Labrador v.

CA
G.R. Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990

Facts: On June 10, 1972, Melecio Labrador died in the Municipality of Iba,
province of Zambales, leaving a parcel of land to his heirs. However, during
probate proceedings, Jesus and Gaudencio filed an opposition on the ground
that the will has been extinguished by implication of law alleging that before
Melecio’s death, the land was sold to them evidenced by TCT No. 21178.
Jesus eventually sold it to Navat.
Trial court admitted the will to probate and declared the TCT null and void.
However, the CA on appeal denied probate on the ground that it was
undated.

Issue: Whether the alleged holographic will is dated, as provided for in

Article 810 of CC.

Held: YES. The law does not specify a particular location where the date
should be placed in the will. The only requirements are that the date be in
the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.

The intention to show March 17 1968 as the date of the execution is plain
from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. It states that “this
being in the month of March 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision
and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who
made this writing is no other than Melecio Labrador, their father.” This clearly
shows that this is a unilateral act of Melecio who plainly knew that he was
executing a will.

The will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect
compliance with Article 810.

Ajero v. CA
 G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994

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 the 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.