Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Rodelas VS Aranza

    Uploaded by

    fermo ii ramos
    The petitioner appealed the lower court's dismissal of her petition to probate the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla. The opposition argued that (1) the petitioner failed to produce the will within 20 days as required, (2) the alleged copy of the will did not contain testamentary disposition, (3) the will itself and not a copy must be produced, and (4) the deceased did not leave any will. The issue was whether a lost holographic will can be proved by a photocopy. The Supreme Court held that while a lost will generally cannot be probated without the original document, a photocopy of a lost holographic will may be allowed so the

    Copyright:

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

    Rodelas VS Aranza

    Uploaded by

    fermo ii ramos
    52 views2 pages
    The petitioner appealed the lower court's dismissal of her petition to probate the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla. The opposition argued that (1) the petitioner failed to produce the will within 20 days as required, (2) the alleged copy of the will did not contain testamentary disposition, (3) the will itself and not a copy must be produced, and (4) the deceased did not leave any will. The issue was whether a lost holographic will can be proved by a photocopy. The Supreme Court held that while a lost will generally cannot be probated without the original document, a photocopy of a lost holographic will may be allowed so the

    Original Description:

    a case digest in succession law

    Original Title

    RODELAS VS ARANZA

    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 petitioner appealed the lower court's dismissal of her petition to probate the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla. The opposition argued that (1) the petitioner failed to produce the will within 20 days as required, (2) the alleged copy of the will did not contain testamentary disposition, (3) the will itself and not a copy must be produced, and (4) the deceased did not leave any will. The issue was whether a lost holographic will can be proved by a photocopy. The Supreme Court held that while a lost will generally cannot be probated without the original document, a photocopy of a lost holographic will may be allowed so the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views2 pages

    Rodelas VS Aranza

    Uploaded by

    fermo ii ramos
    The petitioner appealed the lower court's dismissal of her petition to probate the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla. The opposition argued that (1) the petitioner failed to produce the will within 20 days as required, (2) the alleged copy of the will did not contain testamentary disposition, (3) the will itself and not a copy must be produced, and (4) the deceased did not leave any will. The issue was whether a lost holographic will can be proved by a photocopy. The Supreme Court held that while a lost will generally cannot be probated without the original document, a photocopy of a lost holographic will may be allowed so the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-58509 December 7, 1982

    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.

    FACTS

    As found by the Court of Appeals:

    ... On January 11, 1977, appellant (RODELAS) 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. The petition, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 8432, was opposed by the
    appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes Expedita Bonilla Frias and Ephraim
    Bonilla on the following grounds:

    (1) Appellant was estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will by failing to produce the
    will within twenty days of the death of the testator as required by Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules
    of Court;

    (2) The alleged copy of the alleged holographic will did not contain a disposition of property after
    death and was not intended to take effect after death, and therefore it was not a will

    (3) The alleged hollographic will itself,and not an alleged copy thereof, must be produced,
    otherwise it would produce no effect, as held in Gam v. Yap, 104 Phil. 509; and

    (4 ) The deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise, executed and attested as required by
    law.

    The lower court dismissed the petition for the probate of the will of Ricardo B. Bonilla. The court said:

    ... It is our considered opinion that once the original copy of the holographic will is lost, a copy thereof
    cannot stand in lieu of the original.

    , the fact that the original of the will could not be located shows to our mind that the decedent had
    discarded before his death his allegedly missing Holographic Will.

    ISSUE

    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

    HELD

    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. 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.

    You might also like