Affirmative Definition: To be sound of mind, it shall be sufficient of the testator knows the

following:
1. The nature of the estate to be distributed;

Question: Is it necessary that the testator knows or remembers all properties he owns at
the time of execution of the will, so that it can be established that he complied with the
requirement of soundness of mind?

Answer: No. Answering in the affirmative is very dangerous, especially in such cases
where the testator forgot some of his/her properties. The testator, not being able to know
or remember all properties he/she owns does not invalidate the will on the basis of
unsound mind.

2. The proper object of his bounty/The persons who own the properties to be
disposed of; and
3. Liabilities at the time of execution.

2nd requisite: The proper object of his bounty.

Note: You are referring now to the persons to the successors. The object of your affection
or endearment. It may be a relative, a loyal servant or your best friend. Kung sino ang
successor. Who will you dispose of bequeath your property?

Q: The testator made his dog and his cat the principal beneficiaries of his estate. Is the
disposition valid?

A: NO. It is clearly a betrayal of the requisites of the proper object of your bounty.

Q: The testator sets aside a certain amount by way of legacy dedicated to the proper care his
pets. Is the disposition valid?

A: It is valid because the proper object of his bounty is not betrayed. It is not directly given to the pets
but set aside for the proper care of his pets. It is valid and permitted.

3rd requisite: The character of the testamentary act

Tests to determine testamentary capacity

1. examine the provisions of the will (in its entirety)
• because there are certain provisions which carry with it doubt, it is not
sufficient to invalidate the entire will. If you cannot determine the
testamentary intent or capacity from examining the provisions of the will,
utilize the extrinsic evidence.
2. by extrinsic evidence or parole’s evidence
3. witnesses to the will in case of notarial wills
GR: Presumption on soundness of mind
• Article 808, NCC: The law (disputable) presumes that every person is of sound
mind in the absence of proof to the contrary.
• Burden of proof: the person who opposes the probate will has the burden to prove
that the testator is of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the will.
E:
1. One month or less before making his will, the testator was publicly known to be
insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator
made it during a lucid interval.
• Lucid interval, as defined in the RPC,
2. prior judicial declaration of the testator's insanity unless such declaration has been
set aside prior to the execution of the will.
3. prior judicial appointment of a guardian over the person and/or property of a person
by reason of having been found to be insane.

Now, lucid interval, you know this as defined under the Revised Penal Code – Article 12.
It is that space of time during yung fits of insanity of that person wherein there is a perfect
enjoyment of reason. So, if you can prove that at the time of the execution of the will, the
insane person has a lucid interval at that very moment, then testamentary capacity is
complied with.

Another exception to the presumption of sanity: prior judicial declaration of the

testator’s insanity. If there is a prior judicial declaration of the testator’s insanity (again,
this is a disputable unless such declaration has been set aside prior to the execution of
the will), then testamentary capacity or soundness of mind is sufficient.

Another exception to the presumption of sanity: if there is a prior judicial appointment

of a guardian over the person and/or property of a person by reason of having been
found to be insane. Again, the proponent of the will, or the person now proving the
validity of the will, has the burden of proof that at the time of the execution of the will, the
person is either want (naka-lucid interval siya); or, there is the absence of insanity at that
time.

So, these are the exceptions to the presumption.

DETERMINATION OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY

When do you determine testamentary capacity? Note Article 798 of the NCC. The
capacity to make a will is determined as of the time of the making thereof, or as of the
time of the execution of the will.

This is different when it comes to intrinsic validity – it must be measured as of the time of
death. But, for the capacity to make a will, it is determined at the time of execution thereof.
OTHER IMPORTANT PROVISIONS YOU SHOULD KNOW: SUPERVENING
INCAPACITY
So, at the time of the execution of the will, you were sane. After executing the will, you
became insane. So, supervening incapacity yan. And under Article 801 of the NCC, it
will NOT invalidate an effective will.

Baliktarin natin. A supervening capacity. At the time that you executed the will, you were
insane or you do not possess a sound mind. However, after the execution of the will, you
became sane or you were able to possess or enjoy a perfect reason. So, supervening
capacity, class, IT WILL NOT VALIDATE THE WILL of an incapable because it is
determined at the time of the execution of the will.

So, that is on supervining capacity and supervening incapacity.

Any questions, mga kapatid? No questions? Clear? Testamentary capacity? So, let us
now discuss a new topic on the formalities of wills.

FORMALITIES OF WILLS
(one of requisites of a will is that it must comply with the prescribed solemnities or
formalities prescribed by law)

FORMALITIES IN GENERAL (we refer to extrinsic validity of wills)

EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF A WILL (the governing law for extrinsic validity of the will shall
be the law at the time of the execution of the will; when it comes to intrinsic validity, the
law in force at the time of death of the testator)

PURPOSES
A. To prevent bad faith and fraud
B. To avoid substitution of wills
C. To guarantee their truth and authenticity
(Formalities of a will is not merely for convenience; in other words, a will that does not
conform to the forms and solemnities prescribed by law is a void will, meaning it has
something to do with validity)

FORMS OF WILLS
1. NOTARIAL WILLS (Ordinary or Attested Wills)
2. HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS (Handwritten Wills)
SIGNIFICANCE: ORAL or NUNCUPATIVE WILLS are NOT ALLOWED.
(the law does not prescribe a specific form, meaning it does not matter if it is
computerized, mimeograph, printed, etc., we don’t have a form as long as it is written.
Note that the formal requisites of a will includes a) it must be written and b) it has
something to do with language)

ART. 804, NCC (2 formal requisites common to both notarial and holographic will)
A. The testator is presumed to know the language in which his will is written.
B. The testator is presumed to know the dialect in his locality or residence. (Abangan v.
Abangan, 40 Phil 476)
(in a case, just to be fancy, the testator had her last will and testament written entirely in
French language which the latter did not understand. A testator relying only on the
translation is not sufficient as to form, the testator must know the language/dialect and
must not rely on the translation from other persons. A testator is presumed to know and
the testator must know the dialect of the locality or residence specially if you have been
living there for quite some time.)

Rule:
For the testator, one of the formal requisites, common to both notarial and holographic
will, it must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.

Question: Should the witnesses to the will know the language or dialect of the will?
Answer: No. While the law states that the will must be known to the testator, the
witnesses do not have to know the language or dialect of the will.

Question: Is the rule pertaining to the witnesses absolute?

Answer: NO. While it is true that they are not required to know the language or dialect of
the will, the ATTESTATION CLAUSE (not the entire will) must be interpreted to them.

Question: Should the witnesses to the will know the dispositions or contents of the will?
Answer: No.

(The rule is that the language must be known to the testator. Note that the witnesses are
not covered by this requirement. Remember that one of the characteristics of the will is it
is a personal act. Hence, the witnesses do not have to know the language or dialect of
the will, including the dispositions provided for in the will. However, the witnesses must
know the content of the attestation clause. If the portion of the attestation clause is written
in English and they do not understand, it should be interpreted to them.)

FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A NOTARIAL WILL

A. It must be in Writing

OBJECTIVES:
1. To evidence compliance with the formalities prescribed by law; and,
2. To serve as the exclusive proof of its contents, thereby avoiding a reliance on the
frail memory of man.

Note: No formate or medium in writing.

B. Executed in a language or dialect known to the testator

OBJECTIVE: To ensure that the testator, without being assisted by another person, is
able to understand the content of the will. Formidable protection against fraud.
 C. The testator must sign at the end of the will (dispositive portion)

PURPOSE: In order to indicate the logical end thereof, or better yet, the end of the
testmanetary dispositions.

OBJECTIVE: To prevent the insertion of unauthorized dispositions.

IMPLICATION: If the testator signed at any place other than the end of the will, or if the
testator inserted additional testamentary dispositions after his signature or acquiesced in
the insertion of such additional testamentary dispositions by another person, the
statutory requirement is breached, thereby making the will an absolute nullity.

HOW TO CURE? If the testator will countersign the insertions.

EXAMPLE:

VII. XXX
VIII. I hereby revoke, set aside and annul any and all my other will or testamentary dispositions that I
have made, executed, signed, or published preceding this Last Will and Testament.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ____ day of _____, 20__, in
__________, Philippines.

_____________________________
Signature of Testator over Printed Name

The testator has to sign which means it is the end of the testamentary disposition. That
is how we interpret it. If there are insertions without any authentication, it will not invalidate
everything. However, if it is not authenticated, it is not countersigned, then it will be
invalidated.
Q: Can the testator sign with his thumb mark?
A: Yes, provided it can be proven that this is the customary signature of the testator.

Q: How about a mere cross (+)?

A: A mere cross is not considered as a signature unless it can be proven that it is the
customary signature of the testator.
The will can also be subscribed by the testator’s name written by another person in his
presence and express direction.
• You can ask another person to write your name and sign for and on your behalf.
REQUISITES:
1. The testator makes an express directive to the third person;
2. The agent should write the name of the testator and not his own name; and
3. The agent writes the testator’s name in the will in the presence of the testator and
of each of the instrumental witnesses.
Note: The agent MUST actually write the (full) name of the testator in full. A mere
signature will not be enough.

D. A will must be attested and subscribed by (at least) three (3) credible
witnesses
• it is good if you have more than 3 witnesses just in case one of the witnesses is
disqualified

FUNCTIONS (of the three witnesses):

1. Attesting the due execution of the will; and
• is witnessing the due execution of the will in compliance with the formal requisites
prescribed by law
2. Subscribing
• is identification or identifying that that is the same will signed or executed by the
testator, which you have witnessed the testator sign it. And you have also signed
it under the attestation clause and subscription or acknowledgment

This is an example of attestation clause which should contain all the requirements
prescribed by law:

“We, the undersigned … (name of testator)” - this is identifying or subscribing

“and we certify that … sound mind and memory” - this is attesting
Who can be a CREDIBLE WITNESS to a NOTARIAL WILL? (Art. 820 and 821, NCC)
a. Of sound mind;
b. 18 years of age or more;
c. Not blind, deaf or dumb;
• a blind, deaf or dumb has the capacity to make a will, but not the capacity to be a
witness to a will
d. Able to read and write
e. Domiciled in the Philippines (not necessarily a Filipino citizen)
f. Has not been convicted of falsification, perjury or false testimony
• there must be conviction

Is it necessary that the attesting witness/es are of good standing in the community, or
possess reputation for trustworthiness or honesty?

Kenn 39:19-43:40 (nilagay ko lang yung mga nasa slides, pero ung oral discussion ni
ma’am (if meron) e wala dito - Lea)
Answer: No. Such attributes are presumed by law. Only qualification here is conviction of
falsification of document, perjury or false testimony.

Should the qualifications be continuing?

Answer: No. They must only be competent at the time of attesting and need not be so
thereafter.

PROHIBITIONS FROM OBTAINING BENEFITS

Unless there are other sufficient number of competent witnesses, any legacy or device
shall be VOID if given to:
a. The witness;
b. The spouse of a witness;
c. The parent of a witness;
d. The child of a witness; or,
e. Any person claiming from the same person.

NB: The witness is qualified BUT the gift is void.

E. The testator and the witnesses must sign in the presence of one another

Is the actual witnessing of the signing necessary?

A: No. For as long as any one of them can see the other sign by merely casting his eyes
on the same direction or possibility of seeing without any physical obstruction.
HOWEVER, it is important that the witnesses should be present during the actual signing.

This is the TEST OF POSITION.

The true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the execution of a will is not
whether they actually saw each other sign but whether they might have seen each other
sign, had they chosen to do so, considering their mental and physical condition and
position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each signature.

Q: The witnessing or attesting and at the same time, the acknowledgement of the notary
public, should it be done in a single act?
A: It is not necessary that the attestation of witnesses and the acknowledgement of the
notary public may not be done in a single act. It may be done at one time but it may also
be done in separate acts. It would be inconvenient for the witnesses to come back again
for the signing of acknowledgement.

Inconvenience aside, note that the attestation and the notarization of the
acknowledgement is not necessary. It should be done in a single act. These have 2
different purposes. Attestation is the act of witnessing the testator sign the document as
his last will and testament and identifying the document. For acknowledgement, you are
acknowledging that that document including the attestation clause is the last will and
testament so it is not necessary that it should be done/perform in a single act.

It is important for the witnesses to be present during the actual signing.

Note: Test of position (SC defines what the “presence” means)

The witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator and of one another. The true test
of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the execution of the will is not
whether they actually saw each other signed. So the test of position is whether they
might have seen each other sign had they chosen to do so considering their mental
and physical condition and position with relation to each other at the moment of
inscription of each signature.

Illustration:
In his deathbed, the testator was executing his notarial will. The present persons are the
testator, 3 credible witnesses and the lawyer. At the time that the testator is supposed to
sign the LWT, there was thunder, and one of the witnesses looked outside the window to
see what happened. So he did not see the testator sign the LWT. Will that invalidate the
will because the witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator and of one another?

SC: No. That fact will not invalidate the will by applying the test of position. It is not the
fact that they actually saw each other signed but whether they might have seen
each other signed had they chosen to do so. If he did not look at the window and he
had chosen to look at the testator signing the LWT, it is still the same. You also need to
consider the physical and mental condition and even the position. There were only 5 of
them who were there. From the condition and their position, kung hindi niya tinignan yung
bintana at tinignan niya si testator, he knows that the testator signed the LWT.

-END OF DISCUSSION-
—-------
FORMALITIES OF WILLS
• Done

• Done

• Done
Edilyn 0:00-3:05
WITNESSES TO WILLS
CODICILS & INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
REVOCATION OF WILL & TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS

WITNESSES TO WILLS

• Qualifications (Art. 820 & 821, NCC)

a. Of sound mind;
b. 18 years of age;
c. Not blind, deaf or dumb;
d. Able to read and write;
e. Domiciled in the Philippines;
f. Has not been convicted of falsification of document, perjury or false testimony.
Note: It is not necessary to establish in the probate court that the witnesses are in good standing
in the community or they possess a reputation for trustworthiness or honesty because these
attributes are already presumed.

Note: A person who is qualified to execute a will is not necessarily qualified to be a witness. For
instance, a blind, deaf or mute person can be a testator. However, they cannot be a witness.

TIME OF DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS

• Art. 822, NCC

• If the witnesses attesting the execution of a will are competent at the time of
attesting, their becoming subsequently incompetent shall not prevent the allowance of
the will.
(Note: The qualifications must exist at the time they are attesting to the notarial will.)

• This is similar to the rule in determining testamentary capacity. (Art. 801, NCC)
(Note: Sa mga witnesses, at the time of attestation, they must possess all
qualifications.)
 DEVISEES AND LEGATEES AS WITNESSES

• Art. 823, NCC

• PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM OBTAINING BENEFIT UNDER A NOTARIAL WILL:
(Note: Unless there are other sufficient number of competent witnesses, any legacy or
devisee shall be void if given to the following:)
1. Attesting witness;
2. His or her spouse;
3. His or her parents;
4. His or her child ir children; and,
5. Anyone claiming under such witness, spouse, parent or child.

Claudine 3:06-6:10

Angeline 6:11-9:15

Xylex 9:16-12:20

Nitz 12:21-15:25
b) The will must clearly describe and identify the document or paper especially the number of
pages thereof;
c) Must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof of evidence (parol evidence);
d) Testator or witnesses must sign each and every page of the paper or document, except
voluminous books of account or inventories

Question: How do we incorporate?

Answer: We incorporate by reference certain documents, books of account or inventories, etc.
by simply placing an incorporation by reference clause in the last will and testament or in a
separate document, codicil for example;

Incorporation by Reference Clause

All exhibits and addenda attached hereto are hereby incorporated into this last will and testament
and made part hereof. If there is any conflict between such exhibits or addenda and the terms of
this last will and testament, such exhibits or addenda shall control.

REVOCATION OF WILLS AND TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS

• Right to revoke - one characteristic of a will is that it is REVOCABLE.
a. Art. 828, NCC. A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his
death.
Implications:
1. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void. Art. 828, NCC.
2. However, the recognition of an illegitimate child does not lose its legal
effect, even though the will wherein such recognition was made is
subsequently revoked during the lifetime of the testator. Art. 834, NCC.
 b. A revocation of will based on a false cause or illegal cause is null and void. Art.
833, NCC.

Nami 15:26-18:30
Definition of Terms
REVOCATION - The withdrawal or recall of some power, authority, or thing granted.
Note: As applied to wills, revocation is the act of destroying or making a will void.

ANNULMENT - to annul, to nullify, to abolish or to make void by competent authority.

Note: Competent authority presupposes a judicial proceeding (example: annulment of contract,
marriage, judgment)

Is annulment and revocation of will one and the same?

Answer: No. There is no rule requiring prior court authority before one can revoke a will.

Is there a court proceeding wherein a provision of a will can be annulled?

Answer: Yes. A probate proceeding particularly if there is a violation of the rules on legitimes and
compulsory heirs can annul a last will and testament.

Revocation may be partial or total.

Distinction

REVOCATION ANNULMENT

Act of the testator Proceeds from the law

Presupposes that there is a valid Inherent in the will

will

Takes place during the lifetime of Invoked after the death of the testator by his/ her
the testator intestate/compulsory heirs

Cannot renounce this right to

revoke
Is revocation a right?
Answer: Yes, because of the second paragraph of Art. 828, NCC states that any waiver or
restriction of this right to revoke is void.

My 18:31-21:35
Requisites of the Right to Revoke
1. There must be animus revocandi (intent to revoke);
2. Done before the death of the testator;
3. There must be a prior valid will; and
4. Revocation must be in accordance with law.

Governing Law on Revocation

Art. 829, NCC
 Place of Revocation Applicable Law

Revocation outside the Philippines by a non-domiciliary Domiciliary law of the testator (at
-by a testator who does not have his domicile in the the time of revocation); or
Philippines, revocation is valid when done according to Law of the place the will is
either: executed

Revocation within the Philippines Philippine Law

-Takes place in the Philippines whether testator is
domiciled in the Philippines or some other country

Revocation outside the Philippines by a domiciliary Philippine Law; or

-by a testator domiciled in the Philippines, revocation is Law of the place of revocation
valid if in accordance with Philippine Law

How can a testator revoke a will in accordance with law?

Three (3) ways according to Art 830, NCC:
A. By implication or by operation of law;
B. By some will, codicil, or other writing executed provided in case of wills; and
C. Revocation of will by overt acts
• Physical destruction of the will, either by burning, tearing, canceling, or obliterating
said will

BY IMPLICATION OF LAW
Examples:
1. Art 957, NCC - When the testator sell or donates the thing given as legacy or device;
2. Art 936, NCC - When a credit given as legacy is judicially demanded by the testator;
3. Art 854, NCC - Preterition of compulsory heirs in the direct line;
• Preterition revokes the institution of heirs.

Lea 21:36-24:40

4. Arts. 1031 & 1032, NCC - Commission by an heir, devisee or legatee of an act of
unworthiness;
5. Art. 63, par. 4, FC - Decree of legal separation revokes the provisions in the innocent
spouse's will in favor of the offending spouse.
• Or even a nullification of a void ab initio marriage or annulment of voidable
marriage, it revokes testamentary dispositions made by one spouse in favor of the
other, if both spouses acted in bad faith

So the above are a few examples of revocation by implication of law.

The second mode of revocation is:

BY SOME WILL, CODICIL, OR OTHER WRITING EXECUTED PROVIDED IN CASE OF WILLS
• In order to use this mode to revoke a will, there is a certain rule that must be followed
• This mode of revocation means that there is a subsequent will, a subsequent codicil, or
another writing
Rule:
The REVOKING WILL or CODICIL must be valid and executed with the formalities required for
the making of wills AND probated, so that the revocatory clause thereof may produce the effect
of revoking the previous will.

SUBSEQUENT WILLS may revoke previous ones either:

a. Expressly; or,
b. Impliedly

Express Revocation
• Usually it carries with it a revocatory clause. Example:
“This will revokes the testamentary disposition in the will executed on November 8, 2018”
• This is very clear, you are actually revoking the previous will

Implied Revocation
• Art. 831, NCC
• If the subsequent will does not revoke the first will in an express manner, only those
dispositions in the first will that are INCONSISTENT or CONTRARY to the second will are
annulled.

There should be complete incompatibility of the provisions of the two wills to effect revocation.

Kenn 24:41-27:45
Question: Between an express and implied revocation, which is preferred?
Answer: EXPRESS REVOCATION
Efforts to reconcile must be made before resorting to IMPLIED REVOCATION.

To Illustrate: Example of Express Revocation

The testatrix Natividad executed a holographic will in 2010 instituting Rosa as her sole and
universal heiress. In 2012, the testatrix executed a holographic codicil containing a single
disposition expressly revoking the 2010 will. The revocatory clause in the 2012 will expressly
revokes the 2010 will. Upon the death of the testatrix in 2013, Rosa gets nothing unless Rosa is
an intestate heir to Natividad.
The revocatory clause is an example of Express Revocation

Example of Implied Revocation

The testatrix Natividad executed a holographic will in 2010 instituting Rosa as her sole and
universal heiress. In 2012, Natividad executed a notarial codicil instituting Gregorio as her sole
and universal heir. The 2012 codicil does not explicitly revoke the 2010 will. However, the 2010
will cannot be given effect simultaneously with the 2012 codicil because the provisions are
completely incompatible.

What should prevail, is it the 2010 will or the 2012 codicil?

Answer: The latter prevails over the former on the theory that the 2012 codicil is more recent
expression of the intention of Natividad. The 2010 will is impliedly revoked by the 2012 codicil.
Gregorio inherits as the sole and universal heir of Natividad.
What about the situation where the revoking will is inoperative, what is the effect?

Inoperative Revoking Will

Art 832, NCC.
• The revocation of a prior will takes effect even if the revoking will is INOPERATIVE.

Jyszl 27:46-30:50

A will is inoperative if:

a. The heirs/devisees/legateesdesignated in the revoking will cannot inherit (predeceased)
b. Incapacitated to inherit inherit
c. Repudiated the inheritance; or
d. Failure to designate any heir, devisee, or legatee

It does not matter if the revoking will is inoperative. It will have the effect of revoking the prior will.
That’s the general rule. Is there an exemption to Art. 832? There is.

EXCEPTION TO ART. 832, NCC

Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation

If the testator provides that the revocation of the earlier will is conditioned on the effectivity
of the testamentary dispositions of his subsequent will. The revocation will not take effect if the
revoking will becomes inoperative. (Samson v. Naval) The doctrine of dependent relative
revocation has the effect that the original will remains in full force if the revoking will is declared
inoperative. The revocation will be conditional and dependent upon the efficacy of the new
disposition; and if, for any reason, the new will intended to be made as a substitute is inoperative,
the revocation fails and the original will remains in full force.

Example: A testator executed a will giving his entire estate to his brothers and sisters. The
testator executed a codicil which provides that his prior will is deemed revoked if the testator
should contract a valid marriage. The revocation of the will is subject to a suspensive condition; it
will not be effective unless the condition is fulfilled. So if the condition is fulfilled, that’s the only
time that the first will will be revoked. But if the condition is not fulfilled, the will generally fails.

Jun Bill 30:51-33:55

REVOCATION OF THE WILL BY OVERT ACTS
Requisites:
a. There must be an overt act specified by law;
b. Completion of at least the subjective phase;
c. Intent to revoke (animus revocandi); and
d. Testator at the time of the revocation must be capacitated.

OVERT ACTS
Article 830, NCC- The act of BURNING, TEARING, CANCELLING or OBLITERATING the will
with the intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other person in his presence,
and by his express direction.

The testator must be capacitated at the time of the revocation. So the burning, tearing,
cancellation and obliteration will not render the will eligible. It is sufficient that the act manifest the
intent to revoke the will. In other words, even a small part of the will is torn or burn, as long as the
subjective phase of the act is completed, THERE IS REVOCATION.

Question: Who should destroy the Will?

It is clear under the law that only the testator OR some other person in his presence, and by his
express direction should destroy the will.

What if the burning, tearing, cancelling or obliterating was done by some other person
without the express direction of the testator? What will happen to the will? Can you still
distribute the estate of the testator in accordance with that destroyed will?

Yes. There is a different approach for notarial will and holographic will.

For Notarial Wills:

If a notarial will is burned, torned, cancelled or obliterated WITHOUT the express direction of the
testator, the will may still be established and the estate distributed, if the following are proven:
a. Contents of the will;
b. Due execution of the will; and
c. The fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation or obliteration.
Note: The following matters may be proven by SECONDARY EVIDENCE (copy of the original will
or testimonies of the witnesses may be admitted)

Jireh 33:56-37:00
For Holographic Wills: