Case Summary (G.R. No. 106720)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- Will presented for probate in Regional Trial Court (RTC), Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171; petition filed January 20, 1983.
- RTC (Branch 94) admitted the holographic will to probate in its November 19, 1988 Decision.
- Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the petition for probate in CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, March 30, 1992.
- Supreme Court decision on appeal: September 15, 1994. Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 1994).
Procedural History and Contentions
Petitioners sought probate of the holographic will, alleging decedent was of sound mind and executed the will without duress or undue influence. Private respondent (Clemente Sand) opposed on grounds that the will’s body and signature were not in decedent’s handwriting, that alterations and corrections were not authenticated, and that the will was procured by undue influence. Dr. Jose Ajero opposed with respect to the Cabadbaran property, claiming decedent was not sole owner and could not convey the entire property.
Trial Court Findings and Rationale
The RTC admitted the holographic will, finding no evidence of a different will, accepting the presented instrument as the decedent’s last will (identity). The court accepted testimony of three witnesses versed in the decedent’s handwriting and concluded the will was entirely written, dated and signed by the decedent. On testamentary capacity, the RTC found sufficient evidence that the testatrix knew the nature and extent of her estate, the objects of her bounty, and the nature of the testamentary act; testimony (including from Clemente Sand) indicated she was of sound mind at the relevant time. The RTC also found no convincing proof of undue influence relating to the act of making the will.
Issues on Appeal Presented to Supreme Court
The Supreme Court distilled the contested matters to the traditional limited issues in holographic will probate: (1) identity of the instrument as the decedent’s last will; (2) compliance with formalities required for a holographic will; (3) testamentary capacity at execution; and (4) voluntariness of execution and signing. The Court of Appeals had reversed on the ground that the holographic will failed to meet the formal requirements of Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code.
Court of Appeals Holding and Grounds for Reversal
The Court of Appeals held the holographic will did not comply with Articles 813 and 814 (concerning dating/signing of dispositions and authentication of insertions/cancellations/erasures), pointing to certain dispositions that were unsigned, undated, or bore unauthenticated erasures/alterations, and therefore disallowed the probate.
Governing Law and Rules Cited
- Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable by decision date).
- New Civil Code provisions: Articles 810 (holographic will requirements), 813 (effect of dating/signing on multiple dispositions), 814 (authentication of insertions/cancellations/erasures), and 839 (grounds for disallowance of wills).
- Rules of Court: Section 9, Rule 76 (grounds for disallowance of wills).
- Precedents and authorities cited by the Court: Abangan v. Abangan; Kalaw v. Relova; Velasco v. Lopez; and other authorities included in the record.
Supreme Court Analysis on Formalities for Holographic Wills
The Supreme Court emphasized Article 810’s rule that a holographic will must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator and is subject to no other form. The Court explained that the formalities intended to secure authenticity in non-holographic wills (subscription, attestation, acknowledgment) are distinct from the autographic requirement that secures a holographic will’s authenticity. The Court held that strict compliance with Articles 813 and 814 is not essential to the probate of a holographic will so long as the instrument is unquestionably the testator’s handwriting and signature as required by Article 810.
Effect of Undated/Unsigned Dispositions and Unauthenticated Alterations
The Court explained Articles 813 and 814 concern the effectivity of particular dispositions and the validity of particular changes, not necessarily the probateability of the entire holographic instrument. Failure to date or sign individual dispositions or to authenticate erasures/corrections will generally render only those specific provisions ineffective; it does not automatically void or disallow the entire will. The Supreme Court reiterated prior jurisprudence that unauthenticated erasures or interlineations ordinarily affect only the altered words; the will as a whole remains admissible to probate unless the unauthenticated change leaves nothing substantive for enforc
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 106720)
Procedural History
- Petitioners Spouses Roberto and Thelma Ajero filed Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171 on January 20, 1983 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, seeking allowance (probate) of the holographic will of the late Annie Sand, who died on November 25, 1982.
- The RTC (presided by Judge Filemon H. Mendoza) admitted the holographic will to probate by Decision dated November 19, 1988.
- The decision of the RTC was appealed to the Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Division, composed of Associate Justices Luis L. Victor (ponente), Ricardo J. Francisco (chairman), and Pacita Canizares-Nye), which reversed the trial court and dismissed the petition for probate by Decision dated March 30, 1992 (CA-G.R. CV No. 22840).
- The case was brought to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari; the Supreme Court rendered its decision on September 15, 1994 (G.R. No. 106720).
Parties and Instrument in Issue
- Petitioners: Spouses Roberto and Thelma Ajero — proponents of the holographic will.
- Respondents: The Court of Appeals (as respondent in certiorari) and private respondent Clemente Sand — opponent in the probate proceedings.
- Decedent/Testatrix: Annie (Anne) Sand, deceased November 25, 1982.
- Instrument presented: a holographic will executed by Annie Sand in which she named as devisees Roberto and Thelma Ajero, Clemente Sand, Meriam S. Arong, Leah Sand, Lilia Sand, Edgar Sand, Fe Sand, Lisa S. Sand, and Dr. Jose Ajero, Sr., and their children.
- A specific contested asset in the will: a house and lot in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, disposition of which was contested by Dr. Jose Ajero on the ground that decedent was not sole owner.
Factual Findings at Trial (RTC)
- The trial court limited probate inquiry to identity of the will, its due execution, and testamentary capacity of the testatrix.
- No evidence was presented suggesting that the instrument submitted was a different document than the will actually executed by the testatrix; no other will was alleged.
- Petitioners introduced three (3) witnesses who convincingly and explicitly identified the handwriting and signature on the holographic will as the genuine handwriting and signature of Annie Sand.
- Private respondent Clemente Sand testified that the testatrix was completely in her sound mind when he visited her during her birthday celebration in 1981, at or around which time the will was executed.
- The will itself contained detailed knowledge of the testatrix's estate, including identification of lot number and square meters; the objects of her bounty were explicitly identified.
- The trial court noted decedent's intellectual background, including authorship of a nursing book containing law and jurisprudence on wills and succession, concluding that she knew the character of the testamentary act and was independent-minded.
- Allegations of undue influence or improper pressure were not substantiated by evidence; the court observed lack of convincing proof that the testatrix was unduly influenced or improperly pressured.
- The trial court concluded that the holographic will complied with the requirement that it be entirely written, dated, and signed in the handwriting of the testatrix, and that testamentary capacity and voluntariness were established. The will was therefore admitted to probate.
Oppositions and Contentions Raised Below
- Private respondent Clemente Sand opposed on grounds that:
- Neither the testament's body nor the signature was in the decedent's handwriting.
- The will contained alterations and corrections not duly signed by the decedent.
- The will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence.
- Dr. Jose Ajero likewise opposed, specifically contesting the decedent's disposition of the house and lot in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, asserting the property could not be conveyed in its entirety because decedent was not its sole owner.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling and Reasoning
- The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and dismissed the petition for probate (March 30, 1992).
- The Court of Appeals held that the holographic will failed to meet the legal requirements for validity, specifically deeming noncompliance with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code.
- The appellate court pointed to dispositions in the will that were either unsigned and undated, or signed but not dated, and noted erasures, alterations, and cancellations that were not authenticated by the testatrix, invoking Articles 813 and 814 as grounds to disallow the will.
Statutory Provisions and Rules Quoted in the Decision
- Article 810, New Civil Code: "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 or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed."
- Article 813, New Civil Code: "When a number of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed without being dated, and the last disposition has a signature and date, such date validates the dispositions preceding it, whatever be the time of prior dispositions."
- Article 814, New Civil Code: "In case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature."
- Section 9, Rule 76, Rules of Court: lists exclusive grounds for disallowing wills, including failure to execute and attest as required by law, insanity, duress, undue influence, fraud, and mistake (quoted categories (a) through (e) as provided).
- Article 839, New Civil Code: enumerates specific causes for disallowance of wills (formalities, insanity, duress, undue influence, fraud, mistake