Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

SUCCESSION

RODELAS vs. ARANZA, ET AL

G.R. No. L-58509. December 7, 1982

If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will cannot 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. However, 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. 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.

NEPOMUCENO vs. CA

G.R. No. L-62952. October 9, 1985

In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination of, and resolution on, the extrinsic validity of the will; the due execution thereof; the testatrix's testamentary capacity; and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed the by law. In the case at bar, however, a peculiar situation exists. The testator himself has admitted in his will to cohabiting without the benefit of marriage with the petitioner who is also appointed as the sole and only executor of the estate. The will's admission to probate will be an idle exercise because on the face of the will, the invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is evident.

MOLO vs. MOLO

G.R. No. L-2538. September 21, 1951

A subsequent will containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed for the reason that it was not executed in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code as to the making of wills, cannot produce the effect of annuling the previous will, inasmuch as said revocatory clause is void. The earlier will can still be admitted to probate under the principle of "dependent relative revocation". The theory on which this principle is predicated is that the testator did not intend to die intestate. And this intention is clearly manifest where he executed two wills on two different occasions and instituted his wife as his universal heir.

CANEDA vs. CA

G.R. No. 103554. May 28, 1993

The rule on substantial compliance in Article 809 cannot be invoked or relied on since it presupposes that the defects in the attestation clause can be cured or supplied by the text of the will. In other words, the defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself. In the case at bar, contrarily, proof of the acts required to have been performed by the attesting witnesses can be supplied only by extrinsic evidence thereof, since an overall appreciation of the contents of the will yields no basis whatsoever from which such facts may be plausibly deduced. Omissions which can be supplied by

an examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself.

AJERO vs. CA

G.R. No. 106720. September 15, 1994

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. Hence, failure to comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code 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.