Short answer. Yes — but through two separate acts, not one. Tearing the old will with the intention of revoking it is a mode of revocation Article 830 itself recognises, and the new will then governs by its own force. The risk is not the sequence; it is whether the new will is valid.
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 830 — The Three Ways to Revoke. Read the full provision →
Three ways to revoke, and only three
Article 830 is a closed list: 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. Your mother used the third mode, and the new will independently engages the second. Either would have been enough on its own; doing both is belt and braces, which is exactly how it should be done.
The act alone does not revoke — the intention has to be there
Read the qualifier in paragraph three. Tearing revokes only when done with the intention of revoking it, and by the testator herself or by someone else in her presence and at her express direction. A will destroyed accidentally, or by a relative tidying up, is not revoked at all. The article says as much: where a will is burned, torn, cancelled or obliterated by another person without the testator's express direction, it may still be established and the estate distributed under it, if its contents, due execution and unauthorised destruction are proved. Destruction is evidence of revocation, not revocation itself.
The new will revokes on its own terms
Because the new will is itself a mode of revocation, it does its work whether or not the old paper survived. Article 832 makes the point sharply: a revocation made in a subsequent will takes effect even if the new will becomes inoperative because the heirs, devisees or legatees named in it are incapacitated or renounce. The revocation and the disposition are separable. Article 833 supplies the one limit worth knowing — a revocation based on a false cause or an illegal cause is null and void, so a will torn up on a mistaken belief about a beneficiary is not necessarily gone.
Where this actually goes wrong
The danger is a valid revocation paired with an invalid new will, which leaves the estate to pass by intestacy — often the outcome she was trying to avoid. And under Article 837, where a second will expressly revoked a first, revoking the second does not revive the first; only another will or codicil can. So the practical advice is unglamorous: keep the new will safe and complete, keep any surviving fragments of the old one rather than disposing of them, and note when and in whose presence the old will was destroyed.
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 →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 830 — The Three Ways to Revoke
- Civil Code, Article 832 — Revocation Stands Even If the Later Will Fails
- Civil Code, Article 833 — Revocation on a False Cause
- Civil Code, Article 837 — No Automatic Revival