vs. FORTUNATA RAVINA and PONCIANA RAVINA, oppositors-appellants. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK FACTS: An appeal has been taken by the oppositors to the legalization of the will of Gabina Labitoria, and concerns the validity of that will. Gabina Labitoria during her lifetime mortgaged three parcels of land to the Philippine National Bank to secure an indebtedness of P1,600. It was stipulated in the mortgage, among other things, that the mortgagee "may remove, sell or dispose of the mortgaged property or any buildings, improvements or other property in, on or attached to it and belonging to the mortgagor in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135 or take other legal action that it may deem necessary." The mortgagor died, and a petition was presented in court for the probate of her last will and testament. The single question to be decided is whether the admitted fact that the will was executed on July 27, 1928, although stating that it was executed on February 6, 1926, invalidates the will. As said by the trial judge, the reason for the error was on account of the will being in great part a reproduction of another will of February 6, 1926, and inadvertently retaining this date. ISSUE: WON the will is valid RULING: Section 618, as amended, of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the requisites necessary to the execution of a valid will. The law does not require that the will shall be dated. Accordingly, a will without a date is valid. So likewise an erroneous date will not defeat a will. It results that the trial judge was right in admitting the will of Gabina Labitoria to probate.
MANUEL GONZALES, petitioner-appellant, vs. MANOLITA GONZALES DE CARUNGCONG, petitioner-appellee; ALEJANDRO GONZALES, JR., and JUAN GONZALES, oppositors-appellants. FACTS: On November 27, 1948, Manuel Ibarra Vda. de Gonzales died leaving five children, namely, Alejandro Gonzales, Leopoldo Gonzales, Manolita Gonzales de Carungcong, and Juan Gonzales. On December 22, 1948, Manuel Gonzales filed a petition for the probate of an alleged will executed by the testatrix, devising to Manuel Gonzales the greater portion of the estate, without impairing the legitimes of the other children. On December 31, 1948, Manolita G. de Carungcong filed in the same court a petition for the probate of another alleged will executed by the testatrix leaving to Manolita G. de Carungcong the greater bulk of the estate, without impairing the legitimes of the other children. It is contended for the appellants that this will does not contain any attestation clause; that, assuming the concluding paragraph to be the attestation clause, it is not valid because it is the act of the testatrix and not of the witnesses, and because it does not state the number of sheets or pages of the will. ISSUE: WON the will is valid RULING: Instrumental witnesses, as defined is one who takes part in the execution of an instrument or writing. An instrumental witness, therefore, does not merely attest to the signature of the testator but also to the proper execution of the will. The fact that the three instrumental witnesses have signed the will immediately under the signature of the testator shows that they have in fact attested not only to the genuineness of his signature but also to the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause. The attestation clause contained in the body of the will being thus valid, the statement in the penultimate paragraph of the will hereinabove quoted as to the number of sheets or pages used, is sufficient attestation which may be considered in conjunction with the last paragraph. It is significant that the law does not require the attestation to be contained in a single clause. While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be ignored, especially when the authenticity of the will is not assailed, as in this case. G.R. No. L-32213 November 26, 1973 AGAPITA N. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, Presiding Judge of Branch I, Court of First Instance of Cebu, and MANUEL B. LUGAY, respondents. FACTS: The surviving spouse of the deceased Valenti Cruz, opposed for the allowance of the latters will alleging that the will was not executed in accordance with law. One of the witnesses, Angel Tevel Jr. was also the notary before whom the will was acknowledged. Despite the objection, the lower court admitted the will to probate on the ground that there is substantial compliance with the legal requirements of having at least 3 witnesses even if the notary public was one of them. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE WILL WAS VALIDLY EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 805 AND 806 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE? HELD: NO. The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. To acknowledge before means to avow, or to own as genuine, to assent, admit, and 'before' means in front of or preceding in space or ahead of. The notary cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his participation into the making of the will. To permit such situation would be absurd. In the matter of the testate estate of the deceased JUANA JUAN VDA. DE MOLO. EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON and PILAR PEREZ-NABLE, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. ENRIQUE TANCHUCO, FAUSTINO GOMEZ, ET AL., Oppositors-Appellants. FACTS: In 1950, Juana Juan Vda. De Molo died, leaving no forced heirs, but only collateral children and the grandchildren of her sisters. She executed a last will and testament bequeathing all her properties to her two foster children, the petitioners herein. Thereafter, the said will was submitted for probate, but was opposed by herein oppositors on the ground among others, that it was not attested and executed in accordance with law. The trial court admitted the will for probate. Oppositors appealed. They contend that under Section 618 of Act 190, the Old Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that a will should be attested or subscribed by three or more credible witnesses, two of the attesting witnesses to the will in question, namely, Miss Navarro and Miss Canicosa, who were employed as pharmacist and salesgirl, respectively, in the drugstore of Pilar Perez-Nable, one of beneficiaries in the will, may not be considered credible witnesses for the reason that as such employees, they would naturally testify in favor of their employer. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE RELATION OF AN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, DISQUALIFIES ONE TO BE A WITNESS IN A WILL? HELD: NO. Section 620 of the same Code of Civil Procedure provides that any person of sound mind, and of the age of eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf, or dumb and able to read and write, may be a witness to the execution of a will. This same provision is reproduced in our New Civil Code of 1950, under Art. 820. The relation of employer and employee, or being a relative to the beneficiary in a will, does not disqualify one to be a witness to a will. The main qualification of a witness in the attestation of wills, if other qualifications as to age, mental capacity and literacy are present, is that said witness must be credible, that is to say, his testimony may be entitled to credence. Javellana vs. Ledesma G.R.No. L-7179 FACTS: The CFI of Iloilo admitted to probate a will and codicil executed by the deceased Apolinaria Ledesma in July 1953. This testament was deemed executed on May 1950 and May 1952. The contestant was the sister and nearest surviving relative of the deceased. She appealed from this decision alleging that the will were not executed in accordance with law. The testament was executed at the house of the testatrix. One the other hand, the codicil was executed after the enactment of the New Civil Code (NCC), and therefore had to be acknowledged before a notary public. Now, the contestant, who happens to be one of the instrumental witnesses, asserted that after the codicil was signed and attested at the San Pablo hospital, that Gimotea (the notary) signed and sealed it on the same occasion. Gimotea, however, said that he did not do so, and that the act of signing and sealing was done afterwards. One of the allegations was that the certificate of acknowledgement to the codicil was signed somewhere else or in the office of the notary. The testatrix and the witnesses at the hospital, was signed and sealed by the notary only when he brought it in his office. ISSUE: Whether or not the signing and sealing of the will or codicil in the absence of the testator and witnesses affects the validity of the will. RULING: NO. Unlike in the Old Civil Code of 1899, the NCC does not require that the signing of the testator, the witnesses and the notary be accomplished in one single act. All that is required is that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and witnesses. The subsequent signing and sealing is not part of the acknowledgement itself nor of the testamentary act. Their separate execution out of the presence of the testator and the witnesses cannot be a violation of the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption. G.R. No. 74695 September 14, 1993 In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of the Deceased Brigido Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., Presiding Justice, HON. MA. ROSARIO QUETULIO LOSA and HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Associate Justices, Intermediate Appellate Court, First Division (Civil Cases), and BAYANI MA. RINO, respondents. FACTS: Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner) and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary public and by private respondent who were present at the execution, the testator did not read the final draft of the will himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the eight-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of the testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The latter four followed the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them. Meanwhile, Brigido's holographic will was subsequently admitted to probate on the 29th day of the same month, a codicil was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the testator's eye operation. Brigido was then suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not personally read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who read it aloud in his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same as those of the notarial will) and the notary public who followed the reading using their own copies. A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed upon the testator's private respondent as executor Petitioner, in turn, filed an Opposition on the ground that the will sought to be probated was not executed and attested as required by law. ISSUE: Was Brigido Alvarado blind for purpose of Art, 808 at the time his "Huling Habilin" and its codicil were executed? If so, was the double-reading requirement of said article complied with? RULING: We agree with petitioner in this respect. Regardless of respondent's staunch contention that the testator was still capable of reading at the time his will and codicil were prepared, the fact remains and this was testified to by his witnesses, that Brigido did not do so because of his "poor," 10 "defective," 11 or "blurred"
vision making it necessary for private respondent to do the actual reading for him. Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to those who, for one reason or another, are "incapable of reading their will(s)." Since Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on the separate occasions of their execution due to his "poor," "defective," or "blurred" vision, there can be no other course for us but to conclude that Brigido Alvarado comes within the scope of the term "blind" as it is used in Art. 808. Unless the contents were read to him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so comfortably with his instructions. Hence, to consider his will as validly executed and entitled to probate, it is essential that we ascertain whether Art. 808 had been complied with. Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be read twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary public before whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is contrary to his instructions. That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead of the notary public and an instrumental witness, it was the lawyer who drafted the eight- paged will and the five-paged codicil who read the same aloud to the testator, and read them only once, not twice as Art. 808 require. G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993 TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, JUAN CABALLERO, AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, HELEN CABALLERO, SANTOS CABALLERO, PABLO CABALLERO, VICTOR RAGA, MAURICIA RAGA, QUIRICA RAGA, RUPERTO ABAPO, represented herein by his Attorney-in-Fact, ARMSTICIA * ABAPO VELANO, and CONSESO CANEDA, represented herein by his heirs, JESUS CANEDA, NATIVIDAD CANEDA and ARTURO CANEDA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM CABRERA, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Mateo Caballero, respondents. FACTS: Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children executed a last will and testament before three attesting witnesses. The said testator was duly assisted by his lawyer and a notary public in the preparation of that last will.
It was declared therein, among other things, that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to Presentacion Gaviola et.al, all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator. The testator passed away before his petition could finally be heard by the probate court herein petitioners appeared as oppositors and objected to the allowance of the testator's will on the ground that on the alleged date of its execution, the testator was already in the poor state of health such that he could not have possibly executed the same. Petitioners likewise reiterated the issue as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator therein.
However, the probate court rendered a decision declaring the will in question as the last will and testament of the late Mateo Caballero. Petitioners elevated the case in the Court of Appeals. They asserted therein that the will in question is null and void for the reason that its attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. ISSUE: Whether or not the attestation clause contained in the last will and testament of the late Mateo Caballero complies with the requirements of Article 805, in relation to Article 809, of the Civil Code. RULING: An ordinary will must be acknowledged before a notary public by a testator and the attesting witness. Hence it is likewise known as notarial will. Where the testator is deaf or deaf-mute, Article 807 requires that he must personally read the will, if able to do so. Otherwise, he should designate two persons who would read the will and communicate its contents to him in a practicable manner. On the other hand, if the testator is blind, the will should be read to him twice; once, by anyone of the witnesses thereto, and then again, by the notary public before whom it is acknowledged.
An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses certify that the instrument has been executed before them and to the manner of the execution the same. It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the witnesses; it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities required by law has been observed. It is made for the purpose of preserving in a permanent form a record of the facts that attended the execution of a particular will, so that in case of failure of the memory of the attesting witnesses, or other casualty, such facts may still be proved. While it may be true that the attestation clause is indeed subscribed at the end thereof and at the left margin of each page by the three attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot be conclusively inferred therefrom that the said witness affixed their respective signatures in the presence of the testator and of each other since, as petitioners correctly observed, the presence of said signatures only establishes the fact that it was indeed signed, but it does not prove that the attesting witnesses did subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The execution of a will is supposed to be one act so that where the testator and the witnesses sign on various days or occasions and in various combinations, the will cannot be stamped with the imprimatur of effectivity.