Roxas v. De Jesus, Jr. [G.R. No. L-38338, January 28, 1985]

 - CASE DIGEST - 

Roxas v. De Jesus, Jr.

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

 

SUBJECT: LAW ON WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Topic: Holographic Will must be Dated

FACTS: After the death of spouses Andres and Bibiana de Jesus, a special proceeding was instituted by Simeon, brother of Bibiana. Simeon was then appointed administrator of the estate and consequently, he delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic will of Bibiana which was then set for a hearing. Luz Henson, one of the compulsory heirs filed an opposition to probate assailing the purported holographic Will of Bibiana was not executed in accordance with law. However, the lower court issued an order allowing the probate which was found to have been duly executed in accordance with law.

 

A motion for reconsideration was then filed by Luz assailing that the alleged holographic will was not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code and contending 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. Only the date (FEB/61) appearing on the holographic will of the deceased Bibian Roxas de Jesus.  The court then reconsidered its earlier order and disallowed the probate of the holographic will on the ground that the word ―dated‖ has generally been held to include the month, day, and year.

 

ISSUE: Whether or not the date (FEB/61) appearing on the holographic will of the deceased Bibian Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code.

 

RULING: Yes.

 

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.

 

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.

 

CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT OF THE CASE