Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

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 the character 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.

'
$oot(ote)
& -i<teenth Division, composed of Associate :ustices 8uis 8. Victor &ponente',
Ricardo :. 9rancisco @chairmanA, and *acita CaEi1ares-Nye.
*resided by :ud4e 9ilemon >. $endo1a.
% Rollo, pp. %3-%'.
" ,mpu4ned Decision, p. 5) Rollo, p. "C.
5 *ecson vs. Coronel, "5 *hil. &C @&'%A) (ee % +DGARD. 8. *ARA-, Civil
Code of the *hilippines Annotated @&'!'A, pp. &"5-&"C.
C (ee $ontanaEo vs. -uesa, &" *hil. C3C @&'#'A.
3 (ee 9ernando vs. Villalon, % *hil. %!C @&'#"A.
! (ee Velasco vs. 8ope1, & *hil. 3#, 35 @&'#%A, citing a Decision of the
-upreme Court of -pain, dated April ", &!'5) (ee also, % $ANR+-A,
Commentarios al Codi4o +spaEol @0uinta ed.A, p. "!%) (ee further, % ARTFR.
$. T.8+NT,N., Commentaries G :urisprudence on the Civil Code @&'3%A, p.
&#3, citing Castan %"&, 5 Valverde !) % A$2R.-,. *AD,88A, Civil Code
Annotated @&'!3A,
pp. &53-&5!) RA$.N C. A0F,N. and CAR.8,NA C. GR,H.-A0F,N. @&''#A,
p. ".
' % *ARA-, op. cit.
&# ,t must be noted, ho(ever, that in Kalaw, this Court laid do(n an e<ception to
the 4eneral rule, (hen it invalidated the entire (ill because of an unauthenticated
erasure made by the testator. ,n that case, the (ill had only one substantial
provision. This (as altered by substitutin4 the ori4inal heir (ith another , (ith
such alteration bein4 unauthenticated. This (as altered by substitutin4 the
ori4inal heir (ith another, (ith such alteration bein4 unauthenticated. This Court
held that the (hole (ill (as void Bfor the simple reason that nothin4 remains in
the ?ill after @the provision is invalidatedA (hich could remain valid. To state that
the ?ill as first (ritten should be 4iven efficacy is to disre4ard the seemin4
chan4e of mind of the testatri<. 2ut, that chan4e of mind can neither be 4iven
effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner re/uired by la( by
affi<in4 her full si4nature.B
&& Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, &%' -CRA #C @&'!5A) (ee Nu4uid vs.
Nu4uid, &3 -CRA ""' @&'CCA) (ee also Cayetano vs. 8eonidas, &' -CRA 5
@&'!"A.