BONDS OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATOR
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
SECTIONS 6-7
LSPU College of Law
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANDRES G. DE JESUS AND BIBIANA ROXAS DE JESUS, SIMEON R. ROXAS & PEDRO ROXAS DE JESUS, petitioners,
vs.
ANDRES R. DE JESUS, JR., respondent.
G.R. No. L-38338 January 28, 1985
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
Facts:
Spouses De Jesus Died intestate. Simieon Roxas was appointed administrator Simeon Roxas delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas De Jesus Petitioner Testified that, he found a notebook belonging to the deceased Bibiana a letter will addressed to her children and entirely written and signed in the handwriting of the deceased Bibiana was found. The will is dated FEB/61 Respondent Luz Henzon (compulsory heir) alleging that such will was not executed in accordance with the law because it was not dated as required by Art. 810 she contends that the will should contain the Date, Month and Year.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the date FEB/61 appearing on the holographic will is a valid compliance with the law.
HELD:
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.
General rule the date in a holographic will should include the Date, Month and Year of its execution.
Exception – when there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticilty of the will is established and the only issue is Whether or not the date FEB/61 on the holographic will is a valid compliance with Art. 810. The probate should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance.