Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Labrador Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    daniel
    The deceased, Melecio Labrador, left behind a holographic will partitioning land among his nine heirs. Two heirs contested the will's validity, claiming Melecio had sold the land to them before death. The trial court allowed probate but the Court of Appeals denied it for lacking a date. However, the Supreme Court ruled the will was properly dated based on a mention of "March 17, 1968" in the second page. As the date need not be in a specific location and this will met requirements of being handwritten and dated by the testator, the probate was allowed to proceed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Labrador Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    daniel
    1K views1 page
    The deceased, Melecio Labrador, left behind a holographic will partitioning land among his nine heirs. Two heirs contested the will's validity, claiming Melecio had sold the land to them before death. The trial court allowed probate but the Court of Appeals denied it for lacking a date. However, the Supreme Court ruled the will was properly dated based on a mention of "March 17, 1968" in the second page. As the date need not be in a specific location and this will met requirements of being handwritten and dated by the testator, the probate was allowed to proceed.

    Original Description:

    Labrador v. CA | 184 SCRA 170 (1990) case digest

    Original Title

    Labrador vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The deceased, Melecio Labrador, left behind a holographic will partitioning land among his nine heirs. Two heirs contested the will's validity, claiming Melecio had sold the land to them before death. The trial court allowed probate but the Court of Appeals denied it for lacking a date. However, the Supreme Court ruled the will was properly dated based on a mention of "March 17, 1968" in the second page. As the date need not be in a specific location and this will met requirements of being handwritten and dated by the testator, the probate was allowed to proceed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Labrador Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    daniel
    The deceased, Melecio Labrador, left behind a holographic will partitioning land among his nine heirs. Two heirs contested the will's validity, claiming Melecio had sold the land to them before death. The trial court allowed probate but the Court of Appeals denied it for lacking a date. However, the Supreme Court ruled the will was properly dated based on a mention of "March 17, 1968" in the second page. As the date need not be in a specific location and this will met requirements of being handwritten and dated by the testator, the probate was allowed to proceed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    1. Labrador v.

    CA | 184 SCRA 170 (1990)


    SCRA:
    Wills; Date of holographic will can be placed in the main body thereof.—The will has been dated in the
    hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810. It is worthy of note to quote the first
    paragraph of the second page of the holographic will, viz: “And this is the day in which we agreed that we
    are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said fishpond, and this being in
    the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to
    be followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father.” (italics
    supplied) (p. 46, Rollo) The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in
    the will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.
    These requirements are present in the subject will.

    Same; Words & Phrases; Intention to execute a will, not a partition agreement plain from the words of the
    holographic will at bar.—Respondents are in error. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the
    execution of the will is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by
    petitioner, the will was not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that
    what he was executing was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning was the
    testator’s instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of the nature
    of the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means to control
    the disposition of his estate.

    FACTS:
    The deceased, Melecio Labrador, left behind him a parcel of land which was partitioned among his
    nine heirs through a holographic will.
    Sagrado, therefore, one of his heirs, filed a petition for the probate of the alleged holographic will
    of the late Melecio Labrador.
    However, Jesus and Gaudencio, also heirs of the deceased, filed an opposition to the petition on
    the ground that the will has been extinguished or revoked by implication of law alleging therein that before
    Melecio’s death, he executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and conveying in favor of Jesus
    and Gaudencio the parcel of land.
    The trial court allowed the probate of the holographic will and declared null and void the Deed of
    Sale. Jesu and Gaudencio and appealed to the Court of Appeals which modified the decision of the trial
    court. It denied the allowance of the probate of the will for being undated.
    The aggrieved party, therefore, filed a petition to the Supreme Court alleging among others that the
    CA erred in not allowing the probate proceeding withstanding the fact that in the first paragraph of the
    second page of the alleged holographic will, which was written in Ilocano, the testator made mention a date
    – “month of March, 17th, 1968.
    ISSUE: Whether the holographic will is dated
    HELD:
    The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
    The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The
    only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.
    The intention to show March 17 1968 as the date of the execution is plain from the tenor of the
    succeeding words of the paragraph. It states that “this being in the month of March 17th day, in the year
    1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who made this
    writing is no other than Melecio Labrador, their father.” This clearly shows that this is a unilateral act of
    Melecio who plainly knew that he was executing a will. These requirements are present in the subject will.
    Hence, the probate proceeding should be allowed.

    You might also like