G.R. No. L-12190; August 30, 1958
TESTATE ESTATE OF FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALTO-YAP, deceased. FAUSTO E. GAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. ILDEFONSO YAP, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died. On March 17, 1952, Fausto E. Gan petitioned for the probate of her alleged holographic will dated November 5, 1951. The will, written in Tagalog, devised properties in Pulilan, Bulacan to specified relatives and her Manila properties to her husband, Ildefonso Yap, on the condition that he build a health center in Pulilan. The will itself was not presented in court. The petitioner attempted to prove its contents and due execution through the testimonies of witnesses Felina Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes, Socorro Olarte, and Rosario Gan Jimenez. Their collective testimony was that the decedent wrote, signed, and dated the will on November 5, 1951, in the presence of Felina Esguerra; showed it to Primitivo Reyes that same afternoon; showed it to Socorro Olarte and Rosario Gan Jimenez nine days later; and entrusted the will (kept in her purse) to Felina Esguerra when hospitalized. The purse, allegedly containing the will, was later demanded by and given to the oppositor-husband, Ildefonso Yap. The oppositor asserted no will existed and presented evidence that on November 5, 1951, the decedent was seriously ill, bedridden, and under constant care, making execution impossible. The trial judge refused probate, citing improbabilities in the petitioner’s story, such as the decedent executing and repeatedly showing a will she wanted kept secret from her husband.

ISSUE

Whether the alleged lost holographic will was duly proved and should be admitted to probate.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of probate. The Court held that for a lost holographic will to be probated, the law requires that its execution and contents be proved by at least two witnesses who have seen the will and can testify to its contents and the testator’s handwriting. The petitioner’s evidence failed to meet this standard. The Court noted that holographic wills, revived under the New Civil Code, require no witnesses for their execution but present peculiar dangers of fraud when lost, as their validity depends entirely on the authenticity of the handwriting. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the proponent. The trial court’s findings on the improbabilities of the petitioner’s narrative and the credibility of witnesses were accorded respect. The petitioner’s evidence, consisting of testimonies about a will no one could produce, was insufficient to overcome the presumption against its existence, especially in light of the oppositor’s evidence regarding the decedent’s physical condition on the alleged date of execution. The will was not probated.