MONTINOLA v HERBOSA

FACTS

Montinola filed this action against the heirs of Jose Rizal for the recovery of possession of personal property (the RIZAL RELICS) allegedly sold to him by Dona Trinidad
Rizal. The trial court held that neither party is entitled to possession of property, relying principally on the fact that in Rizal’s MI ULTIMO ADIOS, there was a stanza where
Rizal allegedly bequeathed all his property to the Filipino people: “Sintang Pilipinas, lupa kong hinirang…Huling paalam ko’t sayo’y iiwan. Ang lahat at madlang
iniwan sa buhay.” The handwritten work of Rizal to the mind of the trial court constitutes a holographic will giving to the State all his property.

ISSUE

Is Rizal’s handwritten MI ULTIMU ADIOS a holographic will therefore bequeaths to the State all his property?

HELD

No.

An instrument which merely expresses a last wish as a thought or advice but does not contain a disposition of property and was not executed with ANIMUS TESTANDI
cannot be legally considered a will.

Under the Spanish Civil Code, Art 688 requires that it 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 execution. Art. 689 requires that holographic wills be protocoled and shall be presented for this purpose
to the judge of first instance of the last domicile of the testator or to the one of the place where he died within 5 years from the day of the testator’s death. Without these
requisites, the holographic will shall not be valid.

ITC, Rizal’s MI ULTIMO ADIOS is a literary piece of work and was so intended. It may be considered a will in a grammatical sense, but not in a legal or juridical sense.
Assuming arguendo that the concerned 13th stanza in the said writing was a holographic will, the fact remains that it is still worthless for noncompliance with the mandatory
provisions of the Spanish Civil Code.