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.

1. Roxas vs. De Jesus

G.R. No. L-38338 January 28, 1985

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,
vs.
ANDRES R. DE JESUS, JR., respondent.

FACTS: After Bibiana Roxas De Jesus died, her brother, Simeon Roxas, filed a special proceeding for
partition of the estate of the deceased and also delivered the holographic will of the deceased. Simeon
stated that he found a notebook belonging to Bibiana, which contained a “letter-will” entirely written
and signed in her handwriting. 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”. Bibiana’s relatives corroborated the fact that the same
is a holographic will of deceased, identifying her handwriting and signature. Respondent opposed
probate on the ground that it does not comply with Article 810 of the Civil Code because the date
contained in a holographic will must signify the year, month, and day.

ISSUE: W/N the date “FEB./61” appearing on the holographic Will of Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid
compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code?

HELD: Yes. 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.

It is not the first time that this Court departs from a strict and literal application of the statutory
requirements regarding the due execution of Wills. The underlying and fundamental objectives
permeating the provisions of the law wills 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 a Will has been executed in substantial compliance with the
formalities of the law, and the possibility of bad faith and fraud in the exercise thereof is obviated, said
Will should be admitted to probate.

2. Labrador vs. CA

G.R. Nos. 83843-44               April 5, 1990

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,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, GAUDENCIO LABRADOR, and JESUS LABRADOR, respondents-appellees.

FACTS: Melecio Labrador died leaving behind a parcel of land to his heirs. However, during probate
proceedings, Respondent Jesus and Gaudencio filed an opposition on the ground that the will has been
extinguished by implication of law alleging that before Melecio’s death, the land was sold to them, and
he eventually sold it to Navat. Trial court admitted the will to probate and declared the sale of the land
null and void. However, the CA on appeal denied probate on the ground that it was undated.

ISSUE: W/N the alleged holographic will of one Melecio Labrador is dated, as provided for in Article 8102
of the New Civil Code?

HELD: Yes. 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.
The intention to show March 17, 1968 as the date of the execution is plain from the tenor of the
succeeding words of the paragraph. It states that “this being in the month of March 17th day, in the year
1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who made
this writing is no other than Melecio Labrador, their father.” This clearly shows that this is a unilateral
act of Melecio who plainly knew that he was executing a will.

Art. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who
knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature
are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be
required.

3. Codoy vs. Calugay

G.R. No. 123486           August 12, 1999

EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL, petitioners,

vs.
EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, and UEFEMIA PATIGAS, respondents.

FACTS: Respondents Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees and legatees
of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, filed a petition for probate of the
holographic will of the deceased. Subsequently, petitioners Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel
Ramonal filed an opposition to the petition for probate, alleging that the holographic will was a forgery
and that the same is even illegible.

From the testimonies of the witnesses, the Court of Appeals allowed the will to probate and disregard
the requirement of three witnesses in case of contested holographic will, citing the decision in Azaola vs.
Singson, ruling that the requirement is merely directory and not mandatory. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: W/N Article 811 of the Civil Code, providing that at least three witnesses explicitly declare the
signature in a contested will as the genuine signature of the testator, is mandatory?
HELD: Yes, the Court cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document being adjudged as the will of
the testator, which is why if the holographic will is contested, the law requires three witnesses to
declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.

The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order, an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea
of discretion and that the presumption is that the word “shall”, when used in a statute, is mandatory.

In the case at bar, the goal to be achieved by the law, is to give effect to the wishes of the deceased and
the evil to be prevented is the possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit will employ
means to defeat the wishes of the testator. Further, not all the witnesses presented by the respondents
testified explicitly that they were familiar with the handwriting of testator. A visual examination of the
holographic will also convinced the Court that the strokes are different when compared with other
documents written by the testator.

4. Gan vs. Yap

G.R. No. L-12190             August 30, 1958

TESTATE ESTATE OF FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALTO-YAP deceased. FAUSTO E. GAN, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
ILDEFONSO YAP, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS: Felicidad Yap died of a heart failure, leaving properties in Bulacan and Manila. Petitioner Fausto
E. Gan, her nephew, filed a petition for the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by Felicidad.
The will was not presented because Felicidad’s husband, Ildefonso, supposedly took it. What was
presented were witness accounts of relatives who knew of her intention to make a will
and allegedly saw it as well. According to the witnesses, Felicidad did not want her husband to know
about it, but she had made known to her other relatives that she made a will.

Opposing the petition, her surviving husband, Ildefonso Yap, asserted that the deceased had not left any
will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime.

After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the Judge refused to probate the alleged will
on account of the discrepancies arising from the facts. For one thing, it is strange that Felicidad made
her will known to so many of her relatives when she wanted to keep it a secret and she would not
have carried it in her purse in the hospital, knowing that her husband may have access to it.

ISSUE: W/N a holographic will be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who have allegedly seen it
and who declared that it was in the handwriting of the testator?

HELD: No, the will must be presented. In the matter of holographic wills, no such guaranties of truth and
veracity are demanded, since as stated, they need no witnesses; provided however, that they are
"entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself." The law, it is reasonable to
suppose, regards the document itself  as material proof of authenticity, and as its own safeguard, since it
could at any time, be demonstrated to be — or not to be — in the hands of the testator himself. "In the
probate of a holographic will" says the New Civil Code, "it shall be necessary that at least one witness
who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the
signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least three such witnesses
shall be required. In the absence of any such witnesses, and if the court deemed it necessary, expert
testimony may be resorted to."

Obviously, when the will itself is not submitted, these means of opposition, and of assessing the
evidence  are not available. And then the only guaranty of authenticity — the testator's handwriting —
has disappeared.

5. Rodelas vs. Aranza

G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RICARDO B. BONILLA deceased, MARCELA
RODELAS, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL., oppositors-appellees, ATTY. LORENZO SUMULONG, intervenor.

FACTS: Petitioner Rodelas filed a petition to the probate the holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla and the
issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. Subsequently, Aranza opposed the same and one of the
grounds presented is that the holographic will itself, and not an alleged copy thereof, must be produced,
otherwise it would produce no effect because lost or destroyed holographic wills cannot be proved by
secondary evidence unlike ordinary wills.

The CFI ruled that “in the case of Gam vs. Yap, the Supreme Court held that ‘in the matter of holographic
wills the law, it is reasonable to suppose, regards the document itself as the material proof of
authenticity of said wills.”

ISSUE: W/N a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a
photostatic copy? 

HELD: Yes. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the
testator and the handwritten will.

A photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be
made by the probate court with the standard writings of the testator. The probate court would be able
to determine the authenticity of the handwriting of the testator.

Further, it was noted in the footnote of the case of Gan vs. Yap that lost wills it may be proved by a
photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if
any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before
the probate court.

Art. 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the testator
must authenticate the same by his full signature.

6. Kalaw vs. Relova

G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984

ROSA K. KALAW, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN RELOVA, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Batangas, Branch VI, Lipa City, and
GREGORIO K. KALAW, respondents.

FACTS: Gregorio Kalaw, the private respondent, claiming to be the sole heir of sister Natividad, filed a
petition for probate of the latter's holographic will in 1968. The will contained 2 alterations: a) Rosa's
name, designated as the sole heir was crossed out and instead "Rosario" was written above it. Such was
not initialed, b) Rosa's name was crossed out as sole executrix and Gregorio's name was written above
it. This alteration was initialed by the testator.

Subsequently, Rosa contended that the will as first written should be given effect so that she would be
the sole heir. The lower court denied the probate due to the unauthenticated alterations and additions.

ISSUE: W/N the will should be admitted to probate although the alterations and/or insertions were not
authenticated by the full signature of the testatrix pursuant to Art. 814 of the Civil Code?

HELD: No. Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator
in a holographic Will litem 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.

However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial provision, which
was altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the
requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that the entire
Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after that 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.