G.R. No.

L-12190

August 30, 1958

TESTATE ESTATE OF FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALTO-YA !"#"$s"!. FAUSTO E. GAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. ILDEFONSO YA , oppositor-appellee. Benedicto C. Belran, Crispin D. Baizas and Roberto H. Benitez for appellant. Arturo M. Tolentino for appellee. %ENG&ON, J.' On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto ap died o! "eart !ailure in t"e #niversit$ o! %anto &omas 'ospital, leaving properties in (ulilan, )ulacan, and in t"e *it$ o! +anila. On +arc" 1,, 1952, Fausto E. -an initiated t"em proceedings in t"e +anila court o! !irst instance .it" a petition !or t"e probate o! a "olograp"ic .ill allegedl$ e/ecuted b$ t"e deceased, substantiall$ in t"ese .ords0 Nob$embre 5, 1951. A1o, si Felicidad E. Alto- ap, ma$ asa.a, at ganap na pag-iisip, a$ nagsasala$sa$ na ang a1ing 1a$amanan sa ba$an ng (ulilan, )ulacan a$ a1ing ipinamamana sa a1ing mga 1amag-ana1ang sumusunod0 2icente Esguerra, %r. ............................................. 3osario E. -an ......................................................... 5 )a"agi 2 )a"agi

Fausto E. -an ......................................................... 2 )a"agi

Filomena Alto .......................................................... 1 )a"agi )eatri4 Alto .............................................................. 1 )a"agi At ang a1ing la"at ng ibang 1a$amanan sa +a$nila at iba panglugar a$ a1ing ipinamamana sa a1ing asa.ang si 5del!onso 6. ap sa 1ondis$ong si$a7$ magpapaga.a ng isang 'ealt" *enter na nag1a1a"alaga ng di 1u1ulangin sa "alagang (80,000.00 sa ba$an ng (ulilan, )ulacan, na na1au1it ang a1ing pangalang Felicidad Esguerra-Alto. At 1ung ito a$ ma$ 1a1ulangan man a$ ba"ala na ang a1ing asa.a ang magpuno upang matupad ang a1ing 1agustu"an. 9:agda; Felicidad E. Alto- ap. Opposing t"e petition, "er surviving "usband 5lde!onso ap asserted t"at t"e deceased "ad not le!t an$ .ill, nor e/ecuted an$ testament during "er li!etime. A!ter "earing t"e parties and considering t"eir evidence, t"e 'on. 3amon 3. %an <ose, <udge,1 re!used to probate t"e alleged .ill. A sevent$-page motion !or reconsideration !ailed. 'ence t"is appeal. &"e .ill itsel! .as not presented. (etitioner tried to establis" its contents and due e/ecution b$ t"e statements in open court o! Felina Esguerra, (rimitivo 3e$es, %ocorro Olarte and 3osario -an <imene4, ."ose testimonies ma$ be summari4ed as !ollo.s0 %ometime in 1950 a!ter "er last trip abroad, Felicidad Esguerra mentioned to "er !irst cousin, 2icente Esguerra, "er desire to ma1e a .ill. %"e con!ided "o.ever t"at it .ould be useless i! "er "usband discovered or 1ne. about it. 2icente consulted .it" Fausto E. -an, nep"e. o! Felicidad, ."o .as t"en preparing !or t"e bar e/aminations. &"e

latter replied it could be done .it"out an$ .itness, provided t"e document .as entirel$ in "er "and.riting, signed and dated b$ "er. 2icente Esguerra lost no time in transmitting t"e in!ormation, and on t"e strengt" o! it, in t"e morning o! November 5, 1951, in "er residence at <uan :una %treet, +anila, Felicidad .rote, signed and dated a "olograp"ic .ill substantiall$ o! t"e tenor above transcribed, in t"e presence o! "er niece, Felina Esguerra 9daug"ter o! 2icente;, ."o .as invited to read it. 5n t"e a!ternoon o! t"at da$, Felicidad .as visited b$ a distant relative, (rimitivo 3e$es, and s"e allo.ed "im to read t"e .ill in t"e presence o! Felina Esguerra, ."o again read it. Nine da$s later, "e "ad ot"er visitors0 %ocorro Olarte a cousin, and 3osario -an <imene4, a niece. &o t"ese s"e s"o.ed t"e .ill, again in t"e presence o! Felina Esguerra, ."o read it !or t"e t"ird time. ="en on November 19, 1951, Felicidad .as con!ined at t"e #.%.&. 'ospital !or "er last illness, s"e entrusted t"e said .ill, ."ic" .as contained in a purse, to Felina Esguerra. )ut a !e. "ours later, 5lde!onso ap, "er "usband, as1ed Felina !or t"e purse0 and being a!raid o! "im b$ reason o! "is .ell-1no.n violent temper, s"e delivered it to "im. &"erea!ter, in t"e same da$, 5lde!onso ap returned t"e purse to Felina, onl$ to demand it t"e ne/t da$ s"ortl$ be!ore t"e deat" o! Felicidad. Again, Felina "anded it to "im but not be!ore s"e "ad ta1en t"e purse to t"e toilet, opened it and read t"e .ill !or t"e last time.2 From t"e oppositor7s proo! it appears t"at Felicidad Esguerra "ad been su!!ering !rom "eart disease !or several $ears be!ore "er deat"> t"at s"e "ad been treated b$ prominent p"$sicians, 6r. Agerico %ison, 6r. Agustin :iboro and ot"ers> t"at in +a$ 1950 "usband and .i!e ?ourne$ed to t"e #nited %tates ."erein !or several .ee1s s"e .as treated !or t"e disease> t"at t"erea!ter s"e !elt .ell and a!ter visiting interesting places, t"e couple returned to t"is countr$ in August 1950. 'o.ever, "er ailment recurred, s"e su!!ered several attac1s, t"e most serious o! ."ic" "appened in t"e earl$ morning o! t"e !irst +onda$ o! November 1951 9Nov. 5;. &"e ."ole "ouse"old .as surprised and alarmed, even t"e teac"ers o! t"e 'arvardian *olleges occup$ing t"e lo.er !loors and o! b$ t"e ap spouses. ("$sician7s "elp .as "urriedl$ called, and 6r. &an?ua@uio arrived at about A000 a.m., !ound t"e patient "ardl$ breat"ing, l$ing in bed, "er "ead "eld "ig" b$ "er "usband. 5n?ections and o/$gen .ere administered. Follo.ing t"e doctor7s advice t"e patient sta$ed in bed, and did not"ing t"e ."ole da$, "er "usband and "er personal attendant, +rs. )anti@ue, constantl$ at "er side. &"ese t.o persons s.ore t"at +rs. Felicidad Esguerra ap made no .ill, and could "ave made no .ill on t"at da$. &"e trial ?udge re!used to credit t"e petitioner7s evidence !or several reasons, t"e most important o! ."ic" .ere t"ese0 9a; i! according to "is evidence, t"e decedent .anted to 1eep "er .ill a secret, so t"at "er "usband .ould not 1no. it, it is strange s"e e/ecuted it in t"e presence o! Felina Esguerra, 1no.ing as s"e did t"at .itnesses .ere unnecessar$> 9b; in t"e absence o! a s"o.ing t"at Felina .as a con!idant o! t"e decedent it is "ard to believe t"at t"e latter .ould "ave allo.ed t"e !ormer to see and read t"e .ill several times> 9c; it is improbable t"at t"e decedent .ould "ave permitted (rimitivo 3e$es, 3osario -an <imene4 and %ocorro Olarte to read "er .ill, ."en s"e precisel$ .anted its contents to remain a secret during "er li!etime> 9d; it is also improbable t"at "er purpose being to conceal t"e .ill !rom "er "usband s"e .ould carr$ it around, even to t"e "ospital, in "er purse ."ic" could !or one reason or anot"er be opened b$ "er "usband> 9e; i! it is true t"at t"e "usband demanded t"e purse !rom Felina in t"e #.%.&. 'ospital and t"at t"e .ill .as t"ere, it is "ard to believe t"at "e returned it .it"out destro$ing t"e .ill, t"e t"eor$ o! t"e petitioner being precisel$ t"at t"e .ill .as e/ecuted be"ind "is bac1 !or !ear "e .ill destro$ it. 5n t"e !ace o! t"ese improbabilities, t"e trial ?udge "ad to accept t"e oppositor7s evidence t"at Felicidad did not and could not "ave e/ecuted suc" "olograp"ic .ill. 5n t"is appeal, t"e ma?or portion o! appellant7s brie! discussed t"e testimon$ o! t"e oppositor and o! "is .itnesses in a vigorous e!!ort to discredit t"em. 5t appears t"at t"e same arguments, or most o! t"em, .ere presented in t"e motion to reconsider> but t"e$ !ailed to induce t"e court a quo to c"ange its mind. &"e oppositor7s brie!, on t"e ot"er "and, aptl$ ans.ers t"e criticisms. =e deem it unnecessar$ to go over t"e same matters, because in our opinion t"e case s"ould be decided not on t"e .ea1ness o! t"e opposition but on t"e strengt" o! t"e evidence o! t"e petitioner, ."o "as t"e burden o! proo!. &"e %panis" *ivil *ode permitted t"e e/ecution o! "olograp"ic .ills along .it" ot"er !orms. &"e *ode o! *ivil (rocedure 9Act 190; approved August ,, 1901, adopted onl$ one !orm, t"ereb$ repealing t"e ot"er !orms, including "olograp"ic .ills. &"e Ne. *ivil *ode e!!ective in 1950 revived "olograp"ic .ills in its arts. A10-A1B. CA person ma$ e/ecute a "olograp"ic .ill ."ic" must be entirel$ .ritten, dated, and signed b$ t"e "and o! t"e testator "imsel!. 5t is sub?ect to no ot"er !orm and ma$ be made in or out o! t"e ("ilippines, and need not be .itnessed.C

&"is is indeed a radical departure !rom t"e !orm and solemnities provided !or .ills under Act 190, ."ic" !or !i!t$ $ears 9!rom 1901 to 1950; re@uired .ills to be subscribed b$ t"e testator and t"ree credible .itnesses in each andevery pa e> suc" .itnesses to attest to t"e number o! s"eets used and to t"e !act t"at t"e testator signed in t"eir presence and t"at t"e$ signed in t"e presence o! t"e testator and o! eac" ot"er. &"e ob?ect o! suc" re@uirements it "as been said, is to close t"e door against bad !ait" and !raud, to prevent substitution o! .ills, to guarantee t"eir trut" and aut"encit$ 9Abangan vs. Abangan, B0 ("il., B,8; and to avoid t"ose ."o "ave no rig"t to succeed t"e testator .ould succeed "im and be bene!ited .it" t"e probate o! same. 9+endo4a vs. (ilapil, B0 O!!. -a4., 1A55;. 'o.ever, !ormal imper!ections ma$ be brus"ed aside ."en aut"enticit$ o! t"e instrument is dul$ proved. 93odrigue4 vs ap, B0 O!!. -a4. 1st %upp. No. D p. 19B.; Aut"enticit$ and due e/ecution is t"e dominant re@uirements to be !ul!illed ."en suc" .ill is submitted to t"e courts !or allo.ance. For t"at purpose t"e testimon$ o! one o! t"e subscribing .itnesses .ould be su!!icient i! t"ere is no opposition 9%ec. 5, 3ule ,,;. 5! t"ere is, t"e t"ree must testi!$, i! available. 9*abang vs. 6el!inado, DB ("il., 291> &olentino vs. Francisco, 5, ("il., ,B2;. From t"e testimon$ o! suc" .itnesses 9and o! ot"er additional .itnesses; t"e court ma$ !orm its opinion as to t"e genuineness and aut"enticit$ o! t"e testament, and t"e circumstances its due e/ecution. No., in t"e matter o! "olograp"ic .ills, no suc" guaranties o! trut" and veracit$ are demanded, since as stated, t"e$ need no .itnesses> provided "o.ever, t"at t"e$ are Centirel$ .ritten, dated, and signed b$ t"e "and o! t"e testator "imsel!.C &"e la., it is reasonable to suppose, regards the docu!ent itself as material proo! o! aut"enticit$, and as its o.n sa!eguard, since it could at an$ time, be demonstrated to be E or not to be E in t"e "ands o! t"e testator "imsel!. C5n t"e probate o! a "olograp"ic .illC sa$s t"e Ne. *ivil *ode, Cit s"all be necessar$ t"at at least one .itness ."o 1no.s t"e "and.riting and signature o! t"e testator e/plicitl$ declare t"at t"e .ill and t"e signature are in t"e "and.riting o! t"e testator. 5! t"e .ill is contested, at least t"ree suc" .itnesses s"all be re@uired. 5n t"e absence o! an$ suc" .itnesses, 9!amiliar .it" decedent7s "and.riting; and i! t"e court deem it necessar$, e/pert testimon$ ma$ be resorted to.C &"e .itnesses so presented do not need to "ave seen t"e e/ecution o! t"e "olograp"ic .ill. &"e$ ma$ be mista1en in t"eir opinion o! t"e "and.riting, or t"e$ ma$ deliberatel$ lie in a!!irming it is in t"e testator7s "and. 'o.ever, t"e oppositor ma$ present ot"er .itnesses ."o also 1no. t"e testator7s "and.riting, or some e/pert .itnesses, ."o a!ter comparing t"e .ill .it" ot"er .ritings or letters o! t"e deceased, "ave come to t"e conclusion t"at suc" .ill "as not been .ritten b$ t"e "and o! t"e deceased. 9%ec. 50, 3ule 12D;. And t"e court, in vie. o! suc" contradictor$ testimon$ ma$ use its o.n visual sense, and decide in the face of the docu!ent, ."et"er t"e .ill submitted to it "as indeed been .ritten b$ t"e testator. Obviousl$, ."en t"e .ill itsel! is not submitted, t"ese !eans of opposition, and of assessin the evidence are not available. And t"en t"e onl$ guarant$ o! aut"enticit$D E t"e testator7s "and.riting E "as disappeared. &"ere!ore, t"e @uestion presents itsel!, !ay a holo raphic "ill be probated upon the testi!ony of "itnesses ."o "ave allegedl$ seen it and ."o declare t"at it .as in t"e "and.riting o! t"e testatorF 'o. can t"e oppositor prove t"at suc" document .as not in t"e testator7s "and.ritingF 'is .itnesses ."o 1no. testator7s "and.riting "ave not e/amined it. 'is e/perts can not testi!$, because t"ere is no .a$ to compare t"e alleged testament .it" ot"er documents admittedl$, or proven to be, in t"e testator7s "and. &"e oppositor .ill, t"ere!ore, be caug"t bet.een t"e upper millstone o! "is lac1 o! 1no.ledge o! t"e .ill or t"e !orm t"ereo!, and t"e net"er millstone o! "is inabilit$ to prove its !alsit$. Again t"e proponent7s .itnesses ma$ be "onest and trut"!ul> but t"e$ ma$ "ave been s"o.n a !a1ed document, and "aving no interest to c"ec1 t"e aut"enticit$ t"ereo! "ave ta1en no pains to e/amine and compare. Or t"e$ ma$ be per?urers boldl$ testi!$ing, in t"e 1no.ledge t"at none could convict t"em o! per?ur$, because no one could prove t"at t"e$ "ave not Cbeen s"o.nC a document ."ic" they believed .as in t"e "and.riting o! t"e deceased. O! course, t"e competenc$ o! suc" per?ured .itnesses to testi!$ as to t"e "and.riting could be tested b$ e/"ibiting to t"em ot"er .ritings su!!icientl$ similar to t"ose .ritten b$ t"e deceased> but ."at .itness or la.$er .ould not !oresee suc" a move and prepare !or itF 'is 1no.ledge o! t"e "and.riting establis"ed, t"e .itness 9or .itnesses; could simpl$ stic1 to "is statement0 "e "as seen and read a document ."ic" "e believed .as in t"e deceased7s "and.riting. And t"e court and t"e oppositor .ould practicall$ be at t"e merc$ o! suc" .itness 9or .itnesses; not onl$ as to t"e e/ecution, but also as to the contents o! t"e .ill. 6oes t"e la. permit suc" a situationF &"e 3ules o! *ourt, 93ule ,,; approved in 19B0 allo. proo! 9and probate; o! a lost or destro$ed .ill b$ secondar$ E evidence t"e testimon$ o! .itnesses, in lieu o! t"e original document. et suc" 3ules could not "ave contemplated "olograp"ic .ills ."ic" could not t"en be validl$ made "ere. 9%ee also %ec. B8, 3ule 12D> Art. AD0-Ne. *ivil *ode.;

*ould 3ule ,, be e/tended, b$ analog$, to "olograp"ic .illsF %panis" commentators agree t"at one o! t"e greatest ob?ections to t"e "olograp"ic .ill is t"at it ma$ be lost or stolenB E an implied admission t"at suc" loss or t"e!t renders it useless.. &"is must be so, because t"e *ivil *ode re@uires it to be protocoled and presented to t"e ?udge, 9Art. 8A9; ."o s"all subscribe it and re@uire its identit$ to be establis"ed b$ t"e t"ree .itnesses ."o depose t"at t"e$ "ave no reasonable doubt t"at the "ill .as .ritten b$ t"e testator 9Art. 891;. And i! t"e ?udge considers t"at t"e identit$ o! t"e .ill "as been proven "e s"all order t"at it be !iled 9Art. 89D;. All t"ese, impl$ presentation o! t"e .ill itsel!. Art. 892 bears t"e same implication, to a greater degree. 5t re@uires t"at t"e surviving spouse and t"e legitimate ascendants and descendants be summoned so t"at t"e$ ma$ ma1e Can$ statement t"e$ ma$ desire to submit .it" respect to t"e aut"enticit$ o! t"e .ill.C As it is universall$ admitted t"at t"e "olograp"ic .ill is usuall$ done b$ t"e testator and b$ "imsel! alone, to prevent ot"ers !rom 1no.ing eit"er its e/ecution or its contents, t"e above article 892 could not "ave t"e idea o! simpl$ permitting suc" relatives to state ."et"er t"e$ 1no. o! t"e .ill, but ."et"er in the face of the docu!ent itself t"e$ t"in1 t"e testator .rote it. Obviousl$, t"is t"e$ can7t do unless the "ill itself is presented to t"e *ourt and to t"em. #ndoubtedl$, t"e intention o! t"e la. is to give t"e near relatives t"e c"oice o! eit"er compl$ing .it" t"e .ill i! t"e$ t"in1 it aut"entic, or to oppose it, i! t"e$ t"in1 it spurious.5 %uc" purpose is !rustrated ."en t"e document is not presented !or t"eir e/amination. 5! it be argued t"at suc" c"oice is not essential, because an$.a$ t"e relatives ma$ oppose, t"e ans.er is t"at t"eir opposition .ill be at a distinct disadvantage, and t"e$ "ave the ri ht and privile eto compl$ .it" t"e .ill, i! genuine, a ri ht "hich they s"ould not be denied b$ .it""olding inspection t"ereo! !rom t"em. =e !ind con!irmation o! t"ese ideas--about e/"ibition o! t"e document itsel!--in t"e decision o! t"e %upreme *ourt o! %pain o! <une 5, 1925, ."ic" denied protocoli4ation or probate to a document containing testamentar$ dispositions in t"e "and.riting o! t"e deceased, but apparentl$ mutilated, the si nature and so!e "ords havin been torn fro! it. Even in t"e !ace o! allegations and testimonial evidence 9."ic" .as controverted;, ascribing t"e mutilation to t"e opponents o! t"e .ill. &"e a!oresaid tribunal declared t"at, in accordance .it" t"e provision o! t"e *ivil *ode 9%panis"; t"e .ill itsel!, ."ole and unmutilated, must be presented> ot"er.ise, it s"all produce no e!!ect. *onsiderando @ue sentado lo anterior, $ estableciendose en el parra!o segundo del articulo 8AA del *odigo civil, @ue para @ue sea valido el testamento ologra!o debera estar escrito todo el $ !irmado por testador, con e/pression del aGo, mes $ dia en @ue se otor@ue, resulta evidente @ue para la valide4 $ e!icacia de esos testamentos, no basta la demostracion mas o menos cumplida de @ue cuando se otor aron se #lenaron todos esos requisitos, sino que de la e$presada redaccion el precepto le al, $ por el tiempo en @ue el verbo se emplea, se desprende la necesidad de que el docu!ento se encuentre en dic"as condiciones en el momento de ser presentado a la Autoridad co!petente, para au adveracion $ protocoli4acion> $ como consecuencia ineludible de ello, !or4oso es a!!irmar que el de autos carece de validez y aficacia, por no estar!irmado por el testador, cual@uiera @ue sea la causa de la !alta de !irma, $ sin per?uicio de las acciones @ue puedan e?ercitar los per?udicados, bien para pedir indemni4acion por el per?uicio a la persona culpable, si la "ubiere, o su castigo en via criminal si procediere, por constituir dicha o!ision un defecto insubsanable . . . . &"is "olding aligns .it" t"e ideas on "olograp"ic .ills in t"e Fuero <u4go, admittedl$ t"e basis o! t"e %panis" *ivil *ode provisions on t"e matter.8 (3E*E6EN&E% :E-A:E%--Fuero <u4go, libro segundo, titulo 2, le$ 15--E depues @ue los "erederos e sus !i?os ovieren esta manda, !asta ... annos muestrenla al obispo de la tierra, o al ?ue4 !asta 25 meses $ el obispo o el ?ue4 tomen otros tales tres escritos, @ue !uesen !ec"os por su mano da@uel @ue !i4o la manda> e por a@uellos escriptos, si sem?ara la letra de la manda, sea con!irmada la manda. E depues @ue todo esto !uere connoscido, el obispo o el ?ue4, o otras testimonios con!irmen el escripto de la manda otra ve4, $ en esta manera vala la manda. 9Art. 8A9, %caevola--*odigo *ivil.; 9According to t"e Fuero above, t"e .ill itsel! must be compared .it" specimens o! t"e testators "and.riting.; All o! ."ic" can onl$ mean0 t"e courts .ill not distribute t"e propert$ o! t"e deceased in accordance .it" "is "olograp"ic .ill, unless t"e$ are s"o.n "is "and.riting and signature.,

(arent"eticall$, it ma$ be added t"at even t"e Frenc" *ivil :a. considers t"e loss o! t"e "olograp"ic .ill to be !atal. 9(laniol $ 3ipert, 6erec"o *ivil Frances, traduccion por 6ia4 *ru4, 19B8, &omo 2, page 555;. &a1ing all t"e above circumstances toget"er, .e reac" t"e conclusion t"at t"e e/ecution and t"e contents o! a lost or destro$ed "olograp"ic .ill ma$ not be proved b$ t"e bare testimon$ o! .itnesses ."o "ave seen andHor read suc" .ill.A #nder t"e provisions o! Art. ADA o! t"e Ne. *ivil *ode, .e are empo.ered to adopt t"is opinion as a 3ule o! *ourt !or t"e allo.ance o! suc" "olograp"ic .ills. =e "esitate, "o.ever, to ma1e t"is 3ule decisive o! t"is controvers$, simultaneousl$ .it" its promulgation. An$.a$, decision o! t"e appeal ma$ rest on t"e su!!icienc$, rat"er t"e insu!!icienc$, o! t"e evidence presented b$ petitioner Fausto E. -an. At t"is point, be!ore proceeding !urt"er, it mig"t be convenient to e/plain ."$, unli1e "olograp"ic .ills, ordinar$ .ills ma$ be proved b$ testimonial evidence ."en lost or destro$ed. &"e di!!erence lies in t"e nature o! t"e .ills. 5n t"e !irst, t"e onl$ guarantee o! aut"enticit$ is t"e "and.riting itsel!> in t"e second, t"e testimon$ o! t"e subscribing or instrumental .itnesses 9and o! t"e notar$, no.;. &"e loss o! t"e "olograp"ic .ill entails t"e loss o! t"e onl$ medium o! proo!> i! t"e ordinar$ .ill is lost, t"e subscribing .itnesses are available to aut"enticate. 5n t"e case o! ordinar$ .ills, it is @uite "ard to convince t"ree .itnesses 9!our .it" t"e notar$; deliberatel$ to lie. And t"en t"eir lies could be c"ec1ed and e/posed, t"eir ."ereabouts and acts on t"e particular da$, t"e li1eli"ood t"at t"e$ .ould be called b$ t"e testator, t"eir intimac$ .it" t"e testator, etc. And i! t"e$ .ere intimates or trusted !riends o! t"e testator t"e$ are not li1el$ to end t"emselves to an$ !raudulent sc"eme to distort "is .is"es. :ast but not least, t"e$ can not receive an$t"ing on account o! t"e .ill. ="ereas in t"e case o! "olograp"ic .ills, i! oral testimon$ .ere admissible9 onl$ one man could engineer t"e !raud t"is .a$0 a!ter ma1ing a clever or passable imitation o! t"e "and.riting and signature o! t"e deceased, "e ma$ contrive to let t"ree "onest and credible .itnesses see and read t"e !orger$> and t"e latter, "aving no interest, could easil$ !all !or it, and in court t"e$ .ould in all good !ait" a!!irm its genuineness and aut"enticit$. &"e .ill "aving been lost E t"e !orger ma$ "ave purposel$ destro$ed it in an CaccidentC E t"e oppositors "ave no .a$ to e/pose t"e tric1 and t"e error, because t"e document itsel! is not at "and. And considering t"at t"e "olograp"ic .ill ma$ consist o! t.o or t"ree pages, and only one o! t"em need be signed, t"e substitution o! t"e unsigned pages, ."ic" ma$ be t"e most important ones, ma$ go undetected. 5! testimonial evidence o! "olograp"ic .ills be permitted, one more ob?ectionable !eature E !easibilit$ o! !orger$ E .ould be added to t"e several ob?ections to t"is 1ind o! .ills listed b$ *astan, %anc"e4 3oman and 2alverde and ot"er .ell-1no.n %panis" *ommentators and teac"ers o! *ivil :a.. 10 One more !undamental di!!erence0 in t"e case o! a lost .ill, t"e t"ree subscribing .itnesses .ould be testi!$ing to a fact ."ic" t"e$ sa., namel$ t"e act o! t"e testator o! subscribing t"e .ill> ."ereas in t"e case o! a lost "olograp"ic .ill, t"e .itnesses .ould testi!$ as to their opinion o! t"e "and.riting ."ic" t"e$ allegedl$ sa., an opinion ."ic" can not be tested in court, nor directl$ contradicted b$ t"e oppositors, because t"e "and.riting itsel! is not at "and. &urning no. to t"e evidence presented b$ t"e petitioner, .e !ind ourselves s"aring t"e trial ?udge7s disbelie!. 5n addition to t"e dubious circumstances described in t"e appealed decision, .e !ind it "ard to believe t"at t"e deceased s"ould s"o. "er .ill precisel$ to relatives ."o "ad received not"ing !rom it0 %ocorro Olarte and (rimitivo 3e$es. &"ese could pester "er into amending "er .ill to give t"em a s"are, or t"reaten to reveal its e/ecution to "er "usband 5lde!onso ap. And t"is leads to anot"er point0 i! s"e .anted so muc" to conceal t"e .ill !rom "er "usband, ."$ did s"e not entrust it to "er bene!iciariesF Opportunit$ to do so .as not lac1ing0 !or instance, "er "usband7s trip to 6avao, a !e. da$s a!ter t"e alleged e/ecution o! t"e .ill. 5n !ine, even i! oral testimon$ .ere admissible to establis" and probate a lost "olograp"ic .ill, .e t"in1 t"e evidence submitted b$ "erein petitioner is so tainted .it" improbabilities and inconsistencies t"at it !ails to measure up to t"at Cclear and distinctC proo! re@uired b$ 3ule ,,, sec. 8.11 ="ere!ore, t"e re?ection o! t"e alleged .ill must be sustained. <udgment a!!irmed, .it" costs against petitioner.

%aras, C. &., %adilla, Monte!ayor, Reyes, A., Bautista An elo, Concepcion, Reyes, &. B. '., (ndencia and )eli$, &&., concur.

3epublic o! t"e ("ilippines SU RE(E COURT +anila F53%& 6525%5ON G.R. No. L-58509 D"#")*"+ ,, 1982 IN T-E (ATTER OF T-E ETITION TO A RO.E T-E /ILL OF RICARDO %. %ONILLA !"#"$s"!, (ARCELA RODELAS, petitioner-appellant, vs. A( ARO ARAN&A, ET AL., oppositors-appellees, ATTY. LOREN&O SU(ULONG, intervenor. 'uciano A. &oson for petitioner*appellant. Cesar %arale+o for oppositor*appellee.

RELO.A, J.: &"is case .as certi!ied to t"is &ribunal b$ t"e *ourt o! Appeals !or !inal determination pursuant to %ection D, 3ule 50 o! t"e 3ules o! *ourt. As !ound b$ t"e *ourt o! Appeals0 ... On <anuar$ 11, 19,,, appellant !iled a petition .it" t"e *ourt o! First 5nstance o! 3i4al !or t"e probate o! t"e "olograp"ic .ill o! 3icardo ). )onilla and t"e issuance o! letters testamentar$ in "er !avor. &"e petition, doc1eted as %p. (roc. No. ABD2, .as opposed b$ t"e appellees Amparo Aran4a )onilla, =il!erine )onilla &re$es E/pedita )onilla Frias and Ep"raim )onilla on t"e !ollo.ing grounds0 91; Appellant .as estopped !rom claiming t"at t"e deceased le!t a .ill b$ !ailing to produce t"e .ill .it"in t.ent$ da$s o! t"e deat" o! t"e testator as re@uired b$ 3ule ,5, section 2 o! t"e 3ules o! *ourt> 92; &"e alleged cop$ o! t"e alleged "olograp"ic .ill did not contain a disposition o! propert$ a!ter deat" and .as not intended to ta1e e!!ect a!ter deat", and t"ere!ore it .as not a .ill 9D; &"e alleged "ollograp"ic .ill itsel!,and not an alleged cop$ t"ereo!, must be produced, ot"er.ise it .ould produce no e!!ect, as "eld in -am v. ap, 10B ("il. 509> and 9B ; &"e deceased did not leave an$ .ill, "olograp"ic or ot"er.ise, e/ecuted and attested as re@uired b$ la.. &"e appellees li1e.ise moved !or t"e consolidation o! t"e case .it" anot"er case %p. (roc. No, A2,5;. &"eir motion .as granted b$ t"e court in an order dated April B, 19,,. On November 1D, 19,A, !ollo.ing t"e consolidation o! t"e cases, t"e appellees moved again to dismiss t"e petition !or t"e probate o! t"e .ill. &"e$ argued t"at0

91; &"e alleged "olograp"ic .as not a last .ill but merel$ an instruction as to t"e management and improvement o! t"e sc"ools and colleges !ounded b$ decedent 3icardo ). )onilla> and 92; :ost or destro$ed "olograp"ic .ills cannot be proved b$ secondar$ evidence unli1e ordinar$ .ills. #pon opposition o! t"e appellant, t"e motion to dismiss .as denied b$ t"e court in its order o! Februar$ 2D, 19,9. &"e appellees t"en !iled a motion !or reconsideration on t"e ground t"at t"e order .as contrar$ to la. and settled pronouncements and rulings o! t"e %upreme *ourt, to ."ic" t"e appellant in turn !iled an opposition. On <ul$ 2D, 19,9, t"e court set aside its order o! Februar$ 2D, 19,9 and dismissed t"e petition !or t"e probate o! t"e .ill o! 3icardo ). )onilla. &"e court said0 ... 5t is our considered opinion t"at once t"e original cop$ o! t"e "olograp"ic .ill is lost, a cop$ t"ereo! cannot stand in lieu o! t"e original. 5n t"e case o! -am vs. ap, 10B ("il. 509, 522, t"e %upreme *ourt "eld t"at 7in t"e matter o! "olograp"ic .ills t"e la., it is reasonable to suppose, regards t"e document itsel! as t"e material proo! o! aut"enticit$ o! said .ills. +O3EO2E3, t"is *ourt notes t"at t"e alleged "olograp"ic .ill .as e/ecuted on <anuar$ 25, 1982 ."ile 3icardo ). )onilla died on +a$ 1D, 19,8. 5n vie. o! t"e lapse o! more t"an 1B $ears !rom t"e time o! t"e e/ecution o! t"e .ill to t"e deat" o! t"e decedent, t"e !act t"at t"e original o! t"e .ill could not be located s"o.s to our mind t"at t"e decedent "ad discarded be!ore "is deat" "is allegedl$ missing 'olograp"ic =ill. Appellant7s motion !or reconsideration .as denied. 'ence, an appeal to t"e *ourt o! Appeals in ."ic" it is contended t"at t"e dismissal o! appellant7s petition is contrar$ to la. and .ell-settled ?urisprudence. On <ul$ ,, 19A0, appellees moved to !or.ard t"e case to t"is *ourt on t"e ground t"at t"e appeal does not involve @uestion o! !act and alleged t"at t"e trial court committed t"e !ollo.ing assigned errors0 5. &'E :O=E3 *O#3& E33E6 5N 'O:65N- &'A& A :O%& 'O:O-3A('5* =5:: +A NO& )E (3O2E6 ) A *O( &'E3EOF> 55. &'E :O=E3 *O#3& E33E6 5N 'O:65N- &'A& &'E 6E*E6EN& 'A% 65%*A36E6 )EFO3E '5% 6EA&' &'E +5%%5N- 'O:O-3A('5* =5::> 555. &'E :O=E3 *O#3& E33E6 5N 65%+5%%5N- A((E::AN&7% =5::. &"e onl$ @uestion "ere is ."et"er a "olograp"ic .ill ."ic" .as lost or cannot be !ound can be proved b$ means o! a p"otostatic cop$. (ursuant to Article A11 o! t"e *ivil *ode, probate o! "olograp"ic .ills is t"e allo.ance o! t"e .ill b$ t"e court a!ter its due e/ecution "as been proved. &"e probate ma$ be uncontested or not. 5! uncontested, at least one 5denti!$ing .itness is re@uired and, i! no .itness is available, e/perts ma$ be resorted to. 5! contested, at least t"ree 5denti!$ing .itnesses are re@uired. 'o.ever, i! t"e "olograp"ic .ill "as been lost or destro$ed and no ot"er cop$ is available, t"e .ill can not be probated because t"e best and onl$ evidence is t"e "and.riting o! t"e testator in said .ill. 5t is necessar$ t"at t"ere be a comparison bet.een sample "and.ritten statements o! t"e testator and t"e "and.ritten .ill. )ut, a p"otostatic cop$ or /ero/ cop$ o! t"e "olograp"ic .ill ma$ be allo.ed because comparison can be made .it" t"e standard .ritings o! t"e testator. 5n t"e case o! -am vs. ap, 10B ('5:. 509, t"e *ourt ruled t"at Ct"e e/ecution and t"e contents o! a lost or destro$ed "olograp"ic .ill ma$ not be proved b$ t"e bare testimon$ o! .itnesses ."o "ave seen andHor read suc" .ill. &"e .ill itsel! must be presented> ot"er.ise, it s"all produce no e!!ect. &"e la. regards t"e document itsel! as material proo! o! aut"enticit$.C )ut, in Footnote A o! said decision, it sa$s t"at C(er"aps it ma$ be proved b$ a p"otograp"ic or p"otostatic cop$. Even a mimeograp"ed or carbon cop$> or b$ ot"er similar means, i! an$, ."ereb$ t"e aut"enticit$ o! t"e "and.riting o! t"e deceased ma$ be e/"ibited and tested be!ore t"e probate court,C Evidentl$, t"e p"otostatic or /ero/ cop$ o! t"e lost or destro$ed "olograp"ic .ill ma$ be admitted because t"en t"e aut"enticit$ o! t"e "and.riting o! t"e deceased can be determined b$ t"e probate court.

='E3EFO3E, t"e order o! t"e lo.er court dated October D, 19,9, den$ing appellant7s motion !or reconsideration dated August 9, 19,9, o! t"e Order dated <ul$ 2D, 19,9, dismissing "er petition to approve t"e .ill o! t"e late 3icardo ). )onilla, is "ereb$ %E& A%56E. %O O36E3E6. Teehan,ee, Act . C.&., Melencio*Herrera, %lana, -asquez and .utierrez, &r., &&., concur.

&"e :a.p"il (ro?ect - Arellano :a. Foundation

Rodelas 119 SCRA 16 FACTS:

v.

Aranza

Rodelas filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testa entar! in her fa"or. Aranza# et al. filed a $%& on the grounds of' 1.Rodelas was estopped fro clai ing that the deceased left a will b! failing to produce the will within

twent! da!s of the death of the testator as re(uired b! Rule )*# section + of the Rules of Court, +.the cop! of the alleged holographic will did not contain a disposition of propert! after death and was not intended to ta-e effect after death# and therefore it was not a will# it was erel! an instruction as to the anage ent and i pro"e ent of the schools and colleges founded b! the decedent, ..the hollographic will itself# and not an alleged cop! thereof# ust beproduced# otherwise it would produce no effect because lost or destro!ed holographic wills cannot be pro"ed b! secondar! e"idence unli-e ordinar! wills. /.the deceased did not lea"e an! will# holographic or otherwise# e0ecuted and attested as re(uired b! law. $%& was denied. Aranza et al. filed an $R# Rodelas filed an opposition. %he CFI set aside its order and dis issed the petition for the probate of the will stating that 1in the case of 2a "s. 3ap# 14/ 5hil. *49# *++# theSupre e Court held that 6in the atter of holographic wills the law# it is reasonable to suppose# regards the docu ent itself as the aterial proof of authenticit! of said wills.7 And that the alleged holographic will was e0ecuted on 8anuar! +*# 196+ while Ricardo B. Bonilla died on $a! 1.# 19)6. %he lapse of ore than 1/ !ears fro the ti e of the e0ecution of the will to the death of thedecedent and the fact that the original of the will could not be located shows to that the decedent had discarded the alleged holographic will before his death.

Rodelas filed an $R which was denied. Rodelas appealed to the CA. Aranza et al. case to the SC as it in"ol"es a (uestion of law not of fact. ISSUE: 9:; a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be pro"ed b! HELD:

o"ed to forward the

eans of a photostatic cop!.

If the holographic will has been lost or destro!ed and no other cop! is a"ailable# the will cannot be probated because the best and onl! e"idence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessar! that there be a co parison between sa ple handwritten state ents of the testator and the handwritten will. But# a photostatic cop! or 0ero0 cop! of the holographic will a! be allowed because co parison can be

ade b! the probate court with the standard writings of the testator. %he probate court would be able to deter ine the authenticit! of the handwriting of the testator. In the case of 2a "s. 3ap# 14/ 5<I=. *49# the Court ruled that 1the e0ecution and the contents of a lost or destro!ed holographic will a! not be pro"ed b! the bare testi on! of witnesses who ha"e seen and:or read such will. %he will itself ust be presented, otherwise# it shall produce no effect. %he law regards the docu ent itself as aterial proof of authenticit!.7 But# in Footnote > of said decision# it sa!s that 15erhaps it a! be pro"ed b! a photographic or photostatic cop!. ?"en a i eographed or carbon cop!, or b! other si ilar eans# if an!# whereb! the authenticit! of the handwriting of the deceased a! be e0hibited and tested before the probate court#7
3epublic o! t"e ("ilippines SU RE(E COURT +anila EN )AN* G.R. No. L-19205 ($1 29, 1902

(OISES SAN DIEGO, SR., petitioner, vs. ADELO NO(%RE $3! EDRO ESCANLAR, respondents. A. R. Casta/eda and M. 0. Ro$as for petitioner. A!ado B. %arre/o 'a" 1ffice for respondents. AREDES, J.: &"e case at bar "ad its origin in %pecial (roceedings No. ,2,9 o! t"e *F5 o! Negros Occidental ."erein respondent Adelo Nombre .as t"e dul$ constituted ?udicial administrator. On +a$ 1, 1980, Nombre, in "is capacit$ .as ?udicial administrator o! t"e intestate estate sub?ect o! t"e %p. (roc. stated above, leased one o! t"e properties o! t"e estate 9a !is"pond identi!ied as :ot No. 181, o! t"e cadastral surve$ o! Iaban1aban, Negros Occidental;, to (edro Escanlar, t"e ot"er respondent. &"e terms o! t"e lease .as !or t"ree 9D; $ears, .it" a $earl$ rental o! (D,000.00 to e/pire on +a$ 1, 198D, t"e transaction "aving been done, admittedl$, .it"out previous aut"orit$ or approval o! t"e *ourt ."ere

t"e proceedings .as pending. On <anuar$ 1,, 1981, Nombre .as removed as administrator b$ Order o! t"e court and one %o!ronio *ampillanos .as appointed in "is stead. &"e appeal on t"e Order o! Nombre7s removal is supposedl$ pending .it" t"e *ourt o! Appeals. 3espondent Escanlar .as cited !or contempt, allegedl$ !or "is re!usal to surrender t"e !is"pond to t"e ne.l$ appointed administrator. On +arc" 20, 1981, *ampillanos !iled a motion as1ing !or aut"orit$ to e/ecute a lease contract o! t"e same !is"pond, in !avor o! petitioner "erein, +oises %an 6iego, %r., !or 5 $ears !rom 1981, at a $earl$ rental o! (5,000.00. Escanlar .as not noti!ied o! suc" motion. Nombre, t"e deposed administrator, presented a .ritten opposition to t"e motion o! *ampillanos on April 11, 198B, pointing out t"at t"e !is"pond "ad been leased b$ "im to Escanlar !or D $ears, t"e period o! ."ic" .as going to e/pire on +a$ 1, 198D. 5n a supplemental opposition, "e also invited t"e attention o! t"e *ourt t"at to grant t"e motion o! t"e ne. administrator .ould in e!!ect nulli!$ t"e contract in !avor o! Escanlar, a person on ."om t"e *ourt "ad no ?urisdiction. 'e also intimated t"at t"e validit$ o! t"e lease contract entered into b$ a ?udicial administrator, must be recogni4ed unless so declared void in a separate action. &"e opposition not.it"standing, t"e *ourt on April A, 1981, in e!!ect declared t"at t"e contract in !avor o! Escanlar .as null and void, !or .ant o! ?udicial aut"orit$ and t"at unless "e .ould o!!er t"e same as or better conditions t"an t"e prospective lessee, %an 6iego, t"ere .as no good reason ."$ t"e motion !or aut"orit$ to lease t"e propert$ to %an 6iego s"ould not be granted. Nombre moved to reconsider t"e Order o! April A, stating t"at Escanlar .as .illing to increase t"e rental o! (5,000.00, but onl$ a!ter t"e termination o! "is original contract. &"e motion !or reconsideration .as denied on April 2B, 1981, t"e trial ?udge stating t"at t"e contract in !avor o! Escanlar .as e/ecuted in bad !ait" and .as !raudulent because o! t"e imminence o! Nombre7s removal as administrator, one o! t"e causes o! ."ic" .as "is indiscriminate pleasant, o! t"e propert$ .it" inade@uate rentals. From t"is Order, a petition !or *ertiorari as1ing !or t"e annulment o! t"e Orders o! April A and 2B, 1981 .as presented b$ Nombre and Escanlar .it" t"e *ourt o! Appeals. A =rit o! preliminar$ in?unction .as li1e.ise pra$ed !or to restrain t"e ne. administrator *ampillanos !rom possessing t"e !is"pond and !rom e/ecuting a ne. lease contract covering it> re@uiring "im to return t"e possession t"ereo! to Escanlar, plus damages and attorne$7s !ees in t"e amount o! (10,000.00 and costs. &"e *ourt o! Appeals issued t"e in?unctive .rit and re@uired respondents t"erein to Ans.er. *ampillanos insisted on t"e invalidit$ o! t"e contract in !avor o! Escanlar> t"e lo.er court alleged t"at it did not e/actl$ annul or invalidate t"e lease in "is @uestioned orders but suggested merel$ t"at Escanlar Cma$ !ile a separate ordinar$ action in t"e *ourt o! general ?urisdiction.C &"e *ourt o! Appeals, in dismissing t"e petition !or certiorari, among ot"ers said E &"e controlling issue in t"is case is t"e legalit$ o! t"e contract o! lease entered into b$ t"e !ormer administrator Nombre, and (edro Escanlar on +a$ 1, 1980. 3espondents contend t"at t"is contract, not "aving been aut"ori4ed or approved b$ t"e *ourt, is null and void and cannot be an obstacle to t"e e/ecution o! anot"er o! lease b$ t"e ne. administrator, *ampillanos. &"is contention is .it"out merit. ... . 5t "as been "eld t"at even in t"e absence o! suc" special po.ers, a contract or lease !or more t"an 8 $ears is not entirel$ invalid> it is invalid onl$ in so !ar as it e/ceeds t"e si/$ear limit 9Enri@ue v. =atson *ompan$, et al., 8 ("il. AB;. 1 No suc" limitation on t"e po.er o! a ?udicial administrator to grant a lease o! propert$ placed under "is custod$ is provided !or in t"e present la.. #nder Article 18B, o! t"e present *ivil *ode, it is onl$ ."en t"e lease is to be recorded in the Re istry of %roperty t"at it cannot be instituted .it"out special aut"orit$. &"us, regardless o! t"e period o! lease, t"ere is no need o! special aut"orit$ unless t"e contract is to be recorded in t"e 3egistr$ o! (ropert$. As to ."et"er t"e contract in !avor o! Escanlar is to be so recorded is not material to our in@uir$.
23"ph42./5t

On t"e contrar$, 3ule A5, %ection D, o! t"e 3ules o! *ourt aut"ori4es a ?udicial administrator, among ot"er t"ings, to administer t"e estate o! t"e deceased not disposed o! b$ .ill. *ommenting on t"is %ection in t"e lig"t o! several %upreme *ourt decisions 9<ocson de 'ilado v. Nava, 89 ("il. 1> -amboa v. -amboa, 8A ("il. D0B> Ferraris v. 3odas, 85 ("il. ,D2> 3odrigue4 v. )orromeo, BD ("il. B,9;, +oran sa$s0 C#nder t"is provision, t"e e/ecutor or administrator "as t"e po.er o! administering t"e estate o! t"e deceased !or purposes o! li@uidation and distribution. 'e ma$, t"ere!ore, e/ercise all acts o! administration .it"out special aut"orit$ o! t"e *ourt. For instance, "e ma$ lease t"e propert$ .it"out securing previousl$ an$ permission !rom t"e court. And ."ere t"e lease "as !ormall$ been entered into, t"e court cannot, in t"e same proceeding, annul t"e same, to t"e pre?udice o! t"e lessee, over ."ose person it "ad no ?urisdiction. &"e proper remed$ .ould be a separate action b$ t"e administrator or t"e "eirs to annul t"e lease. ... .

On %eptember 1D, 1981, petitioner "erein +oises %an 6iego, %r., ."o .as not a part$ in t"e case, intervened and moved !or a reconsideration o! t"e above ?udgment. &"e original parties 9t"e ne. administrator and respondent ?udge; also !iled +otions !or reconsideration, but .e do not !ind t"em in t"e record. On November 1A, 1981, t"e *ourt o! Appeals denied t"e motions !or reconsideration. =it" t"e denial o! t"e said motions, onl$ %an 6iego, appealed t"ere!rom, raising legal @uestions, ."ic" center on C="et"er a ?udicial administrator can validl$ lease propert$ o! t"e estate .it"out prior ?udicial aut"orit$ and approvalC, and C."et"er t"e provisions o! t"e Ne. *ivil *ode on Agenc$ s"ould appl$ to ?udicial administrators.C &"e 3ules o! *ourt provide t"at E An e/ecutor or administrator s"all "ave t"e rig"t to t"e possession o! t"e real as .ell as t"e personal estate o! t"e deceased so long as it is necessar$ !or t"e pa$ment o! t"e debts and t"e e/penses o! administration, and s"all ad!inister the estate o! t"e deceased not disposed o! b$ "is .ill. 9%ec. D, 3ule A5, old 3ules;. :ease "as been considered an act o! administration 9<ocson v. Nava> -amboa v. -amboa> 3odrigue4 v. )orromeo> Ferraris v. 3odas, supra;. &"e *ivil *ode, on lease, provides0 5! a lease is to be recorded in t"e 3egistr$ o! (ropert$, t"e !ollo.ing persons cannot constitute t"e same .it"out proper aut"orit$, t"e "usband .it" respect to t"e .i!e7s parap"ernal real estate, t"e !at"er or guardian as to t"e propert$ o! t"e minor or .ard, and t"e manager .it"out special po.er. 9Art. 18B,;. &"e same *ode, on Agenc$, states0 %pecial po.ers o! attorne$s are necessar$ in t"e !ollo.ing cases0 9A; &o lease an$ real propert$ to anot"er person !or more t"an one $ear. 9Art. 1A,A; (etitioner contends, t"at No. A, Art. 1A,A is t"e limitation to t"e rig"t o! a ?udicial administrator to lease real propert$ .it"out prior court aut"orit$ and approval, i! it e/ceeds one $ear. &"e lease contract in !avor o! Escanlar being !or D $ears and .it"out suc" court approval and aut"orit$ is, t"ere!ore, null and void. #pon t"e ot"er "and, respondents maintain t"at t"ere is no limitation o! suc" rig"t> and t"at Article 1A,A does not appl$ in t"e instant case. =e believe t"at t"e *ourt o! Appeals .as correct in sustaining t"e validit$ o! t"e contract o! lease in !avor o! Escanlar, not.it"standing t"e lac1 o! prior aut"orit$ and approval. &"e la. and prevailing ?urisprudence on t"e matter militates in !avor o! t"is vie.. ="ile it ma$ be admitted t"at t"e duties o! a ?udicial administrator and an agent 9petitioner alleges t"at bot" act in representative capacit$;, are in some respects, identical, t"e provisions on agenc$ 9Art. 1A,A, *.*.;, s"ould not appl$ to a ?udicial administrator. A ?udicial administrator is appointed b$ t"e *ourt. 'e is not onl$ t"e representative o! said *ourt, but also t"e "eirs and creditors o! t"e estate 9*"ua &an v. 6el 3osario, 5, ("il. B11;. A ?udicial administrator be!ore entering into "is duties, is re@uired to !ile a bond. &"ese circumstances are not true in case o! agenc$. &"e agent is onl$ ans.erable to "is principal. &"e protection ."ic" t"e la. gives t"e principal, in limiting t"e po.ers and rig"ts o! an agent, stems !rom t"e !act t"at control b$ t"e principal can onl$ be t"ru agreements, ."ereas t"e acts o! a ?udicial administrator are sub?ect to speci!ic provisions o! la. and orders o! t"e appointing court. &"e observation o! !ormer *"ie! <ustice +oran, as @uoted in t"e decision o! t"e *ourt o! Appeals, is indeed sound, and =e are not prone to alter t"e same, at t"e moment. =e, li1e.ise, seriousl$ doubt petitioner7s legal standing to pursue t"is appeal. And, i! =e consider t"e !act t"at a!ter t"e e/piration o! t"e original period o! t"e lease contract e/ecuted b$ respondent Nombre in !avor o! Escanlar, a ne. contract in !avor o! said Escanlar, .as e/ecuted on +a$ 1, 198D, b$ t"e ne. administrator *ampillanos. ."o, incidentall$, did not ta1e an$ active participation in t"e present appeal, t"e rig"t o! petitioner to t"e !is"pond becomes a moot and academic issue, ."ic" =e need not pass upon. ='E3EFO3E, t"e decision appealed !rom s"ould be, as it is "ereb$ a!!irmed, in all respects, .it" costs against petitioner +oises %an 6iego, %r. Ben zon, C.&., Bautista An elo, Concepcion, Reyes, &.B.'., Barrera, Re ala and Ma,alintal, &&., concur. %adilla, 'abrador and Dizon, &&., too, no part.

Foot3ot"s
1

3e!erring to Art. 15BA o! t"e old *ivil *ode. 3epublic o! t"e ("ilippines SU RE(E COURT +anila F53%& 6525%5ON

G.R. No. L-20001 ($+#4 25, 1982 LU& CARO, petitioner, vs. -ONORA%LE COURT OF A EALS $3! %ASILIA LA-ORRA .DA. DE %ENITO, AS AD(INISTRATRI5 OF T-E INTESTATE ESTATE OF (ARIO %ENITO, respondents.

GUERRERO, J.: &"is is a petition !or certiorari under 3ule B5 o! t"e 3evised 3ules o! *ourt see1ing a revie. o! t"e decision o! t"e *ourt o! Appeals, 1 promulgated on Februar$ 11, 19,,, in *A--.3. No. 525,0-3 entitled C)asilia :a"orra 2da. de )enito, as Administratri/ o! t"e 5ntestate Estate o! +ario )enito vs. :u4 *aroC, as .ell as t"e resolution o! t"e respondent *ourt, dated +a$ 1D, 19,,, den$ing petitioner7s +otion !or 3econsideration. &"e !acts o! t"e case are as !ollo.s0 Al!redo )enito, +ario )enito and )en?amin )enito .ere t"e original co-o.ners o! t.o parcels o! land covered b$ &rans!er *erti!icates o! &itle Nos. &-809 and &-810 o! t"e 3egistr$ o! 6eeds o! %orsogon. +ario died sometime in <anuar$, 195,. 'is surviving .i!e, )asilia :a"orra and "is !at"er, %aturnino )enito, .ere subse@uentl$ appointed in %pecial (roceeding No. 50A o! t"e *ourt o! First 5nstance o! %orsogon as ?oint administrators o! +ario7s estate. On August 28, 1959, one o! t"e co-o.ners, )en?amin )enito, e/ecuted a deed o! absolute sale o! "is one-t"ird undivided portion over said parcels o! land in !avor o! "erein petitioner, :u4 *aro, !or t"e sum o! (10,000.00. &"is .as registered on %eptember 29, 1959. %ubse@uentl$, .it" t"e consent o! %aturnino )enito and Al!redo )enito as s"o.n in t"eir a!!idavits bot" dated %eptember 15, 1980, E/"ibits - and F respectivel$, a subdivision title .as issued to petitioner :u4 *aro over :ot 5-*, under &.*.&. No. &-B9,A. %ometime in t"e mont" o! +a$, 1988, private respondent )asilia :a"orra 2da. de )enito learned !rom an allegation in a pleading presented b$ petitioner in %pecial (roceeding No. 50A t"at t"e latter ac@uired b$ purc"ase !rom )en?amin )enito t"e a!oresaid one-t"ird undivided s"are in eac" o! t"e t.o parcels o! land. A!ter !urt"er veri!ication, s"e sent to petitioner t"ru "er counsel, a .ritten o!!er to redeem t"e said one-t"ird undivided s"are dated August 25, 1988. 5nasmuc" as petitioner ignored said o!!er, private respondent soug"t to intervene in *ivil *ase No. 2105 entitled C3osa Amador 2da. de )enito vs. :u4 *aroC !or annulment o! sale and mortgage and cancellation o! t"e annotation o! t"e sale and mortgage involving t"e same parcels o! land, but did not succeed as t"e principal case .as dismissed on a tec"nicalit$, t"at is, !or !ailure to prosecute and t"e proposed intervenor !ailed to pa$ t"e doc1eting !ees. (rivate respondent, t"us, !iled t"e present case as an independent one and in t"e trial soug"t to prove t"at as a ?oint administrator o! t"e estate o! +ario )enito, s"e "ad not been noti!ied o! t"e sale as re@uired b$ Article 1820 in connection .it" Article 182D o! t"e Ne. *ivil *ode. On t"e ot"er "and, petitioner presented during t"e "earing o! t"e case secondar$ evidence o! t"e service o! .ritten notice o! t"e intended sale to possible redemptioners in as muc" as t"e best t"ereo!, t"e .ritten notices itsel! sent to and %aturnino )enito, could not be presented !or t"e reason t"at said notices .ere sent to persons ."o .ere alread$ dead ."en t"e complaint !or legal redemption .as broug"t. 5nstead, t"e a!!idavit o! )en?amin )enito, e/ecuted ante lite! !ota!, attesting to t"e !act t"at t"e possible redemptioners .ere !ormall$ noti!ied in .riting o! "is intention to sell "is undivided s"are, .as presented in evidence. &"e deposition o! %aturnino7s .ido. .as li1e.ise ta1en and

introduced in evidence, ."erein s"e testi!ied t"at s"e received and gave to "er "usband t"e .ritten notice o! t"e intended sale but t"at t"e latter e/pressed disinterest in bu$ing t"e propert$. A!ter "earing t"e evidence, t"e trial ?udge dismissed t"e complaint on t"e grounds t"at0 9a; private respondent, as administratri/ o! t"e intestate estate o! +ario )enito, does not "ave t"e po.er to e/ercise t"e rig"t o! legal redemption, and 9b; )en?amin )enito substantiall$ complied .it" "is obligation o! !urnis"ing .ritten notice o! t"e sale o! "is one-t"ird undivided portion to possible redemptioners. (rivate respondent7s +otion !or 3econsideration o! t"e trial court7s decision "aving been denied, s"e appealed to t"e respondent *ourt o! Appeals contending t"at t"e trial <udge erred in 5. . . not in"ibiting "imsel! !rom tr$ing and deciding t"e case because "is son is an associate or member o! t"e la. o!!ice o! Att$. 3odol!o A. +adrid, t"e attorne$ o! record o! de!endant-appellee in t"e instant case> 55. . contending t"at )en?amin )enito complied .it" t"e provisions o! Article 182D o! t"e 3evised *ivil *ode t"at be!ore a co-o.ner could sell "is s"are o! t"e propert$ o.ned in common .it" t"e ot"er co-"eirs, "e must !irst give .ritten notice o! "is desire to "is co-"eirs> 9p. B9, 3.A.; 555. concluding t"at t"e !act t"at one o! t"e administrators ."o .as activel$ managing t"e estate .as !urnis"ed a .ritten notice b$ t"e co-o.ner o! "is desire to sell "is s"are .as enoug" compliance o! t"e provisions o! Article 182D o! t"e *ivil *ode !or t"e reason t"at t"e intention o! t"e la. is onl$ to give a c"ance to t"e ne. co-o.ner to bu$ t"e s"are intended to be sold i! "e desires to bu$ t"e same> 9p. 50, 3.A.; 52. . re!using to allo. plainti!! to redeem t"e sub?ect propert$ upon aut"orit$ o! )utte vs. +anuel #$ J %ons, :-15B99, Feb. 2A, 1982 9p. 51, 3.A.; and in conse@uentl$ dismissing t"e complaint 9p. 52, 3.A.;. 5n disposing o! t"e a!oresaid errors, t"e *ourt o! Appeals !inding !or plainti!! 9"erein private respondent; "eld0 1. &"at it is not clear t"at Att$. Arcangel, son o! t"e trial <udge, .as legall$ associated as practitioner .it" counsel !or :u4 *aro> t"at it is not s"o.n at an$ rate t"at plainti!! "ad as1ed !or <udge Arcangel7s dis@uali!ication and t"at at an$ rate also, in suc" !actual situation, an optional ground !or dis@uali!ication is addressed to "is sound discretion .it" ."ic" it .ould not be correct !or appellate court to inter!ere or overrule. 2. &"at since t"e rig"t o! t"e co-o.ner to redeem in case "is s"are be sold to a stranger arose a!ter t"e deat" o! +ario )enito, suc" rig"t did not !orm part o! t"e "ereditar$ estate o! +ario but instead .as t"e personal rig"t o! t"e "eirs, one o! ."om is +ario7s .ido.. &"us, it be"ooved eit"er t"e vendor, )en?amin, or "is vendee, :u4 *aro, to "ave made a .ritten notice o! t"e intended or consummated sale under Article 1820 o! t"e *ivil *ode. D. &"at t"e recital in t"e deed o! sale t"at t"e vendor noti!ied "is co-o.ners o! "is desire to dispose o! "is s"are, ."o all declined to bu$, .as but a unilateral statement and could not be proo! o! t"e notice re@uired b$ t"e la.. B. &"at t"e registration o! t"e deed o! sale did not erase t"at rig"t. 5. &"at t"e a!!idavit o! notice e/ecuted on <anuar$ 20, 1980 o! )en?amin )enito declaring t"at .ritten notices o! t"e sale as re@uired b$ la. .ere dul$ sent to Al!redo )enito and %aturnino )enito, t"e latter in "is capacit$ as administrator o! t"e estate o! +ario )enito, as .ell as t"e s.orn statement o! %aturnino )enito7s .ido. dated November 1A, 198A con!irming t"at "er "usband received t"e .ritten notice o! t"e sale re!erred to in )en?amin )enito7s a!!idavit o! notice .ould not satis!$ t"at t"ere .as clear notice in .riting o! t"e speci!ic term o! t"e intended sale. =orse, %aturnino .as onl$ a co-administrator and "ence, "is unilateral act could not bind t"e principal because t"ere .as no less t"an a renunciation o! a rig"t pertaining to t"e "eirs, under Article 1A1A, N**, apart !rom t"e !act t"at t"e rig"t o! redemption is not .it"in t"eir administration. 8. &"at t"e !urt"er claim o! de!endant t"at o!!er to redeem .as !iled out o! time and t"at t"ere .as no actual tender loses all importance, t"ere being no date !rom ."ic" to count t"e D0-da$ period to redeem because t"ere .as no notice given.

&"e dispositive part o! t"e decision o! t"e *ourt o! Appeals reads as !ollo.s0 5N 25E= &'E3EOF, t"is *ourt is constrained to reverse, as it no. reverses, ?udgment appealed !rom, upon pa$ment b$ plainti!! or deposit in *ourt, .it"in D0 da$s a!ter t"is ?udgment s"ould "ave become !inal, o! t"e sum o! (10,000.00, de!endant is ordered to e/ecute a deed o! redemption over t"e one-t"ird s"are o! )EN<A+5N )EN5&O in !avor o! plainti!! !or "ersel! and as representative o! t"e c"ildren o! +ario )enito and t"ere!rom, to deliver said one-t"ird s"are o! )EN<A+5N )EN5&O, costs against de!endant-appellee. %O O36E3E6. #pon denial o! t"e motion !or reconsideration, petitioner broug"t t"is petition !or revie. raising t"e !ollo.ing errors0 1. 3espondent *ourt erred in allo.ing t"e e/ercise o! t"e rig"t o! legal redemption .it" respect to t"e lots in @uestion. 2. 3espondent *ourt erred ."en it made t"e !inding t"at t"ere .as no notice in la. !rom ."ic" to count t"e tolling o! t"e period o! redemption and t"at t"e sale .as not made 1no.n at all to private respondent. &"e alleged !irst error o! respondent *ourt is premised on t"e !act t"at t"e lot in @uestion soug"t to be redeemed is no longer o.ned in common. (etitioner contends t"at t"e rig"t soug"t to be e/ercised b$ private respondent in t"e case assumes t"at t"e land in @uestion is under co-o.ners"ip, t"e action being based on Article 1820 o! t"e Ne. *ivil *ode ."ic" provides0 A co-o.ner o! a t"ing ma$ e/ercise t"e rig"t o! redemption in case t"e s"ares o! all t"e ot"er coo.ners or an$ o! t"em, are sold to a t"ird person. 5! t"e price o! alienation is grossl$ e/cessive, t"e petitioner s"all pa$ onl$ a reasonable price. %"ould t.o or more co-o.ners desire to e/ercise t"e rig"t o! redemption, t"e$ ma$ onl$ do so in proportion to t"e s"are t"e$ ma$ respectivel$ "ave in t"e t"ing o.ned in common. 'o.ever, t"e !act is t"at as earl$ as 1980, co-o.ners"ip o! t"e parcels o! land covered b$ &rans!er *erti!icates o! &itle Nos. &-809 and &-810 .as terminated ."en Al!redo )enito, :u4 *aro and t"e 5ntestate Estate o! +ario )enito, represented b$ administrators %aturnino )enito, as trustee and representative o! t"e "eirs o! +ario )enito, agreed to subdivide t"e propert$. An agreement o! partition, t"oug" oral, is valid and conse@uentl$ binding upon t"e parties. 9'ernande4 vs. Andal, et al., ,A ("il. 198; A petition !or subdivision .as t"en !iled !or t"e purpose. &"is .as accompanied b$ t"e a!!idavits o! Al!redo )enito and %aturnino )enito, bot" dated %eptember 15, 1980 to t"e e!!ect t"at t"e$ agree to t"e segregation o! t"e land !ormerl$ o.ned in common b$ +ario )enito, Al!redo )enito and )en?amin )enito. A subdivision plan .as made and b$ common agreement :ot 5-* t"ereo!, .it" an area o! 18D "ectares, more or less, .as ceded to petitioner. &"erea!ter, t"e co-o.ners too1 actual and e/clusive possession o! t"e speci!ic portions respectivel$ assigned to t"em. A subdivision title .as subse@uentl$ issued on t"e lot assigned to petitioner, to .it, &rans!er *erti!icate o! &itle No. &B9,A. 5n Cara!, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 101 ("il. D15, a case s@uarel$ in point, t"is *ourt "eld0 5nasmuc" as t"e purpose o! t"e la. in establis"ing t"e rig"t o! legal redemption bet.een coo.ners is to reduce t"e number o! participants until t"e communit$ is done a.a$ .it" 92iola vs. &ecson, B9 ("il. A0A;, once t"e propert$ is subdivided and distributed among t"e co-o.ners, t"e communit$ "as terminated and t"ere is no reason to sustain an$ rig"t o! legal redemption. Alt"oug" t"e !oregoing pronouncement "as re!erence to t"e sale made after partition, t"is *ourt t"erein sa. no di!!erence .it" respect to a conve$ance ."ic" too1 place before the partition agreement and approval b$ t"e court. &"us, it "eld0

Nevert"eless, t"e result is t"e same, because =e "eld in %aturnino vs. (aulino, 9, ("il. 50, t"at t"e rig"t o! redemption under Article 108, ma$ be e/ercised onl$ before partition. 5n t"is case t"e rig"t .as asserted not onl$ after partition but a!ter t"e propert$ in"erited "ad actuall$ been subdivided into several parcels ."ic" .ere assigned b$ lot to t"e several "eirs. 5n re!utation, private respondent argues t"at petitioner :u4 *aro acted in bad !ait" and in !raud o! t"e rig"ts o! t"e "eirs o! a deceased +ario )enito in obtaining a subdivision title over a one-t"ird portion o! t"e land in @uestion ."ic" s"e broug"t !rom )en?amin )enito, and !or t"is reason, s"e is deemed to "old said propert$ in trust !or said "eirs. &"e rule, "o.ever, is it !raud in securing t"e registration o! titles to t"e land s"ould be supported b$ clear and convincing evidence. 9<aramil vs. *ourt o! Appeals, ,A %*3A B20;. As private respondent "as not s"o.n and proved t"e circumstances constituting !raud, it cannot be "eld to e/ist in t"is case. As a!oresaid, a subdivision title "as been issued in t"e name petitioner on t"e lot ceded to "er. #pon t"e e/piration o! t"e term o! one $ear !rom t"e date o! t"e entr$ o! t"e subdivision title, t"e *erti!icate o! &itle s"all be incontrovertible 9%ection DA, Act B98;. %ince t"e title o! petitioner is no. inde!easible, private respondent cannot, b$ means o! t"e present action, directl$ attac1 t"e validit$ t"ereo!. Even on t"e assumption t"at t"ere still is co-o.ners"ip "ere and t"at t"ere!ore, t"e rig"t o! legal redemption e/ists, private respondent as administratri/, "as no personalit$ to e/ercise said rig"t !or and in be"al! o! t"e intestate estate o! +ario )enito. %"e is on t"e same !ooting as co-administrator %aturnino )enito. 'ence, i! %aturnino7s consent to t"e sale o! t"e one-t"ird portion to petitioner cannot bind t"e intestate estate o! +ario )enito on t"e ground t"at t"e rig"t o! redemption .as not .it"in t"e po.ers o! administration, in t"e same manner, private respondent as coadministrator "as no po.er e/ercise t"e rig"t o! redemption E t"e ver$ po.er ."ic" t"e *ourt o! Appeals ruled to be not .it"in t"e po.ers o! administration. ="ile under %ec. D, 3ule A5, 3ules o! *ourt, t"e administrator "as t"e rig"t to t"e possession o! t"e real and personal estate o! t"e deceased, so !ar as needed !or t"e pa$ment o! t"e e/penses o! administration, and t"e administrator ma$ bring and de!end action !or t"e recover$ or protection o! t"e propert$ or rig"t o! t"e deceased 9%ec. 2, 3ule AA;, suc" 9)utte vs. +anuel #$ and %ons, 5nc., B %*3A 528;. (rivate respondent cannot be considered to "ave broug"t t"is action in "er be"al! and in be"al! o! t"e "eirs o! +ario )enito because t"e ?urisdictional allegations o! t"e complaint speci!icall$ stated t"at s"e broug"t t"e action in "er capacit$ as administratri/ o! t"e intestate estate o! +ario )enito. 5t is petitioner7s contention t"at, assuming t"at private respondent ma$ e/ercise t"e rig"t o! redemption, t"ere .as no compliance .it" t"e conditions precedent !or t"e valid e/ercise t"ereo!. 5n Cone+ero et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 18 %*3A ,,5, t"is *ourt e/plained t"e nature o! t"e rig"t o! redemption in t"is .ise0 ="ile t"e co-o.ner7s rig"t o! legal redemption is a substantive rig"t, it is e/ceptional in nature, limited in its duration and sub?ect to strict compliance .it" t"e legal re@uirements. One o! t"ese is t"at t"e redemptioner s"ould tender pa$ment o! t"e redemption mone$ .it"in t"irt$ 9D0; da$s !rom .ritten notice o! t"e sale b$ t"e co-o.ner. 5t "as been "eld t"at t"is t"irt$-da$ period is peremptor$ because t"e polic$ o! t"e la. is not to leave t"e purc"aser7s title in uncertaint$ be$ond t"e establis"ed D0-da$ period. 9)utte vs. +anuel #$ and %ons, 5nc., B %*3A 528;. 5t is not a prescriptive period but is more a re@uisite or condition precedent to t"e e/ercise o! t"e rig"t o! legal redemption. 5n t"e case at bar, private respondent alleged in "er complaint t"at s"e learned o! t"e sale sometime in +a$, 1988 upon receipt o! a pleading in %pecial (roceeding No. 50A o! t"e *ourt o! First 5nstance o! %orsogon. %"e li1e.ise alleged t"at s"e gave a letter in!orming petitioner o! "er desire to redeem t"e land on August 25, 1988. *learl$, t"ree mont"s "ave elapsed since t"e notice o! t"e sale. 'ence, petitioner claims t"at t"e t"irt$-da$ period o! redemption "as alread$ e/pired. 5n addition, petitioner ma1es capital o! t"e admission o! private respondent t"at s"e alread$ 1ne. o! t"e said transaction even be!ore receipt o! t"e said pleading 9t.s.n., p. 18; as .ell as o! t"e evidence presented t"at %aturnino )enito, t"e admittedl$ active administrator until 1988, dul$ received a .ritten notice o! t"e intended sale o! )en?amin )enito7s s"are. %aid evidence consists o! t"e a!!idavit o! t"e vendor stating t"at t"e re@uired notice "ad been dul$ given to possible redemptioners, t"e statement in t"e deed o! sale itsel! and t"e

deposition o! %aturnino )enito7s .ido. .it" respect to "er receipt o! t"e .ritten notice. Finall$, petitioner points to t"e records ."ic" disclose t"at private respondent 1ne. o! t"e subdivision 9t.s.n., p. 25; and "ence, rationali4ed t"at private respondent s"ould "ave 1no.n also o! t"e previous sale. %ince =e "ave ruled t"at t"e rig"t o! legal redemption does not e/ist nor appl$ in t"is case because admittedl$ a subdivision title 9&.*.&. No. &-B9,A; "as alread$ been issued in t"e name o! t"e petitioner on :ot 5-* sold to "er, it becomes moot and academic, i! not unnecessar$ to decide ."et"er private respondent complied .it" t"e notice re@uirements !or t"e e/ercise o! t"e rig"t o! legal redemption under Article 182D o! t"e Ne. *ivil *ode. ='E3EFO3E, 5N 25E= OF &'E FO3E-O5N-, t"e decision o! t"e *ourt o! Appeals is "ereb$ 3E2E3%E6 and %E& A%56E, and ?udgment is "ereb$ rendered 65%+5%%5N- t"e complaint. %O O36E3E6. Ma,asiar, )ernandez and Melencio*Herrera, &&., concur. Teehan,ee, &., too, no part. %lana, &., concur in the result.

Foot3ot"s 1 First 6ivision, -atmaitan, Acting (res. <., ponente6 .it" 3e$es and 6omondon, <<., concurring.