You are here: Home ∼ 2013 ∼ July ∼ Case Digest: Ajero v.

CA (236 SCRA 488)

CASE DIGEST: AJERO V. CA (236 SCRA

488)
Published by paul on July 2, 2013 | Leave a response

Ajero v. CA
236 SCRA 488

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 he 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.
CASE DIGEST: KALAW V. RELOVA (132
SCRA 237)
Kalaw v. Relova
132 SCRA 237

FACTS:

On September 1, 1971,Gregorio Kalaw, claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased sister,
Natividad Kalaw, filed a petition for the probate of her holographic Will executed on
December 24, 1968.

The holographic Will, as first written, named Rosa Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix as her
sole heir. She opposed probate alleging that the holographic Will contained alterations,
corrections, and insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature of the
testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code reading: Art. 814. In case of any
insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will the testator must
authenticate the same by his full signature.

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 thereunder.

Trial Court denied petition to probate the holographic will. Reconsideration denied.

ISSUE:

W/N 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 Rosa as sole heir.

HELD:

Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the

testator in a holographic Will litem 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.

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
authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature,
 The ruling in Velasco, supra, must be held confined 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. As it is,
with the erasures, cancellations and alterations made by the testatrix herein, her
real intention cannot be determined with certitude.

Vda. De Perez vs. Tolete

on 7:04 AM in Case Digests, Civil Law, Private International Law
0

G.R. No. 76714, June 2, 1994

o PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: Extrinsic Validity of Wills of Non-Resident Aliens

o PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: Reprobate of Foreign Wills: Requirement of Notices

FACTS:

Dr. Jose Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who became American
citizens and residents of New York, each executed a will also in New York, containing
provisions on presumption of survivorship (in the event that it is not known which one of
the spouses died first, the husband shall be presumed to have predeceased his wife).
Later, the entire family perished in a fire that gutted their home. Thus, Rafael, who was
named trustee in Jose’s will, filed for separate probate proceedings of the wills.

Later, Evelyn’s mother, Salud Perez, filed a petition for reprobate in Bulacan. Rafael
opposed, arguing that Salud was not an heir according to New York law. He contended
that since the wills were executed in New York, New York law should govern. He further
argued that, by New York law, he and his brothers and sisters were Jose’s heirs and as
such entitled to notice of the reprobate proceedings, which Salud failed to give.

For her part, Salud said she was the sole heir of her daughter, Evelyn, and that the two
wills were in accordance with New York law. But before she could present evidence to
prove the law of New York, the reprobate court already issued an order, disallowing the
wills.

ISSUE: Whether or not the reprobate of the wills should be allowed

HELD:
Extrinsic Validity of Wills of Non-Resident Aliens

The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were American citizens, will only be
effective in this country upon compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of
the Philippines:

Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made
with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according
to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code
prescribes.

Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities prescribed by New York laws or
by Philippine laws is imperative.

Evidence for Reprobate of Wills Probated outside the Philippines

The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have been
probated outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in
accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his domicile in the foreign country
and not in the Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted to probate in such country; (4)
the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws of a foreign country
on procedure and allowance of wills (III Moran Commentaries on the Rules of Court,
1970 ed., pp. 419-429; Suntay v. Suntay, 95 Phil. 500 [1954]; Fluemer v. Hix, 54 Phil.
610 [1930]). Except for the first and last requirements, the petitioner submitted all the
needed evidence.

The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the probate in the
foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice
of them.

On Lack of Notice to Jose’s Heirs

This petition cannot be completely resolved without touching on a very glaring fact -
petitioner has always considered herself the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn Perez Cunanan and
because she does not consider herself an heir of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, she noticeably
failed to notify his heirs of the filing of the proceedings. Thus, even in the instant
petition, she only impleaded respondent Judge, forgetting that a judge whose order is
being assailed is merely a nominal or formal party (Calderon v. Solicitor General, 215
SCRA 876 [1992]).

The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall "cause notice
thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance" (Revised
Rules of Court, Rule 27, Section 2) means that with regard to notices, the will probated
abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will" or a will that is presented for
probate for the first time. Accordingly, compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76,
which require publication and notice by mail or personally to the "known heirs, legatees,
and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines" and to the executor, if he is not
the petitioner, are required.

The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to petitioner's claim, are
entitled to notices of the time and place for proving the wills. Under Section 4 of Rule 76
of the Revised Rules of Court, the "court shall also cause copies of the notice of the
time and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the designated or other
known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator, . . . "

WHEREFORE, the questioned Order is SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge shall allow
petitioner reasonable time within which to submit evidence needed for the joint probate
of the wills of the Cunanan spouses and see to it that the brothers and sisters of Dr.
Jose F. Cunanan are given all notices and copies of all pleadings pertinent to the
probate proceedings.

SO ORDERED.