G.R. Nos. 83843-44, 5 April 1990, 184 SCRA 170
The deceased Melecio Labrador, left behind him a parcel of land which was partitioned among his nine heirs through a holographic will. Sagrado, therefore, one of his heirs, filed a petition for the probate of the alleged holographic will of the late Melecio Labrador. However, Jesus and Gaudencio, also heirs of the deceased, filed n opposition to the petition on the ground that the will has been extinguished or revoked by implication of law alleging therein that before Melecio’s death, he executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and conveying in favor of Jesus and Gaudencio the parcel of land.
The trial court allowed the probate of the holographic will and declared null and void the Deed of Sale. Jesus and Gaudencio appealed to the Court of Appeals which modified the decision of the trial court. It denied the allowance of the probate of the will being undated. The aggrieved party, therefore, filed a petition to the Supreme Court alleging among others that the CA erred in not allowing the probate proceedings withstanding the fact that in the first paragraph of the second page of the alleged holographic will, which was written in Illocano, the testator mentioned a date – “month of March, 17th, 1968.
Whether or not the holographic is dated.
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The will has been dated in the hands of the testator himself in perfect compliance of Article 810 of the Civil Code.
The law does not specify a particular location where the date must be placed in the will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and should be executed in the hand of the testator. These requirements are present in the subject will. Hence, the probate proceeding should be allowed.
*Case digest by Sol Christian C. Sayre, LLB-IV, Andres Bonifacio College Law School, SY 2018-2019