UY KIAO ENG vs.

NIXON LEE
G.R. No. 176831 January 15, 2010

Facts:
Respondent Nixon Lee filed a petition for mandamus with damages against his mother Uy Kiao Eng, herein
petitioner, before the RTC to compel petitioner to produce the holographic will of his father so that
probate proceedings for the allowance thereof could be instituted, but petitioner refused to do so and
denied that she was in custody of the original holographic will and that she knew of its whereabouts.

Issue:
Whether or not mandamus is the proper remedy of the respondent.

Ruling:
No. Without unnecessarily ascertaining whether the obligation involved here—the production of the
original holographic will—is in the nature of a public or a private duty, rules that the remedy of mandamus
cannot be availed of by respondent Lee because there lies another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. Let it be noted that respondent has a photocopy of the will and that he seeks
the production of the original for purposes of probate. The Rules of Court, however, does not prevent him
from instituting probate proceedings for the allowance of the will whether the same is in his possession
or not.

Kalaw v. Relova
G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984

Facts:
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 ma,e was written above it. This
alteration was initialed by the testator. 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' 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.
 Rodelas v. Aranza
G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982

Facts:
The appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla in 1977. The petition
was opposed by the appellees on the ground that the deceased did not leave any will, holographic or
otherwise. The lower court dismissed the petition for probate and held that since the original will was
lost, a photostatic copy cannot stand in the place of the original.

Issue: Whether or not a holographic will can be proved by means of a photocopy

Ruling:
Yes. A photocopy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because the authenticity of
the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court with the standard writings of
the testator.