In short
A will can be undone three ways, and Article 1711 names them: express, tacit or real. The express one is the clean one. Article 1712 says it occurs when, in a later will of any class, the testator explicitly leaves without effect, in whole or in part, the dispositions of an earlier one. Note “of any class”: a handwritten holographic will may expressly revoke an open one executed before a notary. The tacit one is what generates lawsuits. Article 1713 says the earlier will is tacitly revoked by the later one, in whole or in part, when the dispositions of both are incompatible. The test is incompatibility, not date: a new will does not erase the old one merely by existing; it erases it in whatever cannot live alongside it. What counts as incompatible the article does not define, and no test is invented here. The third is physical, and brings the rule most worth knowing. Article 1715 says real revocation occurs when the testator breaks, destroys or renders useless in any way the holographic will. And it adds: the will is presumed destroyed or rendered useless by the person who has it in their possession. That presumption is not about whether it was destroyed, but about who did it, and it falls on whoever was keeping it. Two precisions this guide does make. The first paragraph names only the holographic will: the article does not extend real revocation to the open will before a notary, and it is not extended here either. And whether that presumption admits proof to the contrary, the article does not say, so nothing is asserted or denied here.
What is it?
They are Articles 1711, 1712, 1713 and 1715 of the Civil Code of 2020: the three classes of revocation, how a will is expressly revoked, when a new will erases the old without saying so, and what happens when a holographic will turns up torn.
Who can do it?
Anyone wanting to change or undo their will, and any heir or legatee facing two wills that do not match.
Requirements
- The revocation of a will may be express, tacit or real.Verified against the official source
- The express one occurs when, in a later will of any class, the testator explicitly leaves the earlier one without effect, wholly or partly.Verified against the official source
- The tacit one occurs when the dispositions of both wills are incompatible.Verified against the official source
- The real one occurs when the testator breaks, destroys or renders useless in any way the holographic will.Verified against the official source
- The will is presumed destroyed or rendered useless by the person who has it in their possession.Verified against the official source
Documents you need
Cost
Step by step
Step 1: Three ways, not one
Article 1711: revocation may be express, tacit or real.
Step 2: Express: say it in the new one
Article 1712: in a later will the testator explicitly leaves the earlier one without effect, wholly or partly.
Step 3: And any class works
The article says “of any class”: a holographic will may expressly revoke one executed before a notary.
Step 4: Tacit: incompatibility measures it
Article 1713: the earlier is revoked by the later when the dispositions of both are incompatible.
Step 5: A new one is not enough by itself
The test is incompatibility, not date. And the article does not define what makes them incompatible.
Step 6: Real: tearing up the holographic will
Article 1715: it occurs when the testator breaks, destroys or renders it useless in any way.
Step 7: Only the holographic one
The paragraph names the holographic will and does not mention the open one before a notary. It is not extended here.
Step 8: And who did it is presumed
It is presumed destroyed or rendered useless by whoever has it in their possession. Whether that presumption is rebuttable, the article does not say.
Where to do it
Revoking a will is no procedure before any agency: it is done by executing another or — for the holographic one — by destroying it. The forms of executing a will have their own guide on this site. The Code does not say here who judges whether two wills are incompatible, before which forum it is disputed, or what happens to an open will that turns up physically destroyed. None of those gaps is filled here.
How long it takes
What to do if something goes wrong
If you are going to change your will, the clean way is Article 1712’s: in the new one, explicitly say you leave the earlier one without effect, wholly or in the part you choose. Any class of will works for that, including a holographic one against one executed before a notary. If you do not say it, nothing catastrophic happens, but you expose yourself to Article 1713’s route, the one families litigate: the earlier is revoked only in what is incompatible with the new one, and deciding what is incompatible is no longer yours to control. The article does not define that word and this guide sets it no test. If yours is a holographic will and you tore it up, Article 1715 treats that as real revocation: breaking, destroying or rendering it useless in any way. Mind its second paragraph if you are an heir and the holographic will turned up torn: the will is presumed destroyed or rendered useless by the person who had it in their possession. That presumption points at whoever was keeping it. Whether it is rebuttable the article does not say, and it is not asserted here either way. And a warning about scope: that article speaks of the holographic will. About an open will that turns up destroyed it says nothing, so neither does this guide. MiPRFácil does not represent anyone in court and gives no legal advice.
Common mistakes
- Believing a new will erases the earlier one by existing: Article 1713 requires incompatibility.
- Not saying in the new one that you revoke the old: Article 1712 is the clean route and avoids the fight.
- Thinking only a will of the same type can revoke: the article says of any class.
- Assuming tacit revocation is total: it may be wholly or partly.
- Applying real revocation to an open will: Article 1715 speaks of the holographic one.
- Forgetting the second paragraph’s presumption if you were keeping the holographic will.
- Asserting that presumption is rebuttable: the article does not say so.
- Looking in these articles for the definition of “incompatible”: they do not carry it.
Frequently asked questions
How do I revoke my will?
Article 1711 admits three ways: express, tacit or real. The express one is done by saying so explicitly in a later will of any class.
I made a new will. Does the old one fall entirely?
Only if you say so, or in whatever the dispositions of both are incompatible, under Article 1713.
I tore up my holographic will. Is it revoked?
Article 1715 calls that real revocation: breaking, destroying or rendering useless in any way the holographic will.
The holographic will turned up torn. Who is presumed to have torn it?
Article 1715 presumes it was destroyed or rendered useless by the person who has it in their possession.
Official sources
These are the government pages this guide is based on.
- Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico
Poder Judicial
bvirtualogp.pr.gov
Last verified
September 12, 2026
MiPRFácil is an independent informational website and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by the Government of Puerto Rico or any government agency.
MiPRFácil does not submit applications on your behalf.
Was this guide helpful?
Did you find out-of-date information?
How to make a will in Puerto Rico
The 2020 Civil Code’s kinds of will, who may execute one, and the rule that changed: with forced heirs you may freely dispose of half.
Not saying a formality was met does not void a will; not meeting it does
Article 1708 of the Civil Code of 2020 saves the will when it can be shown the requirement was met even if not stated.
A will that names no heirs is still valid
Article 1660 of the Civil Code of 2020 says so in one sentence, and 1663 splits in equal parts when no shares were set.
Declaration of heirs: what it is and the two routes to request it
When someone dies without a will, the declaration establishes who inherits. Since Act 282-1999 it can be processed before a notary or the court: you choose.
A false reason in the will does not knock down the inheritance
Article 1664 of the Civil Code of 2020 annuls the designation only if the will itself reveals two things at once, and deletes an illicit motive.
A legacy must be asked for: you cannot take the thing on your own
Article 1691 of the Civil Code of 2020 makes the legatee ask the heir or albacea for delivery, and 1692 forbids substituting the thing.