A.M. No. 15-05-50-MCTC - IN RE: Incorrect entries in the daily time record of Lorna M. Martin, court stenographer I, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Tarlac

Felicidad E. Alto-Yap died of heart failure on November 20, 1951, at the University of Santo Tomas Hospital.
She left real properties in Pulilan, Bulacan, and in the City of Manila.

On March 17, 1952, Fausto E. Gan (nephew) filed a petition in the Manila Court of First Instance to probate a holographic will allegedly executed by Felicidad on November 5, 1951.
Contents of the alleged will:

Five shares of her Pulilan estate to Vicente Esguerra, Sr.; two shares each to Fausto E. Gan and Rosario E. Gan; one share each to Filomena and Beatriz Alto.
Residue of her estate in Manila and elsewhere to her husband, Ildefonso Yap, on condition he erect a Health Center in Pulilan costing at least ₱60,000, engraved with her name, Felicidad Esguerra-Alto.

Ildefonso Yap, the surviving husband, opposed the petition, denying any testamentary document existed.
Petitioner’s evidence comprised eyewitness testimonies (Felina Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes, Socorro Olarte, Rosario Gan Jimenez) regarding the execution, reading, and custody of the will.
Oppositor’s evidence established the decedent’s serious heart condition on November 5, 1951; physicians and attendants testified she was too ill to write a will that day and made no such testament.
The trial court refused probate, citing:

The will itself was never produced.
Improbabilities in the petitioner’s narrative (secrecy versus repeated readings by non-beneficiaries; carrying the will in a purse accessible to the husband).

Whether a lost or destroyed holographic will may be proved and admitted to probate solely by secondary evidence (testimony of witnesses) in the absence of the original document.
Whether the petitioner’s testimonial proof satisfied the clear and convincing standard required under Rule 77 for the probate of a will not formally executed under Act 190.