MONTINOLA VS HERBOSA (1963)

Nature: An appeal from a judgment of the CFI Manila

Montinola filed this action against the heirs of Jose Rizal for the recovery of possession of
personal property (Rizal relics) allegedly sold to him by Dona Trinidad Rizal.

TC: held that neither party is entitled to possession of the property, relying principally on the
fact that in Rizals Mi Ultimo Adios, the 13th stanza meant that Rizal allegedly bequeathed all
his property to the Filipino people. According to the TC, this poem was in fact a holographic
will intended to give the State all of Rizals property.

- another rationale used by the TC is that Rizal never paid the P100,000 indemnity given to
him via the Spanish judgment of conviction > therefore the State has a superior lien over
Rizals property

ISSUE: W/N Rizals Mi Ultimo Adios is a holographic will that bequeaths all his property to the
State - NO

SC: An instrument which merely expresses a last wish as a thought or advice but does not
contain a disposition of property and was not executed with animus testandi, cannot legally be
considered a will.

- can be considered a will in the grammatical sense, but not in the legal or juridical sense.