Topic:

Applicable Provisions: (Start) Date:

SUBSECTION 4
WITNESSES TO WILLS

Article 820, Civil Code

Any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf or dumb, and
able to read and write, may be a witness to the execution of a will and mentioned in Article 805 of this
Code.

I. Qualifications for Witnesses to Notarial Wills

• At the time of attesting, the witness must:

1. Be of sound mind;
2. Be at least 18 years of age;
3. Be able to read and write;
4. Not be blind, deaf, or dumb;
5. Be domiciled in the Philippines; and
6. Not have been convicted (by final judgment) of falsification of a document; perjury; or false
testimony.

• The word “credible” with reference to the witnesses of a will does not have the same meaning of
“credible witness” under the Naturalization Law. In wills, a credible witness must have all the
qualifications specified by the Civil Code.

II. Question on the Language Required

• It is not essential for the witness to be able to speak and write the very language in which the will
was written. This is so, since after all, the witness does not even have to know the contents of the
will. Therefore, he does not have to understand the language concerned.
• It is not even essential for the witness to know the language in which the attestation has been
written. It is sufficient that the same be interpreted to him.

Article 821, Civil Code

The following are disqualified from being witnesses to a will:

(1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines;

(2) Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
I. More Qualifications for Witnesses than for Testators

• The qualifications of a witness to a notarial will are numerically more than those required of a
testator. For instance, while a blind or illiterate person can make a will, but he cannot be a witness
to a notarial one.
• Observe, however, that it is not essential that the witness be a citizen of the Philippines, for
domicile is what the law merely requires. Domicile as defined in the Civil Code as the place of
habitual residence.

II. Rule if Will is Executed Abroad

• If a Filipino in the US wants to execute a notarial will in accordance with Philippine laws, it is
submitted that his witnesses do not have to be domiciled in the witnesses.
• It should be observed that, generally, there are two reasons for the requirement of Philippine
domicile:

1. The assurance that the witness will be available at the time the will is presented for probate;
2. The likeliness of personal acquaintance with the testator (hence, greater credibility as a
witness, for example, on the soundness of mind of the testator).

III. Rules Regarding Convicted Witnesses

• Regarding convicts, only three crimes have been mentioned:

1. Falsification of a document (whether the document be public, commercial, or even private);

2. Perjury; and
3. False testimony.

• By implication, conviction for other crimes cannot be said to be a disqualification.

IV. Effect of Pardon

• If the pardon was given because of the man’s innocence, as when somebody else had been
proved to be the really guilty person, he can now act as a witness to a will. There is because
there is no mental dishonesty.
• If the absolute pardon was an act of Executive grace of clemency, it is submitted that the
disqualification remains, for even an absolute pardon does not remove civil consequences. The
would-be witness still has a taint of mental dishonesty.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
V. Disqualification of Notary Public Concerned

• The notary public before whom the notarial will is acknowledged is disqualified to be witness to the
said will. It would be absurd for him (as witness) to be acknowledging something before himself
(as notary public).

VI. Credibility of a Witness to a Notarial Will

• While the instrumental witnesses to a will must be shown to have the qualifications under Article
820 and none of the disqualifications under Article 82, it is presumed that they are trustworthy and
reliable, unless the contrary is established.

Article 822, Civil Code

If the witnesses attesting the execution of a will are competent at the time of attesting, their becoming
subsequently incompetent shall not prevent the allowance of the will.

I. Effect of Subsequent Incapacity

• Subsequent incapacity is immaterial. Of course, if the witness is incapacitated to testify at the time
of probate, he cannot testify as a witness. This does not mean, however, that the validity of the will
is impaired by such act.
• Also, capacity as a witness to a will is different from capacity as a witness in court. To be a
witness in court, it is sufficient that a person be “possessed of organs of perception, and
perceiving can make known what he has perceived.” Hence, a minor can be a witness in court.

Article 823, Civil Code

If a person attests the execution of a will, to whom or to whose spouse, or parent, or child, a devise or
legacy is given by such will, such devise or legacy shall, so far as only as concerns such person, or
spouse, or parent, or child of such person, or any one claiming under such person or spouse, or parent,
or child, be void, unless there are three other competent witnesses to such will. However, such person
so attesting shall be admitted as a witness as if such devise or legacy had not been made or given.

I. Witnesses Cannot Inherit

• The persons named in the Article are incapacitated to inherit, but not incapacitated as witnesses.
Hence, only the part appertaining to them should be considered void.
• The disqualification extends to the witness, the spouse of the witness, the parent of the witness,
the child of the witness, and anyone claiming the right of said witness, spouse, parent, or child.
• Other relatives of the witness like his brother or sister, to whom a devise or legacy has been given,
can get the inheritance.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
II. Effect if Witness is a Compulsory Heir

• If the witness, spouse, parent, or child (of the witness) is a compulsory heir, said heir is entitled to
the legitime. Otherwise, this would be an easy way to sort of disinherit him without any justifiable
cause. The purpose of the law being to prevent undue influence, it is understood that the
prohibition refers only to the free portion.
• While the law says only devise or legacy, it should be understood to refer also to the institution of
an heir (voluntary) and or even of compulsory heirs also, but only insofar as he has been given the
free portion or an excess of his legitime.

Article 824, Civil Code

A mere charge on the estate of the testator for the payment of debts due at the time of the testator’s
death does not prevent his creditors from being competent witnesses to his will.

I. Creditors as Witnesses

• The charge referred to here is a debt of the estate or of the testator.

• While a creditor who acts as a witness is disqualified to inherit, he is qualified to receive his credit,
which after all cannot be considered a a gift.

SUBSECTION 5
CODICILS AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

Article 825, Civil Code

A codicil is a supplement or addition to a will, made after the execution of a will and annexed to be taken
as a part thereof, by which any disposition made in the original will is explained, added to, or altered.

I. Codicil

• It is derived from the Latin “codex” and literally means a little code or a little will (although, of
course, physically, it may be larger or longer than a will.

II. Time When Codicil is Made

• A codicil, since it refers to a will, cannot be made before a will; it is always made after.
• Of course, even the codicil may later on be revoked by another will or codicil.

Article 826, Civil Code

In order that a codicil may be effective, it shall be executed as in the case of a will.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
I. Formalities of Codicils

• As in the case of wills, there can be:

1. Notarial or ordinary codicils; and

2. Holographic wills.

• A notarial will may be revoked by either a notarial or holographic codicil; similarly, a holographic
will may be revoked by a holographic or notarial codicil.
• Further:

1. If a codicil is not executed with the formalities of a will, said codicil is void.
2. A valid will can never be revoked, expressly or impliedly, by an invalid codicil.

Article 827, Civil Code

If a will, executed as required by this Code, incorporates into itself by reference any document or paper,
such document or paper shall not be considered a part of the will unless the following requisites are
present:

(1) The document or paper referred to in the will must be in existence at the time of the execution of
the will;
(2) The will must clearly describe and identify the same, stating among other things the number of
pages thereof;
(3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the document or paper referred to therein;
and
(4) It must be signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and every page, except in case of
voluminous books of account or inventories.

I. Incorporation by Reference

• The purpose of the Article is to provide for those cases when a testator wishes to incorporate to
his will only by reference (i.e., without copying the whole thing) certain documents or papers,
especially inventories and books of accounts. Thereby, the testator is able to save time and
energy.
• Said documents or inventories, when referred to in a notarial will, do not need any attestation
clause, because the attestation clause of the will itself is sufficient.

II. Requisites for Validity of Documents Incorporated by Reference

1. The document or paper referred to in the will must be in existence at the time of the execution
of the will. Therefore:

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
 • Reference to future papers will rendered the incorporation void. However, the will itself remains
valid.
• The will must refer to the papers as having been already made; it is not enough that in truth it was
already in existence.

2. The will must clearly describe and identify (locations, general appearance) the same, stating
among other things, the number of pages thereof. This is true even in the case of voluminous
books of account or inventories.
3. It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the document or paper referred to
therein (parol evidence or evidence aliunde is needed here.”
4. It must be signed by the testator and the same instrumental witnesses on each and every
page, except in the case of voluminous books of accounts or inventories.

• Even the number of pages or voluminous accounts or inventories must be stated.

• The exception refers only to the signing of all pages; and even here, while not every page has to
be signed, still it is believed that there must be a signature on at least several pages thereof for
the purpose of identifying same as the documents really referred to.

III. Incorporation can generally be done only in notarial wills.

• From the fact that Article 827(4) speaks of “witnesses,” it is reasonable to believe that as a rule,
only notarial wills can have this incorporation by reference.
• However, it is submitted that:

1. If a holographic will happens to have at least three credible and qualified witnesses, there can
be a proper incorporation by reference.
2. Moreover, if a holographic will with no witnesses refers to a document entirely written, dated,
and signed in the handwriting of the testator, there can also be a proper incorporation by
reference.

SUBSECTION 6
REVOCATION OF WILLS AND TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS

Article 828, Civil Code

A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his death. Any waiver or restriction of this right
is void.

I. Revocability of a Will

• Until the death of the testator, a will is ambulatory and revocable, since after all, the will concerns
a disposition of properties and rights effective after death.
• The heirs do not acquire any vested right to the disposition in a will until after the testator’s death.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
 • Provisions in a will which are ordered to be effected immediately, even during the testator’s
lifetime, are all right, provided the proper formalities and requisites are present, but they are not
really testamentary disposition.
• A codicil may have revoked expressly or impliedly a will, and it is well-known that a will is
essentially revocable. It is not indeed essential for both the will and the codicil to have been
presented for probate at the same time. Moreover, opposition to the probate of the codicil may still
be allowed, even if the oppositor had not objected to the will itself. This is because, in. the opinion
of the oppositor, the codicil may be defective.

Article 829, Civil Code

A revocation done outside the Philippines, by a person who does not have his domicile in this country, is
valid when it is done according to the law of the place where the will was made, or according to the law
of the place in which the testator had his domicile at the time; and if the revocation takes place in this
country, when it is in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

I. Conflicts Rules for Revocation of Wills

A. For revocations outside the Philippines:

1. If not domiciled in the Philippines:

a. Follow law of the place where the will was made; or

b. Follow law of the place where testator was domiciled at the time.

2. If domiciled in the Philippines (not provided for in the law):

a. Follow law of the Philippines (since his domicile is here); or

b. Follow the general rule of lex loci celebrationis of the revocation.

B. If revocation is in the Philippines, follow the Philippine law.

II. Observation

• It is curious that in the case of a revocation outside the Philippines by a person not domiciled in
the Philippines, the law speaks of the place of the making, not the revocation. This apparently
disregards the rule of lex loci celebrationis.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
Article 830, Civil Code
No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:

(1) By implication of law; or

(2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills; or
(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the
testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned,
torn, cancelled, or obliterated by some other person, without the express direction of the testator,
the will may still be established, and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents,
and due execution, and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are
established according to the Rules of Court.

I. Local or Domestic Ways of Revocation

• The Civil Code speaks of revocation in three ways:

1. By implication or operation of law (totally or partially);

2. By virtue of an overt act (like burning, tearing, cancelling or obliterating totally or partially in some
instances); and
3. By virtue of a revoking will or codicil (totally or partially, or expressly or impliedly).

II. Revocation by Implication of Law

A. Meaning

• The kind of revocation produced by operation of law when certain acts or events take place after a
will has been made, rendering void or useless either the whole will or certain testamentary
dispositions therein. Note, however, that the revocation of a legacy does not operate to revoke the
entire will. Only total and absolute revocation of the entire will prevent the probate of the revoked
testament.
• Reason for allowing revocation by implication of law: there may be certain changes in the family or
domestic relations or in the status of his property, such that the law presumes a change of mind
on the part of the testator.
• Some instances of revocation by implication of law:

1. When after the testator has made a will, he sells, or donates the legacy or devise.
2. Provisions in a will in favor of a spouse who has given cause for legal separation shall be
revoked by operation of law the moment a decree of legal separation is granted.
3. When an heir, legatee, or devisee commits an action of unworthiness under Article 1032.
4. When a credit that had been given as a legacy is judicially demanded by the testator.
5. When one, some or all of the compulsory heirs have been preterited or omitted, the institution
of heir is void.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
 • It is settled that revocation by implication of law exists because we presume a change of mind on
the part of the testator. Now then, suppose the testator never intended to change his mind, should
there still be revocation by implication of law? Yes, what the testator should do in a case like this is
to manifest his unchanged mind by executing a new will or codicil. American jurisprudence
provides that where the revocation of a will is presumed by law from a change in the testator’s
circumstances, evidence is generally not admissible to rebut the presumption, at least not
evidence of subsequent unexecuted intentions of the testator. In some cases though, if the
subsequent intention has been executed or manifested by a new will, for instance, said new will
must prevail.

III. Revocation by an Overt Act

A. Requisites

1. There must be an overt act specified by the law.

2. There must be a completion at least of the subjective phase of the overt act.
3. There must be animus revocandi or intent to revoke.
4. The testator at the time of revoking must have the capacity to make a will. Hence, he must of
sound mind, otherwise, there is no real revocation.
5. The revocation must be done by the testator himself, or by some other person in his presence and
his express direction. Ratification of an unauthorized destruction is however permissible, provided
sufficient proof of this is presented.

B. The Overt Act of Burning

• It is sufficient even if a small part of the instrument itself be burned even though the entire writing
itself be left untouched.
• If thrown into the fire with the intent to revoke, and it was burned in three places without scorching
the writing, there is already a revocation even if, unknown to the testator, somebody was able to
snatch it from the fire and thus saved it.
• It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se
constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the
part of the testator. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by the testator
himself. It may be performed by another person but under the express direction and in the
presence of the testator. It goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself.
• If a will is burned accidentally, there is no revocation in view of the lack of intention.
• If the envelope containing a will is burned, but the will itself is untouched, there is no revocation
even if there be intent to revoke. This is because there was no overt act of burning the will, as
distinguished from the envelope.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
III. The Overt Act of Tearing

• Even a slight tear is sufficient.

• The greater the degree of tearing, the greater is the evidence of animo revocandi. Tearing into
three pieces is sufficient. As a matter of fact, tearing into two is even enough as long as the
subjective phase is passed, that is, as long as the testator considers the will already revoked.
• Tearing includes cutting. A clause may be revoked by cutting the same from the will.
• The mere act of crumpling or the removal of the fastener binding the pages of a will, does not
constitute a revocation, even though there be animo revocandi. The reason is that crumpling is not
one of the overt acts provided for by the law. However, in a case, the court impliedly allowed
crumpling as one of the overt acts, provided there is animo revocandi.
• Tearing off even the signature alone constitutes revocation, provided the other requisites are
present. This is because the signature goes to the very heart of the will.

IV. The Overt Act of Obliterating or Cancelling

• Obliteration – renders the word illegible; cancellation – is the drawing of lines across a text, but the
words remain legible.
• Either of the two revokes a will, totally or partially.
• If all parts are cancelled or obliterated, or if the signature is cancelled or obliterated, the whole will
is revoked, the reason in the case of the signature being that the act strikes at the existence of the
whole instrument.
• Cancellation of the signature of witnesses to a holographic will leaves the will valid, since no
witnesses are after all required.
• Cancellation or obliteration of non-vital part leaves the other parts in force.

V. Mutilation

• If a will is mutilated by error, there being no animo revocandi, there is no revocation.

• If an executed will is lost and then eventually found, there is no revocation.

VI. Revocation by the Execution of Another Will or Codicil

• Revocation in this manner may be express or implied. Implied revocations consist in complete
inconsistency between the two wills.
• A will may be revoked by a sufficient will or codicil, either notarial or holographic.
• It is essential, however, that the revoking will be itself a valid will (validly executed as to form),
otherwise there is no revocation.
• The revocation made in the subsequent will must indeed be a definite one. A mere declaration
that sometime in the future, the first would be revoked, is not enough. However, there is nothing
wrong in making the revocation conditional, that is, the revocation takes place only if the condition
is fulfilled (the doctrine of “conditional revocation,” also called “dependent relative revocation”).

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
 • In one case, it was held that while it is true that revocation was not produced by the execution of
an invalid will, revocation was made through an overt act – the act of tearing or destruction – with
animo revocandi. However, in a subsequent case, it was ruled that there was no revocation either
by subsequent will (for same was invalid) or an overt act (since the act of destruction or tearing the
first will was prompted by the false belief that the second will had been validly executed). To put it
another way, the doctrine of dependent relative revocation – the revocation by destruction or overt
act was good only of this condition is fulfilled; therefore, the revocation by overt act did not really
materialize.
• A second will referred to by the testator as his “last will” revokes completely the first will,
particularly if the provision of the tow, as to who were being instituted as heirs, are inconsistent.

V. Probate of Lost or Destroyed Notarial Wills

• If a notarial will has been lost or destroyed without intent to revoke, its content may nevertheless
still be proved by:

1. Oral or parol evidence;

2. Carbon copies – this is because a carbon copy signed by all concerned is just as good as the
original. As a matter of fact, it is error to dismiss a probate proceeding on the mere ground that the
copy presented is only a carbon copy. After all, a “duplicate original” (a signed carbon copy or
duplicate executed at the same time as the original) is as good as the original, and may be
introduced in evidence without accounting for the non-production of the other copies. The
production and admission of a carbon duplicate without a new publication does not affect the
jurisdiction of the probate court, already conferred by the original publication of the petition for
probate, unless substantial rights are adversely affected. Incidentally, if the original presented is
defective and invalid, there is in law no other will but the duly signed carbon duplication, which is
probatable. Holographic wills, which have been lost or destroyed without intent to revoke, cannot
be probated. The Court has also ruled that a lost or destroyed holographic will may be proved by
means of a photostatic or xerox copy thereof, because the authenticity of the handwriting of the
deceased can be determined by the probate court.

Article 831, Civil Code

Subsequent wills which do not revoke the previous ones in an express manner, annul only such
dispositions in the prior wills as are inconsistent with or contrary to those contained in the later wills.

I. Implied Revocation through Wills

• This Article speaks of implied revocation, and this may be total or partial. It is partial if there is
inconsistency only in certain provisions.
• The law does not favor revocation by implication, and therefore efforts to reconcile must be made.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
Article 832, Civil Code
A revocation made in a subsequent will shall take effect, even if the new will should become inoperative
by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, devisees or legatees designated therein, or by their
renunciation.

I. Effect on Revocation if New Will is Inoperative

• There is a difference between an invalid will, and a valid but ineffective will.
• An invalid will revoking will cannot revoke. But a valid though ineffective will can revoke.
• If the revoking will is both invalid and ineffective, it is clear that there can be no revocation.

Article 833, Civil Code

A revocation of a will based on a false cause or an illegal cause is null and void.

I. Revocation Based on False or Illegal Cause

• This Article is one of the aspects of “dependent relative revocation,” or more properly, at least for
the purpose of this Article, a revocation made under a mistake.
• The fact that the cause for the revocation was a false belief or a mistake must be found on the
face of the will or codicil itself, i.e., if the revocation is through a will or codicil.

Article 834, Civil Code

The recognition of an illegitimate child does not lose its legal effect, even though the will wherein it was
made should be revoked.

I. Effect of Revocation on the Recognition of an Illegitimate Child

• According to the Civil Code, voluntary recognition of an illegitimate child may be done:

1. In a record of birth;
2. Will;
3. Statement before a court of record; or
4. Any authentic writing.

• Now then, if the will in which recognition had been made is subsequently revoked, the recognition
still remains valid.
• While a will is essentially revocable, recognition is irrevocable (unless there be vitiated consent).
• Moreover –

1. Recognition is not really a testamentary disposition; and

2. Recognition does not wait for the testator’s death to become effective.
• Article 834 applies only of the recognizing will is extrinsically valid – otherwise there would be no
recognition that can be revoked.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
 SUBSECTION 7
REPUBLICATION AND REVIVAL OF WILLS

Article 835, Civil Code

The testator cannot republish, without reproducing in a subsequent will, the dispositions contained in a
previous one which is void as to its form.

I. Republication

• It is the process of re-establishing a will, which has become useless because it was void, or had
been revoked.

II. How Made

• It may be made by:

1. Re-execution of the original will (the original provisions are copied);

2. Execution of a codicil (also known as implied republication).

Article 836, Civil Code

The execution of a codicil referring to a previous will has the effect of republishing the will as modified by
the codicil.

I. Requisites and Limitations of Republication

1. To republish a will void as to its form, all the dispositions must be reproduced or copied in the new
or subsequent will.
2. To republish a will valid as to its form but already revoked, the execution of a codicil which makes
reference to the revoked will is sufficient. Here, mere reference is enough: there is no necessity of
reproducing all the previous dispositions. Of course, in this case, there would be nothing wrong
with re-execution.

II. Effect of Republication by Virtue of a Codicil

1. The codicil revives the previous will.

2. The old will is republished as of the date of the codicil – makes it speak, as it were, from the new
and later date. In case some parts of the will are revoked by the codicil, those still remaining speak
as of the date of the codicil.
3. A will republished by a codicil is governed by a statute enacted subsequent to the execution of the
will, but which was operative when the codicil was executed.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
III. Query

• It is submitted that a will, invalid because of fraud or force or undue influence or because the
testator was under 18 or was insane, can be republished by mere reference in a codicil. This is
because the defect in the will did not related to the form. Form, in this article, it is believed, refers
to such things as the number of witnesses, lack of or fatal defect in the attestation, lack of
acknowledgment, etc., but not to vitiated consent.

Article 837, Civil Code

If after making a will, the testator makes a second will expressly revoking the first, the revocation of the
second will does not revive the first will, which can be revived only by another will or codicil.

I. Use of Republication and Revival

• A void will or a revoked will is a nullity, devoid of any effect, and is useless. The only ways of
giving effect to it are:

1. Republication (this includes both re-execution and reference by a codicil); or

2. Revival.

II. Revival

• Republication is an act of the testator.

• Revival is one that takes place by operation of law. It has been defined as the restoration or re-
establishment of revoked will or revoked provisions thereof, to effectiveness, by virtue of legal
provisions.
• Aside from republication and revival, there is no other way of restoring effectiveness. Thus, it has
been held that piecing together a torn and revoked will cannot restore its effectiveness.
• Since the Article uses the word “expressly,” it follows a contrariwise that in the case of an “implied”
revocation by the second will, an automatic revival of the first occurs. Apparently, the reason is the
fact that an “implied revocation” is ambulatory, the inconsistency being truly and actually apparent
only mortis causa, when properties are distributed.

III. Examples of Revival

• While omission of a compulsory heir in the institution of heir annuls the institution, still if the
omitted heir dies ahead of the testator, the institution is revived, without prejudice to the right of
representation.
• If after making a will, the testator makes a second will impliedly revoking the first, the revocation of
the second will revives the first will.

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
Article , Civil Code

Case Title:
Ticker:
Facts

Issue

Arguments
Ruling
Petitioner Respondent

Final Ruling:

Case Title:
Premise

Doctrine

[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.