Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

G.R. No.

L-36342 October 8, 1932


In re Will of Francisco Varela al!eron, !ecease!.
FR"N#$O "R%&LO V"R&L", petitioner-appellee,
vs.
%#G'&L V"R&L" "L(&RON, &) "L., opponents-appellants
Araneta De Joya, Zaragoza and Araneta for appellants.
Eduardo Gutierrez Repide for appellee.

#%*&R#"L, J.:
This is an appeal taken by Miguel Varela Calderon, Angel Varela Calderon, Jesus Varela Calderon,
Trinidad Varela Calderon, Paula Varela Calderon, Pilar Varela Calderon and Maria Varela Calderon
from the udgment rendered by the !onorable Mariano A. Albert, Judge of the Court of "irst #nstan$e
of Manila, ordering the allo%an$e and probate of the do$ument marked &'hibit ( as the last %ill and
testament of the late "ran$is$o Varela Calderon.
The de$eased, a physi$ian by profession, %as a "ilipino $iti)en resident of the City of Manila %here
he o%ned real properties assessed at P*++,,*-.+*. !e traveled abroad for his health and
temporarily resided in !endaye-Plage, "ran$e. .ot feeling very %ell, but in the full enoyment of his
mental fa$ulties, he de$ided to make his last %ill and testament /&'hibit (0, on April *1, *23,, in
Paris, "ran$e, %ith the assistan$e of attorneys ". de 4oussy de 5ales, 6ething C. Miller and !enri
6add. 5ometime later, that is on July *7, *23,, he died in the 6rand-!otel de 8eysin 5anatorium in
5%it)erland.
9n 5eptember :,, *23,, the herein petitioner-appellee, "ran$is$o Carmelo Varela, filed a petition in
the Court of "irst #nstan$e of the City of Manila, praying that said %ill be admitted to probate. 5aid
petition %as opposed by the de$eased;s brother Jose Miguel, Angel, Jesus, Trinidad, Paula, Pilar
and Maria, surnamed Varela Calderon, although, later on, the first mentioned opponent %ithdre% his
opposition giving as his reason therefor that it %as out of respe$t for the testator;s %ishes be$ause
the %ill %as e'e$uted in his o%n hand%riting. The grounds of the opposition are as follo%s< /a0 That
the %ill sought to be probate %as not holographi$ in $hara$ter and did not $omply %ith the re=uisites
pres$ribed by arti$le 2-, of the "ren$h Civil Code> /b0 that the %itnesses to the %ill did not possess
the =ualifi$ations re=uired by arti$le 2+, of the "ren$h Civil Code> /$0 that for not having $omplied
%ith the re=uisites pres$ribed by the "ren$h la%, said %ill is null and void> /d0 that neither has it the
$hara$ter of an open %ill, not having been e'e$uted in a$$ordan$e %ith arti$le *,,* of the "ren$h
Civil Code> and /e0 that the provisions of arti$le *,,- of the same Code relative to the re$ording of
%ills %ere not $omplied %ith in $onne$tion %ith the %ill in =uestion.
The appellants assign the follo%ing errors alleged to have been $ommitted by the trial $ourt<
*. The trial $ourt erred in de$laring that &'hibit (, purporting to be the last %ill and testament
of the de$eased "ran$is$o Varela Calderon, %as a valid holographi$ %ill made and
e'e$uted, in a$$ordan$e %ith the la%s of the "ren$h 4epubli$.
:. The trial $ourt, therefore, erred in allo%ing and admitting to probate said do$ument &'hibit
(, as the last %ill and testament of the de$eased "ran$is$o Varela Calderon.
#n vie% of the nature of both assignments of error and of the arguments advan$ed in their support,
%e shall dis$uss them ointly.
The %ill in =uestion, &'hibit (, as translated into &nglish reads as follo%s<
#. "4A.C#5C9 VA4&8A CA8?&49., ?o$tor in Medi$ine, ba$helor, $iti)en of the Philippine
#slands and sube$t of the @nited 5tates of Ameri$a, borne and domi$iled at Manila,
Philippine #slands, and a$tually residing temporarily at !endaye-Plage, "ran$e, # de$lare that
the follo%ings are my a$t of last %ills and my testament<
*. # revoke all testamentary dispositions made by myself before this day.
:. # desire that the inhumation of my body be made %ithout any $eremony.
3. # give and be=ueath to my $hildren "4A.C#5C9 CA4M&89 VA4&8A borne at
Madrid on the t%enty fourth of .ovember nineteen hundred five and to CA4M&.
VA4&8A borne at Manila, Philippine #slands, on the fourth of 9$tober nineteen
hundred seven %ho live both a$tually %ith me, the totality of my personal properties,
real estates and mi'ed in$luding those on %hi$h # $ould have the po%er of disposition
or designation %hatsoever, by e=ual parts in all properties, instituting them my
residuary legatee.
1. # name for my testamentary e'e$utor, %ithout bail, my son, "4A.C#5C9
CA4M&89 VA4&8A, to his default my daughter CA4M&. VA4&8A to the default of
this one my brother M#6@&8 VA4&8A CA8?&49. and to the default of my brother,
Mr. A.T9.#9 6@T#&44&A ?&8 CAMP9.
#n %itness %hereof # have in this one my a$t of last %ills and testament, %ritten dated and
signed entirely by my hand, applied my signature and my seal at Paris, this fourteenth of
April nineteen hundred thirty.
/5gd.0 "4A.C#5C9 VA4&8A CA8?&49. /8. 5.0
/5gd.0 !&.4# 6A??
/5gd.0 T!. P&B49T
5igned, sealed, published and de$lared by the testator above mentioned, "4A.C#5C9
VA4&8A CA8?&49., on the *1 April *23,, as being his a$t of last %ills and his testament in
the presen$e of %e, %ho at his re=uest, in his presen$e, and in the presen$e of one another,
have to these presents applied our signatures as %itnesses<
/5gd.0 ". ?& 49@55B ?& 5A8&5,
32 rue la (oetie, Paris, "ran$e.
/5gd.0 6&T!#.6 C. M#88&4,
32 rue la (oetie, Paris, "ran$e.
/5gd.0 !&.4# 6A??,
32 rue la (oetie, Paris, "ran$e.
Pour tradu$tion $ertifiee $onforme,
Manille, le *7 september *23,.
The original %ill %as e'e$uted in the "ren$h language and had been %ritten, dated and signed by
the testator %ith his o%n hand, %ith the e'$eption of the attestation $lause %hi$h appears at the
bottom of the do$ument. This fa$t is proved by the testimony of the appellee and his other
%itnesses, in$luding the depositions, and is admitted by the appellants.
The petition for the allo%an$e and probate of said %ill is based on the provisions of arti$le 2-, of the
"ren$h Civil Code %hi$h $onsiders as a holographi$ %ill that %hi$h is made or e'e$uted, dated and
signed by the testator in his o%n hand%riting %ithout the ne$essity of any other formality, and on
se$tion C37 of the Code of Civil Pro$edure in for$e in this urisdi$tion %hi$h provides that a %ill made
out of the Philippine #slands in a$$ordan$e %ith the la%s in for$e in the $ountry in %hi$h it %as made
and %hi$h may be allo%ed and admitted to probate therein, may, also be proved, allo%ed and
re$orded in the Philippine #slands in the same manner and %ith the same effe$t as if e'e$uted in the
latter $ountry. (oth provisions of la% literally $opied from the &nglish te't, read as follo%s<
/Arti$le 2-,, "ren$h Civil Code0
A holographi$ %ill is not valid unless it is entirely %ritten, dated, and signed by the testator.
.o other formality is re=uired.
/Arti$le C37, Code of Civil Pro$edure0
Will made out of the Philippine Islands. D A %ill made out of the Philippine #slands %hi$h
might be proved and allo%ed by the la%s of the state or $ountry in %hi$h it %as made, may
be proved, allo%ed, and re$orded in the Philippine #slands, and shall have the same effe$t as
if e'e$uted a$$ording to the la%s of these #slands.
As %e have already said, it is an admitted fa$t that the %ill %as %ritten, dated and signed by the
de$eased testator, for %hi$h reason, there is no doubt that it had been made and e'e$uted in
a$$ordan$e %ith arti$le 2-, of the "ren$h Civil Code %ere it not for the attestation $lause %hi$h
appears at the bottom of the do$ument.
The appellants $ontend that the addition of said of $lause has entirely vitiated the %ill, be$ause it
$eased to be a holographi$ %ill, neither does it possess the re=uisites of a publi$ or open %ill in
a$$ordan$e %ith the "ren$h la%. The $ourt %hi$h originally took $ogni)an$e of the $ase de$ided that
su$h $ir$umstan$e does not invalidate the %ill. Ee $on$ur in said opinion and hold that a $lause
dra%n up in su$h manner is superfluous and does not affe$t in any %ay the essential re=uisites
pres$ribed for holographi$ %ills by the "ren$h la%, and, $onse=uently, it has not invalidated the %ill
nor deprived it of its holographi$ $hara$ter. #n rea$hing this $on$lusion, %e base our opinion not only
on the $lear and $on$lusive provisions of arti$le 2-, of the "ren$h Civil Code and on the de$isions of
the "ren$h Court of Appeals $ited in the appelee;s brief, but prin$ipally on the fa$t established in the
depositions made by pra$ti$ing attorneys ". de 4oussy de 5ales, 6ething C. Miller and !enri 6add
of Paris, "ran$e, %ho emphati$ally de$lared that the %ill in =uestion did not lose its holographi$
$hara$ter by the addition of the aforementioned attestation $lause and that it may be allo%ed to
probate in $onformity %ith the "ren$h la%s under %hi$h it had been made and e'e$uted.
#n vie% of the foregoing, %e believe it unne$essary to $onsider and pass upon the other grounds
invoked by the opposition $onsisting in the in$apa$ity of the three %itnesses %ho signed at the end
of the attestation $lause and the absen$e of the re=uisites pres$ribed by the "ren$h Civil Code for
the e'e$ution of open %ills, inasmu$h as the attorney for the appellee has $on$lusively proved that
the %ill in =uestion is holographi$, and %e have so held and de$ided.a!phil .net
The order appealed from, being in $onformity %ith the la%, is hereby affirmed in toto, %ith $osts
against the appellants. 5o ordered.
A"an#e$a, %.J., &al#olm, 'illamor, (strand, 'illa)Real, A*ad +antos, ,ull, 'i#-ers and .utte, JJ.,
#on#ur.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen