Special Requirements for Handicapped Testators

For Deaf / Deaf-Mute testator

Able to Read must read the will personally
Unable to Read must designate two persons to read the will and communicate to him, in some
practicable manner its contents.
Does this mean the 2 persons must perform each task in turn?

For Blind Testator to be read to him twice, once by one of the subscribing witnesses, and another
time by the notary.

Art808 is MANDATORY
If art808 is mandatory, by analogy Art807 is also mandatory. Failure to comply with either would
result in nullity and denial of probate.

The requirement has been liberally applied, SC declaring substantial compliance to be sufficient.
Applies not only to blind testators but also to those who, for one reason or another, are incapable of
reading their wills.
Substantially complied with when documents were read aloud to the testator with each of the 3
instrumental witnesses and the notary following the reading with their respective copies.

Burden of proof is upon the proponent of the will that the special requirement of the article was
complied with. At the same time, there is no requirement that compliance with the requirement be
stated either in the will or the attestation clause.
According to JBL Reyes, Liberalization Running Riot, instead a possible rewording would be
In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects
and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will
invalid if such defects and imperfections can be supplied by an examination of the will itself and it is
proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of Article 805.

Examples
A failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can be liberally
construed, since that fact can be checked by a visual examination.
Failure by the attestation clause to state that the witnesses signed in one anothers presence should
be considered a FATAL FLAW since the attestation clause is the only textual guarantee of
compliance.
The rule is that omission which can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the need
of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the
allowance to probate of the will being assailed.
However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the
invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself.
Simplicity of the holographic will is its obvious advantage, along with other benefits such as
Secrecy
Inexpensiveness
Brevity

But that very simplicity brings about disadvantages
Danger of forgery
Greater difficulty of determining testamentary capacity
Increased risk of duress

REQUIREMENTS OF A HOLOGRAPHIC WILL
Completely handwritten by the testator
If testator executes only part of the will in his handwriting and other parts are not so written, the
ENTIRE will is void because the article would be violated.

Dated by him
Date Specification or mention, in a written instrument, of the time [day, month and year] it was
made [executed]. Blacks Law Dictionary
As a general rule, the date in a holographic will should include the day, month, and year of its
execution. However, when there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure
and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether or not the date FEB./61 is
a valid compliance, probate of the holographic will should be allowed under the principle of
substantial compliance.
A complete date is required to provide against such contingencies as
Two competing wills executed on the same day, or
Of a testator becoming insane in the day on which a will was executed.
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.

Signed by TESTATOR
Must signature be at the wills end [at least the logical end]? YES, article 812 seems to imply this.
May the testator sign by means of a thumbprint? NO, article says will must be entirely handwritten,
dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself.

Azuela v. CA (2006)
Will was two pages long. The number of pages were also not stated in the attestation, only a blank
was there.
The will was not properly acknowledged. (Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 Hunyo, dito sa
Manila.)
The witnesses also did not sign under the attestation clause but on the left hand margin of the page.
Held: Invalid will.
Issue of number of pages: no substantial compliance in this case because no statement in the
attestation clause or anywhere else in the will itself as to the number of pages which comprise the
will.Issue of witnesses not signing under the attestation clause: the signatures to the attestation
clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the statements contained in the attestation clause
itself. the attestation clause is separate and apart from the disposition of the will. They should sign
below it.
Issue of not properly acknowledged: contrary to Art 806. Acknowledgement is the act of one who has
executed a deed in going before some competent officer and declaring it to be his act or deed.
Moreover, will must be acknowledged and not merely subscribed and sworn to. A notarial will that is
not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if
it is subscribed and sworn to before a notary public.

A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is written is
fatally defective. A will whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally
defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a
mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial will
with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection.

Felix Azuela filed a petition with the trial court for the probate of a notarial will purportedly
executed by Eugenia E. Igsolo on June 10, 1981 and notarized on the same day. The will consisted
of two (2) pages and was written in Filipino. The attestation clause did not state the number of pages
and it was not signed by the attesting witnesses at the bottom thereof. The said witnesses affixed
their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of the will though. Geralda Castillo opposed
the petition, claiming that the will was a forgery. She also argued that the will was not executed and
attested to in accordance with law. She pointed out that the decedents signature did not appear on
the second page of the will, and the will was not properly acknowledged.

The trial court held the will to be authentic and to have been executed in accordance with
law and, thus, admitted it to probate, calling to fore the modern tendency in respect to the
formalities in the execution of a willwith the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in
expressing his last wishes. According to the trial court, the declaration at the end of the will under
the sub-title, Patunay Ng Mga Saksi, comprised the attestation clause and the acknowledgement,
and was a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. It also held that the signing by
the subscribing witnesses on the left margin of the second page of the will containing the attestation
clause and acknowledgment, instead of at the bottom thereof, substantially satisfied the purpose of
identification and attestation of the will. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial courts
decision and ordered the dismissal of the petition for probate. It noted that the attestation clause
failed to state the number of pages used in the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of
probate. Azuela argues that the requirement under Article 805 of the Civil Code that the number of
pages used in a notarial will be stated in the attestation clause is merely directory, rather than
mandatory, and thus susceptible to what he termed as the substantial compliance rule.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject will complied with the requirements of the law and, hence,
should be admitted to probate

HELD:
The petition is DENIED.
A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is
written is fatally defective. A will whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses
is fatally defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain an acknowledgment,
but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial
will with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection

Alvarado v. Gaviola, Jr.

On 5 November 1977, 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled Huling Habilin
wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son, petitioner Cesar Alvarado, and expressly revoked a
previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate before the RTC of Laguna.
According to Bayani Ma. Rino, private respondent, he was present when the said notarial will was
executed, together with three instrumental witnesses and the notary public, where the testator did not
read the will himself, suffering as he did from glaucoma.
Rino, a lawyer, drafted the eight-page document and read the same aloud before the testator, the
three instrumental witnesses and the notary public, the latter four following the reading with their own
respective copies previously furnished them.
Thereafter, a codicil entitled Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling
Habilin na May Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado was executedchanging some
dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the testators eye operation.
Said codicil was likewise not read by Brigido Alvarado and was read in the same manner as with the
previously executed will.
When the notarial will was submitted to the court for probate, Cesar Alvarado filed his opposition as
he said that the will was not executed and attested as required by law; that the testator was insane
or mentally incapacitated due to senility and old age; that the will was executed under duress, or
influence of fear or threats; that it was procured by undue pressure and influence on the part of the
beneficiary; and that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick.

Whether or not notarial will of Brigido Alvarado should be admitted to probate despite allegations of
defects in the execution and attestation thereof as testator was allegedly blind at the time of
execution and the double-reading requirement under Art. 808 of the NCC was not complied with.
YES. The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there should be strict
compliance with the substantial requirements of law in order to insure the authenticity of the will, the
formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when
taken into account, may only defeat the testators will.
Cesar Alvardo was correct in asserting that his father was not totally blind (of counting fingers at 3
feet) when the will and codicil were executed, but he can be so considered for purposes of Art. 808.
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil.
However, in the case at bar, there was substantial compliance where the purpose of the law has
been satisfied: that of making the provisions known to the testator who is blind or incapable of
reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate) and enabling him to object if they do not accord with
his wishes.
Rino read the testators will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental
witnesses, and the notary public.
Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read
corresponded with his instructions.
Only then did the signing and acknowledgment take place.
There is no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil were not sufficiently made known
and communicated to the testator.
With four persons, mostly known to the testator, following the reading word for word with their own
copies, it can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that what was read to
him were the terms actually appearing on the typewritten documents.
Art. 808 of the New Civil Code provides: If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice;
once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom the will is
acknowledged.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of
reading the will to himself (as when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to him,
so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes.
Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of law in order to insure
the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect
its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the testators will.
See Abangan v. Abangan

Caneda v. CA

On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children and already in the twilight
years of his life, executed a last will and testament at his residence before 3 witnesses.
He was assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Emilio Lumontad.
In the will, it was declared that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and
personal properties to several people all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator.
4 months later, Mateo Caballero himself filed a case seeking the probate of his last will and
testament, but numerous postponements pushed back the initial hearing of the probate court
regarding the will.
On May 29, 1980, the testator passed away before his petition could finally be heard by the probate
court.
Thereafter one of the legatees, Benoni Cabrera, sought his appointment as special administrator of
the testators estate.
Thereafter, the petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a second
petition for intestate proceedings. They also opposed the probate of the testators will and the
appointment of a special administrator for his estate.
Benoni Cabrera died and was replaced by William Cabrera as special administrator and gave an
order that the testate proceedings for the probate of the will had to be heard and resolved first.
In the course of the proceedings, petitioners opposed to the allowance of the testators will on the
ground that on the alleged date of its execution, the testator was already in poor state of health such
that he could not have possibly executed the same. Also the genuineness of the signature of the
testator is in doubt.
On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses and the notary public testified that the testator
executed the will in question in their presence while he was of sound and disposing mind and that
the testator was in good health and was not unduly influenced in any way in the execution of his will.
Probate court then rendered a decision declaring the will in question as the last will and testament of
the late Mateo Caballero.
CA affirmed the probate courts decision stating that it substantially complies with Article 805. Hence
this appeal.

WON, the attestation clause in the will of the testator is fatally defective or can be cured under the
art. 809.
No. It does not comply with the provisions of the law.
Ordinary or attested wills are governed by Arts. 804 to 809. The will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the attesting witnesses. The attestation clause need not be written
in a language known to the testator or even to the attesting witnesses.
It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once
signed by the witnesses it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities
required by law has been observed.
The attestation clause, therefore, provides strong legal guaranties for the due execution of a will and
to insure the authenticity thereof.
It is contended by petitioners that the attestation clause in the will failed to specifically state the fact
that the attesting witnesses witnessed the testator sign the will and all its pages in their presence and
that they, the witnesses, likewise signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the
testator and of each other. And the Court agrees.
The attestation clause does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses
subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.
The phrase, and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the space provided for his
signature and on the left hand margin, obviously refers to the testator and not the instrumental
witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the words as his last will and testament.
Clearly lacking is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the
presence of the testator and of one another. That the absence of the statement required by law is a
fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here
sought to be probated.
Also, Art. 809 does not apply to the present case because the attestation clause totally omits the fact
that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the presence of the testator
and of each other. The defect in this case is not only with respect to the form or the language of the
attestation clause. The defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself
which is clearly lacking in this case.
Therefore, the probate of the will is set aside and the case for the intestate proceedings shall be
revived.
Article 809 cannot be used to cure the defects of the will when it does not pertain to the form or
language of the will. This is because there is not substantial compliance with Article 805.

Cases for Arts. 807-809

Gil v. Murciano

The CFI of Manila admitted to probate the alleged will and testament of the deceased Carlos Gil.
The oppositor Pilar Gil Vda. de Murciano appealed to the SC, arguing that the will was void since the
attestation clause thereof does not state that the alleged testator signed the will. It declares only that
it was signed by the witnesses.

Whether or no the will is valid.
NO. This is a fatal defect, for the precise purpose of the attestation clause is to certify that the
testator signed the will, this being the most essential element of the clause.
Without it there is no attestation at all. It is said that the court may correct a mere clerical error.
This is too much of a clerical error for it affects the very essence of the clause. Alleged errors may be
overlooked or corrected only in matters of form which do not affect the substance of the statement.
Correction may not be cured by inference considering the clear, unequivocal, language of the statute
as to how the attestation clause should be made. It is to be supposed that the drafter of the alleged
will read the clear words of the statute when he prepared it. For the court to supply alleged
deficiencies would be against the evident policy of the law.
In adopting liberal construction of a will, evidence aluinde is not allowed to fill the void or supply
missing details. What is permitted is a probe into the will, an exploration within its confines, to
ascertain its meaning or to determine the existence or absence of the requisite formalities of the law.
The right to make a testamentary disposition of one's property is purely of statutory creation, and is
available only upon a compliance with the requirements of the statute. The formalities which the
Legislature has prescribed for the execution of a will are essential to its validity, and cannot be
disregarded.
The mode so prescribed is the measure for the exercise of the right, and the heir can be deprived of
his inheritance only by a compliance with this mode.
For the purpose of determining whether a will has been properly executed, the intention of the
testator in executing it is entitled to no consideration.
For that purpose only the intention of the Legislature, as expressed in the language of the statute,
can be considered by the court, and whether the will as presented, shows a compliance with the
statute.

CAPONONG NOBLE Abada v. Abaja

Spouses Abada and Toray died without legitimate children.
Alipio Abaja filed with the CFI a petition for the probate of the will of Abada. Abada allegedly names
his testamentary heirs his natural children: Eulogio and Rosario. Alipio is the son of Eulogio.
Caponong opposed the petition on the ground that Abada left no will when he died.
Caponong alleged that the will should be disallowed on the following reasons: (1) it was not executed
and attested as required by law; (2) it was not intended as the last will of the testator; and (3) it was
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries.
Later, Caponong-Noble was named as Special Administratix of the estate of Abada and Toray.
Caponong-Noble moved for the dismissal of the petition for probate of the will of Abada but such
motion was denied.
When the case was submitted for decision, a Resolution was rendered where it was held that there
was a substantial compliance with the formalities of the will. In the said Resolution, the trial court only
determined whether the will of Abada has an attestation clause as required by law.
Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the trial courts Resolution. Hence, this appeal.

Whether the CA erred in sustaining the trial court in admitting to probate the will of Abada.
NO. The SC affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

What laws apply to the probate of the last will of Abada?
Abada executed his will on June 1932. The laws in force at that time are the Old Civil Code and the
Code of Civil Procedure.

Whether the will of Abada requires acknowledgement before a notary public.
NO. What Caponong-Noble cited was Arts. 804 & 806 of the NCC. In this case, the Code of Civil
Procedure applies where the intervention of a notary is not necessary in the execution of any will.
Thus, Abadas will does not require acknowledgment before a notary public.

Whether the will must expressly state that it is written in a language or dialect known to the testator.
NO. There is no statutory requirement to state in the will itself that the testator knew the language or
dialect used in the will. This is a matter that a party may establish by proof aliunde. In this case,
Alipios testimony sufficiently proves that Abada speaks the Spanish Language.

Whether the will has an attestation clause.
YES.

Whether the attestation clause states the number of pages on which the will was written.
YES. It showed that the pages are numbered correlatively with the phrase containing UNO y DOS
meaning ONE and TWO.

Whether the attestation clause states that the testator signed the will in its every page in the
presence of 3 witnesses.
The English translation of the attestation clause clearly states that Abada signed the will and its
every page in the presence of the witnesses.
However, the SC held that Caponong-Noble was correct is saying that the attestation clause does
not indicate the number of witnesses. On this point, the Court agreed with the CA in the application
of the rule on substantial compliance in determining the number of witnesses. While the attestation
clause does not state the number of witnesses, a close inspection of the will shows that 3 witnesses
signed it.

Whether the attestation clause states that the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all its
pages in the presence of the testator and each other.
YES. The last part of the attestation clause shows that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing
of the will of the testator, and that each signed the will in the presence of one another and of the
testator.
The question on the number of witnesses is answered by an examination of the will itself and without
the need for presentation of evidence aliunde.
Precision of language in drafting an attestation clause is desirable. However, it is not imperative that
a parrot-like copy of the words of the state be made. It is sufficient if from the language employed it
can reasonable deduced that the attestation clause fulfills what the law expects of it.

Sebastian v. panganiban: The attestation clause in question and the will are in the Tagalog dialect.
As translated into Spanish by the Honorable Judge of the trial court the attestation

Gan v. Yap

On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of heart failure in the UST hospital leaving
properties in Bulacan and in Manila.
On March 17, 1952, Fausto E. Gan initiated these proceedings in CFI Manila for probate the
holographic will executed allegedly by the deceased.
In opposition to said proceedings, the surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that the deceased
had not left any will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime.
After hearing the parties, the court refused to probate the alleged will. The will itself was not
presented.
Sometime in 1950, Felicidad Esguerra mentioned to her first cousin Vicente Esguerra her desire to
make a will. However she wanted it to be a secret because she said that it would be useless if her
husband discovered or knew about it.
So Vicente consulted with the nephew of Felicidad and found out that it could be done provided that
the document was entirely in her handwriting, signed and dated by her.
As a result of this, Felicidad proceeded with the making of her will. Though it was a secret, she would
show people who would visit her will.
After evaluating the pieces of evidence presented before the court, the trial judge had to accept the
oppositors evidence that Felicidad did not and could not have executed such holographic will.
Hence this appeal.

WON, a lost holographic will can be admitted to probate.
No. Articles 810-814 govern holographic wills. It is stated that, A person may execute a holographic
will which must be entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject
to no other form and may be made in our out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.
Unlike ordinary wills, holographic wills need not observe the rules laid down in Art. 805 for its
compliance with the law. As long as it is written entirely, dated and signed by the testator himself,
then it will be sufficient proof that it has been executed in accordance with law.
However, witnesses may be brought in so as to verify that the will and the signature are in the
handwriting of the testator. The witnesses so presented do not need to have seen the execution of
the holographic will.
In the case hand however, the will holographic will was not presented to the court. Obviously, when
the will itself is not submitted, these means of opposition and, of assessing the evidence are not
available. And then the only guaranty of authenticity the testators handwriting has disappeared.
It is therefore to be concluded that the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic
will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/ or read such will.
This is because the only guaranty of the authenticity is the handwriting itself. The loss of the
holographic will entails the loss of the only medium of proof.
That even if oral testimony were admissible to establish and probate a lost holographic will, the
evidence submitted by the petitioner is so tainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails
to measure up to that clear and distinct proof required by Rule 77.
Rejection of the alleged will must be sustained
The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by bare
testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented;
otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of
authenticity.

Rodelas v. Aranza

The probate court ordered the dismissal of Rodelas petition for the allowance of the holographic will
of deceased Ricardo B. Bonilla on the ground that the alleged photostatic copy of the will which was
presented for probate, cannot stand in lieu of the lost original, for the law regards the document itself
as the material proof of the authenticity of the said will.

Whether a holographic will which was lost or can not be found can be proved by means of a
photostatic copy
Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is the allowance of the will by
the court after its due execution has been proved.
The probate may be uncontested or not. If uncontested, at least one identifying witness is required
and, if no witness is available, experts may be resorted to. If contested, at least three identifying
witnesses are required.
However, if the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will
can not be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said
will. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the
testator and the handwritten will.
But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison
can be made with the standard writings of the testator. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by
other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be
exhibited and tested before the probate court, may be allowed.
If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will can not be
probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will.


IN RE ESTATE OF MUDER: Brief Fact Summary. A testator handwrote blank parts of a printed will
form, with only one witness.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where a testator uses a preprinted form, and in his own handwriting fills in
the blanks by designating his beneficiaries and apportioning his estate among them and signing it,
he has created a valid holographic will.

Facts. A testator handwrote blank parts of a printed will form. The printed portion read, I give to,
while the handwritten portion read, My wife Retha F. Muder, our home and property

Roxas v. De Jesus

After the death of the de Jesus spouses, Simeon Roxas (brother of the deceased Bibliana Roxas de
Jesus) filed a special proceeding to settle the intestate estate of the de Jesus spouses.
Later, Simeon delivered to the court a document purporting to be the holographic will of Bibliana. He
stated that after being appointed as administrator, he found a notebook of Bibliana which contained
the letter-will addressed to her children written and signed by Bibliana.
The will was dated FEB./61 and this was confirmed by the testimonies of Simeon as and the 2
children of Bibliana.
Henson, another compulsory heir, opposed the probate of the holographic will contending that it was
not dated as required by Art. 810.
She contends that the law requires that the will should contain the day, month, and year of its
execution and this should be complied with.

WON the holographic will dated as FEB./61 was properly dated.
YES. If the testator attempts to comply with all the requisites, although compliance is not literal, it is
sufficient if the objective or purpose sought to be accomplished by such requisite is actually attained
by the form followed by the testator.
SC found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in the execution of the will, nor was there substitution of
wills. Neither is there any question as to the genuineness and due execution of the will.
The objection put forth by Henson is too technical to be entertained.
GR: The date in a holographic will should include the day, month and year of execution.
E: In the absence of appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence, and pressure and the
authenticity of the will is established, and the only issue is the validity of the date FEB.61 appearing
on the will, the probate should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance.


Labrador v. CA

Melecio died leaving behind a parcel of land to his heirs. However, during probate proceedings,
Jesus and Gaudencio filed an opposition on the ground that the will has been extinguished by
implication of law alleging that before Melecios death, the land was sold to them evidenced by TCT
No. 21178. Jesus eventually sold it to Navat.
Trial court admitted the will to probate and declared the TCT null and void. However, the CA on
appeal denied probate on the ground that it was undated.

Whether or not the alleged holographic will is dated, as provided for in Article 810 of the Civil Code
SC held that it is dated because:
The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The only
requirements are thatthe date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.
The intention to show March 17 1968 as the date of the execution is plain from the tenor of the
succeeding words of the paragraph. It states that 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.
This clearly shows that this is a unilateral act of Melecio who plainly knew that he was executing a
will.
Article 810 of the Civil Code