VOL.

134, JANUARY 28, 1985 245

Roxas vs. De Jesus, Jr.

*
No. L-38338. January 28, 1985.

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF

ANDRES G. DE JESUS AND BIBIANA ROXAS DE
JESUS, SIMEON R. ROXAS & PEDRO ROXAS DE
JESUS, petitioners, vs. ANDRES R. DE JESUS, JR.,
respondent

Civil Law; Wills; Execution of Wills; Purpose of liberal trend

of the Civil Code in the manner of execution of wills in case of
doubt is to prevent intestacy.—This will not be the first time that
this Court departs from a strict and literal application of the
statutory requirements regarding the due execution of Wills. We
should not overlook the liberal trend of the Civil Code in the
manner of execution of Wills, the purpose of which, in case of
doubt is to prevent intestacy.

Same; Same; Same; Admission to probate of the will which

has been executed in substantial compliance with the formalities of
the law, and the possibility of bad faith and fraud is obviated.—
Thus, the prevailing policy is to require satisfaction of the legal
requirements in order to guard against fraud and bad faith but
without undue or unnecessary curtailment of testamentary
privilege (Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422). If a Will has been
executed in substantial compliance with the formalities of the
law, and the possibility of bad faith and fraud in the exercise
thereof is obviated, said Will should be admitted to probate (Rey
v. Cartagena, 56 Phil. 282).

Same; Same; Same; Purpose of the solemnities surrounding

the execution of wills.—The purpose of the solemnities
surrounding the

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

246
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roxas vs. De Jesus, Jr.

execution of Wills has been expounded by this Court in Abangan

v. Abangan, 40 Phil. 476) where we ruled that: “The object of the
solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door
against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. x x x”

Same; Same; Same; Holographic Will; Absence of evidence of

bad faith and fraud in the execution of a holographic will and
absence of any substitution of wills and testaments; Finding that
the will was entirely written, dated and signed and no question of
its genuineness and due execution, correct.—We have carefully
reviewed the records of this case and found no evidence of bad
faith and fraud in its execution nor was there any substitution of
Wills and Testaments. There is no question that the holographic
Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus was entirely written,
dated, and signed by the testatrix herself and in a language
known to her. There is also no question as to its genuineness and
due execution. All the children of the testatrix agree on the
genuineness of the holographic Will of their mother and that she
had the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of said
Will.

Same; Same; Same; General rule that the date in a

holographic will should include the day, month and year of
execution; Exception, is the absence of appearance of fraud, bad
faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the
will; Date “Feb./61” appearing in a holographic will, valid, under
the principle of substantial compliance.—As a general rule, the
“date” in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and
year of its execution. However, when as in the case at bar, there is
no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure
and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue
is whether or not the date “FEB./61” appearing on the holographic
Will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code,
probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the
principle of substantial compliance.

PETITION for certiorari to review the order of the Court of

First Instance of Manila, Br. XXI. Colayco, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Raul S. Sison Law Office for petitioners.
     Rafael Dinglasan, Jr. for heir M. Roxas.
          Ledesma, Guytingco, Velasco and Associates for
Ledesa and A. R. de Jesus.
247
 VOL. 134, JANUARY 28, 1985 247
Roxas vs. De Jesus, Jr.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order of

respondent Hon. Jose C. Colayco, Presiding Judge Court of
First Instance of Manila, Branch XXI disallowing the
probate of the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana
Roxas de Jesus.
The antecedent facts which led to the filing of this
petition are undisputed.
After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and
Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, Special Proceeding No. 81503
entitled “In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G.
de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus” was filed by
petitioner Simeon R. Roxas, the brother of the deceased
Bibiana Roxas de Jesus.
On March 26, 1973, petitioner Simeon R. Roxas was
appointed administrator. After Letters of Administration
had been granted to the petitioner, he delivered to the
lower court a document purporting to be the holographic
Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus.
On May 26, 1973, respondent Judge Jose Colayco set the
hearing of the probate of the holographic Will on July 21,
1973.
Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testified that after his
appointment as administrator, he found a notebook
belonging to the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus and that on
pages 21, 22, 23 and 24 thereof, a letter-will addressed to
her children and entirely written and signed in the
handwriting of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was
found. The will is dated “FEB./61” and states: “This is my
will which I want to be respected altho it is not written by a
lawyer. x x x”
The testimony of Simeon R. Roxas was corroborated by
the testimonies of Pedro Roxas de Jesus and Manuel Roxas
de Jesus who likewise testified that the letter dated
“FEB./61” is the holographic Will of their deceased mother,
Bibiana R. de Jesus. Both recognized the handwriting of
their mother and positively identified her signature. They
further testified that their deceased mother understood
English, the language in which the holographic Will is
written, and that the date “FEB./61” was the date when
said Will was executed by their mother.
248

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roxas vs. De Jesus, Jr.
Respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir filed
an “opposition to probate” assailing the purported
holographic Will of Bibiana R. de Jesus because—(a) it was
not executed in accordance with law, (b) it was executed
through force, intimidation and/or under duress, undue
influence and improper pressure, and (c) the alleged
testatrix acted by mistake and/or did not intend, nor could
have intended the said Will to be her last Will and
testament at the time of its execution.
On August 24, 1973, respondent Judge Jose C. Colayco
issued an order allowing the probate of the holographic
Will which he found to have been duly executed in
accordance with law.
Respondent Luz Roxas de Jesus filed a motion for
reconsideration alleging inter alia that the alleged
holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was
not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code. She
contends that the law requires that the Will should contain
the day, month, and year of its execution and that this
should be strictly compiled with.
On December 10, 1973, respondent Judge Colayco
reconsidered his earlier order and disallowed the probate of
the holographic Will on the ground that the word “dated”
has generally been held to include the month, day, and
year. The dispositive portion of the order reads:

“WHEREFORE, the document purporting to be the holographic

Will of Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, is hereby disallowed for not
having been executed as required by the law. The order of August
24, 1973 is hereby set aside.”

The only issue is whether or not the date “FEB./61”

appearing on the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana
Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of
the Civil Code which reads:

ART. 810. A person may execute a holographic will which must be

entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator
himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out
of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.”

249

VOL. 134, JANUARY 28, 1985 249

Roxas vs. De Jesus, Jr.

The petitioners contend that while Article 685 of the

Spanish Civil Code and Article 688 of the Old Civil Code
require the testator to state in his holographic Will the
“year, month, and day of its execution,” the present Civil
Code omitted the phrase “Año, mes y dia” and simply
requires that the holographic Will should be dated. The
petitioners submit that the liberal construction of the
holographic Will should prevail.
Respondent Luz Henson on the other hand submits that
the purported holographic Will is void for non-compliance
with Article 810 of the New Civil Code in that the date
must contain the year, month, and day of its execution. The
respondent contends that Article 810 of the Civil Code was
patterned after Section 1277 of the California Code and
Section 1588 of the Louisiana Code whose Supreme Courts
had consistently ruled that the required date includes the
year, month, and day, and that if any of these is wanting,
the holographic Will is invalid. The respondent further
contends that the petitioner cannot plead liberal
construction of Article 810 of the Civil Code because
statutes prescribing the formalities to be observed in the
execution of holographic Wills are strictly construed.
We agree with the petitioner.
This will not be the first time that this Court departs
from a strict and literal application of the statutory
requirements regarding the due execution of Wills. We
should not overlook the liberal trend of the Civil Code in
the manner of execution of Wills, the purpose of which, in
case of doubt is to prevent intestacy—

“The underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the

provisions of the law on wills in this Project consists in the
liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in
view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last
wishes, but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent
the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper
pressure and influence upon the testator.
“This objective is in accord with the modern tendency with
respect to the formalities in the execution of wills.” (Report of the
Code Commission, p. 103)

In Justice Capistrano’s concurring opinion in Heirs of

250

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roxas vs. De Jesus, Jr.

Raymundo Castro v. Bustos (27 SCRA 327) he emphasized

that:

xxx      xxx      xxx “x x x The law has a tender regard for the will
of the testator expressed in his last will and testament on the
ground that any disposition made by the testator is better than
that which the law can make. For this reason, intestate
succession is nothing more than a disposition based upon the
presumed will of the decedent.”
Thus, the prevailing policy is to require satisfaction of the
legal requirements in order to guard against fraud and bad
faith but without undue or unnecessary curtailment of
testamentary privilege (Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422).
If a Will has been executed in substantial compliance with
the formalities of the law, and the possibility of bad faith
and fraud in the exercise thereof is obviated, said Will
should be admitted to probate (Rey v. Cartagena, 56 Phil.
282). Thus,

xxx      xxx      xxx

“x x x More than anything else, the facts and circumstances of
record are to be considered in the application of any given rule. If
the surrounding circumstances point to a regular execution of the
will, and the instrument appears to have been executed
substantially in accordance with the requirements of the law, the
inclination should, in the absence of any suggestion of bad faith,
forgery or fraud, lean towards its admission to probate, although
the document may suffer from some imperfection of language, or
other non-essential defect. x x x” (Leynez v. Leynez, 68 Phil. 745).

If the testator, in executing his Will, attempts to comply

with all the requisites, although compliance is not literal, it
is sufficient if the objective or purpose sought to be
accomplished by such requisite is actually attained by the
form followed by the testator.
The purpose of the solemnities surrounding the
execution of Wills has been expounded by this Court in
Abangan v. Abangan, 40 Phil. 476, where we ruled that:

“The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is

to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution

251

VOL. 134, JANUARY 28, 1985 251

Roxas vs. De Jesus, Jr.

of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and

authenticity. x x x”

In particular, a complete date is required to provide against

such contingencies as that of two competing Wills executed
on the same day, or of a testator becoming insane on the
day on which a Will was executed (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil.
720). There is no such contingency in this case.
We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and
found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution
nor was there any substitution of Wills and Testaments.
There is no question that the holographic Will of the
deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus was entirely written,
dated, and signed by the testatrix herself and in a language
known to her. There is also no question as to its
genuineness and due execution. All the children of the
testatrix agree on the genuineness of the holographic Will
of their mother and that she had the testamentary capacity
at the time of the execution of said Will. The objection
interposed by the oppositor-respondent Luz Henson is that
the holographic Will is fatally defective because the date
“FEB./61” appearing on the holographic Will is not
sufficient compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code.
This objection is too technical to be entertained.
As a general rule, the “date” in a holographic Will should
include the day, month, and year of its execution. However,
when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud,
bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the
authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is
whether or not the date “FEB./61” appearing on the
holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of
the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be
allowed under the principle of substantial compliance.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
order appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
the order allowing the probate of the holographic Will of
the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is reinstated.
SO ORDERED.

          Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana,

Relova and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

252

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bulacan vs. Torcino

Petition granted. Order reversed and set aside.

Notes.—The intention and wishes of the testator, when

clearly expressed in his will, constitute the fixed law of
interpretation, and all questions raised at the trial, relative
to its execution and fulfillment, must be settled in
accordance therewith, following the plain and literal
meaning of the testator’s words, unless it clearly appears
that his intention was otherwise. (Vda. de Villanueva vs.
Juico, 4 SCRA 550.)
Where a will does not comply with the requirement
contained in Article 806 of the New Civil Code, it is obvious
that the same may not be probated. (Garcia vs. Gatchalian,
21 SCRA 1056.)

——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.