CASE NO.

32
In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will Of Melecio Labrador, Sagrado Labrador et. al.
vs. Court of Appeals, Gaudencio Labrador, and Jesus Labrador
G.R Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990
Ponente: Paras J.
Digest by: Benan, Rhobee Jyn S.
FACTS:
The deceased, Melecio Labrador, left behind him a parcel of land which was partitioned among
his nine heirs through a holographic will.
Sagrado, therefore, one of his heirs, filed a petition for the probate of the alleged holographic
will of the late Melecio Labrador.
However, Jesus and Gaudencio, also heirs of the deceased, filed an opposition to the petition
on the ground that the will has been extinguished or revoked by implication of law alleging
therein that before Melecio’s death, he executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring
and conveying in favor of Jesus and Gaudencio the parcel of land.
The trial court allowed the probate of the holographic will and declared null and void the Deed
of Sale. Jesu and Gaudencio and appealed to the Court of Appeals which modified the decision
of the trial court. It denied the allowance of the probate of the will for being undated.
The aggrieved party, therefore, filed a petition to the Supreme Court alleging among others
that the CA erred in not allowing the probate proceeding withstanding the fact that in the first
paragraph of the second page of the alleged holographic will, which was written in Ilocano, the
testator made mention a date – “month of March, 17th, 1968.
ISSUE: Whether the holographic will is dated
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The will has been dated in the hands of the testator
himself in perfect compliance Art. 810.
The law does not specify a particular location where the date must be placed in the will. The
only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and should be executed in the hand of
the testator. These requirements are present in the subject will. Hence, the probate proceeding
should be allowed.