7/24/2019 Fausto e. Gan v. Ildefonso Yap
1/2
FAUSTO E. GAN v. ILDEFONSO YAPNo. L-12190, 30 August 1958
Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of heart failure in the
University of SantoTomas Hospital, leaving properties in Pulilan,
Bulacan, and in the ity of !anila"After a year, Fausto E" #an
initiated these proceedings in the !anila court of $rst
instance %ith a petition for the pro&ate of a holographic
%ill allegedly e'ecuted&y the deceased"
(pposing the petition, her surviving hus&and )ldefonso Yap
asserted thatthe deceased had not left any %ill, nor e'ecuted any
testament during herlifetime"
After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the
Hon" *amon*" San +ose, +udge, refused to pro&ate the alleged
%ill" A seventypage motion forreconsideration failed" Hence this
appeal"
M! "o#og$%"&' (# )* %$o)t*+ u%o t"* t*st&o! o
(&t*ss*s ("o "/* ##*g*+#! s** &t + ("o +*'#$* t"t &t
(s & t"*"+($&t&g o t"* t*stto$
-o" The ourt ruled that the e'ecution and the contents of a lost
ordestroyed holographic %ill may not &e proved &y the
&are testimony of %itnesses%ho have seen and.or read such %ill"
T"* #oss o t"* "o#og$%"&' (# *tst"* #oss o t"* o#! *+&u o
%$oo. Even if oral testimony %ere admissi&leto esta&lish
and pro&ate a lost holographic %ill, the ourt thin/ that the
evidencesu&mitted &y petitioner is so tainted %ith
impro&a&ilities and inconsistencies thatit fails to measure
up to that 0clear and distinct1 proof re2uired &y *ule 33,
sec"4" 55"
)n the matter of holographic %ills, unli/e in ordinary %ills, no
such guaranties of truth and veracity are demanded, since as
stated, they need no %itnesses6provided ho%ever, that they are
0entirely %ritten, dated, and signed &y the handof the testator
himself"1 The la%, it is reasona&le to suppose, regards
thedocument itself as material proof of authenticity, and as its
o%n safeguard, sinceit could at any time, &e demonstrated to
&e7or not to &e7in the hands of thetestator himself" 0)n
the pro&ate of a holographic %ill1 says the -e% ivil ode,0it
shall &e necessary that at least one %itness %ho /no%s the
hand%riting andsignature of the testator e'plicitly declare that
the %ill and the signature are inthe hand%riting of the testator"
)f the %ill is contested, at least three such%itnesses shall &e
re2uired" )n the a&sence of any such %itnesses, 8familiar
%ithdecedent9s hand%riting: and if the court deem it necessary,
e'pert testimonymay &e resorted to"1
The %itnesses so presented do not need to have seen the
e'ecution of theholographic %ill" They may &e mista/en in their
opinion of the hand%riting, orthey may deli&erately lie in
a;rming it is in the testator9s hand" Ho%ever, theoppositor may
present other %itnesses %ho also /no% the testator9s hand%riting,or
some e'pert %itnesses, %ho after comparing the %ill %ith other
%ritings orletters of the deceased, have come to the conclusion
that such %ill has not &een%ritten &y the hand of the
deceased" 8Sec" ?:" And the court, in vie%
