Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    27 - Rodelas vs. Aranza

    Uploaded by

    vince005
    September 7, 1979 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Court of First Instance of Rizal for The Supreme Court of the Philippines reviewed a case regarding further proceedings. Costs against appellees. whether a lost or destroyed holographic will can be proved by a SO ORDERED. photocopy or xerox copy. The Court summarized the facts of the case and relevant legal issues. It then held that while the original holographic will is required if available, a photocopy or xerox Luciano A. Joson for petitioner-appellant. copy may be allowed to prove the authenticity of the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    27 - Rodelas vs. Aranza

    Uploaded by

    vince005
    31 views4 pages
    September 7, 1979 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Court of First Instance of Rizal for The Supreme Court of the Philippines reviewed a case regarding further proceedings. Costs against appellees. whether a lost or destroyed holographic will can be proved by a SO ORDERED. photocopy or xerox copy. The Court summarized the facts of the case and relevant legal issues. It then held that while the original holographic will is required if available, a photocopy or xerox Luciano A. Joson for petitioner-appellant. copy may be allowed to prove the authenticity of the

    Original Description:

    wills

    Original Title

    27_Rodelas vs. Aranza

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    September 7, 1979 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Court of First Instance of Rizal for The Supreme Court of the Philippines reviewed a case regarding further proceedings. Costs against appellees. whether a lost or destroyed holographic will can be proved by a SO ORDERED. photocopy or xerox copy. The Court summarized the facts of the case and relevant legal issues. It then held that while the original holographic will is required if available, a photocopy or xerox Luciano A. Joson for petitioner-appellant. copy may be allowed to prove the authenticity of the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    31 views4 pages

    27 - Rodelas vs. Aranza

    Uploaded by

    vince005
    September 7, 1979 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Court of First Instance of Rizal for The Supreme Court of the Philippines reviewed a case regarding further proceedings. Costs against appellees. whether a lost or destroyed holographic will can be proved by a SO ORDERED. photocopy or xerox copy. The Court summarized the facts of the case and relevant legal issues. It then held that while the original holographic will is required if available, a photocopy or xerox Luciano A. Joson for petitioner-appellant. copy may be allowed to prove the authenticity of the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    No. L-58509. December 7, 1982.* PETITION to review the order of the Court of Appeals.

    IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
    THE WILL OF RICARDO B. BONILLA, deceased,
    MARCELA RODELAS, petitioner-appellant, vs. Luciano A. Joson for petitioner-appellant.
    AMPARO ARANZA, ET. AL., oppositors-appellees,
    ATTY. LORENZO SUMULONG, intervenor. Cesar C. Paralejo for oppositor-appellee.

    Civil Law; Wills; Holographic Will; Admissibility of photos ________________


    tatic or xerox copy of a lost or destroyed will.However, if the
    holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy *
    FIRST DIVISION.
    is available, the will can not be probated because the best and
    only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is 17
    necessary that there be a comparison between sample
    handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will. VOL. 119, DECEMBER 7, 1982 17
    But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will
    Rodelas vs. Aranza
    may be allowed because comparison can be made with the
    standard writings of the testator. In the case of Gan vs. Yap,
    104 Phil 509, the Court ruled that the execution and the RELOVA, J.:
    contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be
    proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen This case was certified to this Tribunal by the Court of Appeals
    and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented; for final determination pursuant to Section 3, Rule 50 of the
    otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the Rules of Court.
    document itself as material proof of authenticity. But, in
    Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that Perhaps it may be As found by the Court of Appeals:
    proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a
    mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if x x x On January 11, 1977, appellant filed a petition with the
    any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the probate of the
    deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of
    court. Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or letters testamentary in her favor. The petition, docketed as Sp.
    destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the Proc. No. 8432, was opposed by the appellees Amparo Aranza
    authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes, Expedita Bonilla Frias and
    determined by the probate court. Ephraim Bonilla on the following grounds:
    1. (1) Appellant was estopped from claiming that the 18
    deceased left a will by failing to produce the will within
    twenty days of the death of the testator as required by 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
    Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules of Court; Rodelas vs. Aranza
    2. (2) The alleged copy of the alleged holographic will
    did not contain a disposition of property after death and
    was not intended to take effect after death, and The appellees then filed a motion for reconsideration on the
    therefore it was not a will; ground that the order was contrary to law and settled
    3. (3) The alleged holographic will itself, and not an pronouncements and rulings of the Supreme Court, to which
    alleged copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it the appellant in turn filed an opposition. On July 23, 1979, the
    would produce no effect, as held in Gan v. Yap, 104 court set aside its order of February 23, 1979 and dismissed the
    Phil. 509; and petition for the probate of the will of Ricardo B. Bonilla. The
    4. (4) The deceased did not leave any will, holographic court said:
    or otherwise, executed and attested as required by law.
    . . . It is our considered opinion that once the original copy of
    the holographic will is lost, a copy thereof cannot stand in lieu
    The appellees likewise moved for the consolidation of the
    of the original.
    case with another case (Sp. Proc. No. 8275). Their motion was
    granted by the court in an order dated April 4, 1977.
    In the case of Gan vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, 522, the Supreme
    On November 13, 1978, following the consolidation of the Court held that in the matter of holographic wills the law, it is
    cases, the appellees moved again to dismiss the petition for the reasonable to suppose, regards the document itself as the
    probate of the will. They argued that: material proof of authenticity of said wills.

    1. (1) The alleged holographic was not a last will but MOREOVER, this Court notes that the alleged holographic
    merely an instruction as to the management and will was executed on January 25, 1962 while Ricardo B.
    improvement of the schools and colleges founded by Bonilla died on May 13, 1976. In view of the lapse of more
    decedent Ricardo B. Bonilla; and than 14 years from the time of the execution of the will to the
    2. (2) Lost or destroyed holographic wills cannot be death of the decedent, the fact that the original of the will could
    proved by secondary evidence unlike ordinary wills. not be located shows to our mind that the decedent had
    discarded before his death his allegedly missing Holographic
    Will.
    Upon opposition of the appellant, the motion to dismiss was
    denied by the court in its order of February 23, 1979.
    Appellants motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, an
    appeal to the Court of Appeals in which it is contended that the
    dismissal of appellants petition is contrary to law and well- destroyed and no other copy is available, the will can not be
    settled jurisprudence. probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting
    of the testator in said will. It is necessary that there be a
    On July 7, 1980, appellees moved to forward the case to this comparison between sample handwritten statements of the
    Court on the ground that the appeal does not involve question testator and the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or
    of fact and alleged that the trial court committed the following xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because
    assigned errors: comparison can be made with the standard writings of the
    testator. In the case of Gan vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, the Court
    1. I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING ruled that the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed
    THAT A LOST HOLOGRAPHIC WILL MAY NOT holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of
    BE PROVED BY A COPY THEREOF; witnesses who have seen and/or read such will The will itself
    2. II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The
    THAT THE DECEDENT HAS DISCARDED law regards the document itself as material proof of
    BEFORE HIS DEATH THE MISSING authenticity. But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that
    HOLOGRAPHIC WILL; Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic
    3. III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other
    APPELLANTS WILL. similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the
    handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before
    The only question here is whether a holographic will which the probate court. Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of
    was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because
    then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be
    19 determined by the probate court.

    VOL. 119, DECEMBER 7, 1982 19 WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court dated October 3,
    1979, denying appellants motion for reconsideration dated
    Rodelas vs. Aranza
    August 9, 1979, of the Order dated July 23, 1979, dismissing
    her petition to approve the will of the late Ricardo B. Bonilla,
    photostatic copy. Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, is hereby SET ASIDE.
    probate of holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the
    court after its due execution has been proved. The probate may SO ORDERED.
    be uncontested or not. If uncontested, at least one identifying
    witness is required and, if no witness is available, experts may Teehankee, Actg. C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez
    be resorted to. If contested, at least three identifying witnesses and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
    are required. However, if the holographic will has been lost or
    20

    20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


    Rodelas vs. Aranza

    Order set aside.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy