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.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order of respondent Hon. Jose C. Colayco, Presiding Judge Court of
First Instance of Manila, Branch XXI disallowing the probate of the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas
de Jesus.

The antecedent facts which led to the filing of this petition are undisputed.

After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, Special Proceeding No. 81503 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. After Letters of Administration had
been granted to the petitioner, he delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic Will of
the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. On May 26, 1973, respondent Judge Jose Colayco set the hearing of the
probate of the holographic Win on July 21, 1973.

Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testified that after his appointment as administrator, he found a notebook belonging to
the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus and that on pages 21, 22, 23 and 24 thereof, a letter-win addressed to her
children and entirely written and signed in the handwriting of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was found. 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 R. de Jesus. 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.

Respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir filed an "opposition to probate" assailing the purported
holographic Will of Bibiana R. de Jesus because a it was not executed in accordance with law, (b) it was executed
through force, intimidation and/or under duress, undue influence and improper pressure, and (c) the alleged testatrix
acted by mistake and/or did not intend, nor could have intended the said Will to be her last Will and testament at the
time of its execution.

On August 24, 1973, respondent Judge Jose C. Colayco issued an order allowing the probate of the holographic
Will which he found to have been duly executed in accordance with law.

Respondent Luz Roxas de Jesus filed a motion for reconsideration alleging inter alia that the alleged holographic
Will of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code. She contends
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.

On December 10, 1973, respondent Judge Colayco reconsidered his 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.
The dispositive portion of the order reads:

WHEREFORE, the document purporting to be the holographic Will of Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, is
hereby disallowed for not having been executed as required by the law. The order of August 24,
1973 is hereby set aside.
The only issue is whether or not the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana
Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code which reads:

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.

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.

Respondent Luz Henson on the other hand 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.

We agree with the petitioner.

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

The underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the provisions of the law on wigs in this
Project consists in the liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving
the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes, but with sufficien safeguards and
restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and
influence upon the testator.

This objective is in accord with the modem tendency with respect to the formalities in the execution
of wills. (Report of the Code Commission, p. 103)

In Justice Capistrano's concurring opinion in Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos (27 SCRA 327) he emphasized
that:

xxx xxx xxx

... The law has a tender regard for the will of the testator expressed in his last will and testament on
the ground that any disposition made by the testator is better than that which the law can make. For
this reason, intestate succession is nothing more than a disposition based upon the presumed will of
the decedent.

Thus, the prevailing policy is to require satisfaction of the legal requirements in order to guard against fraud and bad
faith but without undue or unnecessary curtailment of testamentary privilege Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422). If
a Will has been executed in substantial compliance with the formalities of the law, and the possibility of bad faith and
fraud in the exercise thereof is obviated, said Win should be admitted to probate (Rey v. Cartagena 56 Phil. 282).
Thus,

xxx xxx xxx

... More than anything else, the facts and circumstances of record are to be considered in the
application of any given rule. If the surrounding circumstances point to a regular execution of the wilt
and the instrument appears to have been executed substantially in accordance with the
requirements of the law, the inclination should, in the absence of any suggestion of bad faith, forgery
 or fraud, lean towards its admission to probate, although the document may suffer from some
imperfection of language, or other non-essential defect. ... (Leynez v. Leynez 68 Phil. 745).

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.

The purpose of the solemnities surrounding the execution of Wills has been expounded by this Court in Abangan v.
Abanga 40 Phil. 476, where we ruled that:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith
and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. ...

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 carefully reviewed the records of this case and 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.

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.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The order appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the
order allowing the probate of the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is reinstated.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF MELECIO LABRADOR. SAGRADO
LABRADOR (Deceased), substituted by ROSITA LABRADOR, ENRICA LABRADOR, and CRISTOBAL
LABRADOR,petitioners-appellants,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, 1 GAUDENCIO LABRADOR, and JESUS LABRADOR, respondents-appellees.

PARAS, J.:

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the alleged holographic will of one Melecio Labrador is dated, as
provided for in Article 810 2 of the New Civil Code.

The antecedent and relevant facts are as follows: On June 10, 1972, Melecio Labrador died in the Municipality of
Iba, province of Zambales, where he was residing, leaving behind a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 1916
under Original Certificate of Title No. P-1652, and the following heirs, namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus,
Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador, and a holographic will.

On July 28, 1975, Sagrado Labrador (now deceased but substituted by his heirs), Enrica Labrador and Cristobal
Labrador, filed in the court a quo a petition for the probate docketed as Special Proceeding No. 922-I of the alleged
holographic will of the late Melecio Labrador.

Subsequently, on September 30, 1975, Jesus Labrador (now deceased but substituted by his heirs), and Gaudencio
Labrador filed an opposition to the petition on the ground that the will has been extinguished or revoked by
implication of law, alleging therein that on September 30, 1971, that is, before Melecio's death, for the consideration
of Six Thousand (P6,000) Pesos, testator Melecio executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and
conveying in favor of oppositors Jesus and Gaudencio Lot No. 1916 and that as a matter of fact, O.C.T. No. P-1652
had been cancelled by T.C.T. No. T-21178. Earlier however, in 1973, Jesus Labrador sold said parcel of land to
Navat for only Five Thousand (P5,000) Pesos. (Rollo, p. 37)

Sagrado thereupon filed, on November 28, 1975, against his brothers, Gaudencio and Jesus, for the annulment of
said purported Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land which Sagrado allegedly had already acquired by devise
from their father Melecio Labrador under a holographic will executed on March 17, 1968, the complaint for
annulment docketed as Civil Case No. 934-I, being premised on the fact that the aforesaid Deed of Absolute Sale is
fictitious.

After both parties had rested and submitted their respective evidence, the trial court rendered a joint decision dated
February 28, 1985, allowing the probate of the holographic will and declaring null and void the Deed of Absolute
sale. The court a quo had also directed the respondents (the defendants in Civil Case No. 934-I) to reimburse to the
petitioners the sum of P5,000.00 representing the redemption price for the property paid by the plaintiff-petitioner
Sagrado with legal interest thereon from December 20, 1976, when it was paid to vendee a retro.

Respondents appealed the joint decision to the Court of Appeals, which on March 10, 1988 modified said joint
decision of the court a quo by denying the allowance of the probate of the will for being undated and reversing the
order of reimbursement. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid decision was denied by the Court of
Appeals, in the resolution of June 13, 1988. Hence, this petition.

Petitioners now assign the following errors committed by respondent court, to wit:

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING AND APPROVING THE PROBATE OF
THE HOLOGRAPHIC WILL OF THE TESTATOR MELECIO LABRADOR; and

II
 THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE LOWER COURT
DIRECTING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FIVE THOUSAND PESOS REPRESENTING THE
REDEMPTION PRICE WAS ERRONEOUS.

The alleged undated holographic will written in Ilocano translated into English, is quoted as follows:

ENGLISH INTERPRETATION OF THE WILL OF THE

LATE MELECIO LABRADOR WRITTEN IN ILOCANO

BY ATTY. FIDENCIO L. FERNANDEZ

I First Page

This is also where it appears in writing of the place which is assigned and shared or the partition in
favor of SAGRADO LABRADOR which is the fishpond located and known place as Tagale.

And this place that is given as the share to him, there is a measurement of more or less one hectare,
and the boundary at the South is the property and assignment share of ENRICA LABRADOR, also
their sister, and the boundary in the West is the sea, known as the SEA as it is, and the boundary on
the NORTH is assignment belonging to CRISTOBAL LABRADOR, who likewise is also their brother.
That because it is now the time for me being now ninety three (93) years, then I feel it is the right
time for me to partition the fishponds which were and had been bought or acquired by us, meaning
with their two mothers, hence there shall be no differences among themselves, those among
brothers and sisters, for it is I myself their father who am making the apportionment and delivering to
each and everyone of them the said portion and assignment so that there shall not be any cause of
troubles or differences among the brothers and sisters.

II Second Page

And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the
respective assignment of the said fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the
year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who
made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father.

Now, this is the final disposition that I am making in writing and it is this that should be followed and
complied with in order that any differences or troubles may be forestalled and nothing will happen
along these troubles among my children, and that they will be in good relations among themselves,
brothers and sisters;

And those improvements and fruits of the land; mangoes, bamboos and all coconut trees and all
others like the other kind of bamboo by name of Bayog, it is their right to get if they so need, in order
that there shall be nothing that anyone of them shall complain against the other, and against anyone
of the brothers and sisters.

III THIRD PAGE

And that referring to the other places of property, where the said property is located, the same being
the fruits of our earnings of the two mothers of my children, there shall be equal portion of each
share among themselves, and or to be benefitted with all those property, which property we have
been able to acquire.

That in order that there shall be basis of the truth of this writing (WILL) which I am here hereof
manifesting of the truth and of the fruits of our labor which their two mothers, I am signing my
signature below hereof, and that this is what should be complied with, by all the brothers and sisters,
the children of their two mothers JULIANA QUINTERO PILARISA and CASIANA AQUINO
 VILLANUEVA Your father who made this writing (WILL), and he is, MELECIO LABRADOR y
RALUTIN (p. 46, Rollo)

The petition, which principally alleges that the holographic will is really dated, although the date is not in its usual
place, is impressed with merit.

The will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810. It is worthy of note
to quote the first paragraph of the second page of the holographic will, viz:

And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the
respective assignment of the said fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the
year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who
made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father. (emphasis supplied) (p.
46,Rollo)

The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The only requirements are
that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. These requirements are present in the
subject will.

Respondents claim that the date 17 March 1968 in the will was when the testator and his beneficiaries entered into
an agreement among themselves about "the partitioning and assigning the respective assignments of the said
fishpond," and was not the date of execution of the holographic will; hence, the will is more of an "agreement"
between the testator and the beneficiaries thereof to the prejudice of other compulsory heirs like the respondents.
This was thus a failure to comply with Article 783 which defines a will as "an act whereby a person is permitted, with
the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his
death."

Respondents are in error. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of the will is plain from
the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will was not an agreement but a
unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he was executing was a will. The act of partitioning
and the declaration that such partitioning as the testator's instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio
Labrador was fully aware of the nature of the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the
testamentary act as a means to control the disposition of his estate.

Anent the second issue of finding the reimbursement of the P5,000 representing the redemption price as erroneous,
respondent court's conclusion is incorrect. When private respondents sold the property (fishpond) with right to
repurchase to Navat for P5,000, they were actually selling property belonging to another and which they had no
authority to sell, rendering such sale null and void. Petitioners, thus "redeemed" the property from Navat for P5,000,
to immediately regain possession of the property for its disposition in accordance with the will. Petitioners therefore
deserve to be reimbursed the P5,000.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 10, 1988 is hereby REVERSED. The
holographic will of Melecio Labrador is APPROVED and ALLOWED probate. The private respondents are directed
to REIMBURSE the petitioners the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

SO ORDERED.