SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 106720 September
15, 1994
SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, respondents.
Miguel D. Larida for petitioners.
Montilla Law Office for private respondent.
PUNO, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari from the Decision of the
Court of
Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, dated March 30, 1992, the
dispositive portion of which reads;
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the questioned decision of November 19,
1988 of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the petition for
probate is hereby DISMISSED. No costs.
The earlier Decision was rendered by the RTC of Quezon City,
Branch 94, 2 in Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, and the instrument submitted for probate
is the holographic will of the late Annie Sand, who died on November 25, 1982.
In the will, decedent named as devisees, the following:
petitioners Roberto and Thelma Ajero, private respondent Clemente Sand, Meriam
S. Arong, Leah Sand, Lilia Sand, Edgar Sand, Fe Sand, Lisa S. Sand, and Dr.
Jose Ajero, Sr., and their children.
On January 20, 1983, petitioners instituted Sp. Proc. No.
Q-37171, for allowance of decedent's holographic will. They alleged that at the
time of its execution, she was of sound and disposing mind, not acting under
duress, fraud or undue influence, and was in every respect capacitated to
dispose of her estate by will.
Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that:
neither the testament's body nor the signature therein was in decedent's
handwriting; it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly
signed by decedent; and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper
pressure and undue influence. The petition was likewise opposed by Dr. Jose
Ajero. He contested the disposition in the will of a house and lot located in
Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte. He claimed that said property could not be
conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.
Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court admitted
the decedent's holographic will to probate. It found, inter alia:
Considering then that the probate proceedings herein must
decide only the question of identity of the will, its due execution and the
testamentary capacity of the testatrix, this probate court finds no reason at
all for the disallowance of the will for its failure to comply with the
formalities prescribed by law nor for lack of testamentary capacity of the
testatrix.
For one, no evidence was presented to show that the will in
question is different from the will actually executed by the testatrix. The
only objections raised by the oppositors . . . are that the will was not
written in the handwriting of the testatrix which properly refers to the question
of its due execution, and not to the question of identity of will. No other
will was alleged to have been executed by the testatrix other than the will
herein presented. Hence, in the light of the evidence adduced, the identity of
the will presented for probate must be accepted, i.e., the will submitted in
Court must be deemed to be the will actually executed by the testatrix.
xxx xxx xxx
While the fact that it was entirely written, dated and
signed in the handwriting of the testatrix has been disputed, the petitioners,
however, have satisfactorily shown in Court that the holographic will in
question was indeed written entirely, dated and signed in the handwriting of
the testatrix. Three (3) witnesses who have convincingly shown knowledge of the
handwriting of the testatrix have been presented and have explicitly and
categorically identified the handwriting with which the holographic will in
question was written to be the genuine handwriting and signature of the
testatrix. Given then the aforesaid evidence, the requirement of the law that
the holographic will be entirely written, dated and signed in the handwriting
of the testatrix has been complied with.
xxx xxx xxx
As to the question of the testamentary capacity of the
testratix, (private respondent) Clemente Sand himself has testified in Court
that the testatrix was completely in her sound mind when he visited her during
her birthday celebration in 1981, at or around which time the holographic will
in question was executed by the testatrix. To be of sound mind, it is
sufficient that the testatrix, at the time of making the will, knew the value
of the estate to be disposed of, the proper object of her bounty, and the
character of the testamentary act . . . The will itself shows that the
testatrix even had detailed knowledge of the nature of her estate. She even
identified the lot number and square meters of the lots she had conveyed by will.
The objects of her bounty were likewise identified explicitly. And considering
that she had even written a nursing book which contained the law and
jurisprudence on will and succession, there is more than sufficient showing
that she knows the character of the testamentary act.
In this wise, the question of identity of the will, its due
execution and the testamentary capacity of the testatrix has to be resolved in
favor of the allowance of probate of the will submitted herein.
Likewise, no evidence was presented to show sufficient
reason for the disallowance of herein holographic will. While it was alleged
that the said will was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on
the part of the beneficiary or of some other person, the evidence adduced have
not shown any instance where improper pressure or influence was exerted on the
testatrix. (Private respondent) Clemente Sand has testified that the testatrix
was still alert at the time of the execution of the will, i.e., at or around
the time of her birth anniversary celebration in 1981. It was also established
that she is a very intelligent person and has a mind of her own. Her
independence of character and to some extent, her sense of superiority, which
has been testified to in Court, all show the unlikelihood of her being unduly
influenced or improperly pressured to make the aforesaid will. It must be noted
that the undue influence or improper pressure in question herein only refer to
the making of a will and not as to the specific testamentary provisions therein
which is the proper subject of another proceeding. Hence, under the
circumstances, this Court cannot find convincing reason for the disallowance of
the will herein.
Considering then that it is a well-established doctrine in
the law on succession that in case of doubt, testate succession should be
preferred over intestate succession, and the fact that no convincing grounds
were presented and proven for the disallowance of the holographic will of the
late Annie Sand, the aforesaid will submitted herein must be admitted to
probate. 3 (Citations omitted.)
On appeal, said Decision was reversed, and the petition for
probate of decedent's will was dismissed. The Court of Appeals found that,
"the holographic will fails to meet the requirements for its
validity." 4 It held that the decedent did not comply with Articles 813
and 814 of the New Civil Code, which read, as follows:
Art. 813: When a
number of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed without being
dated, and the last disposition has a signature and date, such date validates
the dispositions preceding it, whatever be the time of prior dispositions.
Art. 814: In case of
insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the
testator must authenticate the same by his full signature.
It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were
either unsigned and undated, or signed but not dated. It also found that the
erasures, alterations and cancellations made thereon had not been authenticated
by decedent.
Thus, this appeal which is impressed with merit.
Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court provides that will
shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:
(a) If not executed
and attested as required by law;
(b) If the testator
was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, at the time of its
execution;
(c) If it was
executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(d) If it was
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the
beneficiary, or of some other person for his benefit;
(e) If the signature
of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, and he did not intend that the
instrument should be his will at the time of fixing his signature thereto.
In the same vein, Article 839 of the New Civil Code reads:
Art. 839: The will
shall be disallowed in any of the following cases;
(1) If the
formalities required by law have not been complied with;
(2) If the testator
was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of
its execution;
(3) If it was
executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(4) If it was
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the
beneficiary or of some other person;
(5) If the signature
of the testator was procured by fraud;
(6) If the testator
acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his
will at the time of affixing his signature thereto.
These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to
disallow a will. 5 Thus, in a petition to admit a holographic will to probate,
the only issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the instrument submitted is,
indeed, the decedent's last will and testament; (2) whether said will was
executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law; (3) whether the
decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the will was
executed; and, (4) whether the execution of the will and its signing were the
voluntary acts of the decedent. 6
In the case at bench, respondent court held that the
holographic will of Anne Sand was not executed in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by law. It held that Articles 813 and 814 of the New
Civil Code, ante, were not complied with, hence, it disallowed the probate of
said will. This is erroneous.
We reiterate what we held in Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil.
476, 479 (1919), 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.
Therefore, the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to
attain these primordial ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose
sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail
the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already
given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing
but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of
the testator's last will, must be disregarded.
For purposes of probating non-holographic wills, these
formal solemnities include the subscription, attestation, and acknowledgment
requirements under Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code.
In the case of holographic wills, on the other hand, what assures
authenticity is the requirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten
by the testator himself, 7 as provided under Article 810 of the New Civil Code,
thus:
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. (Emphasis supplied.)
Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not
result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionably
handwritten by the testator.
A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that
its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the
holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date
some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be
effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole testament void.
Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to
probate, notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814. In
the case of Kalaw vs. Relova 132 SCRA 237 242 (1984), this Court held:
Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and
interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will have not been noted
under his signature, . . . the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but
at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined.
Manresa gave an identical commentary when he said "la omission de la
salvedad no anula el testamento, segun la regla de jurisprudencia establecida
en la sentencia de 4 de Abril de 1985." 8 (Citations omitted.)
Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations
or insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on testator's
signature, 9 their presence does not invalidate the will itself. 10 The lack of
authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes.
It is also proper to note that the requirements of
authentication of changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in
provisions (Articles 813 and 814) separate from that which provides for the
necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810).
The distinction can be traced to Articles 678 and 688 of the Spanish Civil
Code, from which the present provisions covering holographic wills are taken.
They read as follows:
Art. 678: A will is
called holographic when the testator writes it himself in the form and with the
requisites required in Article 688.
Art. 688: Holographic
wills may be executed only by persons of full age.
In order that the will be valid it must be drawn on stamped
paper corresponding to the year of its execution, written in its entirety by
the testator and signed by him, and must contain a statement of the year, month
and day of its execution.
If it should contain any erased, corrected, or interlined
words, the testator must identify them over his signature.
Foreigners may execute holographic wills in their own
language.
This separation and distinction adds support to the
interpretation that only the requirements of Article 810 of the New Civil Code
— and not those found in Articles 813 and 814 of the same Code — are essential
to the probate of a holographic will.
The Court of Appeals further held that decedent Annie Sand
could not validly dispose of the house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan
del Norte, in its entirety. This is correct and must be affirmed.
As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited
to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated.
However, in exceptional instances, courts are not powerless to do what the
situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the will.
11 In the case at bench, decedent herself indubitably stated in her holographic
will that the Cabadbaran property is in the name of her late father, John H.
Sand (which led oppositor Dr. Jose Ajero to question her conveyance of the same
in its entirety). Thus, as correctly held by respondent court, she cannot
validly dispose of the whole property, which she shares with her father's other
heirs.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, dated March 30, 1992,
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, except with respect to the invalidity of the
disposition of the entire house and lot in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte. The
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94 in Sp. Proc. No.
Q-37171, dated November 19, 1988, admitting to probate the holographic will of
decedent Annie Sand, is hereby REINSTATED, with the above qualification as
regards the Cabadbaran property. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.