- CASE DIGEST -
Rodelas v.
Aranza
G.R. No.
L-58509, December 7, 1982
FACTS: Rodelas filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal for the probate of
the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla. The original will cannot be
located.
Aranza, et al opposed the probate on the following grounds:
1.Rodelas was
estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will by failing to produce the
will within twenty days of the death of the testator as required by Rule 75,
section 2 of the Rules of Court;
2.the copy of
the alleged holographic will did not contain a disposition of property after
death and was not intended to take effect after death, and therefore it was not
a will, it was merely an instruction as to the management and improvement of
the schools and colleges founded by the decedent;
3. 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.
4. the deceased
did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise, executed and attested as
required by law.
Oppositors also alleged that the holographic will was executed on
January 25, 1962 while Ricardo B. Bonilla died on May 13, 1976. The lapse of
more than 14 years from the time of the execution of the will to the death of
the decedent and the fact that the original of the will could not be located
shows to that the decedent had discarded the alleged holographic will before
his death.
The lower court dismissed the petition for probate and held that since
the original will was lost, a photostatic copy cannot stand in the place of the
original.
ISSUE: Whether or not a holographic will which was
lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy.
RULING: Yes. As a rule, if the holographic will has been lost or
destroyed and no other copy is available, the will cannot be probated because
the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It
is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements
of the testator and the handwritten will.
But, 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. 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 (Gam vs. Yap, 104
PHIL. 509).
Since the probate court can evaluate the authenticity of the decedent's
handwriting using the testator's standard writings, a photocopy of the lost or
destroyed holographic will may be permitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment