Title: In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Ricardo B. Bonilla (Deceased): Marcela
Rodelas vs. Amparo Aranza et al.
Facts:
On January 11, 1977, Marcela Rodelas petitioned the Court of First Instance of Rizal to probate the
holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla, requesting issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. The
petition, Sp. Proc. No. 8432, faced opposition from Amparo Aranza, Wilferine Bonilla Treyes, Expedita
Bonilla Frias, and Ephraim Bonilla, citing:
1. Rodelas’ estoppel for not producing the will within twenty days of Bonilla’s death as mandated by Rule
75, section 2 of the Rules of Court;
2. The lack of a property disposition in the alleged holographic will copy, questioning its intent to take
effect posthumously;
3. The necessity of the original holographic will for probate, referencing Gan v. Yap;
4. The assertion that Bonilla left no will, holographic or otherwise.
The Court of First Instance granted the opponent’s motion to consolidate this case with another (Sp.
Proc. No. 8275). On November 13, 1978, the opponents moved to dismiss the petition, insisting the
document was mere instructional material for managing Bonilla’s educational institutions, and that
secondary evidence couldn’t stand for lost or destroyed holographic wills. However, the motion to
dismiss was initially denied, leading to a reconsideration and eventual dismissal, referencing the Gan v.
Yap precedent and suggesting Bonilla likely discarded the will before his passing. Rodelas’ motion for
reconsideration was denied, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeals which was then forwarded to
the Supreme Court, citing legal misinterpretations by the lower court.
Issues:
1. Can a lost or destroyed holographic will be proved with a photostatic copy?
2. Was the lower court correct in its presumption that Bonilla had discarded the holographic will before
his death?
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the lower court’s decision, clarifying that a holographic will, if lost or
destroyed, can indeed be proved by a photostatic or xerox copy. This ruling allows the probate court to
authenticate the deceased’s handwriting, contrary to the lower court’s interpretation and application of
Gan v. Yap. The Supreme Court emphasized that where physical examination of the holographic will’s
genuine handwriting is possible, even though photostatic means, the intent of the law is satisfied.
Doctrine:
This case establishes that a holographic will, which has been lost or destroyed, may be proved through a
photostatic or xerox copy to enable handwriting authentication by the probate court.