G.R. Nos. 140371-72, 27 November 2006, 508 SCRA 172


On September 1988, private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the late Segundo. Petitioners opposed assailing among others that Segundo left a holographic will which is entirely a declaration of disinheritance affecting Alfredo, one of the private respondents. Private respondents opposed the probate on the ground that the holographic will did not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased. RTC dismissed the petition for probate reasoning that the holographic will clearly show preterition.


Whether or not the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a holographic will and should be probated.


A holographic will must be written, dated and signed by the testator himself. Intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly deducted from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative deposition of the latter’s property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, is an act of disposition in itself. The disinheritance results in the disposition of the property in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.

With regard to the issue on preterition, the court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will. It was Segundo’s last expression bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs, with the sole exception of Alfredo. Thus, the Supreme court ordered for the allowance of the holographic will.

*Case digest by Jan Ruthella Flor S. Tacbaya, LLB-IV, Andres Bonifacio College Law School, SY 2018-2019