Petitioners vs. vs. Respondent Raul S. Sison Law Office Rafael Dinglasan, Jr. Ledesma, Guytingco, Velasco Associates

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 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.
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.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; WILLS AND SUCCESSION; MANNER OF EXECUTION OF WILLS;

DEPARTURE FROM STRICT STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS; LIBERAL TREND FAVORED. —
This will not be the rst 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.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PREVAILING POLICY. — 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). If the
testator, in executing his Will, attempts to comply with all the requisites, although
compliance is not literal, it is su cient if the objective or purpose sought to be
accomplished by such requisite is actually attained by the form followed by the
testator.
3. ID.; ID.; SOLEMNITIES IN THE EXECUTION OF WILLS; PURPOSE. — 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 of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and
authenticity . . ." 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.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DATE IN A HOLOGRAPHIC WILL; WILL ALLOWED TO PROBATE
UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. — 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
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
su cient 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 in uence 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.
DECISION
GUTIERREZ, JR. , J : p
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 led 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. LLphil
Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testi ed 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. . . "
The testimony of Simeon R. Roxas was corroborated by the testimonies of Pedro
Roxas de Jesus and Manuel Roxas de Jesus who likewise testi ed 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 identi ed her signature. They
further testi ed 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.
Respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir led 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 in uence 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 led 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 complied 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."
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. cdrep
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 rst 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 Raymundo Castro v. Bustos

(27 SCRA 327) he emphasized that: LibLex
xxx xxx xxx

". . . 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
". . . 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 . . ."
(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 su cient 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 of wills and
testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity . . ."
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 su cient compliance with Article 810 of the
Civil Code. This objection is too technical to be entertained.
cdphil
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 in uence 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.

Petitioners vs. vs. Respondent Raul S. Sison Law Office Rafael Dinglasan, Jr. Ledesma, Guytingco, Velasco Associates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioners vs. vs. Respondent Raul S. Sison Law Office Rafael Dinglasan, Jr. Ledesma, Guytingco, Velasco Associates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioners vs. vs. Respondent Raul S. Sison Law Office Rafael Dinglasan, Jr. Ledesma, Guytingco, Velasco Associates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 38338. January 28, 1985.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANDRES G. DE

Raul S. Sison Law Office for petitioners.

1. CIVIL LAW; WILLS AND SUCCESSION; MANNER OF EXECUTION OF WILLS;

Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testi ed that after his appointment as administrator,

In Justice Capistrano's concurring opinion in Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos

xxx xxx xxx

Thus, the prevailing policy is to require satisfaction of the legal requirements in

In particular, a complete date is required to provide against such contingencies as that

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like