G.R. No.

106720 September 15, 1994

SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THE!A A"ERO, petitioners,
vs.
THE #OURT O$ APPEAS AND #E!ENTE SAND, respondents.
Miguel D. Larida for petitioners.
Montilla Law Office for private respondent.

PUNO, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari from the Decision of the Court of
Appeals
1
in CA-G.R. CV No. !"#, dated $arch %#, &'', the dispositive portion of (hich reads)
*R+$,-+- C.N-,D+R+D, the /uestioned decision of November &', &'!! of the
trial court is hereby R+V+R-+D and -+T A-,D+, and the petition for probate is
hereby D,-$,--+D. No costs.
The earlier Decision (as rendered by the RTC of 0ue1on City, 2ranch '",
2
in -p. *roc. No.
0-%3&3&, and the instrument submitted for probate is the holo4raphic (ill of the late Annie -and,
(ho died on November 5, &'!.
,n the (ill, decedent named as devisees, the follo(in46 petitioners Roberto and Thelma A7ero,
private respondent Clemente -and, $eriam -. Aron4, 8eah -and, 8ilia -and, +d4ar -and, 9e -and,
8isa -. -and, and Dr. :ose A7ero, -r., and their children.
.n :anuary #, &'!%, petitioners instituted -p. *roc. No. 0-%3&3&, for allo(ance of decedent;s
holo4raphic (ill. They alle4ed that at the time of its e<ecution, she (as of sound and disposin4 mind,
not actin4 under duress, fraud or undue influence, and (as in every respect capacitated to dispose
of her estate by (ill.
*rivate respondent opposed the petition on the 4rounds that6 neither the testament;s body nor the
si4nature therein (as in decedent;s hand(ritin4) it contained alterations and corrections (hich (ere
not duly si4ned by decedent) and, the (ill (as procured by petitioners throu4h improper pressure
and undue influence. The petition (as li=e(ise opposed by Dr. :ose A7ero. >e contested the
disposition in the (ill of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran, A4usan Del Norte. >e claimed that
said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she (as not its sole o(ner.
Not(ithstandin4 the oppositions, the trial court admitted the decedent;s holo4raphic (ill to probate. ,t
found, inter alia6
Considerin4 then that the probate proceedin4s herein must decide only the /uestion
of identity of the (ill, its due e<ecution and the testamentary capacity of the testatri<,
this probate court finds no reason at all for the disallo(ance of the (ill for its failure to
comply (ith the formalities prescribed by la( nor for lac= of testamentary capacity of
the testatri<.
9or one, no evidence (as presented to sho( that the (ill in /uestion is different from
the (ill actually e<ecuted by the testatri<. The only ob7ections raised by the
oppositors . . . are that the (ill (as not (ritten in the hand(ritin4 of the testatri<
(hich properly refers to the /uestion of its due e<ecution, and not to the /uestion of
identity of (ill. No other (ill (as alle4ed to have been e<ecuted by the testatri< other
than the (ill herein presented. >ence, in the li4ht of the evidence adduced, the
identity of the (ill presented for probate must be accepted, i.e., the (ill submitted in
Court must be deemed to be the (ill actually e<ecuted by the testatri<.
<<< <<< <<<
?hile the fact that it (as entirely (ritten, dated and si4ned in the hand(ritin4 of the
testatri< has been disputed, the petitioners, ho(ever, have satisfactorily sho(n in
Court that the holo4raphic (ill in /uestion (as indeed (ritten entirely, dated and
si4ned in the hand(ritin4 of the testatri<. Three @%A (itnesses (ho have convincin4ly
sho(n =no(led4e of the hand(ritin4 of the testatri< have been presented and have
e<plicitly and cate4orically identified the hand(ritin4 (ith (hich the holo4raphic (ill in
/uestion (as (ritten to be the 4enuine hand(ritin4 and si4nature of the testatri<.
Given then the aforesaid evidence, the re/uirement of the la( that the holo4raphic
(ill be entirely (ritten, dated and si4ned in the hand(ritin4 of the testatri< has been
complied (ith.
<<< <<< <<<
As to the /uestion of the testamentary capacity of the testrati<, @private respondentA
Clemente -and himself has testified in Court that the testatri< (as completely in her
sound mind (hen he visited her durin4 her birthday celebration in &'!&, at or around
(hich time the holo4raphic (ill in /uestion (as e<ecuted by the testatri<. To be of
sound mind, it is sufficient that the testatri<, at the time of ma=in4 the (ill, =ne(
the value of the estate to be disposed of, the proper object of her bounty, and
thecharacter of the testamentary act . . . The (ill itself sho(s that the testatri< even
had detailed =no(led4e of the nature of her estate. -he even identified the lot
number and s/uare meters of the lots she had conveyed by (ill. The ob7ects of her
bounty (ere li=e(ise identified e<plicitly. And considerin4 that she had even (ritten a
nursin4 boo= (hich contained the la( and 7urisprudence on (ill and succession,
there is more than sufficient sho(in4 that she =no(s the character of the
testamentary act.
,n this (ise, the /uestion of identity of the (ill, its due e<ecution and the testamentary
capacity of the testatri< has to be resolved in favor of the allo(ance of probate of the
(ill submitted herein.
8i=e(ise, no evidence (as presented to sho( sufficient reason for the disallo(ance
of herein holo4raphic (ill. ?hile it (as alle4ed that the said (ill (as procured by
undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary or of some
other person, the evidence adduced have not sho(n any instance (here improper
pressure or influence (as e<erted on the testatri<. @*rivate respondentA Clemente
-and has testified that the testatri< (as still alert at the time of the e<ecution of the
(ill, i.e., at or around the time of her birth anniversary celebration in &'!&. ,t (as also
established that she is a very intelli4ent person and has a mind of her o(n. >er
independence of character and to some e<tent, her sense of superiority, (hich has
been testified to in Court, all sho( the unli=elihood of her bein4 unduly influenced or
improperly pressured to ma=e the aforesaid (ill. ,t must be noted that the undue
influence or improper pressure in /uestion herein only refer to the ma=in4 of a (ill
and not as to the specific testamentary provisions therein (hich is the proper sub7ect
of another proceedin4. >ence, under the circumstances, this Court cannot find
convincin4 reason for the disallo(ance of the (ill herein.
Considerin4 then that it is a (ell-established doctrine in the la( on succession that in
case of doubt, testate succession should be preferred over intestate succession, and
the fact that no convincin4 4rounds (ere presented and proven for the disallo(ance
of the holo4raphic (ill of the late Annie -and, the aforesaid (ill submitted herein
must be admitted to probate.
%
@Citations omitted.A
.n appeal, said Decision (as reversed, and the petition for probate of decedent;s (ill (as
dismissed. The Court of Appeals found that, Bthe holo4raphic (ill fails to meet the re/uirements for
its validity.B
4
,t held that the decedent did not comply (ith Articles !&% and !&" of the Ne( Civil Code,
(hich read, as follo(s6
Art. !&%6 ?hen a number of dispositions appearin4 in a holo4raphic (ill are si4ned
(ithout bein4 dated, and the last disposition has a si4nature and date, such date
validates the dispositions precedin4 it, (hatever be the time of prior dispositions.
Art. !&"6 ,n case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holo4raphic (ill,
the testator must authenticate the same by his full si4nature.
,t alluded to certain dispositions in the (ill (hich (ere either unsi4ned and undated, or si4ned but
not dated. ,t also found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations made thereon had not been
authenticated by decedent.
Thus, this appeal (hich is impressed (ith merit.
-ection ', Rule 3C of the Rules of Court provides that (ill shall be disallo(ed in any of the follo(in4
cases6
@aA ,f not e<ecuted and attested as re/uired by la()
@bA ,f the testator (as insane, or other(ise mentally incapable to ma=e a (ill, at the
time of its e<ecution)
@cA ,f it (as e<ecuted under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats)
@dA ,f it (as procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of
the beneficiary, or of some other person for his benefit)
@eA ,f the si4nature of the testator (as procured by fraud or tric=, and he did not
intend that the instrument should be his (ill at the time of fi<in4 his si4nature thereto.
,n the same vein, Article !%' of the Ne( Civil Code reads6
Art. !%'6 The (ill shall be disallo(ed in any of the follo(in4 cases)
@&A ,f the formalities re/uired by la( have not been complied (ith)
@A ,f the testator (as insane, or other(ise mentally incapable of
ma=in4 a (ill, at the time of its e<ecution)
@%A ,f it (as e<ecuted throu4h force or under duress, or the influence
of fear, or threats)
@"A ,f it (as procured by undue and improper pressure and influence,
on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person)
@5A ,f the si4nature of the testator (as procured by fraud)
@CA ,f the testator acted by mista=e or did not intend that the
instrument he si4ned should be his (ill at the time of affi<in4 his
si4nature thereto.
These lists are e<clusive) no other 4rounds can serve to disallo( a (ill.
5
Thus, in a petition to admit a
holo4raphic (ill to probate, the only issues to be resolved are6 @&A (hether the instrument submitted is,
indeed, the decedent;s last (ill and testament) @A (hether said (ill (as e<ecuted in accordance (ith the
formalities prescribed by la() @%A (hether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the
time the (ill (as e<ecuted) and, @"A (hether the e<ecution of the (ill and its si4nin4 (ere the voluntary
acts of the decedent.
6
,n the case at bench, respondent court held that the holo4raphic (ill of Anne -and (as not e<ecuted
in accordance (ith the formalities prescribed by la(. ,t held that Articles !&% and !&" of the Ne(
Civil Code, ante, (ere not complied (ith, hence, it disallo(ed the probate of said (ill. This is
erroneous.
?e reiterate (hat (e held in Abangan vs. Abangan, "# *hil. "3C, "3' @&'&'A, that6
The ob7ect of the solemnities surroundin4 the e<ecution of (ills is to close the door
a4ainst bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of (ills and testaments and to
4uaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore, the la(s on this sub7ect should be
interpreted in such a (ay as to attain these primordial ends. 2ut, on the other hand,
also one must not lose si4ht of the fact that it is not the ob7ect of the la( to restrain
and curtail the e<ercise of the ri4ht to ma=e a (ill. -o (hen an interpretation already
4iven assures such ends, any other interpretation (hatsoever, that adds nothin4 but
demands more re/uisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the
testator;s last (ill, must be disre4arded.
9or purposes of probatin4 non-holo4raphic (ills, these formal solemnities include the subscription,
attestation, and ac=no(led4ment re/uirements under Articles !#5 and !#C of the Ne( Civil Code.
,n the case of holo4raphic (ills, on the other hand, (hat assures authenticity is the re/uirement that
they be totally auto4raphic or hand(ritten by the testator himself,
7
as provided under Article !&# of the
Ne( Civil Code, thus6
A person may e<ecute a holo4raphic (ill (hich must be entirely (ritten, dated, and
si4ned by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be
made in or out of the *hilippines, and need not be (itnessed. @+mphasis supplied.A
9ailure to strictly observe other formalities (ill not result in the disallo(ance of a holo4raphic
(ill that is un/uestionably hand(ritten by the testator.
A readin4 of Article !&% of the Ne( Civil Code sho(s that its re/uirement affects the validity of the
dispositions contained in the holo4raphic (ill, but not its probate. ,f the testator fails to si4n and date
some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. -uch failure,
ho(ever, does not render the (hole testament void.
8i=e(ise, a holo4raphic (ill can still be admitted to probate, not(ithstandin4 non-compliance (ith the
provisions of Article !&". ,n the case of Kalaw vs. Relova &% -CRA %3 " @&'!"A, this Court held6
.rdinarily, (hen a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the
testator in a holo4raphic ?ill have not been noted under his si4nature, . . . the ?ill is
not thereby invalidated as a (hole, but at most only as respects the particular (ords
erased, corrected or interlined. $anresa 4ave an identical commentary (hen he said
Bla omission de la salvedad no anula el testamento, se4un la re4la de 7urisprudencia
establecida en la sentencia de " de Abril de &'!5.B
&
@Citations omitted.A
Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions (ere made on the date of
the holo4raphic (ill or on testator;s si4nature,
9
their presence does not invalidate the (ill itself.
10
The
lac= of authentication (ill only result in disallo(ance of such chan4es.
,t is also proper to note that the re/uirements of authentication of chan4es and si4nin4 and datin4 of
dispositions appear in provisions @Articles !&% and !&"A separate from that (hich provides for the
necessary conditions for the validity of the holo4raphic (ill @Article !&#A. The distinction can be
traced to Articles C3! and C!! of the -panish Civil Code, from (hich the present provisions coverin4
holo4raphic (ills are ta=en. They read as follo(s6
Art. C3!6 A (ill is called holo4raphic (hen the testator (rites it himself in the form
and (ith the re/uisites re/uired in Article C!!.
Art. C!!6 >olo4raphic (ills may be e<ecuted only by persons of full a4e.
,n order that the (ill be valid it must be dra(n on stamped paper correspondin4 to
the year of its e<ecution, (ritten in its entirety by the testator and si4ned by him, and
must contain a statement of the year, month and day of its e<ecution.
,f it should contain any erased, corrected, or interlined (ords, the testator must
identify them over his si4nature.
9orei4ners may e<ecute holo4raphic (ills in their o(n lan4ua4e.
This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the re/uirements of Article
!&# of the Ne( Civil Code D and not those found in Articles !&% and !&" of the same Code D are
essential to the probate of a holo4raphic (ill.
The Court of Appeals further held that decedent Annie -and could not validly dispose of the house
and lot located in Cabadbaran, A4usan del Norte, in its entirety. This is correct and must be affirmed.
As a 4eneral rule, courts in probate proceedin4s are limited to pass only upon the e<trinsic validity of
the (ill sou4ht to be probated. >o(ever, in e<ceptional instances, courts are not po(erless to do
(hat the situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the (ill.
11
,n the case at
bench, decedent herself indubitably stated in her holo4raphic (ill that the Cabadbaran property is in the
name of her late father, :ohn >. -and @(hich led oppositor Dr. :ose A7ero to /uestion her conveyance of
the same in its entiretyA. Thus, as correctly held by respondent court, she cannot validly dispose of the
(hole property, (hich she shares (ith her father;s other heirs.
,N V,+? ?>+R+.9, the instant petition is GRANT+D. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. !"#, dated $arch %#, &'', is R+V+R-+D and -+T A-,D+, e<cept (ith respect to
the invalidity of the disposition of the entire house and lot in Cabadbaran, A4usan del Norte. The
Decision of the Re4ional Trial Court of 0ue1on City, 2ranch '" in -p. *roc. No. 0-%3&3&, dated
November &', &'!!, admittin4 to probate the holo4raphic (ill of decedent Annie -and, is hereby
R+,N-TAT+D, (ith the above /ualification as re4ards the Cabadbaran property. No costs.
-. .RD+R+D.
arvasa! ".#.! $adilla! Regalado and Mendo%a! ##.! concur.