Case Digest

The Case. - SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, respondents., 236 SCRA 488, G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994

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 formalitiesprescribed 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. - (1) 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 dispositionscannot 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.

Doctrines learned. – (1) Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court provides the cases
in which wills shall be disallowed. In the same vein, Article 839 of the New Civil Code enumerates
the grounds for disallowance of wills. These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to
disallow a will. Thus, in a petition to admit a holographic will to probate, 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.

(2) 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.

(3) Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a
holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator.

(4) The requirement of Article 813 of the New Civil Code affects the validity of the
dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate.

(5) Unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions do not invalidate a

holographic will, unless they were made on the date or on testator’s signature.

(6) It is also proper to note that the requirements of authentication of changes and
signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and 814) separate from that
which provides for the necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810).
The distinction can be traced to Articles 678 and 688 of the Spanish Civil Code, from which the
present provisions covering holographic wills are taken. This separation and distinction adds
support to the interpretation that only the requirements of Article 810 of the New Civil Code—
and not those found in Article 813 and 814 of the same Code—are essential to the probate of a
holographic will.

(7) While courts in probate proceedings are generally limited to pass only upon the
extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated, in exceptional cases, courts are not powerless
to do what the situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the will.