Subsection 5.

paper shall not be considered a part of the will unless the following
CODICILS AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE requisites are present:
1) The document or paper referred to in the will must be in
Article 825. A codicil is supplement or addition to a will, made after the existence at the time of the execution of the will;
execution of a will and annexed to be taken as a part thereof, by which 2) The will must clearly describe and identify the same, stating
disposition made in the original will is explained, added to, or altered. among other things the number of pages thereof;
(n) 3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the
document or paper referred to therein; and
CODICIL 4) It must be signed by the testator and the witnesses on each
 is derived from the Latin “codex” and literally means a little code or and every page, except in case of voluminous books of
a little will (although, of course, physically it may be larger or longer account or inventories. (n)
than a will).
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
TIME WHEN CODICIL IS MADE  The purpose : is to provide for those cases when a testator wishes
 A codicil, since it refers to a will, cannot be made before a will; it is to incorporate to his will only by reference (i.e., without copying the
always made after. whole thing) certain documents or papers, especially inventories and
 (Of course, even the codicil may later on be revoked by another will books of accounts. Thereby, the testator is able to save time and
or codicil.) energy.

CONFLICT BETWEEN WILL AND CODICIL  Said documents or inventories, when referred to in a notarial will, do
 CODICIL should prevail, it being the later expression of the not need any attestation clause, because the attestation clause of
testator’s wishes. the will itself is sufficient.

REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY OF DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY

Article 826. In order that a codicil may be effective, it shall be executed REFERENCE
as in the case of a will. (n) 1) The document or paper referred to in the will must be in existence
at the time of the execution of the will.
FORMALITIES OF CODICILS o Reference to future papers will render the incorporation void.
As in the case of wills, there can be: o The will must refer to the papers as having been already made; it
1. notarial or ordinary codicils is not enough that in truth it was already in existence
2. holographic codicils
2) The will must clearly describe and identify (locations, general
NOTE: appearance) the same, stating among other things, the number of
1. A notarial will may be revoked by either a notarial or holographic pages thereof. (This is true even in the case of voluminous books of
codicil; similarly, a holographic will may be revoked by a holographic account or inventories.)
or notarial codicil. 3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the document
2. If a codicil is not executed with the formalities of a will, said codicil is or paper referred to therein (parol evidence or evidence aliunde is
void. needed here of course).
3. A valid will can never be revoked, expressly or impliedly, by an invalid 4) It must be signed by the testator and the (same instrumental)
codicil. witnesses on each and every page, except in case of voluminous
books of account or inventories.
Article 827. If a will, executed as required by this Code, incorporates
into itself by reference any document or paper, such document or  Observe that even the number of pages of voluminous accounts or
inventories must be stated
  The exception refers only to the signing of all pages; and even Yes, since the codicil may have revoked expressly or impliedly the will, and it
here, while not every page has to be signed, still it is believed that is well-known that a will is essentially revocable. It is not indeed essential for
there must be a signature on at least several pages thereof for the both the will and the codicil to have been presented for probate at the same
purpose of identifying same as the documents really referred to time. Moreover, opposition to the probate of the codicil may still be allowed,
even if the oppositor had not objected to the will itself. This is because, in the
INCORPORATION CAN GENERALLY BE DONE ONLY IN NOTARIAL opinion of the oppositor, the codicil may be defective.
WILLS
From the fact that Art. 827(4) speaks of “witnesses,” it is reasonable to Article 829. A revocation done outside the Philippines, by a person who
believe that as a rule, only notarial wills can have this incorporation by does not have his domicile in this country, is valid when it is done
reference. according to the law of the place where the will was made, or according
to the law of the place in which the testator had his domicile at the
However, it is submitted that: time; and if the revocation takes place in this country, when it is in
1) If a holographic will happen to have at least three credible and accordance with the provisions of this Code.
qualified witnesses, there can be a proper incorporation by
reference. CONFLICTS RULES FOR REVOCATION OF WILLS
2) Moreover, if a holographic will (with NO witnesses) refers to a REVOCATION OUTSIDE THE PH REVOCATION IS IN THE PH
document entirely written, dated, and signed in the handwriting of If not domiciled If domiciled in
the testator, there can also be a proper incorporation by reference in the the Philippines
Philippines (not provided
for in the law)
Subsection 6. a. follow law of a. follow law of This is true whether or not the
REVOCATION OF WILLS AND TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS place where the PH (since domicile is in the Philippines.
will was MADE his domicile is
Article 828. A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his b. or follow law of here)
death. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void. place where b. or follow the
testator was general rule of
REVOCABILITY OF A WILL DOMICILED at lex loci
 Until the death of the testator, a will is ambulatory and revocable, the time. celebrationis
since after all, the will concerns a disposition of properties and rights of the
effective after death REVOCATION
 The heirs do not acquire any vested right to the disposition in a will
until after the testator’s death.  It is curious that in the case of a revocation outside the
 Provisions in a will which are ordered to be effected immediately, Philippines by a person not domiciled in the Philippines, the
even during the testator’s lifetime, are all right, provided the proper law speaks of the law of the place of the MAKING, not the
formalities and requisites are present, but they are not really REVOCATION. This apparently disregards the rule of lex loci
testamentary disposition. celebrationis.

CASE: Article 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:
A will was presented for probate, and no objection was presented. After the 1) By implication of law; or
judgment had become fi nal and executory, a codicil made after the 2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case
execution of the will was presented for probate. May the codicil be still of wills; or
probated? 3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the
HELD: intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other
person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned,
 torn, cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the c. Any person who has accused the testator of a crime for
express direction of the testator, the will may still be established, which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or
and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, more, if the accusation has been found groundless;
and due execution, and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, d. Any heir of full age who, having knowledge of the violent
cancellation, or obliteration are established according to the Rules death of the testator, should fail to report it to an officer of
of Court. the law within a month, unless the authorities have already
taken action; this prohibition shall not apply to cases
LOCAL OR DOMESTIC WAYS OF REVOCATION wherein, according to law, there is no obligation to make
1. by implication or operation of law (totally or partially) an accusation;
2. by virtue of an overt act (like burning, tearing, cancelling or obliterating e. Any person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the
totally or partially in some instances) spouse of the testator;
3. by virtue of a revoking will or codicil (totally or partially, or expressly or f. Any person who by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue
impliedly). influence should cause the testator to make a will or to
change one already made;
1. REVOCATION BY IMPLICATION OF LAW g. Any person who by the same means prevents another
 when certain acts or events take place after will has been made, from making a will, or from revoking one already made, or
rendering void or useless either the whole will or certain who supplants, conceals, or alters the latter's will;
testamentary dispositions therein h. Any person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the
o [Note, however, that the revocation of a legacy does not operate to decedent.
revoke the entire will. Only total and absolute revocation of the
entire will prevent the probate of the revoked testament. 4) When a credit that had been given as a legacy is judicially demanded
by the testator
 Reason for allowing revocation by implication of law: 5) When one, some or all of the compulsory heirs have been preterited or
o There may be certain changes in the family or domestic relations omitted, the institution of heir is void.
or in the status of his property, such that the law presumes a
change of mind on the part of the testator.  suppose the testator never intended to change his mind (for
example — suppose in the problem about the car legacy that was
 Some instances of revocation by implication of law: sold, the testator nevertheless intended to give the cash equivalent
1) When after the testator has made a will, he sells, or donates to A), should there still be revocation by implication of law?
the legacy or devise. o Generally, yes. What the testator should do in a case like this is to
2) Provisions in a will in favor of a spouse who has given cause manifest his unchanged mind by executing a new will or codicil.
for legal separation shall be revoked by operation of law the American Jurisprudence provides: “Where the revocation of a
moment a decree of legal separation is granted. will is presumed by law from a change in the testator’s
3) When an heir, legatee, or devisee commits an act of circumstances, evidence is generally not admissible to rebut the
unworthiness under Art. 1032. presumption, at least not evidence of subsequent unexecuted
Article 1032. The following are incapable of intentions of the testator.’’ In some cases though, if the subsequent
succeeding by reason of unworthiness: intention has been executed or manifested by a new will, for
a. Parents who have abandoned their children or induced instance, said new will must prevail.
their daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life, or
attempted against their virtue; 2. REVOCATION BY AN OVERT ACT
b. Any person who has been convicted of an attempt against Requisites:
the life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or 1) There must be an overt act specified by the law.
ascendants; 2) There must be a completion at least of the subjective phase of the
overt act.
3) There must be animus revocandi or intent to revoke.
4) The testator at the time of revoking must have capacity to make a will. The overt act of TEARING
 He must be of sound mind, otherwise there is no real  Even a slight tear is sufficient.
revocation  Of course, the greater the degree of tearing the greater is the
5) The revocation must be done by the testator himself, or by some other evidence of animo revocandi.
person in his presence and by his express direction. (Ratification of an  Tearing into three pieces is sufficient. When all the other requisites
unauthorized destruction is however permissible provided sufficient are present. As a matter of fact tearing into two is even enough as
proof of this is presented.). long as the subjective phase is passed, that is, as long as the
testator considers the will already revoked.
The overt act of BURNING
 It is sufficient even if a small part of the instrument itself be burned  Perkes v. Perkes 3 B. and Ald. 489, Costigan
even though the entire writing itself be left untouched. FACTS: In a fit of anger, a testator tore his will twice and was
 If thrown into the fi re with intent to revoke, and it was burned in continuing to so tear when somebody held his arms and persuaded
three places without scorching the writing, there is already a him to refrain from tearing the will. He was prevailed upon. He then
revocation even if, unknown to the testator, somebody was able to placed the torn pieces in his pocket and said, “Nothing significant has
snatch it from the fi re and thus saved it. after all been torn.’’ Later, the testator died, and the torn will was
 CASE: A wanted to revoke his will, so he threw it into a stove so that found. Was there a revocation here?
it would be burned later on when a fi re would be lighted in the stove. HELD: The will was NOT revoked for the act of tearing was
However, the will was later removed by another person from the subjectively not yet complete, inasmuch as he had intended to tear up
stove BEFORE the stove was lighted. the will some more.
 HELD: There was NO revocation here, for while there was intent to
revoke, there never was the overt act of burning.  “Tearing” includes “cutting.’’ A clause may be revoked by
 However, the person who prevented the revocation, if he be an heir “cutting” same from the will.
or a legatee or devisee, will still NOT inherit, not because of
revocation by means of an overt act (for indeed there was NO overt NOTE: The mere act of “crumpling” or the removal of the “fastener”
act) but because of revocation by implication of law, said person binding the pages of a will, does NOT constitute a revocation, even
being incapacitated to inherit by reason of UNWORTHINESS. though there be animo revocandi.

 Testate Estate of the Late Adriana Maloto, et al. v. CA, et al  The reason is that “crumpling” is not one of the overt acts provided
 It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in for by the law.
this case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless  However, the court impliedly allowed “crumpling’’ as one of the overt
the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the acts, provided there is animo revocandi.].
testator. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by  Tearing off even the signature alone constitutes revocation provided
the testator himself. It may be performed by another person but the other requisites are present. This is because the signature goes
under the express direction and in the presence of the testator. Of to the very heart of the will.
course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be
the will itself. The overt act of OBLITERATING or CANCELLING
1. Obliteration — renders the word illegible; cancellation — is the
 If a will is burned accidentally, there is no revocation in view of the drawing of lines across a text, but the words remain legible.
lack of intention. 2. Either of the two revokes a will, totally or partially.
 If the envelope containing a will is burned, but the will itself is 3. If all parts are cancelled or obliterated, or if the signature is cancelled
untouched, there is NO revocation even if there be intent to revoke. or obliterated, the whole will is revoked, the reason in the case of the
Why? There was no overt act of burning the will, as distinguished signature being that the act strikes at the existence of the whole
from the envelope. instrument.
  NOTE: Cancellation of the signature of witnesses to a holographic  Problem: Testator made will No. (1). after one week, he wanted to
will leaves the will valid, since no witnesses are after all required.]. revoke same, so he executed will No. (2), expressly revoking will no.
(1). In the belief that he had already accomplished what he wanted,
4. Cancellation or obliteration of non-vital part leaves the other parts in he then tore into two pieces will No. (1). On his death, it was
force. discovered that will No. (2) had not been validly executed.

If a will is mutilated by error, there being no animo revocandi, there is no Question: Can we consider will No. (1) As having been revoked, or
revocation. should it still be given effect?

 Steele v. Price ANS.: In one case, if was held that while it is true that revocation
FACTS: T made a will which was later discovered same to be missing. was not produced by the execution of an invalid will, revocation was
He then informed his relatives he would make another will. But he made thru an overt act — the act of tearing or destruction — with
never did so. On his death, the missing will was found. Can it be animo revocandi.
considered revoked?
HELD: No, because actually there has not been anY of the overt acts  Hence, the court concluded that will No. (1) Had indeed been
mentioned under the law. And even if the will was never found, still revoked.
parol evidence may be introduced to prove its contents, for we may  However, in a subsequent case, it was ruled that there was no
presume here that the destruction, if indeed there was any, was not revocation either by subsequent will (for same was invalid) or an
authorized. overt act (since the act of destruction or tearing the first will was
prompted by the false belief that the second will had been validly
 NOTE: The case would have been different had the testator ready executed). (See Art. 833, which provides that a revocation of a will
access to his will, and never told anyone he had lost the same. In based on a false cause or illegal cause is null and void).
such a case we can presume that the will, having been last seen in  To put it in another way, the doctrine of dependent relative
the possession of the testator, has been destroyed intentionally, with revocation — the revocation by destruction or overt act was good
intent to revoke, by the testator. only if this condition is fullled, namely, that the revoking will was
valid.
 The condition was not fulfilled; therefore, the revocation by overt act
Revocation by the Execution of Another Will or Codicil did not really materialize.
1. Revocation in this manner may be express or implied.
 (Implied revocations consists in complete inconsistency between the A second will referred to by the testator as his “last will” revokes
two wills.). completely the first will, particularly if the provision of the two, as to who
2. A will may be revoked by a subsequent will or codicil, either notarial or were being instituted as heirs, are inconsistent.
holographic.
3. It is essential however, that the revoking will be itself a valid will Probate of Lost or Destroyed Notarial Wills
(validly executed as to form), otherwise there is no revocation.  If a notarial will has been lost or destroyed without intent to revoke,
4. The revocation made in the subsequent will must indeed be a defi nite its contents may nevertheless still be proved by:
one. 1. oral or parol evidence
 A mere declaration that sometime in the future, the fi rst would be 2. carbon copies
revoked, is not enough.  This is because a carbon copy signed by all concerned is just as
 However, there is nothing wrong in making the revocation good as the original.
conditional, that is, the revocation takes place only if the condition is  As a matter of fact, it is error to dismiss a probate proceeding on the
fulfilled (doctrine of “conditional revocation,” also called mere ground that the copy presented is only a carbon copy.
“dependent relative revocation”).  After all, a “duplicate original’’ (a signed carbon copy or duplicate
executed at the same time as the original) is as GOOD as the
 original, and may be introduced in evidence without accounting for  Example: T made a will making X his heir. Later, T expressly
the non-production of the other copies. revoked his first will by executing a second will containing a
 The production and admission of a carbon duplicate without a new revocatory clause.
publication does not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court, T made Y his heir. The second will was validly made, but on T’s
already conferred by the original publication of the petition for death, Y refused to accept the inheritance. Is the first will still
probate, unless substantial rights are adversely affected. revoked?
 Incidentally, if the original presented is defective and invalid, there is  ANS.: Yes. (Art. 832). Therefore, T will be considered to have died
in law no other will but the duly signed carbon duplicate, which is intestate, and X cannot inherit, except, if he be also one of the
probatable. intestate heirs.
3. If the revoking will is both invalid and ineffective, it is clear that there
 NOTE: Holographic wills, which have been lost or destroyed without can be no revocation.
intent to revoke, cannot be probated.
Art. 833. A revocation of a will based on a false cause or an illegal
 However — cause is null and void.
In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Ricardo B.
Bonilla, deceased; Bodellar v. Aranza, et al. L-58509, Dec. 7, Revocation Based on False or Illegal Cause
1982  As already discussed under Art. 830, this Article 833 is one of the
 May a lost or destroyed holographic will be proved by means of aspects of “dependent relative revocation,” or more properly, at least
photostatic or xerox copy thereof? for the purpose of this Article, “a revocation made under a mistake.”
 YES, because the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased
can be determined by the probate court.  Example: T made a will making A his heir. T then learned that A
was dead, so he made another will instituting B as heir. If A turns out
Art. 831. Subsequent wills which do not revoke the previous ones in an to be still alive, who inherits?
express manner, annul only such dispositions in the prior wills as are
inconsistent with or contrary to those contained in the later wills. ANS.: A inherits, because the revocation was based on a false
cause.
Implied Revocation Thru Wills  The fact that the cause for the revocation was a false belief or a
 This Article speaks of implied revocation, and this may be total or mistake must be found on the face of the will or codicil itself, if the
partial. revocation is through a will or codicil.
 Partial — if there is inconsistency only in certain provisions.
 If the testator states in his second will: “I am not sure whether A is
 The law does not favor revocation by implication, and therefore dead or still alive. However, I hereby revoke the legacy to him which
efforts to reconcile must be made. I made in my first will.” Is there a revocation of the legacy?
ANS.: Yes. For here, he cannot be said to be proceeding upon an
Art. 832. A revocation made in a subsequent will shall take effect, even error.
if the new will should become inoperative by reason of the incapacity
of the heirs, devisees or legatees designated therein, or by their Art. 834. The recognition of an illegitimate child does not lose its legal
renunciation. effect, even though the will wherein it was made should be revoked.

Effect on Revocation if New Will is Inoperative Effect of Revocation on the Recognition of an Illegitimate Child
1. There is a difference between an invalid will, and a valid but ineffective  According to Art. 278, voluntary recognition of an illegitimate child
will. may be done:
2. We already know that an invalid revoking will cannot revoke. But a valid 1. in a record of birth
though ineffective will can revoke. 2. will
3. statement before a court of record
 4. any authentic writing

 Now then, if the will in which recognition had been made is

subsequently revoked, the recognition still remains valid.

 Reason for Art. 834: While a will is essentially revocable,

recognition is irrevocable (unless there be vitiated consent).
Moreover —
1. Recognition is not really a testamentary disposition;
2. Recognition does not wait for the testator’s death to become
effective.

 NOTE: Art. 834 applies only if the recognizing will is extrinsically

valid — otherwise there would be no recognition that can be
revoked.