Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Rodelas vs. Aranza

    Uploaded by

    Redd Lapid
    This document discusses a case regarding the probate of a lost holographic will. The petitioner submitted a photocopy of the will to probate it. The opponents argued that the photocopy was not valid evidence and the original will was required. The court ruled that while the original holographic will is normally required, a photocopy could be allowed to prove the authenticity of the handwriting if the original was lost, as it allows comparison to other writings of the deceased. As long as the photocopy allows examination of the handwriting, it can serve as evidence to probate a lost holographic will.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rodelas vs. Aranza

    Uploaded by

    Redd Lapid
    43 views1 page
    This document discusses a case regarding the probate of a lost holographic will. The petitioner submitted a photocopy of the will to probate it. The opponents argued that the photocopy was not valid evidence and the original will was required. The court ruled that while the original holographic will is normally required, a photocopy could be allowed to prove the authenticity of the handwriting if the original was lost, as it allows comparison to other writings of the deceased. As long as the photocopy allows examination of the handwriting, it can serve as evidence to probate a lost holographic will.

    Original Title

    16. Rodelas vs. Aranza

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses a case regarding the probate of a lost holographic will. The petitioner submitted a photocopy of the will to probate it. The opponents argued that the photocopy was not valid evidence and the original will was required. The court ruled that while the original holographic will is normally required, a photocopy could be allowed to prove the authenticity of the handwriting if the original was lost, as it allows comparison to other writings of the deceased. As long as the photocopy allows examination of the handwriting, it can serve as evidence to probate a lost holographic will.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views1 page

    Rodelas vs. Aranza

    Uploaded by

    Redd Lapid
    This document discusses a case regarding the probate of a lost holographic will. The petitioner submitted a photocopy of the will to probate it. The opponents argued that the photocopy was not valid evidence and the original will was required. The court ruled that while the original holographic will is normally required, a photocopy could be allowed to prove the authenticity of the handwriting if the original was lost, as it allows comparison to other writings of the deceased. As long as the photocopy allows examination of the handwriting, it can serve as evidence to probate a lost holographic will.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RICARDO B.

    BONILLA deceased, MARCELA


    RODELAS,
    vs. AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL., oppositors-appellees, ATTY. LORENZO SUMULONG, intervenor.
    G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982
    RELOVA, J.:
    Topic: Photocopy of a Will as Evidence
    Facts:
    On January 11, 1977, appellant filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the probate of
    the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. The
    petition was opposed by the appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes Expedita Bonilla
    Frias and Ephraim Bonilla on the following grounds:

    (1) Appellant 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
    alleged 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 (3) The alleged hollographic will
    itself,and not an alleged copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it would produce no effect, as held in
    Gam v. Yap, 104 Phil. 509; and (4 ) The deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise,
    executed and attested as required by law.
    Issue/s:
    whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a photostatic
    copy
    Ruling/s:
    YES. Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is the allowance of the will by
    the court after its due execution has been proved. The probate may be uncontested or not. If
    uncontested, at least one Identifying witness is required and, if no witness is available, experts may be
    resorted to. If contested, at least three Identifying witnesses are required. However, if the holographic
    will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will can not 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
    with the standard writings of the testator. In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court ruled
    that "the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the
    bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented;
    otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of
    authenticity." But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps 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," Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be
    admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the
    probate court.

    You might also like