GR 106720; (September, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994
Spouses Roberto and Thelma Ajero, petitioners, vs. The Court of Appeals and Clemente Sand, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the spouses Ajero, filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of the late Annie Sand. The will named several devisees, including the petitioners and the private respondent, Clemente Sand. The oppositors, including Clemente Sand and Dr. Jose Ajero, contested the probate on several grounds. They alleged the will was not in the decedent’s handwriting, contained unauthenticated alterations, and was procured through undue influence. Dr. Jose Ajero specifically challenged the disposition of a Cabadbaran property, claiming the decedent was not its sole owner. The Regional Trial Court admitted the will to probate, finding it was entirely handwritten, dated, and signed by the testatrix, who possessed testamentary capacity, and that no undue influence was proven.
ISSUE
Whether the holographic will of Annie Sand should be admitted to probate despite the alleged defects and the claim of invalidity in the disposition of a specific property.
RULING
Yes, the will should be admitted to probate. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision, with a qualification. The Court clarified that the sole object of probate proceedings is to determine the extrinsic validity of the will—its due execution, the testator’s testamentary capacity, and compliance with legal formalities. The question of the intrinsic validity or legality of the testamentary provisions, such as whether the testator owned the properties disposed of, is not a proper ground for disallowing probate. Such matters pertain to the intrinsic validity of the dispositions and should be litigated in a separate proceeding for partition or for the settlement of the estate after probate. The Court found the RTC correctly ruled that the will was entirely handwritten, dated, and signed by Annie Sand, and that she had testamentary capacity. However, the Court affirmed that the disposition of the entire Cabadbaran property was invalid, as the testatrix was not its sole owner. This partial invalidity does not void the entire will; only the specific invalid disposition fails, and the rest of the will remains effective.