Case Digest: Kalaw vs. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, September 28, 1984

 Art. 814 | Succession, Holographic Will

Provision:

Art. 814.  In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature.

Ponente:
Melencio-Herrera, J.,

Recit Version:

In 1971, Gregorio K. Kalaw filed to probate his sister Natividad Kalaw's holographic will from 1968. Rosa K. Kalaw contested, citing unauthenticated alterations. Trial court denied probate due to unauthenticated changes. 

The Court upheld the denial of probate stating that in a holographic will, unnoted erasures, corrections, or interlineations don't invalidate the entire will, only the specific words affected. However, if a substantial provision is altered without proper authentication, the entire will is void. In this case, the holographic will had only one substantial provision, which was altered but not properly authenticated, making the entire will void.

Facts:

On December 24, 1968, Natividad Kalaw allegedly executed a holographic will.

On September 1, 1971, Gregorio K. Kalaw, claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased sister, filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will.

The holographic Will, as first written, named Rosa K. Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix as her sole heir. 

Rosa opposed the probate alleging, in substance, that the holographic Will contained alterations, corrections, and insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code.

CFI-Batangas: Denied the probate due to unauthenticated changes in the will.

Issue: 

WoN the original unaltered text after subsequent alterations and insertions were voided by the Trial Court for lack of authentication by the full signature of the testatrix, should be probated or not, with her as sole heir. NO

Held:

Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will litem not been noted under his signature, ... the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined. Manresa gave an Identical commentary when he said "la omision de la salvedad no anula el testamento, segun la regla de jurisprudencia establecida en la sentencia de 4 de Abril de 1895. ("The omission of the disclaimer does not annul the testament, according to the jurisprudential rule established in the judgment of April 4, 1895.)"

However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after that which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. But that change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature.

The ruling in Velasco, supra, must be held confined to such insertions, cancellations, erasures or alterations in a holographic Will, which affect only the efficacy of the altered words themselves but not the essence and validity of the Will itself. As it is, with the erasures, cancellations and alterations made by the testatrix herein, her real intention cannot be determined with certitude. As Manresa had stated in his commentary on Article 688 of the Spanish Civil Code, whence Article 814 of the new Civil Code was derived:

... No infringe lo dispuesto en este articulo del Codigo (el 688) la sentencia que no declara la nulidad de un testamento olografo que contenga palabras tachadas, enmendadas o entre renglones no salvadas por el testador bajo su firnia segun previene el parrafo tercero del mismo, porque, en realidad, tal omision solo puede afectar a la validez o eficacia de tales palabras, y nunca al testamento mismo, ya por estar esa disposicion en parrafo aparte de aquel que determine las condiciones necesarias para la validez del testamento olografo, ya porque, de admitir lo contrario, se Ilegaria al absurdo de que pequefias enmiendas no salvadas, que en nada afectasen a la parte esencial y respectiva del testamento, vinieran a anular este, y ya porque el precepto contenido en dicho parrafo ha de entenderse en perfecta armonia y congruencia con el art. 26 de la ley del Notariado que declara nulas las adiciones apostillas entrerrenglonados, raspaduras y tachados en las escrituras matrices, siempre que no se salven en la forma prevenida, paro no el documento que las contenga, y con mayor motivo cuando las palabras enmendadas, tachadas, o entrerrenglonadas no tengan importancia ni susciten duda alguna acerca del pensamiento del testador, o constituyan meros accidentes de ortografia o de purez escrituraria, sin trascendencia alguna(l).

Mas para que sea aplicable la doctrina de excepcion contenida en este ultimo fallo, es preciso que las tachaduras, enmiendas o entrerrenglonados sin salvar saan de pala bras que no afecter4 alteren ni uarien de modo substancial la express voluntad del testador manifiesta en el documento. Asi lo advierte la sentencia de 29 de Noviembre de 1916, que declara nulo un testamento olografo por no estar salvada por el testador la enmienda del guarismo ultimo del año en que fue extendido.

"... The sentence that does not declare the nullity of a holographic testament containing crossed out, amended, or interlined words not saved by the testator under his signature, as the third paragraph of the same article requires, does not violate the provision of this article (Article 688 of the Code). In reality, such omission can only affect the validity or efficacy of those words and never the testament itself. This is because this provision is in a separate paragraph from the one that determines the necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic testament. To admit otherwise would lead to the absurdity that minor unsaved amendments, which do not affect the essential and respective part of the testament, would annul it. Moreover, this provision in the said paragraph must be understood in perfect harmony and consistency with Article 26 of the Notarial Law, which declares null and void the additions, apostilles, interlineations, erasures, and crossings-out in the original documents if not saved in the prescribed manner. However, this does not apply to the document itself, especially when the amended, crossed out, or interlined words are not of importance, do not raise any doubts about the testator's intention, or are mere orthographic or calligraphic errors without any significance.

But for the exception contained in this last decision to be applicable, it is necessary that the crossed out, amended, or interlined words without saving do not affect or alter in any substantial way the express will of the testator as manifested in the document. This is emphasized by the judgment of November 29, 1916, which declared a holographic testament null and void because the last numeral of the year in which it was written was not saved by the testator."

WHEREFORE, this Petition is hereby dismissed and the Decision of respondent Judge, dated September 3, 1973, is hereby affirmed in toto. No costs.