Short answer. No, not as a valid physical-act revocation. Article 830 requires that when someone other than the testator destroys the will, it be done in the testator's presence and by his express direction, both together. Since your father was not present, the tearing does not satisfy this method of revocation.
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 830 — The Three Ways to Revoke. Read the full provision →
Two elements are required together, not either alone
Article 830 allows revocation by physical destruction, but when someone other than the testator does the destroying, it lists both conditions as necessary: 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. Notice the conjunction: presence and express direction, not one or the other. Your father's request supplies the direction, but the article also requires the destruction to happen in his presence, and that element is missing from what your sibling did.
Why presence matters as much as instruction
Requiring the testator's presence when someone else destroys the will guards against a request being carried out incorrectly, at the wrong time, or on the wrong document, and it lets the testator confirm at the moment of destruction that this is truly what he wants done. A prior instruction, given away from the scene, does not let the testator supervise that the act actually happened as intended. Because both safeguards exist for good reason, the law does not treat either one as sufficient to substitute for the other.
What happens to a will destroyed without meeting both conditions
The same article addresses what happens when destruction falls short of the authorized method: 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. Since your father was not present when the will was torn, the destruction does not qualify as a valid revocation under this article, which means the will's contents, due execution, and the circumstances of its destruction may need to be proven through the process the Rules of Court provide, rather than treating the will as automatically revoked.
What this means for your father's estate
Because the physical act here does not satisfy Article 830's requirement of presence together with express direction, the will is not automatically revoked simply because your father asked for it to be destroyed and your sibling carried that out in his absence. Whoever is handling the estate should be prepared to address whether the will's contents and due execution can be established despite the torn document, since the tearing itself did not accomplish a legally effective revocation under this article.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Raquel Estipona (Lelandlord E. Sto. Domingo) and Sps. Alberto Co and Lulu Co, G.R. No. 207407, September 29, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →