Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ISSUE:
Whether or not a photostatic copy or xerox
copy of the holographic will of deceased
3.) RODELAS VS. ARANZA Ricardo B. Bonilla can be allowed for
probate.
DOCTRINE: A photocopy of the lost or destroyed
holographic will may be admitted because the
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased RULING:
can be determined by the probate court with the Yes, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of a
standard writings of the testator. holographic of deceased Ricardo B. Bonilla may
be allowed for probate.
FACTS:
Appellant Marcela Rodelas filed a petition Article 811 of the Civil Code states that
for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo probate of holographic wills is the allowance of
B. Bonilla presenting to the court a photostatic the will by the court after its due execution had
copy of said will as the original of the will was been proved. If the holographic will has been lost
lost. But appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla, et al. or destroyed and no other copy is available, the
opposed the petition asserting that it should be will cannot be probated. Because the handwriting
the holographic will itself that must be produced of the testator in the said will is regarded as the
in court and not an alleged copy thereof. They “best and only evidence.” It is, therefore,
necessary that there be a comparison between
sample handwritten statements of the testator
and the handwritten will.
FACTS:
Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a Filipino who Sergio, the U.S.-based executor designated in the
became a naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen, will; and (c) issuing the Letters of Special
died single and childless. In the last will and Administration to Ernesto.
testament she executed in California, she
designated her brother, Sergio C. Palaganas Petitioner appealed to the CA arguing that an
(Sergio), as the executor of her will for she had unprobated will executed by an American citizen
left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S. in the U.S. cannot be probated for the first time
in the Philippines. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
Respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas (Ernesto),
another brother of Ruperta, led with the Hence, this petition.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan,
a petition for the probate of Ruperta's will and ISSUE:
for his appointment as special administrator of
her estate. Whether or not a will executed by a foreigner
abroad may be probated in the Philippines
Petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas (Manuel) although it has not been previously probated and
and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas (Benjamin), allowed in the country where it was executed?
nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition on the
ground that Ruperta's will should not be HELD:
probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where
YES. In insisting that Ruperta's will should have
she executed it.
been first probated and allowed by the court of
Respondent Ernesto filled a motion with the RTC California, petitioners Manuel and Benjamin
for leave to take their deposition, which it obviously have in mind the procedure for
granted. thereprobate of will before admitting it here. But,
reprobate or re- authentication of a will already
RTC issued an order admitting to probate probated and allowed in a foreign country is
Ruperta's last will; (b) appointing respondent different from that probate where the will is
Ernesto as special administrator at the request of presented for the first time before a competent
court. Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule
77 of the Rules of Court. Contrary to petitioners'
stance, since this latter rule applies only to
reprobate of a will, it cannot be made to apply to
the present case. In reprobate, the local court
acknowledges as binding the findings of the
foreign probate court provided its jurisdiction
over the matter can be established. caTIDE
Facts: