger may have
purposely destroyed it in an "accident" — the oppositors have no way to expose the
trick and the error, because the document itself is not at hand. And considering that
the holographic will may consist of 2 or 3 pages, and only 1 of them need be signed,
the substitution of the unsigned pages may go undetected.

If testimonial evidence of holographic wills be permitted, feasibility of forgery would

One more fundamental difference: in the case of a lost will, the 3 subscribing
witnesses would be testifying to a fact which they saw, namely the act of the testator
of subscribing the will; whereas in the case of a lost holographic will, the witnesses
would testify as to their opinion of the handwriting which they allegedly saw, an
opinion which can not be tested in court, nor directly contradicted by the oppositors,
because the handwriting itself is not at hand.

In addition to the dubious circumstances described in the appealed decision, the court
finds it hard to believe that the deceased should show her will precisely to relatives
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 Ildefonso Yap . If
she wanted so much to conceal the will from her husband, why did she not entrust it
to her beneficiaries? Opportunity to do so was not lacking.

2. No. Even if oral testimony were admissible to establish and probate a lost
holographic will, evidence submitted by herein petitioner is so tainted with
improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to that “clear and
distinct” proof required by Rule 77, sec. 6.

Wherefore, the rejection of the alleged will must be sustained.

DOCTRINE: 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.