DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

It might be possible to construe the averment as a jurat, even though it does not hew to the usual
language thereof. A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before him/her,
the document was subscribed and sworn to by the executor. Ordinarily, the language of the jurat
should avow that the document was subscribed and sworn before the notary public, while in this
case, the notary public averred that he himself "signed and notarized" the document. Possibly though,
the word "ninotario" or "notarized" encompasses the signing of and swearing in of the executors of
the document, which in this case would involve the decedent and the instrumental witnesses.

Yet even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as a jurat, the will would nonetheless
remain invalid, as the express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be "acknowledged", and not
merely subscribed and sworn to. The will does not present any textual proof, much less one under
oath, that the decedent and the instrumental witnesses executed or signed the will as their own free
act or deed. The acknowledgment made in a will provides for another all-important legal safeguard
against spurious wills or those made beyond the free consent of the testator. An acknowledgement
is not an empty meaningless act. The acknowledgment coerces the testator and the instrumental
witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that they had executed and subscribed to the will as
their own free act or deed. Such declaration is under oath and under pain of perjury, thus allowing
for the criminal prosecution of persons who participate in the execution of spurious wills, or those
executed without the free consent of the testator. It also provides a further degree of assurance that
the testator is of certain mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to those persons he/she
had designated in the will.

A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses is
fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and sworn to before a notary public.

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANDRES G. DE JESUS AND BIBIANA ROXAS
DE JESUS, SIMEON R. ROXAS & PEDRO ROXAS DE JESUS, Petitioners, -versus – ANDRES R. DE
JESUS, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. L-38338, FIRST DIVISION, January 28, 1985, GUTIERREZ, JR., J.

As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and year of its
execution.

However, when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and
pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether or not the date
"FEB./61" appearing on the holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code,
probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance.

FACTS

After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, special proceeding entitled
"In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus" was filed by
petitioner Simeon R. Roxas, the brother of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. Simeon R. Roxas was
appointed administrator. After Letters of Administration had been granted to the petitioner, he
delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic Will of the deceased
Bibiana Roxas de Jesus.

Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testified that he found a notebook belonging to the deceased Bibiana R.
de Jesus and that on pages 21, 22, 23 and 24 thereof, a letter-win addressed to her children and

60
 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

entirely written and signed in the handwriting of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was found. The
will is dated "FEB./61 " and states: "This is my will which I want to be respected although it is not
written by a lawyer.

The testimony of Simeon R. Roxas was corroborated by the testimonies of Pedro Roxas de Jesus and
Manuel Roxas de Jesus who likewise testified that the letter dated "FEB./61 " is the holographic Will
of their deceased mother, Bibiana R. de Jesus. Both recognized the handwriting of their mother and
positively identified her signature. They further testified that their deceased mother understood
English, the language in which the holographic Will is written, and that the date "FEB./61 " was the
date when said Will was executed by their mother.

Respondent opposed the probate of the will claiming that alleged holographic will of the deceased
Bibiana R. de Jesus was not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code. Respondent contended
that the law requires that the Will should contain the day, month and year of its execution and that
this should be strictly complied with.

ISSUE

Whether the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de
Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code. (YES)

RULING

ART. 810. 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.

The underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the provisions of the law on wigs in this
Project consists in the liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving
the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes, but with sufficient safeguards and
restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure
and influence upon the testator.

If the testator, in executing his Will, attempts to comply with all the requisites, although compliance
is not literal, it is sufficient if the objective or purpose sought to be accomplished by such requisite is
actually attained by the form followed by the testator.

The purpose of the solemnities surrounding the execution of Wills has been expounded by this Court
in Abangan v. Abanga 40 Phil. 476, where we ruled 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.

In particular, a complete date is required to provide against such contingencies as that of two
competing Wills executed on the same day, or of a testator becoming insane on the day on which a
Will was executed (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720). There is no such contingency in this case.

We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in
its execution nor was there any substitution of Wins and Testaments. There is no question that the

61
 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus was entirely written, dated, and signed by
the testatrix herself and in a language known to her. There is also no question as to its genuineness
and due execution. All the children of the testatrix agree on the genuineness of the holographic Will
of their mother and that she had the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of said Will.
The objection interposed by the oppositor-respondent Luz Henson is that the holographic Will is
fatally defective because the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will is not sufficient
compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code. This objection is too technical to be entertained.

As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and year of its
execution. However, when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue
influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether
or not the date "FEB./61" appearing on the holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of
the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of substantial
compliance.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF MELECIO LABRADOR.

SAGRADO LABRADOR (Deceased), substituted by ROSITA LABRADOR, ENRICA LABRADOR,
and CRISTOBAL LABRADOR, Petitioners-Appellants, -versus – COURT OF APPEALS,
GAUDENCIO LABRADOR, and JESUS LABRADOR, Respondents-Appellees.
G.R. No. 83843-44, SECOND DIVISION, April 5, 1990, PARAS, J.

The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The only
requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. These
requirements are present in the subject will.

The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of the will is plain from the tenor of
the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will was not an agreement but a
unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he was executing was a will.

FACTS
Melecio Labrador died leaving behind a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 1916. Sagrado Labrador
filed in court a petition for the probate docketed of the alleged holographic will.

Subsequently, Jesus Labrador and Gaudencio Labrador filed an opposition to the petition on the
ground that the will has been extinguished or revoked by implication of law, alleging that before
Melecio's death, he (Melecio) sold to them the parcel of land. Earlier however, in 1973, Jesus Labrador
sold said parcel of land to Navat.

Sagrado thereupon filed for the annulment of said purported Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of
land.

The trial court rendered a joint decision allowing the probate of the holographic will and declaring
null and void the Deed of Absolute sale. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals modified said joint decision
of the court a quo by denying the allowance of the probate of the will for being undated.

62