GR 26317; (January, 1927) (CRITIQUE)
__________________________________________________________________
THE AI-ASSISTED CRITIQUE
The court’s reliance on the presumption of revocation is analytically sound but procedurally precarious. By affirming the lower court’s finding that the 1919 will was cancelled in 1920, the decision hinges on testimonial evidence from witnesses like Carlos Bejar, who claimed to have seen the cancelled original. This creates a tension between the Estate of Miguel Mamuyac ruling and the statutory burden of proof in probate proceedings. While the court correctly notes that the proponent must establish the will’s existence and execution, it arguably shifts too readily to the opponents’ evidence of revocation based on a missing original and uncorroborated testimony, without sufficiently addressing whether the carbon copy (Exhibit A) itself could have been authenticated as a duplicate executed with legal formalities under the rule cited from Borromeo vs. Casquijo.

The decision’s treatment of the carbon copy as a mere secondary document, rather than a potential duplicate original, exposes a formalistic gap in the analysis of testamentary execution. The court emphasizes that “copies of wills should be admitted by the courts with great caution,” yet it does not fully explore whether the proponent met the threshold for proving the carbon copy was a duly executed duplicate. This oversight is critical because if the carbon copy was part of a set of originals, its probate might have been permissible despite the original’s absence. The ruling thus risks establishing a precedent where any missing original will—even if a duplicate exists—triggers a nearly irrebuttable presumption of revocation, potentially undermining testamentary intent when evidence of cancellation is circumstantial.

Ultimately, the judgment reflects a conservative approach to probate that prioritizes the physical integrity of the will document over extrinsic evidence of intent. By affirming denial of probate based on witness testimony of cancellation and the missing original, the court reinforces the doctrine of revocation by destruction but leaves unresolved how proponents can overcome such presumptions with secondary evidence. The citation to Borromeo vs. Casquijo suggests an alternative path for duplicate wills, yet the court does not rigorously apply that standard here, leaving future litigants with ambiguous guidance on proving lost wills against claims of revocation.