Rodelas-v-Aranza Digest PDF

 

Rodelas v. Aranza, et al. G.R. No. L-58509, December 7, 1982

FACTS:  Appellant Marcela Rodelas filed a petition for the probate of the the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla presenting to the court a photostatic copy of said will as the original of the will was lost. But appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla, et al. opposed the petition asserting that it should be the holographic will itself that must be produced in court and not an alleged copy thereof. They anchored their opposition in the case of Gam v. Yap which declared that an alleged copy of the holographic will, produces no legal effect. The court rendered judgment in favor of appellees, Aranza, et al. and against appellant Rodelas. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. ISSUE: Whether or not a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will of deceased Ricardo B. Bonilla can be b e allowed for probate. RULING: Yes, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of a holographic of deceased Ricardo B. Bonilla may be allowed for probate.  Article 811 of the Civil Code states that probate of holographic holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the court after its due execution had been proved. If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will cannot be probated. Because the handwriting of the testator in the said will is regarded as the “best and only evidence.” It is , therefore, necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will. In the case of Gam v. Yap, it was held that the will itself must be presented, otherwise, it will produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity. But a footnote of said decision provides that “perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy, even a mimeographed or carbon copy, or by other similar means whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court”. Hence, 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. Therefore, in the instant case, the photostatic copy of the holographic will of the deceased Ricardo B. Bonilla which was presented by appellant Marcela Rodelas may be admitted for probate because the authenticity of the deceased’s handwriting can be determined by the probate court. WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court denying appellant’s motion fo r reconsideration dismissing her petition to approve the will of the late Ricardo B. Bonilla, is hereby set aside.