G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982
Marcela Rodelas, petitioner-appellant, vs. Amparo Aranza, et al., oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Marcela Rodelas filed a petition for the probate of the alleged holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla, who died in 1976. The will was executed in 1962. The oppositors, heirs of the decedent, moved to dismiss the petition on several grounds, including that the original will was lost and could not be found. They argued that a lost holographic will cannot be proved by secondary evidence, such as a copy, citing the rule in Gam v. Yap.
The trial court initially denied the motion to dismiss but later reconsidered and dismissed the probate petition. It ruled that a lost holographic will could not be proved by a copy, applying Gam v. Yap. The court also inferred that the decedent had discarded the will due to the 14-year lapse between its execution and his death. Rodelas appealed the dismissal.

ISSUE

The sole issue is whether a lost or missing holographic will can be proved by means of a photostatic or xerox copy for the purpose of probate.

RULING

Yes, a lost holographic will can be proved by a photostatic or xerox copy. The Supreme Court clarified the application of Article 811 of the Civil Code and its ruling in Gam v. Yap. The law requires the court to ascertain the authenticity of the testator’s handwriting as the primary evidence of due execution.
While Gam v. Yap states that the will itself must be presented and that the execution of a lost holographic will cannot be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses, Footnote 8 of that decision expressly contemplates proof by a photographic or photostatic copy. Such a copy allows the probate court to examine and test the authenticity of the deceased’s handwriting by comparing it with standard writing specimens. The trial court’s inference of revocation by destruction was also deemed speculative. Therefore, the dismissal order was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the probate of the copy.