Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    Based From The Syllabus of Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare

    Uploaded by

    Shiva
    The Supreme Court ruled that the holographic will of Bibiana Roxas de Jesus substantially complied with the requirements of Article 810 of the Civil Code despite only including the month and date, and not the full year, in the date. The will was found to be authentic based on testimony from Bibiana's children. While the Civil Code requires the full date, substantial compliance is sufficient if fraud and bad faith are avoided. As there was no evidence of fraud, substitution of wills, or issues with genuineness, the holographic will was upheld despite the incomplete date.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Based From The Syllabus of Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare

    Uploaded by

    Shiva
    70 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the holographic will of Bibiana Roxas de Jesus substantially complied with the requirements of Article 810 of the Civil Code despite only including the month and date, and not the full year, in the date. The will was found to be authentic based on testimony from Bibiana's children. While the Civil Code requires the full date, substantial compliance is sufficient if fraud and bad faith are avoided. As there was no evidence of fraud, substitution of wills, or issues with genuineness, the holographic will was upheld despite the incomplete date.

    Original Description:

    x

    Original Title

    Roxas-v.-De-Jesus-Jr.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the holographic will of Bibiana Roxas de Jesus substantially complied with the requirements of Article 810 of the Civil Code despite only including the month and date, and not the full year, in the date. The will was found to be authentic based on testimony from Bibiana's children. While the Civil Code requires the full date, substantial compliance is sufficient if fraud and bad faith are avoided. As there was no evidence of fraud, substitution of wills, or issues with genuineness, the holographic will was upheld despite the incomplete date.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    70 views1 page

    Based From The Syllabus of Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare

    Uploaded by

    Shiva
    The Supreme Court ruled that the holographic will of Bibiana Roxas de Jesus substantially complied with the requirements of Article 810 of the Civil Code despite only including the month and date, and not the full year, in the date. The will was found to be authentic based on testimony from Bibiana's children. While the Civil Code requires the full date, substantial compliance is sufficient if fraud and bad faith are avoided. As there was no evidence of fraud, substitution of wills, or issues with genuineness, the holographic will was upheld despite the incomplete date.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Based from the syllabus of Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare, CPA LLM, ESQ.

    | 3rd Year- Sanchez Roman | 2020-2021

    ROXAS v. DE JESUS JR.


    [GR No. L-38338 | January 28, 1985]

    FACTS: Spouses Andres and Bibiana died. Bibiana’s brother


    (Simeon) initiated a special proceeding entitled “In the Matter
    of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana
    Roxas de Jesus".

    Simeon was appointed administrator. He deliver to the court


    document purporting to be the holographic will of Bibiana.
    The will was dated “FEB./61 " and states: "This is my win
    (wrong spelling ata ni) which I want to be respected although
    it is not written by a lawyer.” The children of Bibiana testified
    that the said letter was the will of their mother. That the
    signature was their mother’s, that it was their mother’s
    handwriting, that their mother knows English, that the said
    date was when their mother executed the will.

    Luz Henson (compulsory heir) on the contends that the


    purported holographic Will is void for non-compliance with
    Article 810 of the New Civil Code in that the date must
    contain the year, month, and day of its execution.

    ISSUE: WON the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic


    Will complied with the Article 810–YES

    RULING:
    General Rule: "Date" in a holographic Will should include the
    day, month, and year of its execution

    Exception: Substantial compliance as when there is no


    appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure
    and the authenticity of the will is established.

    There should be liberal construction under the Civil Code in


    the manner of execution of wills to prevent intestacy. This
    prevailing policy is to require satisfaction of the legal
    requirements in order to guard against fraud and bad faith
    (CONTIGENCIES sought to be avoided) but without undue or
    unnecessary curtailment of testamentary privilege. If a Will
    has been executed in substantial compliance with the
    formalities of the law, and the possibility of bad faith and
    fraud in the exercise thereof is obviated, said Will should be
    admitted for probate.

    If the testator attempts comply with the requisites, although


    such compliance is not literal, it is sufficient if the objective
    sought to be accomplished by the requisite is attained by the
    form followed by the testator. A complete date is required as
    security against CONTIGENCIES (Fraud and bad faith) as
    when 2 wills executed on the same day or a testator
    becoming insane on the day the will was executed.

    In the case at bar, there was substantial compliance:


    • No evidence of bad faith or substitution of wills
    • the Will of the deceased Bibiana was entirely written,
    dated, and signed by the testatrix herself and in a
    language known to her
    • no issue as to its genuineness (Bibiana’s children agree to
    such genuineness and that she had testamentary
    capacity)

    1
    Digested by: Ampog | Ballos | Ebuen | Mahusay | Malicay | Paclibar | Peñamante | Picot | Sinsuat | Sosoban | Teng 

    You might also like