handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE
WILL OF RICARDO B. BONILLA deceased, MARCELA
RODELAS, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL., oppositors-appellees, ATTY.
LORENZO SUMULONG, intervenor.
G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982
RELOVA, J.:
FACTS: On January 11, 1977, appellant filed a petition for
the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla
and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. The
petition was opposed by the appellees Amparo Aranza
Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes Expedita Bonilla Frias
and Ephraim Bonilla on the following grounds:
tested before the probate court," Evidently, 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.
WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court dated October
3, 1979, denying appellant's motion for reconsideration
dated August 9, 1979, of the Order dated July 23, 1979,
dismissing her petition to approve the will of the late
Ricardo B. Bonilla, is hereby SET ASIDE.

(1) Appellant was estopped from claiming that the

deceased left a will by failing to produce the will within
twenty days of the death of the testator as required by
Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules of Court;

(2) The alleged copy of the alleged holographic will did

not contain a disposition of property after death and was
not intended to take effect after death, and therefore it
was not a will

(3) The alleged hollographic will itself,and not an alleged

copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it would
produce no effect, as held in Gam v. Yap, 104 Phil. 509;
and

(4 ) The deceased did not leave any will, holographic or

otherwise, executed and attested as required by law.

ISSUE: Whether a holographic will which was lost or

cannot be found can be proved by means of a photostatic
copy.

HELD: Yes. 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.
Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of
holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the court
after its due execution has been proved. 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. Even a
mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar
means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the
JOSE RIVERA
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ADELAIDO J.
RIVERA
FACTS: Was there only one Venancio Rivera in Mabalacat,
Pampanga, or were there two? (two)
Venancio Rivera was a prominent and wealthy resident of
Mabalacat, Pampanga who died on May 30, 1975.
Jose Rivera, claiming to be the only surviving legitimate
son of the deceased, filed a petition for the issuance of
letters of administration over Venancio's estate.
This was opposed by Adelaido Rivera, who denied that
Jose was the son of the decedent. Adelaido averred that
Venancio was his father and did not die intestate but in
fact left two holographic wills.
Adelaido J. Rivera also filed with the RTC of Angeles a
petition for the probate of the holographic wills. This
petition was in turn opposed by Jose Rivera, who
reiterated that he was the sole heir of Venancio's
intestate estate. The two cases were consolidated.
Jose claims that Venancio was married to his mother
Maria Vital and insists that Adelaido and his brothers and
sisters were illegitimate children sired by Venancio with
Maria Jocson.
RTC and CA favored Adelaido.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not Jose was the son of the same
Venancio Rivera. No, he was a son of a different Venancio
Rivera.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not there was a necessity of
presenting 3 witnesses required under Article 811. No.
HELD:
SC held that Venancio Rivera who married Maria Jocson
in 1942 was not the same person who married Maria
Vital, Jose's legitimate mother, in 1928.
Jose belonged to a humbler family which had no relation
whatsoever with the family of Venancio Rivera and Maria
Vital. This was more prosperous and prominent. Except
for the curious Identity of names of the head of each,
there is no evidence linking the two families or showing
that the deceased Venancio Rivera was the head of both.
For the holographic wills. The respondent court
considered them valid because it found them to have
been written, dated and signed by the testator himself in
accordance with Article 810 of the Civil Code. It also held
there was no necessity of presenting the three
witnesses required under Article 811 because the
authenticity of the wills had not been questioned.
The existence and therefore also the authenticity of the
holographic wills were questioned by Jose Rivera. In both
proceedings, Jose Rivera opposed the holographic wills
submitted by Adelaido Rivera and claimed that they were
spurious. Consequently, it may be argued, the
respondent court should have applied Article 811 of the
Civil Code, providing as follows:
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.
The flaw in this argument is that, as we have already
determined, Jose Rivera is not the son of the deceased
Venancio Rivera whose estate is in question. Hence,
being a mere stranger, he had no personality to contest
the wills and his opposition thereto did not have the legal
effect of requiring the three witnesses. The testimony of
Zenaida and Venancio Rivera, Jr., who authenticated the
wills as having been written and signed by their father,
was sufficient.
ROSA K. KALAW, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN RELOVA, Presiding Judge of the
CFI of Batangas, Branch VI, Lipa City, and GREGORIO K.
KALAW, respondents.
G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
FACTS: On September 1, 1971, private respondent
Gregorio K. Kalaw, claiming to be the sole heir of his
deceased sister, Natividad K. Kalaw, filed a petition for
probate of her holographic will executed on December
24, 1968.
The holographic will, as first written, named Rosa K.
Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix as her sole heir. Hence,
petitioner Rosa K. Kalaw opposed probate alleging that
the holographic will contained alterations, corrections,
insertions without the proper authentication by the full
signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the
Civil Code.
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 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 authenticate it in
the manner required by law by affixing her full signature.
Petition dismissed. Assailed decision affirmed.

Rosa‘s position was that the holographic will, as first

written, should be given effect and probated so that she
could be the sole heir.

The trial court denied probate. The court adjudged based

on the NBI report that the handwriting, the signature,
the insertions and/or additions and the initial were made
by one and the same person. It was the handwriting of
the decedent. However, since the alterations and/or
insertions or additions were not authenticated by the full
signature of the testatrix based on Article 814 of the Civil
Code, the court denied the will to be probated.

Gregorio moved for reconsideration but the same was

denied. Hence, Rosa filed a petition for review on
certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the original unaltered text after

subsequent alterations and insertions were voided by
the Trial Court for lack of authentication by the full
signature of the testatrix, should be probated or not,
with her as sole heir.

HELD:
NO. Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections,
and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic
will have not been noted under his signature, the will is
not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as
respects the particular words erased, corrected or
interlined.