DY YIENG SEANGIO, BARBARA D. SEANGIO and VIRGINIA D.

SEANGIO, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. AMOR A. REYES, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch
21, Manila, ALFREDO D. SEANGIO, ALBERTO D. SEANGIO, ELISA D. SEANGIO-SANTOS, VICTOR D. SEANGIO, ALFONSO
D. SEANGIO, SHIRLEY D. SEANGIO-LIM, BETTY D. SEANGIO-OBAS and JAMES D. SEANGIO, Respondents

DOCTRINE: The requirement under Art 810 that the holographic will must be ENTIRELY written,dated and signed by the
hand of the testator itself is the only requirement for the extrinsic validity of the holographic will.

FACTS: Private respondents filed the settlement of intestate of the late Segundo Seangio and praying for the
appointment of private respondent to be guardian adlitem of Dy Yieng Seangio, however the petitioner here
opposed the said petition contending among others that the estate of late Segundo Seangio should not be probated
as intestate since he had left a holographic will. Petitioner now filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will,
upon motion of the petitioner the testate and intestate proceeding were consolidated. A motion to dismiss was filed
by the public respondent contending that the said holographic will was null and void for the ground that the said will
did not dispose the properties of Segundo Seangio instead it only disinherited Alfredo Seangio. The motion was
sustained by the RTC. Directly to the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari was filed.

ISSUE: Whether the purported holographic will is valid even it does not dispose the property of the estate of late
Segundo Seangio

HELD: There was a disposition of property by disinheritance of Alfredo Seangio and the heirs shall share equally to
the estate of the deceased.

A holographic will, as provided under Article 810 of the Civil Code, 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.

Segundo’s document, although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the
formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An
intent to dispose mortis causa[9] can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not
make an affirmative disposition of the latter’s property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of
disposition in itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator
Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.10

Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the testator, expressed in the form and within the
limits prescribed by law, must be recognized as the supreme law in succession. All rules of construction are
designed to ascertain and give effect to that intention. It is only when the intention of the testator is contrary to law,
morals, or public policy that it cannot be given effect.11

Holographic wills, therefore, being usually prepared by one who is not learned in the law, as illustrated in the present
case, should be construed more liberally than the ones drawn by an expert, taking into account the circumstances
surrounding the execution of the instrument and the intention of the testator.12 In this regard, the Court is convinced
that the document, even if captioned as Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, was intended by Segundo to be his last
testamentary act and was executed by him in accordance with law in the form of a holographic will. Unless the will is
probated,13 the disinheritance cannot be given effect.

Respondent judge is directed to reinstate and hear SP Proc. No. 99-93396 for the allowance of the holographic will
of Segundo Seangio.
 Estate of the deceased Paulino Diancin. TEOPISTA DOLAR, proponent-appellant,
vs.
FIDEL DIANCIN, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.

DORCTRINE: The requirement of the law about the signature is taken from the word signum it means mark hence
any mark including the thumbmark of the deceased as long as intended by the deceased to use it as a signature
conforms to the requirement of the law.

FACTS: The will of the deceased Paulino Diancin was denied probate in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on the
sole ground that the thumbmarks appearing thereon were not the thumbmarks of the testator. Disregarding the other
errors assigned by the proponent of the will, we would direct attention to the third error which challenges squarely
the correctness of this finding.

The will in question is alleged to have been executed by Paulino Diancin at Dumangas, Iloilo, on November 13,
1927. A thumbmark appears at the end of the will and on the left hand margin of each of its pages in the following
manner: "Paulino Diancin, Su Signo, Por Pedro Diamante." The witnesses to the will were the same Pedro
Diamante, Inocentes Deocampo, and Juan Dominado. The will is detailed in nature, and disposes of an estate
amounting approximately to P50,000.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE WILL IS VALID BY PUTTING OF THUMBMARK OF THE DECEASED INSTEAD OF
SIGNATURE.

HELD: YES. The requirement of the statute that the will shall be "signed" is satisfied not only the customary written
signature but also by the testator's or testatrix' thumbmark .Expert testimony as to the identity of thumbmarks or
fingerprints is of course admissible. The method of identification of fingerprints is a science requiring close study
.Where thumb impressions are blurred and many of the characteristic marks far from clear, thus rendering it difficult
to trace the features enumerated by experts as showing the identity or lack of identity of the impressions, the court is
justified in refusing to accept the opinions of alleged experts and in substituting its own opinion that a distinct
similarity in some respects between the admittedly genuine thumbmark and the questioned thumbmarks, is evident
.This we do here. (Emperor vs. Abdul Hamid [1905], 32 Indian L. Rep., 759, cited in 3 Chamberlayne on the Modern
Law of Evidence, sec. 2561, notes 3.)

There is another means of approach to the question and an obvious one. The three instrumental witnesses united in
testifying concerning the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. It was stated that in addition to the
testator and themselves, on other person, Diosdado Dominado, was present. This latter individual was called as a
witness by the oppositors to the will to identify Exhibit 8. He was later placed on the witness stand by the proponent
on rebuttal, and thereupon declared positively that he was the one who prepared the will for the signature of Paulino
Diancin; that the thumbmarks appearing on the will were those of Paulino Diancin, and that he saw Paulino Diancin
make these impressions. The testimony of a witness called by both parties is worthy of credit.

We reach the very definite conclusion that the document presented for probate as the last will of the deceased
Paulino Diancin was, in truth, his will, and that the thumbmarks appearing thereon were the thumbmarks of the
testator .Accordingly, error is found, which means that the judgment appealed from must be, as it is hereby,
reversed, and the will ordered admitted to probate, without special finding as to costs in this instance.
 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RICARDO B. BONILLA, deceased,
MARCELA RODELAS, petitioner-appellant, vs. AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL., oppositors-appellees, ATTY.
LORENZO SUMULONG, intervenor

DOCTRINE: The will may be probated even the absence of the original copy as long as the judge can differentiate
the difference of the handwriting of the purported will and the handwriting of the testator.

FACTS: appellant filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the probate of the holographic will of
Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. It| was opposed by the appellees Amparo
Aranza Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes Expedita Bonilla Frias and Ephraim Bonilla among the grounds raised is
that the purported holographic will must be presented otherwise it would produce no effect. The CFI of Rizal ruled
denying the motion but upon motion for reconsideration of the oppositors, the court overturned their decision. An
appeal was made to the Court of appeals which affirmed the decision of the CFI, Hence the present petition for
review on certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether the will may be probated even the absence of the original copy of will

HELD: YES. The only question here is whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved
by means of a photostatic copy. Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is the
allowance of the will by the court after its due execution has been proved. The probate may be uncontested or not. If
uncontested, at least one Identifying witness is required and, if no witness is available, experts may be resorted to. If
contested, at least three Identifying witnesses are required. However, if the holographic will has been lost or
destroyed and no other copy is available, the will can not be probated because the best and only evidence is the
handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten
statements of the testator and the handwritten will. But, 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.
 NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO, MAXIMINO P. NAZARENO, JR., petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, ESTATE OF MAXIMINO A. NAZARENO, SR., ROMEO P. NAZARENO and ELIZA
NAZARENO, respondents.
DOCTRINE: The administrator may initiate annulment of sale in behalf of the estate. * Not sure kung tama yung
binigay ni Atty. HAHAH
FACTS: Maximino Nazareno, Sr. and Aurea Poblete were husband and wife. Aurea died on April 15, 1970, while
Maximino, Sr. died on December 18, 1980. They had five children, namely, Natividad, Romeo, Jose, Pacifico, and
Maximino, Jr. Natividad and Maximino, Jr. are petitioners in this case, while the estate of Maximino, Sr., Romeo,
and his wife Eliza Nazareno are the respondents. After the death of Maximino, Sr., Romeo filed an intestate case
and was appointed administrator of his father's estate.

In the course of the intestate proceedings, Romeo discovered that his parents had executed several deeds of sale
conveying a number of real properties in favor of his sister, Natividad.

One of the deeds involved six lots in Quezon City which were allegedly sold by Maximino, Sr., with the consent of
Aurea, to Natividad on January 29, 1970. By virtue of these deeds, TCTs were issued to Natividad for lots 3-B,
3,10, 11, 13 & 14.
Unknown to Romeo, Natividad sold Lot 3-B, w/c had been occupied by Romeo, his wife, & Maximino, Jr., to
Maximino, Jr.

Romeo filed the present case for annulment of sale with damages against Natividad & Maximino Jr. on the ground
that both sales were void for lack of consideration. Romeo presented the Deed of Partition & Distribution executed
by Maximino Sr. & Aurea in 1962 & duly signed by all of their children, except Jose, who was then abroad.
However, this deed was not carried out.

In 1969, their parents instead offered to sell to them the lots. He testified that, although the deeds of sale executed
by his parents in their favor stated that the sale was for a consideration, they never really paid any amount for the
supposed sale. The transfer was made in this manner in order to avoid the payment of inheritance taxes. Allegedly,
it was only Natividad who bought the lots in question because she was the only one financially able to do so. The
trial court rendered a decision declaring the nullity of the Deed of Sale dated January 29, 1970, except as to Lots 3,
3-B, 13 and 14 which had passed on to third persons. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the trial
court was modified in the sense that titles to Lot 3 (in the name of Romeo Nazareno) and Lot 3-B (in the name of
Maximino Nazareno, Jr.), as well as to Lots 10 and 11 were cancelled and ordered restored to the estate of
Maximino Nazareno, Sr. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: Whether it was the intention of Maximino, Sr. to give the subject lots to Natividad

Held: YES. It cannot be denied that Maximino, Sr. intended to give the six Quezon City lots to Natividad. As Romeo
testified, their parents executed the Deed of Sale in favor of Natividad because the latter was the only "female and
the only unmarried member of the family." She was thus entrusted with the real properties in behalf of her siblings.
As she herself admitted, she intended to convey Lots 10 and 11 to Jose in the event the latter returned from abroad.
There was thus an implied trust constituted in her favor. Art. 1449 of the Civil Code states:

There is also an implied trust when a donation is made to a person but it appears that although the legal estate is
transmitted to the donee, he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or only a part thereof.

There being an implied trust, the lots in question are therefore subject to collation in accordance with Art. 1061
which states:
 Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate any
property or right which he may have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of
donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of
each heir, and in the account of the partition.

As held by the trial court, the sale of Lots 13 and 14 to Ros-Alva Marketing, Corp. will have to be upheld for it is an
innocent purchaser for value which relied on the title of Natividad.