Roxas Vs de Jesus Succession Digest

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 the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, a
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.

On March 26, 1973, petitioner Simeon R. Roxas was appointed administrator. 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 of the deceased Bibiana detailing a letter-win addressed to her children
and entirely written and signed in her handwriting. The will is dated "FEB./61 " and
states: "This is my win 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. 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.

On the other hand, respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir, filed an
"opposition to probate". She submits that the purported holographic Will is void for
non-compliance with Article 810 of the New Civil Code in that the date must contain
the year, month, and day of its execution. The respondent contends that Article 810
of the Civil Code was patterned after Section 1277 of the California Code and Section
1588 of the Louisiana Code whose Supreme Courts had consistently ruled that the
required date includes the year, month, and day, and that if any of these is wanting,
the holographic Will is invalid. The respondent further contends that the petitioner
cannot plead liberal construction of Article 810 of the Civil Code because statutes
prescribing the formalities to be observed in the execution of holographic Wills are
strictly construed.

The petitioners contend that while Article 685 of the Spanish Civil Code and Article
688 of the Old Civil Code require the testator to state in his holographic Win the
"year, month, and day of its execution," the present Civil Code omitted the phrase
Ao mes y dia and simply requires that the holographic Will should be dated. The
petitioners submit that the liberal construction of the holographic Will should
prevail.

Issue: Whether or not the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will of the
deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil
Code.

Ruling: Yes. This will not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict and
literal application of the statutory requirements regarding the due execution of
Wills. We should not overlook the liberal trend of the Civil Code in the manner of
execution of Wills, the purpose of which, in case of doubt is to prevent intestacy.

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

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 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 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.

Therefore, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of
substantial compliance.

ART. 810 of the Civil Code. 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.

Roxas Vs de Jesus Succession Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roxas Vs de Jesus Succession Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roxas Vs de Jesus Succession Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-38338 January 28, 1985

You might also like