Art 810 NCC Holographic Will CASE DIGEST

ART.
810-
HOLOGRAPHIC WILL
ROXAS VS DE JESUS
Facts: After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas
de Jesus, aspecial proceeding entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate
Estate of Andres G. deJesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus" was filed by
petitioner Simeon R. Roxas, thebrother of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de
Jesus.On March 26, 1973, petitioner Simeon R. Roxas was appointed
administrator.
He delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the
holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. Petitioner
Simeon R. Roxas testified that he founda notebook of the deceased
Bibiana detailing a letter-win addressed to her children and entirely
written and signed in her handwriting. 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. ...
On the other hand, respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory
heir, filed an"opposition to probate". She submits that the purported
holographic Will is void fornon-compliance with Article 810 of the New Civil
Code in that the date must containthe year, month, and day of its
execution. The respondent contends that Article 810of the Civil Code was
patterned after Section 1277 of the California Code and Section1588 of
the Louisiana Code whose Supreme Courts had consistently ruled that
therequired 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 petitionercannot plead liberal construction of Article 810
of the Civil Code because statutesprescribing the formalities to be
observed in the execution of holographic Wills arestrictly construed.
The petitioners contend that while Article 685 of the Spanish Civil
Code and Article688 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.
Issue:
Whether or not the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the
holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid
compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code.
RULING:
YES! A careful review by the courts on the records of this
case, they 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
compliance.
of
substantial
Labrador vs. CA
Facts: Melecio Labrador left behind a parcel of land. He also executed a
holographic will.
His son Sagrado filed a petition for the probate of the alleged holo
will of Melecio.
Jesus and Gaudencio (alsosons) filed an opposition to the petition

on the gound that the will has been extinguished or revoked by
implication of law, alleging that before Melecio's death, testator
executed a DOS, transferring and conveying in favor or oppositors
the subject parcel of land for P6,000.
IN 1973, Jesus sold the land to Navat (p5K).
Sagrado filed for the annulment of the sale. The court allowed the
probate of the will and declaring null and void the DOS.
The CA modified the judgment by denying the allowance of the

probate of the will for being undated
Issue:
WON the will of Melecio Labrador is dated, in accordance with
Art. 810 of the NCC
Ruling:
Yes. The petition, which principally alleges that the
holographic will is really dated, although the date is not in its usual place,
is impressed with merit. The will has been dated in the hand of
the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810.
The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be
placed in the will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will
itself and executed in the hand of the testator.
Respondents claim that the date 17 March 1968 in the will was when the
testator and his beneficiaries entered into an agreement among
themselves about "the partitioning and assigning the respective
assignments of the said fishpond," and was not the date of execution of
the holographic will; hence, the will is more of an "agreement" between
the testator and the beneficiaries thereof to the prejudice of other

compulsory heirs like the respondents. This was thus a failure to comply
with Article 783 which defines a will as "an act whereby a person is
permitted, with the formalities prescribed bylaw, to control to a certain
degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death."
Respondents are in error. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as
the date of the execution of the will is plain from the tenor of the
succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will was
not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly
knew that what he was executing was a will. The act of partitioning and
the declaration that such partitioning as the testator's instruction or
decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware
of the nature of the estate property to be disposed of and of the
character of the testamentary act as a means to control the
disposition of his estate.
Par. 1, Page 2, WILL OF MELECIO LABRADOR
And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the
partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said fishpond,
and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968,
and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be
followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than MELECIO
LABRADOR, their father.
Seangio, et al. vs Reyes, et al.

Facts: Private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the
intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio, , and praying for the
appointment of private respondent Elisa D. SeangioSantos as special
administrator and guardian ad litem of petitioner Dy Yieng Seangio.
Petitioners Dy Yieng, Barbara and Virginia, all surnamed Seangio, opposed
the petition. They contended that:
Segundo left a holographic will, dated September 20, 1995,

disinheriting one of the private respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for
cause.
In view of the purported holographic will, petitioners averred that in

the event the decedent is found to have left a will, the intestate
proceedings are to be automatically suspended and replaced by the
proceedings for the probate of the will.
A petition for the probate of the holographic will of Segundo , was then
filed by petitioners before the RTC. They likewise reiterated that the
probate proceedings should take precedence over the special proceedings
initiated by the petitioners because testate proceedings take precedence
and enjoy priority over intestate proceedings.
The holographic will insisted by petitioners, entitled Kasulatan sa pagaalis ng mana, disinherits the decedents eldest son Alfredo Seangio for
being disrespectful and ungrateful.
Private respondents moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings
primarily on the ground that:
(A) the document purporting to be the holographic will of Segundo does
not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased and only shows
an alleged act of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo,
and nothing else;
(B) that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor instituted as heir,
devisee or legatee, hence, there is preterition which would result to
intestacy. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss. Hence this petition.
Issue: Whether or not the document left by Segundo Seangio can be
considered a holographic will, which would correctly result on a probate
proceeding, despite the fact that such will contained only a disinheritance
of Alfredo Seangio
Held: Yes. 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.
Segundos 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 can be clearly deduced from the terms
of the instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of
the latters 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.
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.
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. 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, the disinheritance cannot be given

Art 810 NCC Holographic Will CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art 810 NCC Holographic Will CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Art 810 NCC Holographic Will CASE DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ART.

There is no question that the holographic Will of the

There is also no question as to its genuineness and

The objection interposed by the oppositor-respondent Luz Henson is that

there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue

probate of the holographic Will

Jesus and Gaudencio (alsosons) filed an opposition to the petition

IN 1973, Jesus sold the land to Navat (p5K).

The CA modified the judgment by denying the allowance of the

the testator and the beneficiaries thereof to the prejudice of other

Seangio, et al. vs Reyes, et al.

Segundo left a holographic will, dated September 20, 1995,

In view of the purported holographic will, petitioners averred that in

You might also like