IX.

Republication and Revival of Wills - NCC 835-837:

SUBSECTION 7. - Republication and Revival of Wills

Art. 835. The testator cannot republish, without reproducing in a subsequent will, the
dispositions contained in a previous one which is void as to its form.

Art. 836. The execution of a codicil referring to a previous will has the effect of republishing
the will as modified by the codicil.

Art. 837. If after making a will, the testator makes a second will expressly revoking the first,
the revocation of the second will does not revive the first will, which can be revived only by
another will or codicil.

X. Allowance of Wills, NCC 838:

SUBSECTION 8. - Allowance and Disallowance of Wills;

Art. 838. No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court having jurisdiction for the
allowance of his will. In such case, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court for the
allowance of wills after the testator's a death shall govern.

The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional Rules of Court as may be necessary for
the allowance of wills on petition of the testator.

Subject to the right of appeal, the allowance of the will, either during the lifetime of the
testator or after his death, shall be conclusive as to its due execution.

A. Concept of Probate;

Cases:

Guevarra vs. Guevarra, GR L48840, Dec 29 1943;

De La Cerna vs. Potot, GR L-20234, Dec 23 1964;

Gallamosa vs. Arcangel, 83 SCRA 676;

Nepumuceno vs. CA, 139 SCRA 206;

Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez, GR 175720, Sept 11 2007;

Heirs of Lasam vs. Umengan, GR 168156, Dec. 6 2006;

Dorotheo vs. CA, GR 108581, Dec. 8, 1999;

Pastor, Jr. vs. CA, GR L-56340, June 24, 1983;

Jimenez vs. IAC, GR L-75773, April 17, 1990;

Agtarap vs. Agtarap, GR 177099, June 8, 2011;

Maninang vs. CA, GR L-57848, June 19, 1982;

B. Necessity of Probate;

Cases:

De Borja vs. De Borja, 46 SCRA 577;

Roberts vs. Leonides, 129 SCRA 33;

Guevarra vs. Guevarra, GR L-48840, Dec. 29, 1943;

Palaganas vs. Palaganas, GR 169144, Jan. 26, 2011;

C. Modes of Probate;

Cases:

Gan vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509;

Rodelas vs. Aranza, 119 SCRA 16;

D. Requirements for Probate of Holographic Will, NCC 811;

Art. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, 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 of
such witnesses shall be required.

In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the
court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.

Cases:

Azaola vs. Singson, 109 Phil. 102;

Codoy vs. Calugay, 312 SCRA 333;

E. Effect of Allowance of Wills;

Case:

Gallanosa vs. Arcangel, 83 SCRA 676;

XI. Disallowance of Wills, NCC 839, 1335, 1337 & 1338;

Art. 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:

(1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;

(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the
time of its execution;

(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or
threats;

(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of
the beneficiary or of some other person;

(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;

(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed
should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto.

Art. 1335. There is violence when in order to wrest consent, serious or irresistible force is
employed.

There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and
well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the
person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his consent.

To determine the degree of intimidation, the age, sex and condition of the person shall be
borne in mind.

A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does
not vitiate consent.

Art. 1337. There is undue influence when a person takes improper advantage of his power
over the will of another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice. The following
circumstances shall be considered: the confidential, family, spiritual and other relations
between the parties, or the fact that the person alleged to have been unduly influenced was
suffering from mental weakness, or was ignorant or in financial distress.
Art. 1338. There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the
contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he
would not have agreed to.

Cases:

Baltazar vs. Laxa, GR 174489, April 11, 2012;

Pascual vs. De La Cruz, 28 SCRA 421;

Ozaeta vs. Cuartero, GR L-5597, May 31, 1956;

Coso vs. Fernandez Deza, GR L-1663, Dec. 22, 1921;

Ortega vs. Valmonte, GR 157451, Dec. 16, 2005;