SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, RESPONDENTS.

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 xxx 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
testatrix, (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 xxx. 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:

“Article 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.”

“Article 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 wills
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:

“Article 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.” (Italics 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, xxx 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 omision de la salvedad no anula el testamento,
segun la regla de jurisprudencia establecida en la sentencia de 4 de Abril de
1895.’”^[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:

“Article 678: A
will is called holographic when the testator writes it himself in the form and
with the requisites required in Article 688.”

“Article 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., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Sixteenth Division, composed of Associate Justices Luis L. Victor (ponente),
Ricardo J. Francisco (chairman), and Pacita Cañizares-Nye.

^[2]
Presided by Judge Filemon H. Mendoza.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 37-39.

^[4]
Impugned Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p.
46.

^[5]
Person vs. Coronel, 45 Phil. 216 (1923); See 3 EDGARDO L. PARAS, Civil Code of the Philippines
Annotated (1989), pp. 145-146.

^[6]
See Montanaño vs.
Suesa, 14 Phil. 676 (1909).

^[7]
See Fernando vs. Villalon, 3 Phil. 386
(1904).

^[8]
See Velasco vs. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720, 725 (1903), citing a
Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, dated April 4, 1895; See also, 3
MANRESA, Commentarios al Codigo Español (Quinta ed.), p. 483; See further, 3 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, Commentaries
& Jurisprudence on the Civil Code (1973), p. 107, citing Castan 341,
5 Valverde 82; 3 AMBROSIO PADILLA, Civil Code Annotated (1987), pp. 157-158; 2
RAMON C. AQUINO and CAROLINA C. GRIÑO-AQUINO (1990), p. 42.

^[9]
3 PARAS, op. cit..

^[10]
It must be noted, however, that in Kalaw, this Court laid down an exception to the general rule, when it
invalidated the entire will because of an unauthenticated erasure made by the
testator. In that case, the will had
only one substantial provision. This
was altered by substituting the original heir with another, with such
alteration being unauthenticated. This
Court held that the whole will was void “for the simple reason that
nothing remains in the Will after (the provision is invalidated) which could
remain valid. To state that the Will as
first written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of
mind of the testatrix. But, that change
of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in
the manner required by law by affixing her full signature.”

^[11]
Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 206 (1985); See Nuguid vs.
Nuguid, 17 SCRA 449 (1966); See also Cayetano vs. Leonidas, 129
SCRA 522 (1984).