Rodelas vs. AranzaG.R. No. L-58509Justice Relova

DOCTRINE

Art. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required.

In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.

SPECIFIC ISSUE

Whether or not a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy (Xerox copy)?

HOW DID THE SC DECIDE ON THE ISSUE BASED ON THE DOCTRINE

Yes, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator and using the provision of Art. 881, if uncontested, at least one Identifying witness is required and, if no witness is available, experts may be resorted to. If contested, at least three Identifying witnesses are required. As indicated in the Footnote 8 in the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL, it says that "Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court," Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.