Labrador vs. Court of Appeals

A holographic will is dated in compliance with Article 810 of the New Civil Code so long as the date appears in the will itself in the hand of the testator, regardless of its location or usual placement. The March 17, 1968 notation on the second page, written by Melecio Labrador as part of his instruction on partitioning to be followed, constituted such a date, and the instrument's testamentary character as a unilateral disposition effective after death was preserved.

Melecio Labrador was the ninety-three-year-old father of nine children — Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador — by two mothers, Juliana Quintero Pilarisa and Casiana Aquino Villanueva. He owned a parcel designated as Lot No. 1916 under Original Certificate of Title No. P-1652, including fishponds acquired during life with the children's two mothers. Philippine law permits execution of a holographic will entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator, subject to no other form under Article 810 of the New Civil Code.

Melecio Labrador resided in Iba, Zambales, where he died on June 10, 1972, leaving Lot No. 1916 under Original Certificate of Title No. P-1652 and nine children surnamed Labrador. Among his papers was a three-page holographic writing in Ilocano, translated into English, partitioning fishponds at a place known as Tagale. The first page assigned to Sagrado Labrador a fishpond of more or less one hectare bounded on the south by Enrica Labrador's share, on the west by the sea, and on the north by Cristobal Labrador's assignment, with the testator stating that at ninety-three years it was the right time to partition fishponds bought or acquired with the children's two mothers to avoid differences among brothers and sisters.

The second page stated that the partitioning and assigning was agreed upon in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, that the testator's decision or instruction was to be followed, and that the writer was Melecio Labrador, their father. It continued as a final written disposition to be complied with to forestall troubles and preserve good relations, with rights to gather improvements and fruits such as mangoes, bamboos, coconut trees and Bayog as needed. The third page provided for equal shares in other properties constituting fruits of earnings with the two mothers, followed by the testator's signature and identification as MELECIO LABRADOR y RALUTIN, father and maker of the writing.

Oppositors Jesus and Gaudencio Labrador claimed that on September 30, 1971, before Melecio's death, he had executed for P6,000 a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying Lot No. 1916 to them, resulting in cancellation of O.C.T. No. P-1652 by T.C.T. No. T-21178, and that the will had thus been extinguished or revoked by implication. According to the record, Jesus Labrador in 1973 sold the parcel to Navat for P5,000, and Sagrado thereafter paid P5,000 to the vendee a retro on December 20, 1976 to regain possession. Sagrado maintained the 1971 deed was fictitious and that he had already acquired by devise under the March 17, 1968 will. After trial, the lower court factually found the will to be in the testator's hand and the sale to be null, allowing probate and ordering reimbursement.

• Datedness of Holographic Will: Petitioner argued that the holographic will was really dated, although the date was not in its usual place, with March 17, 1968 written in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810.
• Unilateral Testamentary Character: Petitioner maintained that the will was not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he was executing was a will, as shown by partitioning as his instruction or decision to be followed.
• Reimbursement of Redemption Price: Petitioner argued that the trial court's order directing reimbursement of the P5,000 redemption price was correct and that the Court of Appeals erred in finding it erroneous.

• Absence of Date of Execution: Respondent countered that the date 17 March 1968 in the will was when the testator and his beneficiaries entered into an agreement about the partitioning and assigning of the fishpond, and was not the date of execution of the holographic will.
• Agreement Prejudicial to Compulsory Heirs: Respondent argued that the will was more of an agreement between the testator and the beneficiaries to the prejudice of other compulsory heirs like respondents, thus failing to comply with Article 783 defining a will as a unilateral act controlling disposition of estate to take effect after death.
• Revocation by Subsequent Sale: Respondent maintained that the will had been extinguished or revoked by implication of law by the September 30, 1971 Deed of Absolute Sale for P6,000 conveying Lot No. 1916 to Jesus and Gaudencio, with O.C.T. No. P-1652 cancelled by T.C.T. No. T-21178.

• Dating Requirement Under Article 810: Whether the holographic will of Melecio Labrador was dated as required by Article 810 of the New Civil Code.
• Testamentary Character: Whether the instrument was a unilateral testamentary disposition under Article 783 rather than a mere partitioning agreement among the testator and beneficiaries.
• Reimbursement: Whether petitioners were entitled to reimbursement of the P5,000 representing the redemption price paid to regain the property.

• Dating Requirement Under Article 810: Yes. The date March 17, 1968 appeared in the will itself in the testator's hand, and the law prescribes no particular location for the date.
• Testamentary Character: Yes. The partitioning was the testator's own instruction or decision to be followed, showing awareness of the estate property and of controlling its disposition after death.
• Reimbursement: Yes. The sale with right to repurchase to Navat conveyed property belonging to another without authority and was null and void, so the P5,000 paid to recover possession was reimbursable.

• Dating Requirement Under Article 810: The only requirements were that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator, both present in the subject will. The first paragraph of the second page expressly stated the partitioning in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, followed by the declaration that the testator's decision or instruction was to be followed and identification of the writer as Melecio Labrador. Because Article 810 specifies no particular location where the date should be placed, probate could not be denied merely because the date was not in its usual place.
• Testamentary Character: The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of execution was plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning was the testator's instruction or decision to be followed revealed full awareness of the nature of the estate property to be disposed of and of the testamentary act as a means to control disposition of the estate. The instrument was therefore not a bilateral agreement but a unilateral act, compliant with the definition of a will as an act controlling to a certain degree the disposition of estate to take effect after death.
• Reimbursement: When private respondents sold the fishpond property with right to repurchase to Navat for P5,000, they were actually selling property belonging to another which they had no authority to sell, rendering such sale null and void. Petitioners thus redeemed the property from Navat for P5,000 to immediately regain possession for disposition in accordance with the will. Reimbursement was therefore required to restore the amount expended to recover property properly belonging to the testamentary disposition.

• Holographic will; dating requirement — A holographic will must be entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself, subject to no other form. Applied here, the handwritten March 17, 1968 notation within the body of the will satisfied the dating element, as Article 810 does not prescribe a particular location for the date, only that the date be in the will itself and in the testator's hand.
• Will as unilateral juridical act — A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death. Applied here, Melecio Labrador's partitioning instruction to be followed was characterized as a unilateral testamentary disposition rather than an agreement with beneficiaries, notwithstanding language of agreement on partitioning, because the testator imposed his decision for post-mortem compliance to prevent disputes among children.
• Sale of property belonging to another — A sale by one without authority over property belonging to another is null and void and confers no right to retain the property against the true owner or devisee. Applied here, the conveyance with right to repurchase to Navat was void, justifying reimbursement of the P5,000 paid by petitioners to recover possession for distribution under the probated will.

• "The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will." — States the controlling construction of Article 810 that sustained probate despite unconventional placement of the date.
• "And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father." — Reproduces the operative dating language relied upon as compliance with the handwritten-date requirement.
• "A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed." — Recites the statutory formalities of Article 810 against which the will's validity was measured.
• "an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death." — Defines a will under Article 783 to reject the contention that the instrument was a mere agreement prejudicial to other compulsory heirs.

• Article 810, New Civil Code — Requires a holographic will to be entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator, subject to no other form and without need of witnesses. Applied to hold the March 17, 1968 handwritten date within the will sufficient despite absence from its usual place.
• Article 783, New Civil Code — Defines a will as an act controlling to a certain degree the disposition of estate to take effect after death. Applied to reject respondents' claim that the instrument was a bilateral partitioning agreement rather than a unilateral testamentary act.

Melencio-Herrera, J., Padilla, J., Sarmiento, J., Regalado, J.