Kalaw vs. Relova

When a holographic will contains only one substantial provision (naming a sole heir) which is altered by the testator without the required authentication of a full signature, the entire will is voided and revoked, and the original unaltered text cannot be probated.

Natividad K. Kalaw died leaving a holographic will that originally instituted her sister Rosa as the sole heir, but the document was later found with Rosa's name crossed out and her brother Gregorio's name inserted in its place, sparking a dispute over who should inherit the estate.

• Filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Batangas, Branch VI, Lipa City for probate of the will.
• CFI denied the probate of the will on September 3, 1973.
• CFI denied the motion for reconsideration on November 2, 1973.
• Appealed to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari by Rosa K. Kalaw.

• Natividad K. Kalaw executed a holographic will on December 24, 1968.
• The will as originally written named her sister, Rosa K. Kalaw, as her sole heir.
• The document contained alterations where Rosa's name was crossed out and substituted with the name of her brother, Gregorio K. Kalaw.
• The National Bureau of Investigation confirmed that the handwriting, signature, insertions, and initials were all made by the testatrix.
• The alterations substituting the heir were not authenticated by the full signature of the testatrix, bearing only an initial on one of the alterations.
• Gregorio filed a petition for probate of the altered will.
• Rosa opposed the probate of the altered will but argued that the will as originally written (naming her as sole heir) should be admitted to probate.
• The trial court denied probate entirely because the alterations were not authenticated by the testatrix's full signature pursuant to Article 814 of the Civil Code.

• Rosa argued that since the subsequent alterations and insertions were void for lack of authentication by the testatrix's full signature, the original unaltered text of the holographic will should be given effect and probated, making her the sole heir.

• Gregorio argued that because the alterations and insertions were proven to be made by the testatrix herself, denying the probate of her holographic will would be contrary to her right of testamentary disposition.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether the original unaltered text of a holographic will should be probated when the subsequent alterations substituting the sole heir were voided for lack of authentication by the testatrix's full signature.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of probate, reasoning that while unauthenticated alterations generally only invalidate the specific altered words, this rule does not apply when the alteration affects the only substantial provision of the will; giving effect to the original text would disregard the testatrix's clear change of mind, yet her new intention cannot be enforced due to her failure to authenticate it with her full signature, thereby voiding the entire will.

• Authentication of Alterations in Holographic Wills (Article 814) — Any insertion, cancellation, erasure, or alteration in a holographic will must be authenticated by the testator's full signature; applied here to invalidate the testator's substitution of her sole heir due to the lack of a full signature.
• Exception to the General Rule on Unauthenticated Alterations — Ordinarily, an unauthenticated alteration only invalidates the alteration itself and leaves the rest of the will intact; however, the Court established that if the alteration affects the essence and validity of the will itself (such as changing the sole substantial provision), the lack of authentication voids the entire will because the testator's real intention cannot be determined with certitude.

• "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."

• Velasco vs. Lopez — Cited to acknowledge the general rule that unauthenticated erasures or corrections in a holographic will do not invalidate the will as a whole, but distinguished by the Court because the alteration in the present case affected the very essence of the will (the sole heir).

• Article 814 of the Civil Code — Requires that in case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure, or alteration in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature; this was the central statutory provision used to void the entire will due to the unauthenticated change of the sole heir.

• Justice Teehankee — Concurred, emphasizing that the original will cannot be given effect because the testatrix deliberately crossed out Rosa's name, meaning there is no longer a will naming Rosa; since the new designation of Gregorio was unauthenticated, the net result is that the testatrix left no valid will, and both siblings succeed to her intestate estate.