D 2015 | Succession | Perez | Digest by PS Magno

Kalaw v. Relova
Formal Requisites of Holographic Wills
Melencio-Herrera
Sept. 28, 1984
Short Version:
Sept. 1, 1971; Gregorio Kalaw, claims to be the
sole heir of his deceased sister, Natividad
Kalaw. He filed a petition for the probate of her
holographic will, executed on Dec. 24, 1968.
The holographic will reads in full as follows:
My Last will and Testament
In the name of God, Amen.
I Natividad K. Kalaw Filipino 63years of age,
single, and a resident of Lipa City, being of
sound and disposing mind and memory, do
hereby declare thus to be my last will and
testament.
1. It is my will that I'll be buried in the cemetery
of the catholic church of Lipa City. In accordance
with the rights of said Church, and that my
executrix hereinafter named provide and erect at
the expose of my state a suitable monument to
perpetuate my memory
xxx
It is important to note that the will as first written,
named Rosa Kalaw (a sister of Natividad) as the
sole her. Therefore, Rosa (on Nov. 10, 1971)
opposed probate. She alleges that the
holographic
will
contained
alterations,
corrections, and insertions, without the proper
authentication by the full signature of the
testator, as required by NCC 814.
The will was submitted to the NBI for
examination. NBI found that the handwriting,
signature, insertions and additions were all
made by one and the same person it was the
handwriting of Natividad.
The only issue left therefore was whether the will
should be admitted to probate although the
alterations/insertions were not authenticated by
the full signature of the testator cf. NCC 814.
Gregorio contends that Rosa is estopped to
assert NCC 814, on the ground that she was the
one who agreed to submit the will to the NBI for
examinations.

The probate court sees this as untenable, there

is no estoppel whatsoever on the part of Rosa to
assert NCC 814 when she agreed to submit the
will to the NBI.
Gregorio filed an MR, saying that the denial of
probate would be contrary to Natividads right of
testamentary disposition. Denied.
Rosa filed a petition for review on certiorari
(Note that I dont know why she was the one
who filed the certiorari, since she already won at
the lower courts. I think its to settle once and for
all the validity of the will to be admitted to
probate.)
Issue and Dispositive:
Is the will valid to be admitted in probate? No.
Ratio:
NCC 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation,
erasure or alteration in a holographic will the
testator must authenticate the same by his full
signature.
Court says:
Ordinarily, when a number of erasures,
corrections, and interlineations made by the
testator in a holographic will litem (which has)
not been noted under his signature, xxx the will
is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at
most only as respects the particular words
erased, corrected or interlined xxx
Manresa says (roughly from Google Translate):
The omission of the (signature) does not
override the will xxx
But! The general rule does not apply in the case
at bar because xxx
However, when as in this case, the holographic
will in dispute had only one substantial
provision, which was altered by substituting the
original heir with another, but which alteration
did not carry the requisite of full authentication
by the full signature of the testator, the effect
must be that the entire will is voided or revoked
for the simple reason that nothing remains in the
will after that which could remain valid. To state
that the will as first written should be given
efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of
mind of the testatrix. But that change of mind
can neither be given effect because she failed to

D 2015 | Succession | Perez | Digest by PS Magno

authenticate it in the manner required by law by
affixing her full signature xxx
Other issues:
An earlier (and contrary) ruling by the Court,
Velasco v. Lopez (1903) must be held to be
confied to such insertions, cancellations,
erasures or alterations in a holographic will,
which affect only the efficacy of the altered
words themselves but not the essence and
validity of the Will itself.
This was repeated
commentaries.

by

Manresa

in

unthinkingly make such crude alterations instead

of consulting her lawyer and writing an entirely
new holographic wig in order to avoid any
doubts as to her change of heir.
He notes that the first alteration crossing out
"sister Rosa K. Kalaw" and inserting "brother
Gregorio Kalaw" as sole heir is not even initialed
by the testatrix. Only the second alteration
crossing out "sister Rosa K. Kalaw" and
inserting "brother Gregorio Kalaw" as "sole
executrix" is initialed.

his

Concurring Opinion, Teehankee:

Rosa, having appealed (to the SC) on a sole
question of law, is bound by the trial court's
factual finding that the peculiar alterations in the
holographic will crossing out Rosa's name and
instead inserting her brother Gregorio's name as
sole heir and "sole executrix" were made by the
testatrix in her own handwriting.
Teehankee finds it peculiar that the testatrix who
was obviously an educated person would

Probate of the radically altered will replacing

Gregorio for Rosa as sole heir is properly
denied, since the same was not duly
authenticated by the full signature of the
executrix as mandatorily required by NCC 814.
Paos notes/questions:
The Court said that the will read in full as copied
above. But there was no mention of any
disposition of property, nor any mention of Rosa
or Gregorio.