1. Labrador v.
CA | 184 SCRA 170 (1990)
SCRA:
Wills; Date of holographic will can be placed in the main body thereof.—The will has been dated in the
hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810. It is worthy of note to quote the first
paragraph of the second page of the holographic will, viz: “And this is the day in which we agreed that we
are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said fishpond, and this being in
the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to
be followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father.” (italics
supplied) (p. 46, Rollo) The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in
the will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.
These requirements are present in the subject will.
Same; Words & Phrases; Intention to execute a will, not a partition agreement plain from the words of the
holographic will at bar.—Respondents are in error. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the
execution of the will is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by
petitioner, the will was not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that
what he was executing was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning was the
testator’s instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of the nature
of the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means to control
the disposition of his estate.
FACTS:
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 an 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. Jesu and Gaudencio and appealed to the Court of Appeals which modified the decision of the trial
court. It denied the allowance of the probate of the will for 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 proceeding withstanding the fact that in the first paragraph of the
second page of the alleged holographic will, which was written in Ilocano, the testator made mention a date
– “month of March, 17th, 1968.
ISSUE: Whether the holographic will is dated
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The
only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.
The intention to show March 17 1968 as the date of the execution is plain from the tenor of the
succeeding words of the paragraph. It states that “this being in the month of March 17th day, in the year
1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who made this
writing is no other than Melecio Labrador, their father.” This clearly shows that this is a unilateral act of
Melecio who plainly knew that he was executing a will. These requirements are present in the subject will.
Hence, the probate proceeding should be allowed.
