Carmen Caiza, represented by her legal guardian

versus court of Appeals And spouses Estrada

facts:
Carmen Caiza is a 94 year old retired pharmacist who is already showing signs of Dementia and declining
health due to her advanced age, she was also the owner of a house and lot which was occupied by the
spouses Estrada. Because of Carmen’s condition, Amparo Evangelista her niece, instituted a
guardianship proceeding and to declare Carmen incompetent. Amparo was appointed as the guardian of
Carmen and her estate.
Amparo commenced a suit at Quezon City MTC to eject the spouses Estrada from Carmen’s
house which the Estradas have been occupying by mere tolerance of Carmen. The Estradas were already
verbally asked by Amparo to vacate the house so that it can be rented out to other people to raise
money needed for Carmen’s sustainance but spouses Estrada refused to vacate, contending that they
have been occupying the house since 1960’s and that Carmen executed a holographic will bequeathing
her house and lot to the them. However such holographic will has not been submitted for probate.

MTC: ruled in favor of Caiza and asked Estradas to vacate the house
RTC: reversed MTC saying that the action should be resolved by accion publiciana and not accion
interdictal
CA: affirmed the RTC and said that the proper remedy of Caiza in the MTC should have been accion
publiciana and not accion interdictal because the Estradas were occupying Caiza’s property not as mere
tenants but they are occupying it by mere tolerance.

Issue: WON the alleged holographic will may be given effect.

Held: A will is essentially ambulatory and anytime before the testator’s death it may be revoked. The
law also expressly provides: No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and
allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. The SC reversed the CA and ruled in favor of Caiza.