Comparative Analysis: Gan vs. Yap (August 30, 1958) vis--vis Rodelas vs.

Aranza (December 7, 1982) Though separated by decades, the decision of the Court has been coherently consistent as to the probate of a holographic will. The earlier case was cited with precision as to its application to the latter case. This wisdom ought to be emphasized so as not to lose the grasp of the essentials on this topic. The validity of the holographic will as presented by the parties has been the main issue of the abovementioned cases. On one hand Gan vs. Yap, as ruled by the Court, a holographic will cannot be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in the handwriting of the testator. On the other hand, the Court in Rodelas vs. Aranza, 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. To sum, in the probate of a holographic will, the will itself must be present. The testimony of the witnesses who have seen it would not cause the will to be probated. However, in the absence of the original, a photocopy is allowed as long as the handwritings can be compared with the standard handwriting of the testator. The wisdom of the Courts decision is elaborated in this manner. Gan vs. Yap (August 30, 1958) Facts: Fausto E. Gan initiated a petition for the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by Felicidad Esguerra. However, the will itself was not presented. Instead, the petitioner tried to establish its existence through testimonies of the witnesses who have seen it. Opposing the petition, Felicidads surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that the deceased had not left any will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime. Issue: Whether or not a holographic will be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in the handwriting of the testator? Ruling: No, it could not be probated. The only guarantee of authenticity is the handwriting itself. The loss of the holographic will entails the loss of the only medium of proof. How can the oppositors prove that such document was not in the testator's handwriting? His witnesses who know testator's handwriting have not examined it. His experts can not testify, because there is no way to compare the alleged testament with other documents admittedly, or proven to be, in the testator's hand. Whereas in the case of holographic wills, if oral testimony were admissible, only one man could engineer the fraud this way. After making a clever or passable imitation of the handwriting and signature of the deceased, he may contrive to let three honest and credible witnesses see and read the forgery; and the latter, having no interest, could easily fall for it, and in court they would in all good faith affirm its genuineness and authenticity. The will having been lost the

forger may have purposely destroyed it in an "accident" the oppositors have no way to expose the trick and the error, because the document itself is not at hand. And considering that the holographic will may consist of two or three pages, and only one of them need be signed, the substitution of the unsigned pages, which may be the most important ones, may go undetected. Rodelas vs. Aranza (December 7, 1982)
Facts: Appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla, but was opposed by appellees alleging, inter alia, that the holographic will itself, and not an alleged copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it would produce no effect. In effect, the appellees asserted that Lost or destroyed holographic wills cannot be proved by secondary evidence like that of a photostatic copy.

Issue: Whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a Photostatic copy. Ruling: 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. In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court ruled that "the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity." But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and 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.