G.R. No.

106720 September 15, 1994

SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, petitioners,

vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, respondents.

Miguel D. Larida for petitioners.

Montilla Law Office for private respondent.

PUNO, J.:

This is an appeal by certiorari from the Decision of the Court of

Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, dated March 30, 1992, the dispositive portion of which reads;

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the questioned decision of November 19, 1988 of the

trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the petition for probate is
hereby DISMISSED. No costs.

The earlier Decision was rendered by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 94, 2 in Sp. Proc.
No. Q-37171, and the instrument submitted for probate is the holographic will of the late
Annie Sand, who died on November 25, 1982.

In the will, decedent named as devisees, the following: petitioners Roberto and Thelma Ajero,
private respondent Clemente Sand, Meriam S. Arong, Leah Sand, Lilia Sand, Edgar Sand, Fe
Sand, Lisa S. Sand, and Dr. Jose Ajero, Sr., and their children.

On January 20, 1983, petitioners instituted Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, for allowance of decedent's
holographic will. They alleged that at the time of its execution, she was of sound and disposing
mind, not acting under duress, fraud or undue influence, and was in every respect capacitated to
dispose of her estate by will.

Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament's body nor the
signature therein was in decedent's handwriting; it contained alterations and corrections which
were not duly signed by decedent; and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper
pressure and undue influence. The petition was likewise opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero. He contested
the disposition in the will of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte. He claimed
that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.

Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court admitted the decedent's holographic will to probate.
It found, inter alia:

Considering then that the probate proceedings herein must decide only the question
of identity of the will, its due execution and the testamentary capacity of the testatrix,
this probate court finds no reason at all for the disallowance of the will for its failure
to comply with the formalities prescribed by law nor for lack of testamentary capacity
of the testatrix.

For one, no evidence was presented to show that the will in question is different from
the will actually executed by the testatrix. The only objections raised by the
oppositors . . . are that the will was not written in the handwriting of the testatrix
which properly refers to the question of its due execution, and not to the question of
identity of will. No other will was alleged to have been executed by the testatrix other
than the will herein presented. Hence, in the light of the evidence adduced, the
identity of the will presented for probate must be accepted, i.e., the will submitted in
Court must be deemed to be the will actually executed by the testatrix.

xxx xxx xxx

While the fact that it was entirely written, dated and signed in the handwriting of the
testatrix has been disputed, the petitioners, however, have satisfactorily shown in
Court that the holographic will in question was indeed written entirely, dated and
signed in the handwriting of the testatrix. Three (3) witnesses who have convincingly
shown knowledge of the handwriting of the testatrix have been presented and have
explicitly and categorically identified the handwriting with which the holographic will
in question was written to be the genuine handwriting and signature of the testatrix.
Given then the aforesaid evidence, the requirement of the law that the holographic
will be entirely written, dated and signed in the handwriting of the testatrix has been
complied with.

xxx xxx xxx

As to the question of the testamentary capacity of the testratix, (private respondent)

Clemente Sand himself has testified in Court 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 holographic will in question was executed by the testatrix. To be of
sound mind, it is sufficient that the testatrix, at the time of making the will, knew
the value of the estate to be disposed of, the proper object of her bounty, and
the character of the testamentary act . . . The will itself shows that the testatrix even
had detailed knowledge of the nature of her estate. She even identified the lot
number and square meters of the lots she had conveyed by will. The objects of her
bounty were likewise identified explicitly. And considering that she had even written a
nursing book which contained the law and jurisprudence on will and succession,
there is more than sufficient showing that she knows the character of the
testamentary act.

In this wise, the question of identity of the will, its due execution and the
testamentary capacity of the testatrix has to be resolved in favor of the allowance of
probate of the will submitted herein.

Likewise, no evidence was presented to show sufficient reason for the disallowance
of herein holographic will. While it was alleged that the said will was procured by
undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary or of some
other person, the evidence adduced have not shown any instance where improper
pressure or influence was exerted on the testatrix. (Private respondent) Clemente
Sand has testified that the testatrix was still alert at the time of the execution of the
will, i.e., at or around the time of her birth anniversary celebration in 1981. It was also
established that she is a very intelligent person and has a mind of her own. Her
independence of character and to some extent, her sense of superiority, which has
been testified to in Court, all show the unlikelihood of her being unduly influenced or
improperly pressured to make the aforesaid will. It must be noted that the undue
influence or improper pressure in question herein only refer to the making of a will
and not as to the specific testamentary provisions therein which is the proper subject
of another proceeding. Hence, under the circumstances, this Court cannot find
convincing reason for the disallowance of the will herein.

Considering then that it is a well-established doctrine in the law on succession that in

case of doubt, testate succession should be preferred over intestate succession, and
 the fact that no convincing grounds were presented and proven for the disallowance
of the holographic will of the late Annie Sand, the aforesaid will submitted herein
must be admitted to probate. 3 (Citations omitted.)

On appeal, said Decision was reversed, and the petition for probate of decedent's will was
dismissed. The Court of Appeals found that, "the holographic will fails to meet the requirements for
its validity." 4 It held that the decedent did not comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil
Code, which read, as follows:

Art. 813: 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.

Art. 814: In case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will,

the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature.

It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and undated, or signed but
not dated. It also found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations made thereon had not
been authenticated by decedent.

Thus, this appeal which is impressed with merit.

Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court provides that will shall be disallowed in any of the
following cases:

(a) If not executed and attested as required by law;

(b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, at the
time of its execution;

(c) If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;

(d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of
the beneficiary, or of some other person for his benefit;

(e) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, and he did not
intend that the instrument should be his will at the time of fixing his signature thereto.

In the same vein, Article 839 of the New Civil Code reads:

Art. 839: The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases;

(1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;

(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of

making a will, at the time of its execution;

(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of

fear, or threats;

(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence,

on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person;

(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;

 (6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument
he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto.

These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to disallow a will. 5 Thus, in a petition to
admit a holographic will to probate, the only issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the instrument
submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last will and testament; (2) whether said will was executed in
accordance with the formalities prescribed by law; (3) whether the decedent had the necessary
testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed; and, (4) whether the execution of the will
and its signing were the voluntary acts of the decedent. 6

In the case at bench, respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne Sand was not
executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. It held that Articles 813 and 814 of
the New Civil Code, ante, were not complied with, hence, it disallowed the probate of said will.
This is erroneous.

We reiterate what we held in Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil. 476, 479 (1919), that:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door
against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to
guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore, the laws on this subject should be
interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the other hand,
also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain
and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already
given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but
demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the
testator's last will, must be disregarded.

For purposes of probating non-holographic wills, these formal solemnities include the subscription,
attestation, and acknowledgment requirements under Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code.

In the case of holographic wills, on the other hand, what assures authenticity is the requirement
that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself, 7 as provided under Article
810 of the New Civil Code, thus:

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a
holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator.

A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its requirement affects the validity of the
dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and
date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such
failure, however, does not render the whole testament void.

Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-compliance with
the provisions of Article 814. In the case of Kalaw vs. Relova 132 SCRA 237 242 (1984), this
Court held:

Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the

testator in a holographic Will have not been noted under his signature, . . . the Will is
not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words
erased, corrected or interlined. Manresa gave an identical commentary when he said
 "la omission de la salvedad no anula el testamento, segun la regla de jurisprudencia
establecida en la sentencia de 4 de Abril de 1985." 8 (Citations omitted.)

Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of
the holographic will or on testator's signature, 9 their presence does not invalidate the will
itself. 10 The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes.

It is also proper to note that the requirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating
of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and 814) separate from that which provides for
the necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810). The distinction can be
traced to Articles 678 and 688 of the Spanish Civil Code, from which the present provisions
covering holographic wills are taken. They read as follows:

Art. 678: A will is called holographic when the testator writes it himself in the form
and with the requisites required in Article 688.

Art. 688: Holographic wills may be executed only by persons of full age.

In order that the will be valid it must be drawn on stamped paper corresponding to
the year of its execution, written in its entirety by the testator and signed by him, and
must contain a statement of the year, month and day of its execution.

If it should contain any erased, corrected, or interlined words, the testator must
identify them over his signature.

Foreigners may execute holographic wills in their own language.

This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the requirements of
Article 810 of the New Civil Code — and not those found in Articles 813 and 814 of the same
Code — are essential to the probate of a holographic will.

The Court of Appeals further held that decedent Annie Sand could not validly dispose of the house
and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, in its entirety. This is correct and must be
affirmed.

As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity
of the will sought to be probated. However, in exceptional instances, courts are not powerless to
do what the situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the will. 11 In the
case at bench, decedent herself indubitably stated in her holographic will that the Cabadbaran
property is in the name of her late father, John H. Sand (which led oppositor Dr. Jose Ajero to
question her conveyance of the same in its entirety). Thus, as correctly held by respondent court,
she cannot validly dispose of the whole property, which she shares with her father's other heirs.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, dated March 30, 1992, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, except with
respect to the invalidity of the disposition of the entire house and lot in Cabadbaran, Agusan del
Norte. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94 in Sp. Proc. No. Q-
37171, dated November 19, 1988, admitting to probate the holographic will of decedent Annie
Sand, is hereby REINSTATED, with the above qualification as regards the Cabadbaran property.
No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

  
#Footnotes

1 Sixteenth Division, composed of Associate Justices Luis L. Victor (ponente),

Ricardo J. Francisco (chairman), and Pacita Cañizares-Nye.

2 Presided by Judge Filemon H. Mendoza.

3 Rollo, pp. 37-39.

4 Impugned Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 46.

5 Pecson vs. Coronel, 45 Phil. 216 (1923); See 3 EDGARDO L. PARAS, Civil Code
of the Philippines Annotated (1989), pp. 145-146.

6 See Montanaño vs. Suesa, 14 Phil. 676 (1909).

7 See Fernando vs. Villalon, 3 Phil. 386 (1904).

8 See Velasco vs. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720, 725 (1903), citing a Decision of the Supreme
Court of Spain, dated April 4, 1895; See also, 3 MANRESA, Commentarios al
Codigo Español (Quinta ed.), p. 483; See further, 3 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO,
Commentaries & Jurisprudence on the Civil Code (1973), p. 107, citing Castan 341,
5 Valverde 82; 3 AMBROSIO PADILLA, Civil Code Annotated (1987),
pp. 157-158; 2 RAMON C. AQUINO and CAROLINA C. GRIÑO-AQUINO (1990), p.
42.

9 3 PARAS, op. cit.

10 It must be noted, however, that in Kalaw, this Court laid down an exception to the
general rule, when it invalidated the entire will because of an unauthenticated
erasure made by the testator. In that case, the will had only one substantial
provision. This was altered by substituting the original heir with another , with such
alteration being unauthenticated. This was altered by substituting the original heir
with another, with such alteration being unauthenticated. This Court held that the
whole will was void "for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after (the
provision is invalidated) which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first
written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the
testatrix. But, that change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to
authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature."

11 Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 206 (1985); See Nuguid vs.

Nuguid, 17 SCRA 449 (1966); See also Cayetano vs. Leonidas, 129 SCRA 522
(1984).