Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12190)
Key Dates
Holographic Will Allegedly Executed: November 5, 1951
Probate Petition Filed: March 17, 1952
Supreme Court Decision Date: August 30, 1958
Applicable Constitutional Framework
The 1935 Philippine Constitution governed judicial power and procedural due process at the time of decision.
Applicable Statutory Law
– Spanish Civil Code (recognition of holographic wills)
– Act No. 190 (1901 Code of Civil Procedure) repealing non-notarial wills, including holographic wills
– New Civil Code (effective 1960) reviving holographic wills, arts. 810–814 (cited for interpretive guidance)
– Rules of Court, Rule 77 (proof of lost or destroyed wills by secondary evidence)
Statement of Facts
Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap died on November 20, 1951, leaving real property in Pulilan, Bulacan, and Manila. Fausto E. Gan petitioned for probate of an alleged holographic will drawn November 5, 1951, distributing five shares in Bulacan to various relatives and residuary estate to husband Ildefonso Yap, conditioned on construction of a health center in Pulilan. Oppositor denied existence or execution of any will. The holographic will itself was never produced to the court.
Procedural History
The trial court received petitioner’s testimonies that the testatrix wrote, signed and showed her will to four relatives, and that she entrusted it in a purse to her niece Felina. The husband and a household attendant testified the testatrix, seriously ill on November 5, could not have executed any will, and that no such document existed at her bedside. The court denied probate; a reconsideration motion was likewise denied. Petitioner appealed.
Issues
- Was the alleged holographic will validly executed and in existence at death?
- May a lost or destroyed holographic will be proved solely by witness testimony under existing law?
Trial Court Findings
– Testatrix purportedly sought secrecy from her husband yet repeatedly exposed the will to non-beneficiary relatives.
– It was improbable she would carry the will in a purse accessible to her husband.
– Husband’s return of the purse without destroying the document contradicted petitioner’s theory of concealment.
– Medical evidence established her serious illness on the date of the alleged execution, making execution improbable.
Evidentiary Analysis of Holographic Wills
– Holographic wills derive their sole safeguard from the testator’s handwriting and signature.
– Rules of Court permit proof of lost ordinary wills by subscribing witnesses, but holographic wills lack that protective structure.
– Spanish Civil Code and related authorities require physical production of the holographic instrument for identity verification.
– Allowing probate of a lost holographic will on parol testimony would expose estates to forgery and untestable or perjured witnesses.
Supreme Court Rational
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-12190)
Facts of the Case
- On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap died of heart failure at the University of Santo Tomas Hospital, leaving real properties in Pulilan, Bulacan, and in the City of Manila.
- On March 17, 1952, petitioner Fausto E. Gan filed a petition in the Manila Court of First Instance to probate a holographic will allegedly executed by the deceased on November 5, 1951.
- The will purported to distribute five shares of Pulilan property to Vicente Esguerra Sr., two shares each to Fausto E. Gan and Rosario E. Gan, and one share each to Filomena Alto and Beatriz Alto.
- The will further devised all other assets in Manila to husband Ildefonso Yap, subject to his building of a P60,000 health center in Pulilan, Bulacan, bearing the name “Felicidad Esguerra-Alto.”
- Oppositor Ildefonso Yap denied the existence or execution of any will by his late wife during her lifetime.
Procedural History
- The trial court, presided by Judge Ramon R. San Jose, heard oral testimonies from witnesses presented by both sides.
- The court denied probate of the alleged will and likewise denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Petitioner’s Evidence and Contentions
- Four witnesses (Felina Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes, Socorro Olarte, and Rosario Gan Jimenez) testified that they saw the document in the handwriting of the deceased on three occasions at her Manila residence and once at the hospital.
- Testimony described Felicidad’s deliberate writing, signing, and dating of the will on November 5, 1951, and repeated readings by Felina Esguerra as invited by the testatrix.
- Petitioner argued that holographic wills under Spanish Civil Law and the later New Civil Code require no witnesses, relying on the hand-written document alone for authenticity.
Oppositor’s Evidence and Contentions
- Ildefonso Yap and Mrs. Bantique (personal attendant) testified that the deceas