1

1. REQUIREMENTS FOR A HOLOGRAPHIC WILL

ROXAS VS. DE JESUS
Roxas vs De Jesus
Facts:
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.
After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, petitioner Simeon R.
Roxas filed Special Proceeding No. 81503 case, the brother of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de
Jesus.
On March 26, 1973, petitioner Simeon R. Roxas was appointed administrator. He then delivered to
the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de
Jesus. 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-will 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
will which I want to be respected although it is not written by a lawyer.
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 .
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.
August 24, 1973 - Judge Jose C. Colayco issued an order allowing the probate of the holographic
w/c he found to have been duly executed in accordance with law. Respondent Luz Roxas de Jesus
filed a MR stating that the will 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.
December 10, 1973 Judge 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
ISSUE:
WON the date "FEB./61 on the will is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code
HELD:
We agree with the petitioner. 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 says the 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
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.
RULING OF SC:
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. 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
Court found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there any substitution of
Wills and Testaments. 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. The
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.

LABRADORS VS. CA
Topic: Requirements for a Holographic a Will
Labrador v CA, GR Nos. 83843-44, April 5, 1990
FACTS:
- Melecio Labrador died on June 10, 1972 leaving a parcel of land, heirs Sagrado, Enrica,
Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador, and a
holographic will.
- Sagrado Labrador, now deceased and substituted by heirs Enrica and Cristobal, filed a petition
for the probate of the holographic will of Melecio on July 28, 1975.
- Jesus Labrador, now deceased and substituted by his heirs and Gaudencio Labrador filed on
September 30, 1975 an opposition alleging the will has been extinguished and that before
Melecio's death he sold the subject parcel of land to Jesus and Gaudencio executing a Deed of
Absolute Sale.
- But in 1973, Jesus has actually sold the subject parcel of land to Navat for P5,000.00.
- Sagrado then filed, on November 28, 1975, against his brothers, Gaudencio and Jesus, for the
annulment of said purported Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land which Sagrado allegedly
had already acquired by devise from their father Melecio Labrador under a holographic will
executed on March 17, 1968.
- TC allowed probate of the holographic will and declared null and void the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Respondents were ordered to reimburse to the petitioners P5,000.00 paid by the latter to vendee a
retro.
- Upon appeal to the CA by the respondents, the CA modified the TC decision by disallowing the
probate of the will for being undated and reversing the order of reimbursement.
ISSUE:
Whether holographic will is dated and should be probated.
RULING:
YES. The will is dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810.
Quoting the first paragraph of the second page of the holographic will:
2

"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."
- 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.
These requirements are present in the subject will.
- 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 quoted.
- CA decision is reversed. The holographic will of Melecio is approved and allowed to probate.

AZAOLA VS. SINGSON
Azaola v. Singson
FACTS:
Fortunata S. Vda. De Yance died in Quezon City on September 9, 1957. Petitioner submitted for
probate her holographic will, in which Maria Azaola was made the sole heir as against the
nephew, who is the defendant. Only one witness, Francisoco Azaola, was presented to testify on
the handwriting of the
testatrix. He testified that he had seen it one month, more or less, before the death of the testatrix,
as it was given to him and his wife; and that it was in the testatrixs handwriting. He presented the
mortgage, the special power of the attorney, and the general power of attorney, and the deeds of
sale including an affidavit to reinforce his statement. Two residence certificates showing the
testatrixs signature were also exhibited for comparison purposes. The probate was opposed on
the ground that
(1) the execution of the will was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the
part of the petitioner and his wife, and
(2) that the testatrix did not seriously intend the instrument to be her last will, and that the same
was actually written either on the 5th or 6thday of August 1957 and not on November 20, 1956 as
appears on
the will.
The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the Civil Code, the proponent
must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature are in the writing
of the testatrix, the probate being contested; and because the lone witness presented "did not
prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix." Petitioner
appealed, urging: first, that he was not bound to produce more than one witness because the
will's authenticity was not questioned; and second, that Article 811 does not mandatorily require
the production of three witnesses to identify the
handwriting and signature of a holographic will, even if its authenticity should be denied by the
adverse party.
ISSUE:
W/N Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory or permissive.
HELD:
Article 8111 is merely permissive and not mandatory. Since the authenticity of the will was not
contested, petitioner was not required to produce more than one witness; but even if the
genuineness of the holographic will were contested, Article 811 cannot be interpreted to require
the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under
penalty of having the probate denied. Since no witness may have been present at the execution
of a holographic will, none being required
by law (Art. 810, new Civil Code), it becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing
the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. For it is not merely a
question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be witnesses "who know the
handwriting and signature of the testator" and who can declare (truthfully, of course, even if the
law does not so express) "that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator".
There may be no available witness of the testator's hand; or even if so familiarized, the witnesses
may be unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811
may thus become an impossibility.
This is the reason why the 2nd paragraph of Article 811 allows the court to resort to expert
evidence. The law foresees the possibility that no qualified witness may be found (or what
amounts to the same thing, that no competent witness may be willing to testify to the authenticity
of the will), and provides for resort to
expert evidence to supply the deficiency. What the law deems essential is that the court should be
convinced of the will's authenticity. Where the prescribed number of witnesses is produced and
the court is convinced by their testimony that the will is genuine, it may consider it unnecessary to
call for expert evidence. On the other hand, if no competent witness is available, or none of those
produced is convincing, the Court may still, and in fact it should, resort to handwriting experts.
The duty of the Court, in fine, is to exhaust all available lines of inquiry, for the state is as much
interested as the proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried into effect.

CODOY VS. CALUGAY
G.R. No. 123486 August 12, 1999
3

EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL, petitioners, vs. EVANGELINE R.
CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, and UEFEMIA PATIGAS, respondents.
FACTS:
Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas filed for the probate of holographic
will of Matilde Seo Vda de Ramonal before RTC Misamis Oriental.
Respondents claimed that Matilde was of sound mind when she executed the will.
Eugenia Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed for opposition stating that the holographic will is a
forgery and the same is illegible.
Petitioners claimed that the dates appearing after the dispositions are out of ordinary.
If the deceased was the one who executed the will, and was not forced, the dates and the
signature should appear at the bottom after the dispositions, as regularly done and not after every
disposition.
And assuming that the holographic will is in the handwriting of the deceased, it was procured by
undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries, or through fraud and
trickery.
Respondents presented witnesses and various documentary evidence.
1. Senon identify the voters affidavit. But the affidavit was not presented.
2. Matilde niece who compared the signatures knows the testator for 11 years (accompanies
the testator to collects rents, delivers handwritten statement of accounts, carries personal letters to
creditors)
3. Fiscal Waga former counsel who prepared all the testators pleadings in a partition case
and special proceedings.
4. Vedad DENR employee who processed the testators pasture permit
5. Neri CoC of CFI Misamis who produced the records of the case
6. Calugay (adopted child) who lived with the testator for the longest time. she accompanied
the testator to the bank, paying taxes, going to lawyers.
Only 2 were familiar with the handwriting of the testator.
Petitioners instead of presenting their evidence, filed a demurrer to evidence, claiming that
respondents failed to establish sufficient factual and legal basis for the probate of the holographic
will of the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal.
The holographic will which was written in Visayan, is translated in English as follows:
Instruction
August 30, 1978
1. My share at Cogon, Raminal Street, for Evangeline Calugay.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
2. Josefina Salcedo must be given 1,500 square meters at Pinikan Street.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
3. My jewelry's shall be divided among:
1. Eufemia Patigas
2. Josefina Salcedo
3. Evangeline Calugay
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
4. I bequeath my one (1) hectare land at Mandumol, Indahag to Evangeline R. Calugay
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
5. Give the 2,500 Square Meters at Sta. Cruz Ramonal Village in favor of Evangeline R. Calugay,
Helen must continue with the Sta. Cruz, once I am no longer around.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
6. Bury me where my husband Justo is ever buried.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
Gene and Manuel:
Follow my instruction in order that I will rest peacefully.
Mama
Matilde Vda de Ramonal
RTC Granted the demurrer to evidence.
CA reversed RTC (allowed the probate of will even if only 2 witness were able to identify the
handwriting and signature of the testator)
CA held that Art. 811 contemplated that presentation of 3 witnesses who knows the handwriting
and signature of the testator is permissive.
It may be true that the rule of this article (requiring that three witnesses be presented if the will is
contested and only one if no contest is had) was derived from the rule established for ordinary
testaments. But it can not be ignored that the requirement can be considered mandatory only in
case of ordinary testaments, precisely because the presence of at least three witnesses at the
execution of ordinary wills is made by law essential to their validity (Art. 805). Where the will is
holographic, no witness need be present (art. 10), and the rule requiring production of three
witnesses must be deemed merely permissive if absurd results are to be avoided.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether it is mandatory to present 3 witnesses to prove the holographic will of the testator
Held: Yes
Ruling:
We are convinced, based on the language used, that Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory.
The word "shall" connotes a mandatory order. We have ruled that "shall" in a statute commonly
denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the
presumption is that the word "shall," when used in a statute is mandatory.
Laws are enacted to achieve a goal intended and to guide against an evil or mischief that aims to
prevent. In the case at bar, the goal to achieve is to give effect to the wishes of the deceased and
the evil to be prevented is the possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit will
employ means to defeat the wishes of the testator.
It will be noted that not all the witnesses presented by the respondents testified explicitly that they
were familiar with the handwriting of testator.
The will was found not in the personal belongings of the deceased but with one of the respondents
as early as 1985 or five years before the death of the deceased.
There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the signature and the handwriting of the
deceased with other documents signed and executed by her during her lifetime.
The only chance at comparison was during the cross-examination of Ms. Binanay when the lawyer
of petitioners asked Ms. Binanay to compare the documents which contained the signature of the
deceased with that of the holographic will and she is not a handwriting expert.
4

A visual examination of the holographic will convince us that the strokes are different when
compared with other documents written by the testator. The signature of the testator in some of the
disposition is not readable. There were uneven strokes, retracing and erasures on the will.
Judgment Set Aside. Case Remanded.

RIVERSA VS. IAC
G.R. Nos. 75005-06 February 15, 1990
JOSE RIVERA petitioner,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ADELAIDO J. RIVERA, respondents.
This is the tale of two Venancio Rivera.
Facts:
1. In Mabalacat, Pampanga there lived a wealthy man named Venancio Rivera who died on
May 30, 1975.
2. Petitioner, Jose River filed for a petition to be assigned as administrator of his father whom
he claimed died intestate and that he is the sole heir.
3. This was opposed by Adelaido Rivera respondent who claims to be the son of Venancio
Rivera and with him was a holographic will.
4. Petitioner claims that he is the son of Adelaido Rivera and Maria Vital.
5. Petitioner also claimed that respondent is his half brother and they were cordial with each
other.
6. Respondent on the other hand claims that he is the son of Adelaido Rivera and Maria
Jocson and he has several siblings.
7. Petitioner brought the marriage license of the parents of Adelaido while respondent failed to
do so.
8. The lower court ruled in favor of the respondent.
Issues:
1. WON the true Adelaido Rivera is that of petitioner.
2. WON the holographic will was valid.
Held:
1. Jose is not the son of Adelaido Rivera whose estate is in question here. The court held that if
indeed Jose was the son, Jose should have affirmed his standing in the family while the decedent
was alive. Another thing is that the wife was not even presented in court. Also, if it were true that
the petitioner and respondent were half brothers that recognized each other why it was that
respondent lived in affluence while petitioner did not.
2. The holographic will is invalid because as per Sec 811 it should be necessary that one
witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and
the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least three of such
witnesses shall be required. However in this case, even if it was contested, it was invalid because
Jose had no legal personality to question the will.
Said the court:
The flaw in this argument is that, as we have already determined, Jose Rivera is not the son of the
deceased Venancio Rivera whose estate is in question. Hence, being a mere stranger, he had no
personality to contest the wills and his opposition thereto did not have the legal effect of requiring
the three witnesses. The testimony of Zenaida and Venancio Rivera, Jr., who authenticated the
wills as having been written and signed by their father, was sufficient.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the challenged decision is AFFIRMED, with costs
against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

RODEALAS VS. ARANZA
Case: Rodelas v. Aranza
Subject: Probate of a holographic will
Facts
Appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla, such was
a holographic will and it was opposed by the appellant with the following grounds:
o Estoppel for not raising the will 20 days after the death of the decedent.
o The alleged will did not contain any intention to dispose of property after the death of the
decedent, hence it was not a will.
o Only a photostatic copy therefore was provided
o The deceased did not leave the will, holographic or otherwise executed or attached under the
prescriptions of law
Appellees moved for the consolidation of the case which was granted and then moved for
the dismissal of the case. It was granted, Hence this petition
Issue
WON a holographic will may be proven by a photostatic copy thereof.
Held
Yes, the court said in this case that a photostatic copy of the holographic will that was lost
can be admitted into probate if the handwriting of the testator is similar with his other writings made
available by the petitioner who wants to avail of the probate of such will.
The court also mentioned that if the will has been lost, the will cannot be probated since the
will is the ultimate proof of the handwriting of the deceased, but the court in this case gave
credence to the footnote in the decision of Gam v. Yap stating the aforementioned provisions
regarding the photostatic copies of holographic wills.a

AJERO VS. CA
SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, respondents.
Facts:
1. A will was made by decedent and named the following devisees including the petitioners and
respondents in this case (Sps Ajero, Clemente Sand, among others).
2. Sps Ajero instituted a special proceeding for allowance of decedents holographic will.
Allegation in the spec pro: that the decedent was of sound and disposing mind (not acting under
duress, fraud or undue influence, and was capacitated to dispose of her estate by will)
3. Clemente Sand opposed the petition made by Sps. Ajero on the following:
o Neither testaments body nor the signature was in decedents handwriting
o The testament contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent
o The will was procured by Sps Ajero thru improper pressure and undue influence
4. Aside from Clemente, the petition was also opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero, Sr. (one of the
devisees) who contested the disposition in the will of a house and lot. Ground for opposition:
decedent cannot convey the property by the decedent in its entirety as she was not its sole owner
5

5. TC: admitted the decedents holographic will to probate (saying that the requirement of the law
that the holographic will be entirely written has been complied with)
o It was also Clemente who testified that the testatrix was of unsound mind when she made the
will when the former visited the latter for her birthday in 1981. To be of sound mind, it is sufficient
that the testatrix, at the time of making the will, knew the value of the estate to be disposed of,
the proper object of her bounty, and the character of the testamentary act
o The trial court also noted that the decedent had written a nursing book which contained the law
and jurisprudence on will and succession which is more than sufficient showing that she knows the
character of testamentary act.
6. CA: the decision of RTC was reversed, hence the petition for probate of decendents will was
dismissed (holographic will fails to meet the requirements for its validity) the decedent did not
comply with Arts. 813-814 of the NCC
Issue: Is the executed will valid although the decedent did not comply with Articles 813-814 of the
NCC?
Held: Yes, it is valid.
1. Rule 76, Sec. 9 and Art. 839 provide the situations in which the will can be disallowed. Note
that these lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to disallow a will. Thus, in a petition to
admit a holographic will to probate, the only issues to be resolved are:
o Whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedents last will and testament
o Whether said will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law
o Whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the will was
executed
o Whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts of the decedent
2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, CA held that the holographic will of Anne Sand was not executed in
accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.
3. 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. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object
of the law to restrain and curtain the exercise of the right to make a will.
4. For purposes of probating non holographic wills, these formal solemnities include the
subscription, attestation, and acknowledgment requirements under Arts. 805 and 806 of NCC.
5. In the case of holographic wills, on the other hand, what assures authenticity is the
requirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself as provided NCC
810.
6. A reading of NCC 813 shows that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions
contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of
the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however,
does not render the whole testament void.
7. A holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non compliance with
the provisions of NCC 814.
Kalaw case: when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a
holographic will have not been noted under his signature, the will is not invalidated as a whole, but
at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined.
8. Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on
the date of the holographic will or on testators signature, their presence does not invalidate the will
itself. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes.
9. Also note that the requirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating of
dispositions (813-814) are separate from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the
validity of the holographic will (810).
o This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the requirements of
NCC 810 and not those found in NCC 813 and 814 are essential to the probate of a holographic
will.
10. On the issue that Annie Sand could not validly dispose of the house and lot in Agusan, the SC
held that the appellate court is correct in its ruling.
o As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic
validity of the will sought to be probated. However, in exceptional circumstances, courts are not
powerless to do what the situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the
will.
o In the case at bench, decedent herself stated in her holographic will that the subject property is
in the name of her late father, John Sand (which led Dr. Ajero to question her conveyance of the
same in its entirety). Thus, she cannot validly dispose of the whole property which she shares with
her fathers other heirs.
KALAW VS. RELOVA
Kalaw v. Relova Digest
Kalaw v. Relova
G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984
Melencio-Herrera, J. (Ponente)
Facts:
Will of Natividad K. Kalaw.
1. Gregorio Kalaw, the private respondent, claiming to be the sole heir of sister Natividad, filed a
peition for probate of the latter's holographic will in 1968. The will contained 2 alterations:
a) Rosa's name, designated as the sole heir was crossed out and instead "Rosario" was
written above it. Such was not initialed,
b) Rosa's name was crossed out as sole executrix and Gregorio's name was written above
it. This alteration was initialed by the testator.
2. Rosa contended that the will as first written should be given effect so that she would be the
sole heir. The lower court denied the probate due to the unauthenticated alterations and
additions.
Issue: Whether or not the will is valid
RULING: No, the will is voided or revoked since nothing remains in the will which could remain
valid as there was only one disposition in it. Such was altered by the substitution of the original
heir with another. To rule that the first will should be given effect is to disregard the testatrix'
6

change of mind. However, this change of mind cannot be given effect either as she failed to
authenticate it in accordance with Art. 814, or by affixing her full signature.

L. GOVERNING LAW OF ALL WILLS
M. WHAT IS PROHIBITED FOF ALL WILLS
DELA CERNA VS. REBACA -POTOT
De la Cerna V Potot
Facts:
9 May 1939, Sps Bernabe dela cerna and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a joint last will
and testament in the local dialect (Cebu)
Stated in the will, 2 parcels of land acquired during our marriage be given to Manuela
Rebaca, our niece whom we have nurtured since we did not have any children
Also stated, while he/she is still living, shall continue to enjoy the fruits of the 2 lands
aforementioned
Bernabe died and will was submitted to probate by Gervasia and Manuela Rebaca
In Spanish, 1939 CFI of cebu, declared or legalized the will
1952, Gervasia died, another petition for the probate was filed but was dismissed on
1954 due to the failure of Manuela Potot to appear
CFI then ordered the will null and void because it was executed contrary to the
prohibition of joint wills in the civil code
CA; reversed the CFI on the ground that it is conclusive on the execution of the
testament
Issue:
WON The will is valid
Held:
CA decision is affirmed
The final decree of probate entered entered in 1939 by the CFI in Cebu is conclusive to
the last will of Bernabe despite the fact that even then the civil code has already ruled
that joint wills are invalid.
Gervasia, a joint party to will in 1939 will be considered a separate will, hence it will be
re-examined.