CELESTINO BALUS vs. SATURNINO BALUS and LEONARDA BALUS VDA.

DE
CALUNOD,
GR No. 168970
January 15, 2010

FACTS: On January 3, 1979, Rufo mortgaged a parcel of land as security for a loan he
obtained from the Rural Bank of Maigo, Lanao del Norte. Rufo failed to pay his
loan. As a result, the mortgaged property was foreclosed and was subsequently
sold to the Bank as the sole bidder at a public auction held for that purpose. On
November 20, 1981, a Certificate of Sale was executed by the sheriff in favor of
the Bank. The property was not redeemed within the period allowed by law. On
January 25, 1984, the sheriff executed a Definite Deed of Sale in the Bank’s
favor. Thereafter, a new title was issued in the name of the Bank. Subsequently
Rufo died on July 6, 1984. On October 10, 1989, herein petitioner and
respondents executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate adjudicating to each
of them a specific one-third portion of the subject property consisting of 10,246
square meters. The Extrajudicial Settlement also contained provisions wherein
the parties admitted knowledge of the fact that their father mortgaged the
subject property to the Bank and that they intended to redeem the same at the
soonest possible time.

ISSUE: Whether or not the questioned land is part of the Estate of Rufo.

RULING: No the subject land is not part of the estate of Rufo. ART 777 provides that the
rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death.
The inheritance of a person consists of the property and transmissible rights
and obligations existing at the time of his death, as well as those which have
accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. Rufo lost ownership of the
subject property during his lifetime, it only follows that at the time of his death,
the disputed parcel of land no longer formed part of his estate to which his heirs
may lay claim. Stated differently, petitioner and respondents never inherited the
subject lot from their father.
 COMPARISON OF CASES:
AJERO vs. CA as compared to KALAW vs RELOVA

SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND
G.R. No. 106720, September 15, 1994

FACTS: The instrument submitted for probate is the holographic will of the late Annie
Sand, who died on November 25, 1982. Petitioners instituted a special
proceeding for allowance of decedent's holographic will and alleged that at the
time of its execution, she was of sound and disposing mind, not acting under
duress, fraud or undue influence.

Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the
testament’s body nor the signature therein was in the decedent handwriting; it
contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by the
decedent; and that the will was procured by petitioners through improper
pressure and undue influence. Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court
admitted the decedents holographic will to probate.

On appeal, said decision was reversed, and the petition for probate of the
decedent’s will was dismissed. The Court of Appeals found that, “the
holographic will fails to meet the requirements for its validity.” It held that the
decedent did not comply with Art. 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code. It alluded
to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and undated, or
signed but not dated. It also found that the erasures, alterations and
cancellations made thereon had not been authenticated by the decedent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the non-compliance of Art 813 and 814 will result in the
disallowance of the probate proceedings.

RULING: No. A Holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-
compliance with the provisions of Art. 813 and 814. In the case of holographic
wills, what assures authenticity is the requirement that they be totally
autographic or handwritten by the testator himself, as provided under Article
810 of the New Civil Code. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the
dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such
failure, however, does not render the whole testament void, but at most only as
respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined. Thus, unless the
unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date
of the holographic will or on testator's signature, their presence does not
invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in
disallowance of such changes.
 ROSA K. KALAW vs.
HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN RELOVA and GREGORIO K. KALAW
G.R. No. L-40207, September 28, 1984

FACTS: On September 1, 1971, Gregorio Kalaw, claiming to be the sole heir of his
deceased sister, Natividad Kalaw, filed a petition for the probate of her
holographic Will executed on December 24, 1968. The holographic Will, as first
written, named Rosa Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix as her sole heir. She
opposed probate alleging 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 reading:
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.
ROSA’s position was that the holographic Will, as first written, should be given
effect and probated so that she could be the sole heir thereunder. Trial Court
denied petition to probate the holographic will. Reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not a will which contained alterations and insertions that were not
authenticated by the full signature of the testatrix, be probated.

RULING: The probate proceedings for the will should be denied. Generally, when a
number of erasures, corrections, cancellation, or insertions are made by the
testator in the will but the same have not been noted or authenticated with his
full signature, only the particular words erased, corrected, altered will be
invalidated, not the entirety of the will. This general rule has exceptions, as in
this case. When the holographic will had only one substantial provision, which
was altered by substituting the original heir with another, and the same did not
carry the requisite full signature of the testator, or simply put, where the change
affects the essence of the will of the testator, the entirety of the will is voided or
revoked. To rule that the first will should be given effect is to disregard the
testatrix' change of mind. However, this change of mind cannot be given effect
either as she failed to authenticate it in accordance with Art. 814, or by affixing
her full signature.

Analysis: The case of Ajero vs. CA lays down the general rule as regards the validity of a
holographic will which has alterations and insertions in its face. The Supreme Court held
that when a number of erasures, corrections, cancellation, or insertions are made by the
testator in the will but the same have not been noted or authenticated with his full
signature, only the particular words erased, corrected, altered will be invalidated,
not the entirety of the will.

However, the case of Kalaw vs. Relova states the exception to the general rule. In
this case, the Supreme Court held that where the change affects the essence of the will of
the testator, the whole will should be invalidated. When the holographic will had only
one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the original heir
with another, and the same did not carry the requisite full signature of the
testator, the entirety of the will is voided or revoked. The reason for this exception
is that the very essence of the will was cancelled, which tantamount to the revocation of
the will. Therefore, neither the altered text nor the original unaltered text should be given
effect.