GR L-38338

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. 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.
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.
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 Win 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-win 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 win which I want to be respected although 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 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.
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 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 Win the "year,
month, and day of its execution," the present Civil Code omitted the phrase Ao 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 wigs 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 sufficien 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 modem 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:
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 Win 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 wilt 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 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. Abanga 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 Wins 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.

GR L-38338

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR L-38338

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

GR L-38338

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-38338 January 28, 1985

You might also like