52. HERREROS V. GIL
Galicano Coronel, whom I have absolute
GR No. L-3362
Date: ​March 1, 1951
Ponente: Jugo, J.
Digest Author: Umbalin
Topic in the Syllabus:
Testamentary Succession
Relevant Law:
(Take note that this is an old case. Hence, the
application of the old law)
Section 618 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure)
as amended by Act. No. 2645
"...the attestation clause shall state the number of
sheets or pages used, upon which the will is written,
and the fact that the testator signed the will and
every page thereof, or caused some other person to
write his name, under his express direction, in the
presence of three witnesses, and the latter
witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof
0in the presence of the testator and of each other..."
Doctrine:
The attestation clause of the will is fatally defective
for not stating that the alleged testator signed the
will, which is the precise purpose and most essential
element of the clause. Without it, there is no
attestation at all.
Decedent: Carlos Gil
Will: Yes
(Google Translate from Spanish)
IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN
I, Carlos Gil, 66 years old, resident of Porac,
Pampanga, IF, hallandome healthy and in full
enjoyment of my intellectual faculties, freely and
spontaneously, in violence, coercion, fraud or illegal
influence of stranger, grant and I order this my last
will and testament in Spanish, language that I have
and understand, in the following way:
1. I declare that during my marriage with my wife,
Isabel Herreros, we did not have children;
2. I declare that I have properties located in Manila
and in the Province of Pampanga;
3. I give and adjudicate to my beloved wife Isabel
Herreros all my property and real estate located in
Manila and Pampanga, under the condition that
when she dies and if there are remaining assets
inherited by her from me, that said remaining assets
they will be awarded to Don Carlos Worrel.
4. I appoint as executor of my property after my
death to Dr.
confidence in, with bail relief;
In testimony of all of which sign this my will and left
margin of each of its two pages, useful with the
attestation clause in the presence of witnesses, who
then signed each of these pages and clause
Witnessing my presence each with that of others,
today, in Porac, Pampanga, IF, the 27th of May 1939.
CARLOS GIL
Testification:
We the undersigned, all adults, certify: the will that
precedes this written in the Spanish language known
to the testator, composed of two useful pages with
the attestation clause paginated consecutively in
letters and numbers at the top of the box as well as
all the leaves of the same, in our presence and that
each of us have witnessed and signed the document
and all the leaves thereof in the presence of the
testator and of each of us.
(Sgd.) ALFREDO T. RIVERA
(Sgd.) RAMON MENDIOLA
(Sgd.) MARIANO OMAÑA
Parties:
Petitioner: Isabel Herreros
Respondent: Pilar Gil
Background:
The CFI Manila admitted to probate the alleged will
and testament of the deceased Carlos Gil. Hence,
Pilar Gil, the sister of Carlos appealed to the SC.
FACTS:
● Carlos Gil executed a last will and testament.
● However, before the application was heard on
the merit, the will was destroyed (burnt),
necessitating its reconstitution after liberation.
● The parties submitted a stipulation of facts
agreeing “that the will as transcribed in the
record of appeal” in another case (Case G. R. No.
L​254) is “a true and correct copy.”
● CFI Manila admitted to probate the alleged will
and testament.
● The oppositors contend that the will is invalid
since the attestation clause did not state that
the testator signed the will; it declared only that
it was signed by the witnesses.
ISSUES:
1
Whether the will is valid – NO.
RULING:
The will is invalid.
The attestation clause of the will is fatally defective
for not stating that the alleged testator signed the
will, which is the precise purpose and most
essential element of the clause. Without it, there is
no attestation at all.
The error is not merely clerical.
This is too much of a clerical error for it effects the
very essence of the clause. Alleged errors may be
overlooked or correct only in matters of form which
do not affect the substance of the statement.
A correction by inference cannot be made.
Section 618 of Act No. 190, before it was amended,
contained the following:
…But the absence of such form of attestation shall
not render the will invalid if it proven that the will
was in fact signed and attested as in this section
provided.
However, Act No. 2645, besides increasing the
contents of the attestation clause, entirely
suppressed the above​-quoted provision. This would
show that the purpose of the amending act was to
surround the execution of a will with greater
guarantees and solemnities.
The testator cannot certify his own signature.
It is contended that the deficiency in the attestation
clause is cured by the last paragraph of the body of
the alleged will.
It is evident that one cannot certify his own
signature, for it does not increase the evidence of its
authenticity. It would be like lifting one's self by his
own bootstraps. Consequently, the last paragraph of
the will cannot cure in any way the fatal defect of
the attestation clause of the witnesses.
The rules of statutory construction are applicable to
wills, but only to the body and not the attestation
clause.
While rules of statutory construction apply to
documents and wills, said rules apply to the body of
the will containing the testamentary provisions, but
not to the attestation clause, which must be so clear
that it should not require any construction.
There is no reason why wills should not be executed
by complying substantially with the clear requisites
of the law, leaving it to the courts to supply essential
elements.
The right to dispose of property by will is not natural
but statutory, and statutory requirements should be
satisfied.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from
is reversed, denying the probate of the alleged will
and declaring intestate the estate of the deceased
Carlos Gil. With costs against the appellee. It is so
ordered.
(just in case Ma’am asks for the dissenting opinion of
Justice Tuason)
TUAZON, J., dissenting:
The will is valid.
1. The attestation clause is truncated and
meaningless. With the inclusion of the omitted
phrase, the clause should read thus:
“We, the undersigned all adults, certify that the will
that precedes written in the Spanish language known
to the testator, composed of useful paginated with
attestation clause paginated consecutively in letters
and numbers at the top of the box as well as all the
leaves thereof (has been signed by the testator) in
our presence and that each of us have witnessed and
signed the document and all pages of the same
presence of the testator and in each of us.”
2. It is obvious that the missing phrase was
inadvertently left out. The probabilities of error in
the copy are enhanced by the fact that the form of
the will was not in controversy. The form of the will
being immaterial, it is easily conceivable that little or
on care was employed in the copying thereof in the
pleading or record on appeal above mentioned. The
absence of the signature of the testator on the first
page of the copy is an additional proof that little or
on pain was taken to insure accuracy in the
transcription.
3. Read in the light of these circumstances — that
the testator signed the will in the presence of the
attesting witnesses — so important an omission as
to make the sentence senseless — granting such
omission existed in the original document-could not
have been intentional or due to ignorance. The most
that can be said is that the flaw was due to a clerical
mistake, inadvertance, or oversight.
2
53. RABADILLA VS. CA AND MARLENA
COSCOLUELLA Y BELLEZA
GR No. 113725
Date: June 29, 2000
Ponente: Purisima
Digest Author: MGUY
Topic in the Syllabus:
Wills - Defined in Art. 783
Relevant Law:
Art. 783
Doctrine: ​In the interpretation of Wills, when an
uncertainty arises on the face of the Will, as to the
application of any of its provisions, the testator's
intention is to be ascertained from the words of the
Will, taking into consideration the circumstances
under which it was made.
Testatrix: Aleja Belleza
Will:
"FIRST
I give xxx the following property owned by me to Dr.
Jorge Rabadilla resident of 141 P. Villanueva, Pasay
City:
(a) Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002 (10942),xxx
(b) That should Jorge Rabadilla die ahead of me, the
property and the rights which I shall set forth
hereinbelow, shall be inherited and acknowledged
by the children and spouse of Jorge Rabadilla.
Xxx
FOURTH
(a)....It is also my command, in this my addition
(Codicil), that should I die and Jorge Rabadilla shall
have already received the ownership of the said Lot,
and also at the time that the lease of Balbinito G.
Guanzon of the said lot shall expire, Jorge Rabadilla
shall have the obligation until he dies, every year to
give to Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, Seventy (75)
piculs of Export sugar and Twenty Five (25) piculs of
Domestic sugar, until the said Marlina Coscolluela y
Belleza dies.
FIFTH
(a) Should Jorge Rabadilla die, his heir xxx shall have
the obligation to still give yearly, the sugar as
specified in the Fourth paragraph of his testament,
to Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza on the month of
December of each year.
SIXTH
I command, in this my addition (Codicil) that the Lot,
in the event that the one to whom I have left and
bequeathed, and his heir shall later sell, lease,
mortgage this said Lot, the buyer, lessee, mortgagee,
shall have also the obligation to respect and deliver
yearly ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar to Maria
Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, on each month of
December, SEVENTY FIVE (75) piculs of Export and
TWENTY FIVE (25) piculs of Domestic, until Maria
Marlina shall die, lastly should the buyer, lessee or
the mortgagee of this lot, not have respected my
command in this my addition (Codicil), Maria
Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, shall immediately seize
this Lot No. 1392 from my heir and the latter's heirs,
and shall turn it over to my near desendants, and the
[desendants] shall then have the obligation to give
the ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar until Maria
Marlina shall die.
I further command in this my addition (Codicil) that
my heir and his heirs of this Lot No. 1392, that they
will obey and follow that should they decide to sell,
lease, mortgage, they cannot negotiate with others
than my near descendants and my sister."
Parties:
Nature of the Case:
Petition for review on certiorari assailing the
decision of the CA which set aside the decision of
RTC Bacolod.
FACTS:
● In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and
Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein
petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as
a devisee of 511, 855 square meters of that
parcel of land of the Bacolod Cadastre.
● The said Codicil, which was duly probated and
admitted in Special Proceedings before the CFI
of Bacolod.
● Pursuant to the Codicil, the lot was transferred
to herein Dr. Rabadilla.
● Dr. Rabailla died.
○ He was survived by his wife, herein
petitioner Johnny Rabadilla, and three other
siblings.
● Respondent Conscoluella y Belleza brought a
complaint before the RTC in Bacolod against the
heirs of Rabadilla to enforce the provisions of
the Codicil [Read above - under Will: Aleja]
○ The complaint alleged that petitioner and
other heirs violated the conditions of the
Codicil: by mortgaging it to PNB; failed to
deliver piculs of sugard; banks failed to
provide piculs of sugar to herein private
respondent.
● The parties admitted that respondent Belleza
and certain Allan Azurin arrived at an amicable
settlement and entered into an Agreement on
the obligation to deliver piculs of sugar.
3
 ○ Instead of delivering the said sugar, cash
will be given in a staggered basis.
○ But this was not complied with.
● RTC dismissed the complaint: no cause of action
against defendants - premature.
● CA reversed this ordering the petitioner to
reconvey the said title in favor of private
respondent Belleza.
ISSUES:
Whether the private respondent had a legally
demandable right against the petitioner - YES
RULING:
It is a general rule under the law on succession that
successional rights are transmitted from the
moment of death of the decedent[10] and
compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation
of law.
The petitioner, his mother and sisters, as compulsory
heirs of the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
succeeded the latter by operation of law, without
need of further proceedings, and the successional
rights were transmitted to them from the moment
of death of the decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code,
inheritance includes all the property, rights and
obligations of a person, not extinguished by his
death.
Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla
had by virtue of subject Codicil were transmitted to
his forced heirs, at the time of his death.
And since obligations not extinguished by death also
form part of the estate of the decedent; corollarily,
the obligations imposed by the Codicil on the
deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise
transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death.
Upon the death of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his
compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title
over the said property, and they also assumed his
(decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot
involved to herein private respondent.
Such obligation of the instituted heir reciprocally
corresponds to the right of private respondent over
the usufruct, the fulfillment or performance of which
is now being demanded by the latter through the
institution of the case at bar.
Therefore, private respondent has a cause of action
against petitioner and the trial court erred in
dismissing the complaint below.
[Not so important but just in case - ​italicized​]
Substitution is the designation by the testator of a
person or persons to take the place of the heir or
heirs first instituted.
Under substitutions in general, the testator may
either
(1) provide for the designation of another heir to
whom the property shall pass in case the original heir
should die before him/her, renounce the inheritance
or be incapacitated to inherit, as in a simple
substitution, or
(2) leave his/her property to one person with the
express charge that it be transmitted subsequently to
another or others, as in a fideicommissary
substitution. The Codicil sued upon contemplates
neither of the two.
The institution of an heir in the manner prescribed in
Article 882 is what is known in the law of succession
as an institucion sub modo or a modal institution.
In a modal institution, the testator states
(1) the object of the institution,
(2) the purpose or application of the property left by
the testator, or
(3) the charge imposed by the testator upon the heir.
A "mode" imposes an obligation upon the heir or
legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights
to the succession.
On the other hand, in a conditional testamentary
disposition, the condition must happen or be fulfilled
in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the
testator. The condition suspends but does not
obligate; and the mode obligates but does not
suspend. To some extent, it is similar to a resolutory
condition.
From the provisions of the Codicil litigated upon, it
can be gleaned unerringly that the testatrix intended
that subject property be inherited by Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla.
It is likewise clearly worded that the testatrix
imposed an obligation on the said instituted heir and
his successors-in-interest to deliver one hundred
piculs of sugar to the herein private respondent,
Marlena Coscolluela Belleza, during the lifetime of
the latter.
However, the testatrix did not make Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla's inheritance and the effectivity of his
institution as a devisee, dependent on the
performance of the said obligation.
It is clear, though, that should the obligation be not
complied with, the property shall be turned over to
the testatrix's near descendants.
[​IMPORTANT PART]
4
In the interpretation of Wills, when an uncertainty
arises on the face of the Will, as to the application
of any of its provisions, the testator's intention is to
be ascertained from the words of the Will, taking
into consideration the circumstances under which it
was made.​ Such construction as will sustain and
uphold the Will in all its parts must be adopted.

Subject Codicil provides that the instituted heir is

under obligation to deliver One Hundred (100) piculs
of sugar yearly to Marlena Belleza Coscuella. The
Codicil further provides that in the event that the
obligation to deliver the sugar is not respected,
Marlena Belleza Coscuella shall seize the property
and turn it over to the testatrix's near descendants.
The non-performance of the said obligation is thus
with the sanction of seizure of the property and
reversion thereof to the testatrix's near
descendants.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV-35555
AFFIRMED

5
54. PASCUAL v. DELA CRUZ ET. AL
GR No. L-24819
Date: 30 May 1969
Ponente: REYES, J.B.L, ​Acting C.J:
Digest Author: Vener Margallo
Topic in the Syllabus:
Testamentary Succession: Subscribing witness best
qualified to testify on due execution of will
Relevant Law:
Doctrine:
Where a will is contested, the subscribing witnesses
are generally regarded as the best qualified to testify
on its due execution. However, it is similarly
recognized that for the testimony of such witnesses
to be entitled to full credit, it must be reasonable
and unbiased, and not overcome by competent
evidence, direct or circumstantial.
Decedent: Catalina de la Cruz
Will: Yes, but not included in the case.
Parties:
FACTS:
● Catalina de la Cruz, single and without an
surviving descendant or ascendant, died at the
age of 89 in her residence.
● A petition for the probate of her alleged will
was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
by Andres Pascual, who was named in the said
will as executor and sole heir of the decedent.
● Opposing the petition, Pedro de la Cruz and 26
other nephews and nieces of the late Catalina
de la Cruz contested the validity of the will on
the ground that the signature of the testatrix
was obtained through fraud.
● The probate court rendered judgment
upholding the due execution of the will, and, as
therein provided appointed petitioner Andres
Pascual executor and administrator of the
estate of the late Catalina de la Cruz without
bond.
● Hence, the oppositors appealed directly to the
Supreme Court.
● Regarding the alleged contradictions and
inconsistencies in the testimony of the three
attesting witnesses and of the Notary Public, it
is understandable and reasonable to expect
that, after a lapse of eight years, said witnesses
will not retain a vivid picture of the details
surrounding the execution and signing of the
will of Catalina de la Cruz.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Andres Pascual, an Attorney and the
nephew of the deceased, procured the will of the
deceased with due execution? YES.
RULING:
Where a will is contested, the subscribing witnesses
are generally regarded as the best qualified to
testify on its due execution.
However, it is similarly recognized that for the
testimony of such witnesses to be entitled to full
credit, it must be reasonable and unbiased, and not
overcome by competent evidence, direct or
circumstantial.
We agree with the trial judge that the contradictions
and inconsistencies appearing in the testimonies of
the witnesses and the notary, pointed out by the
oppositors-appellants
● (such as the weather condition at the time the
will was executed;
● the sequence of the signing by the witnesses;
and
● the length of time it took to complete the act),
relate to unimportant details or to impressions of
the witnesses about certain details which could have
been affected by the lapse of time and the treachery
of human memory, would not alter the probative
value of their testimonies on the due execution of
the will.
Neither do we believe that the fact that the
witnesses were better known to proponent Andres
Pascual than to the testatrix suffices to render their
testimony suspect.
Under the circumstances, considering the admitted
fact that when the will was executed (1954) the
testatrix was already 83 years old, suffering from
rheumatism. However, the evidence is that she did
read it before signing.
Undue pressure and influence to be sufficient to
avoid a will, the influence exerted must be of a kind
that so overpowers and subjugates the mind of the
testator as to destroy his free agency and make him
express the will of another rather than his own.
The circumstances marshalled by the contestants
certainly fail to establish actual undue influence or
improper pressure exercised on the testatrix by the
proponent.
6
It was proponent, and not the testatrix, who asked
Dr. Sanchez to be one of the instrumental witnesses
evidence of such undue influence, for the reason
that the rheumatism of the testatrix made it difficult
for her to look for all the witnesses.

That she did not resort to relatives or friends is,

likewise, explainable: it would have meant the
disclosure of the terms of her will to those
interested in her succession but who were not
favored by her, thereby exposing her to unpleasant
importunity and recriminations that an aged person
would naturally seek to avoid.

Appellants invoke a presumption of undue influence

held to exist by American authorities where the
beneficiary participates in the drafting or execution
of the will favoring him; but since the will was
prepared by Atty. Pascual, although a nephew of the
proponent, we do not think the presumption
applies; for in the normal course of events, said
attorney would follow the instructions of the
testatrix.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the decree of probate appealed from is
affirmed.

7
55. BELLIS v. BELLIS
GR. No.​ L-23678
Date:​ 6 June 1967
Ponente:​ BENGZON, J.P., J.
Digest Author: Vener Margallo
Topic:​ Testamentary Succession:
Law applicable with reference to the intestate and
testamentary succession of an alien
Relevant Law: ​Article 16 and Article 1039 of the Civil
Code
Doctrine:
A provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his
properties shall be distributed in accordance with
Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal
and void for his national law cannot be ignored in
regard to those matters that Article 10 — now
Article 16 — of the Civil Code states said national law
should govern.
Decedent: Amos G. Bellis
Will: Yes.
The distributable estate should be divided, in trust,
in the following order and manner:
(a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen;
(b) P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children,
Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, and Miriam
Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each and
(c) after the foregoing two items have been satisfied,
the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children
by his first and second wives in equal shares.
Parties:
FACTS:
● Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of
the State of Texas and of the United States."
● By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he
divorced, he had five legitimate children:
○ Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (who
pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A.
Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis
Allsman;
● His second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived
him, he had three legitimate children:
○ Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy
Bellis
● He had three illegitimate children:
○ Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and
Miriam Palma Bellis.
● Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines,
in which he directed that his distributable estate
should be divided, in trust, in the following
order and manner:
(a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen;
(b) P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate
children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis,
and Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each
and
(c) after the foregoing two items have been
satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven
surviving children by his first and second wives
in equal shares.
● Amos G. Bellis died a resident in San Antonio
Texas, USA.
● His will was admitted to probate in the Court of
First Instance of Manila.
● The People's Bank and Trust Company, as
executor of the will, paid all the bequests
therein.
● Preparatory to closing its administration, the
executor submitted and filed its "Executor's
Final Account, Report of Administration and
Project of Partition" wherein it reported the
satisfaction of the legacies.
● In the project of partition, the executor —
pursuant to the "Twelfth" clause of the
testator's Last Will and Testament — divided the
residuary estate into seven equal portions for
the benefit of the testator's seven legitimate
children by his first and second marriages.
● Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis
filed their respective oppositions to the project
of partition on the ground that they were
deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate
children.
● Lower Court overruled oppositions and
approved the executor’s partition. Hence,
oppositors-appellants appealed directly to the
SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Texas law or Philippine law applies
to the testamentary will of the deceased alien?
8
Texas Law Applies. G. Bellis.

RULING: DISPOSITIVE PORTION

Wherefore, the order of the probate court is hereby
The Court discussed about the Doctrine of Renvoi affirmed in toto.
where it is usually pertinent where the descendent is
a resident of one country and a domicile of another.

In the present case, it is not disputed that the

decedent was both a national of Texas and a
domicile thereof at the time of his death.

If Texas has a conflict of law rule adopting the situs

theory (lex rei sitae) calling for the application of the
law of the place where the properties are situated,
renvoi would arise, since the properties here
involved are found in the Philippines.

In the absence, however, of proof as to the conflict

of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed
different from ours. Appellants' position is therefore
not rested on the doctrine of renvoi.

Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code,

render applicable the national law of the decedent,
in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard
to four items:
(a) the order of succession;
(b) the amount of successional rights;
(c) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will;
and
(d) the capacity to succeed.

"Art 16. Real property as well as personal property is

subject to the law of the country where it is situated.

"However", intestate and testamentary successions,

both with respect to the order of succession and to
the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions, shall be
regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be
the nature of the property and regardless of the
country wherein said property may be found."

"Art. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the

law of the nation of the decedent."

A provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his

properties shall be distributed in accordance with
Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal
and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in
regard to those matters that Article 10 — now
Article 16 — of the Civil Code states said national law
should govern.

Since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will

and the amount of successional rights are to be
determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on
legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos
9
56. CRUZ v. VILLASOR
GR No. [L-32213]
Date ​[November 26, 1973]
Ponente: [​ESGUERRA, ​J.​]
Digest Author: [Gertrude Arquillo]
Topic in the Syllabus:​Testamentary Succession
Relevant Law: ​ART. 806.Every will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
and the witnesses​. The notary public shall not be
required to retain a copy of the will or file another
with the office of the Clerk of Court.
Doctrine: ​But these authorities do not serve the
purpose of the law in this jurisdiction or are not
decisive of the issue herein because the ​notaries
public and witnesses referred to aforecited cases
merely acted as instrumental, subscribing attesting
witnesses, and not as ​acknowledging​ witnesses.
Decedent: ​ Valente Z. Cruz.
Will: ​There is a will but it is not quoted in the decision
Parties:
Petitioner: Agapita N. Cruz, surviving spouse of
deceased
Respondent: Manuel B. Lugay, executor of the will
FACTS:
● CFI Cebu:​ allowed the probate of the last will
and testament of the late Valente Z. Cruz.
● Petition to review on ​certiorari
○ Petitioner opposed allowance of the will
○ will was executed through fraud, deceit,
misrepresentation and undue influence;
○ executed without the testator having been
fully informed of the content
○ particularly as to what properties he was
disposing
○ not executed in accordance with law.
Notwithstanding her objection, the Court
allowed the probate of the said last will
and testament
ISSUES:
WON the supposed last will and testament of Cruz
was executed in accordance with Art. 805 and 806
[YES/NO]
RULING:
● Art. 805 of the new Civil Code
○ requiring at least three credible witnesses
to attest and subscribe to the will
● Art. 806 of the new Civil Code
○ requiring the testator and the witnesses to
acknowledge the will
○ before a notary public.
● Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto,
○ Deogracias T. Jamaloas Jr.,
○ Dr. Francisco Pañares and
○ Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr.,
● one of them, Atty. Teves, is at the same time
the Notary Public before whom the will was
supposed to have been acknowledged
Petitioner’s Argument: ​As the third witness is the
notary public himself, only two witnesses appeared
before the notary public to acknowledge the will.
Respondent’s Arguments:
● there is substantial compliance with legal
requirement of three attesting witnesses
● American Jurisprudence:
● It is said that there are, practical reasons for
upholding a will as against the purely technical
reason that one of the witnesses required by
law signed as certifying to an acknowledgment
of the testator's signature under oath rather
than as attesting the execution of the
instrument.
SC:​ last will and testament was not executed in
accordance with law.
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; to own as
genuine, to assent, to admit; and "before" means in
front or preceding in space or ahead of. (Webster
Encyclopedic Dictionary)
if the third witness were the notary public himself,
he would have to avow assent, or admit his having
signed the will in front of himself.
This cannot be done because he cannot split his
personality into two so that one will appear before
the other to acknowledge his participation in the
making of the will. (sheer absurdity)
the function of a notary public is, among others, to
guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement
Which would be defeated if the notary public were
one of the attesting instrumental witnesses.
he is interested sustaining its validity as it directly
involves him and the validity of his own act.
the very purpose of acknowledgment, which is to
minimize fraud would be thwarted.
Admittedly, there are American precedents holding
that notary public may, in addition, act as a witness
to the executive of the document he has notarized.
There are others holding that his signing merely as
notary in a will makes him a witness thereon
10
But these authorities do not serve the purpose of
the law in this jurisdiction or are not decisive of the
issue herein because the ​notaries public and
witnesses referred to aforecited cases merely acted
as instrumental, subscribing attesting witnesses, and
not as ​acknowledging​ witnesses.

The notary public acted not only as attesting witness

but also acknowledging witness, a situation not
envisaged by Article 805

To allow notary public to act as third witness, or one

attesting and acknowledging witnesses, would have
the effect of having only 2 attesting witnesses in
contravention of Art 805 and Art 806

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: ​FOR ALL THE FOREGOING,

the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and
the probate of the last will and testament of Valente
Z. Cruz (Exhibit "E") is declared not valid and hereby
set aside. Cost against the appellee.

11
57. GARCIA v. GATCHALIAN
GR No. 20357
Date: November 25, 1967
Ponente: Dizon, J.
Digest Author: Charry
Topic in the Syllabus:
Testamentary Succession
Relevant Law:
Article 806:
Every will must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary
public shall not be required to retain a copy of the
will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of
Court.
Doctrine:
A will must be acknowledged before a notary public
by the testator and also by the witnesses in order to
be valid.
Decedent: Gregorio Gatchalian
Will: ​YES
Parties:
FACTS:
This case is super short. I don’t think it needs to be
shortened :)
This is an appeal taken by Pedro Reyes Garcia from
the decision of the CFI of Rizal denying the allowance
of the will of the late Gregorio Gatchalian, on the
ground that the attesting witnesses did not
acknowledge it before a notary public, as required
by law.
On March 15, 1967, Gregorio Gatchalian, a widower
of 71 years of age, died in the municipality of Pasig,
Province of Rizal, leaving no forced heirs.
On April 2 of the same year, appellant filed a petition
with the above named court for the probate of said
alleged will (Exhibit "C") wherein he was instituted as
sole heir.
Felipe Gatchalian, Aurora G. Camins, Angeles G.
Cosca, Federico G. Tubog, Virginia G. Talanay and
Angeles G. Talanay, appellees herein, opposed the
petition on the ground, among others,
● that the will was procured by fraud;
● that the deceased did not intend the
instrument signed by him to be as his will;
and
● that the deceased was physically and
mentally incapable of making a will at the
time of the alleged execution of said will.
After due trial, the court rendered the appealed
decision finding the document Exhibit "C" to be the
authentic last will of the deceased but disallowing it
for failure to comply with the mandatory
requirement of Article 806 of the New Civil Code —
that the will must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witnesses.
An examination of the document (Exhibit "C") shows
that the same was acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator but not by the instrumental
witnesses.
ISSUES:
WON a will must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and also by the witnesses in
order to be valid.
YES
RULING:
Article 806 of the New Civil Code reads as follows:
“Every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the
witnesses. The notary public shall not be
required to retain a copy of the will, or file
another with the office of the Clerk of
Court.”
We have held heretofore that compliance with the
requirement contained in the above legal provision
to the effect that a will must be acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and also by
the witnesses is indispensable for its validity (In re:
Testate Estate of Alberto, G. R. No. L-11948, April 29,
1959).
As the document under consideration does not
comply with this requirement, it is obvious that the
same may not be probated.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed,
with costs.
12
58. NEYRA vs. NEYRA
C.A. No. 8075
Date: ​March 25, 1946
Ponente: De Joya, J.
Digest Author: Biag
Topic in the Syllabus:
Testamentary Succession
Doctrine:
Where the mind of testator is in perfectly sound
condition, neither old age, nor ill health, nor the fact
that he might sign, is sufficient to invalidate his will.
Insomnia, in spite of the testimony of two doctors,
who testified for the opponents to the probate of a
will, to the effect that it tended to destroy mental
capacity, was held not to affect the full possession of
the mental faculties deemed necessary and
sufficient for its execution.
Where it appears that a few hours and also a​ few
days​ after the execution of the will, the testator
intelligently and intelligibly conversed with other
persons, although lying down and unable to move or
stand up unassisted, but could still effect the sale of
property belonging to him, these circumstances
show that the testator was in a perfectly sound
mental condition at the time of the execution of the
will.
Decedent: Encarnacion Neyra
Will: ​With will. But the object in question here is not
the will but the compromise or agreement.
***In the condition that the property involved
therein should be given exclusively to Trinidad Neyra,
that the latter should waive her share in the rents of
said property collected by Encarnacion, and that
Trinidad had no more indebtedness to Encarnacion.
They also agreed to send for Atty. Alejandro M.
Panis, to prepare the necessary document
embodying the said agreement;
That Attorney Panis prepared said document of
compromise as well as the new will and testament,
naming Trinidad Neyra and Eustaquio Mendoza as
beneficiaries therein, pursuant to Encarnacion's
express instructions, and the two documents were
prepared, in duplicate, and were ready for signature,
since the morning of November 3, 1942;
Parties:
Petitioners:
Encarnacion Neyra (deceased)
Atty. Lucio Javillonar (represented Encarnacion)
Teodora Neyra (half-blood sister of encarnacion and
trinidad)
Other relatives who are interested parties
Respondent:
Trinidad Neyra (full blood sister of encarnacion)
FACTS:
● Severo Neyra died intestate in the City of
Manila, on May 6, 1938, leaving certain
properties and
○ two children, by his first marriage, named
Encarnacion Neyra and Trinidad Neyra, and
○ other children by his second marriage.
● After the death of Severo Neyra, the two sisters,
Encarnacion Neyra and Trinidad Neyra, had
serious misunderstandings, in connection with
the properties left by their deceased father,
○ so serious that, after March 31, 1939, they
had two litigations in the Court of First
Instance of Manila, concerning said
properties.
○ In the first case, filed on March 31, 1939,
Trinidad Neyra and others demanded from
Encarnacion Neyra and others the
annulment of the sale of the property
located at No. 366 Raon Street, Manila,
which was finally decided in favor of the
defendants, in the court of first instance,
and in the Court of Appeals, on December
21, 1943 (G. R. No. 8162); and
○ the second is the instant case.
● In the meanwhile, Encarnacion Neyra had
become seriously ill, suffering from Addison's
disease, and on October 31, 1942, she sent for
her religious adviser and confessor, Mons.
Vicente Fernandez of the Quiapo Church to
make confession.
● After the mass, Father Garcia talked to
Encarnacion Neyra and advised reconciliation
between the two sisters, Encarnacion and
Trinidad Neyra.
○ Encarnacion accepted said advise and,
○ at about noon of the same day (November
1, 1942), that the two sisters greeted each
other on a most affectionate manner, and
became reconciled and the two had a long
and cordial conversation, in the course of
which they also talked about the properties
left by their father and their litigations they
agreed to have it dismissed.
● They agreed under the condition mentioned
above (***)
● They also agreed to send for Atty. Alejandro M.
Panis, to prepare the necessary document
embodying the said agreement.
● Attorney Panis could come only in the afternoon
of the following day, November 2, 1942, when
Encarnacion gave him instructions for the
preparation of the document embodying their
agreement and other instructions for the
preparation of her last will and testament.
13

● That Attorney Panis prepared
○ said document of compromise
○ as well as the new will and testament,
naming Trinidad Neyra and Eustaquio
Mendoza as beneficiaries therein, pursuant
to Encarnacion's express instructions,
and the two documents were prepared, in
duplicate, and were ready for signature, since
the morning of November 3, 1942;
● In the afternoon, Attorney Panis read said
document of compromise and last will and
testament to Encarnacion Neyra,
○ slowly and in a loud voice,
○ in the presence of Father Teodoro Garcia,
Dr. Moises B. Abad, Dr. Eladio Aldecoa,
Trinidad Neyra, and others,
○ after which he asked her if their terms were
in accordance with her wishes, or if she
wanted any change made in said
documents;
● Encarnacion Neyra did not suggest any change,
and
○ asked for the pad and the two documents,
and,
○ with the help of a son of Trinidad, placed
her thumb mark at the foot of each one of
the two documents, in duplicate, on her
bed in the ​sala,​
○ in the presence of the attesting witnesses,
Dr. Moises B. Abad, Dr. Eladio R. Aldecoa
and Atty. Alejandro M. Panis,
● Said witnesses signed at the foot of the will, in
the presence of Encarnacion Neyra, and of each
other.
● The agreement was also signed by Trinidad
Neyra, as party, and by Dr. M. B. Abad and
Eustaquio Mendoza, a protege, as witnesses.
● Father Teodoro Garcia was also present at the
signing of the two documents, at the request of
Encarnacion Neyra.
● The foregoing facts have been established by
the witnesses presented by Trinidad Neyra, who
are all trustworthy men, and who had absolutely
no interest in the final outcome of this case.
○ Two of them are ministers of the Gospel,
while three of the attesting witnesses are
professional men of irreproachable
character, who had known and seen and
actually talked to the testatrix.
● Petitioner Teodora Neyra, half sister of
Encarnacion, and her​ young​ daughter Ceferina
de la Cruz, and Presentacion Blanco, daughter of
petitioner Maria Jacobo Vda. de Blanco,
substantially corroborated the testimony of the
witnesses presented by Trinidad Neyra, with
reference to the signing of documents, in the
bedroom of Encarnacion Neyra, in the afternoon
of November 3, 1942.
● Teodora Neyra, Presentacion Blanco and
Ceferina de la Cruz testified, however, that
when the thumb mark of Encarnacion Neyra
was affixed to the agreement in question, dated
November 3, 1942,
○ she was sleeping on her bed in the ​sala;​ and
○ that the attesting witnesses were not
present, as they were in the ​caida.​
○ That the contention of the petitioners is
that the attesting witnesses were not
present, at the time E. N. thumbmarked the
agreement and will in question.
○ Also claiming that the alleged compromise
or agreement, dated November 3, 1942,
could not have been understood by
Encarnacion Neyra,
■ as she was already then at the
threshold of death, and
■ that as a matter of fact she died the
following day; and
■ that if it had been signed at all by said
Encarnacion Neyra, her thumb mark
appearing on said document must have
been affixed thereto by Trinidad
Neyra's attorney, against Encarnacion's
will.
ISSUES:
Whether or not said compromise or agreement had
been legally executed and signed by Encarnacion
Neyra, on November 3, 1942. YES.
RULING:
Encarnacion Neyra was of sound mind and
possessed the necessary testamentary and mental
capacity, at the time of the execution of the
agreement and will, dated November 3, 1942.
According to medical authorities, persons suffering
from Addison's disease often live as long as ten (10)
years, while others die after a few weeks only, and
that as the disease progresses, asthenia sets in, and
from 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the patients
develop tuberculosis, and complications of the heart
also appear. (Cecil, Textbook of Medicine, 3d ed.,
1935, pp. 1250-1253; McCrae, Osler's Modern
Medicine, 3d ed., Vol. V, pp. 272-279.)
And it has been conclusively shown that Encarnacion
Neyra died on November 4, 1942, due to a heart
attack, at the age of 48, after an illness of about two
(2) years.
Presentacion Blanco, in the course of her
cross-examination, frankly admitted that, in the
morning and also at about 6 o'clock in the afternoon
of November 3, 1942, Encarnacion Neyra talked to
her and that they understood each other clearly,
thus showing that the testatrix was really of sound
14
mind, at the time of signing and execution of the section 17 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, is hereby
agreement and will in question. denied;​ and the decision of the Court of Appeals for
Manila, dated November 10, 1942, dismissing the
It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that the appeal, is ​hereby re-affirmed​, without costs. So
mental faculties of persons suffering from Addison's ordered.
disease, like the testatrix in this case, remain
unimpaired, partly due to the fact that, on account
of the sleep they enjoy, they necessarily receive the
benefit of physical and mental rest. And that like
patients suffering from tuberculosis, insomnia or
diabetes, they preserve their mental faculties until
the moments of their death.

The contention that the attesting witnesses were

not present, at the time Encarnacion Neyra thumb
marked the agreement and will in question, on her
bed, in the ​sala o ​ f the house, as they were allegedly
in the ​caida,​ is untenable.

It has been fully shown that said witnesses were

present, at the time of the signing and execution of
the agreement and will in question, in the ​sala​,
where testatrix was lying on her bed.

The true test is not whether they actually saw each

other, at the time of the signing of the documents,
but whether they might have seen each other sign,
had they chosen to do so; and the attesting
witnesses actually saw it all in this case. (Jaboneta ​vs​.
Gustilo, 5 Phil., 541.)
And the thumbmark placed by testatrix on the
agreement and will in question is equivalent to her
signature. (Yap Tua ​vs.​ Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu,
27 Phil., 579.)

Furthermore, the testimony of Teodora Neyra and

her witnesses, to the effect that there could have
been no reconciliation between the two sisters, and
that the thumbmark of Encarnacion Neyra was
affixed to the document embodying the agreement,
while she was sleeping, on November 3, 1942, in
their presence; and that her thumbmark was affixed
to the will in question, when she was already dead,
in the morning of November 4, 1942, within their
view, is absolutely devoid of any semblance of truth.
Said testimony is contrary to common sense. It
violates all sense of proportion.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
It having been shown that the said compromise or
agreement had been legally signed and executed by
Encarnacion Neyra on November 3, 1942, in the
presence of credible and trustworthy witnesses, and
that she was ​compos mentis​ and possessed the
necessary testamentary and mental capacity at the
time; the petition for reconsideration filed by Atty.
Lucio Javillonar, on November 23, 1942, on behalf of
a client, Encarnacion Neyra, who had been dead
since November 4, 1942, and some relatives, who
have appeared, in accordance with the provisions of
15
59. ORTEGA vs. VALMONTE
478 SCRA 247
Date: 2005
Ponente:Panganiban, J.
Digest Author: de Vera
Topic in the Syllabus:
Relevant Law:
Article 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the
following cases:
(1) If the formalities required by law have not
been complied with;
(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise
mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its
execution;
(3) If it was executed through force or under
duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(4) If it was procured by undue and improper
pressure and influence, on the part of the
beneficiary or of some other person;
(5) If the signature of the testator was procured
by fraud;
(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not
intend that the instrument he signed should be his
will at the time of affixing his signature thereto.
Doctrine: ​ The law favours the probate of a will.
Upon those who oppose it rests the burden of
showing why it should not be allowed.
Decedent: Placido Valmonte
Will: Yes
The first page contains the entire testamentary
dispositions and a part of the attestation clause,
and was signed at the end or bottom of that page
by the testator and on the left hand margin by the
three instrumental witnesses.
The second page contains the continuation of the
attestation clause and the acknowledgment, and
was signed by the witnesses at the end of the
attestation clause and again on the left hand
margin. It provides in the body that:
LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF PLACIDO VALMONTE
IN THE NAME OF THE LORD AMEN:
I, PLACIDO VALMONTE, of legal age, married to
Josefina Cabansag Valmonte, and a resident of 9200
Catmon Street, Makati, Metro Manila, 83 years of
age and being of sound and disposing mind and
memory, do hereby declare this to be my last will
and testament:
1. It is my will that I be buried in the Catholic
Cemetery, under the auspices of the Catholic Church
in accordance with the rites and said Church and
that a suitable monument to be erected and
provided my by executrix (wife) to perpetuate my
memory in the minds of my family and friends;
2. I give, devise and bequeath unto my loving
wife, JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE, one half (1/2) portion
of the follow-described properties, which belongs to
me as [co-owner]:
a. Lot 4-A, Block 13 described on plan Psd-28575,
LRC, (GLRO), situated in Makati, Metro Manila,
described and covered by TCT No. 123468 of the
Register of Deeds of Pasig, Metro-Manila registered
jointly as co-owners with my deceased sister (Ciriaca
Valmonte), having share and share alike;
b. 2-storey building standing on the
above-described property, made of strong and
mixed materials used as my residence and my wife
and located at No. 9200 Catmon Street, Makati,
Metro Manila also covered by Tax Declaration No.
A-025-00482, Makati, Metro-Manila, jointly in the
name of my deceased sister, Ciriaca Valmonte and
myself as co-owners, share and share alike or equal
co-owners thereof;
3. All the rest, residue and remainder of my real
and personal properties, including my savings
account bank book in USA which is in the possession
of my nephew, and all others whatsoever and
wherever found, I give, devise and bequeath to my
said wife, Josefina C. Valmonte;
4. I hereby appoint my wife, Josefina C. Valmonte
as sole executrix of my last will and testament, and it
is my will that said executrix be exempt from filing a
bond. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand this 15​th​ day of June 1983 in Quezon City,
Philippines.
FACTS:
● Placido toiled and lived for a long time in the
United States.
● When he reached retirement, Placido came
home to the Philippines and lived in the house
in San Antonio village which he owned in
common with his sister Ciriaca Valmonte
● 2 years after he arrived from the US, he married
Josefina, 28 yrs old
● Within 2 years of married bliss, Placido died
because of cor pulmonale
● Placido executed a notarial last will and
testament written in English
○ Consisting of 2 pages
○ Dated June 15, 1983
○ Acknowledged only on August 9, 1983
● The will was allowed to probate and Josefina
was appointed as executrix.
● This was opposed by Leticia Ortega on the
grounds that:
○ Josefina failed to allege all assets of the
testator, especially those found in the USA
16
 ○ Josefina failed to state the names, ages,
and residences of the heirs of the testator,
or to give them proper notice pursuant to
law.
○ Will was not executed and attested as
required by law and legal solemnities and
formalities were not complied with
○ Testator was mentally incapable to make a
will at the time of the alleged execution
being in an advanced state of senility
○ Will was executed under duress or the
influence of fear or threats
○ Will was procurred by undue and improper
influence and pressure on the part of the
petitioner and/or her agents and/or
assistants and/or
○ Signature of testator was procured by
fraud or trick and that he did not intend
that the instrument should be his will at
the time of affixing his signature thereto
the will only upon a showing of credible
evidence of fraud.
● Omission of some relatives does not affect
the due execution of a will.
● Moreover, the conflict between the dates
appearing on the will does not invalidate
the document, “because the law does not
even require that a notarial will be executed
and acknowledged on the same occasion.
The variance in the dates of the will as to its
supposed execution​ and attestation was
satisfactorily and persuasively explained
by the notary public and instrumental
witnesses.

ISSUES:

1. WON Placido has testamentary capacity at the

time he allegedly executed the will.

2. WON the signature of Placido in the will was

procured by fraud or trickery.

HELD:

1. YES.
Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify
accurately the kinds of property he owned, the
extent of his shares in them and even their location.
As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was
sufficient that he identified his wife as sole
beneficiary. The omission of some relatives from the
will did not affect its formal validity. There being no
showing of fraud in its execution, intent in its
disposition becomes irrelevant.

2. NO​.
● Fraud is a trick, secret devise, false
statement, or pretense, by which the
subject of it is cheated. It may be of such
character that the testator is misled or
deceived as to the nature or contents of the
document which he executes, or it may
relate to some extrinsic fact, in
consequence of the deception regarding
which the testator is led to make a certain
will which, but for fraud, he would not have
made.
● The party challenging the will bears the
burden of proving the existence of fraud at
the time of its execution. The burden to
show otherwise shifts to the proponent of

17
60. GARCIA V. VASQUEZ
GR No. ​L-26615
Date ​April 30, 1970
Ponente: ​REYES, J.B.L., J
Digest Author: ​[​Dimlove​]
Topic in the Syllabus:
[insert text]
Relevant Law:
RT. 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read
to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing
witnesses, and again, by the notary public before
whom the will is acknowledged
Doctrine:
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the
will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of
reading the will himself is to make the provisions
thereof known to him, so that he may be able to
object if they are not in accordance with his wishes.
Decedent: ​Gliceria A. del Rosario
Will: Two wills (but not specifically discussed so
nothing to paste) 1956 (valid) 1960 (void)
Parties:
Note: It will be too confusing to put in a table, due to
the fact that she died without really any ascendants
or descendants. Just remember that the petitioner is
the NIECE THE DESCEDENT, and respondents are
some fifth degree relatives, and the main petitioner
is GARCIA IS A LEGATEE IN THE EARLIER (AND VALID)
WILL.
FACTS:
This is a petition for appeal from the CFI of Manila
admitting to probate the will of Gliceria Avelino del
Rosario (“Gliceria”) executed in 1960. Likewise, this
is also an appeal to remove the current
administrator, Consuelo
Gonzales-Precilla(“Consuelo”) as special
administratrix of the estate on the ground of
Consuelo possesses interest adverse to the estate
and to order the register of deeds of Manila to
annotate on the registered lands a notice of Lis
Pendens.
When Gliceria died she had no descendants,
ascendants, brothers or sisters and 90 yrs old. After
which, her niece, Consuelo petitioned the court to
be the administratrix of the properties. The court
approved this because Consuelo has been was
already managing the properties of the deceased
during her lifetime. It was their claim that the
special administratrix and her deceased husband,
Alfonso Precilla, had caused Gliceria A. del Rosario
to execute a simulated and fraudulent deed of
absolute sale dated 10 January 1961 allegedly
conveying unto said spouses for the paltry sum of
P30,000.00 ownership of 3 parcels of land and the
improvements thereon located in Quiapo and San
Nicolas, Manila, with a total assessed value of
P334,050.00.
Oppositors contended that since it is the duty of
the administrator to protect and conserve the
properties of the estate, and it may become
necessary that an action for the annulment of the
deed of sale and for recovery of the
aforementioned parcels of land be filed against the
special administratrix, as wife and heir of Alfonso
Precilla, the removal of the said administratrix was
imperative.
In addition, the oppositors presented evidence that
Consuelo asked the court to issue new Certificates of
Titles to certain parcels of land for the purpose of
preparing the inventory to be used in the probate.
Also shown was that NEW TCTs were issued by the
RD for certain lands of the deceased after Consuelo
asked for the old TCTs.
At the end of the probate proceedings, the court
ruled that Consuelo should be made the
administrator, and that the will was duly executed
because of these reasons: NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN
PRESENTED to establish that the deceased was not
of sound mind, that even tough the allegations state
that the deceased prepared another will in 1956
(12pages), the latter is not prevented from executing
another will in 1960 (1page), and that
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses
prove their truthfulness.
From this order all the oppositors appealed, the case
being docketed in this Court as G. R. No. L-27200.
The records of the probate proceeding fully establish
the fact that the testatrix, Gliceria A. del Rosario,
during her lifetime, executed two wills: one on 9
June 1956 consisting of 12 pages and written in
Spanish, a language that she knew and spoke,
witnessed by Messrs. Antonio Cabrera, Jesus Y. Ayala
and Valentin Marquez, and acknowledged before
notary public Jose Ayala; and another, dated 29
December 1960, consisting of 1 page and written in
Tagalog, witnessed by Messrs. Vicente Rosales,
Francisco Decena, and Francisco Lopez and
acknowledged before notary public Remigio M.
Tividad.
MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LESSON
The oppositors-appellants in the present case,
challenging the correctness of the probate court's
ruling, maintain that on 29 December 1960 the
eyesight of Gliceria del Rosario was so poor and
defective that she could not have read the provisions
of the will, contrary to the testi​monies of witnesses
Decena, Lopez and Rosales.
18

On this point, we find the declarations in court of Dr.
Jesus V. Tamesis very material and illuminating. Said
opthalmologist, whose expertise was admitted by
both parties, testified, among other things, that
when Doña Gliceria del Rosario saw him for
consultation on 11 March 1960 he found her left eye
to have cataract (opaque lens),[15] and that it was
"above normal in pressure", denoting a possible
glaucoma, a disease that leads to blindness.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Petitioner’s alleged will
is valid
RULING:
Held: NO. The condition of her eyesight in August,
1960, and there is no evidence that it had improved
by 29 December 1960, Gliceria del Rosario was
in​capable of reading, and could not have read the
provisions of the will supposedly signed by her on 29
December 1960. It is worth noting that the
instrumental witnesses stated that she read the
instrument "silently” which is a conclusion and not a
fact.
Upon its face, the testamentary provisions, the
attestation clause and acknowledgment were
crammed together into a single sheet of paper, so
much so that the words had to be written very close
to the top, bottom and two sides of the paper;
leaving no margin whatsoever; the word "and" had
to be written by the symbol "&", apparently to save
on space. Plainly, the testament was not prepared
with any regard for the defective vision of Doña
Gliceria.
It is difficult to understand that so important a
document containing the final disposition of one’s
worldly possessions should be embodied in an
informal and untidy written instrument; or that the
glaring spelling errors should have escaped her
notice if she had actually retained the ability to read
the purported will and had done so.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the
will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of
reading the will himself is to make the provisions
thereof known to him, so that he may be able to
object if they are not in accordance with his wishes.
There is also no evidence that the 1960 will satisfied
the requisites of Art. 808 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines that "if the testator is blind, the will shall
be read to him twice," have not been complied with,
the said 1960 will suffer from infirmity that affects
its due execution.
Considering that the alleged deed of sale was
executed when Gliceria del Rosario was already
practically blind and that the consideration given
seems unconscionably small for the properties, there
was likelihood that a case for annulment might be
filed against the estate or heirs of Alfonso Precilla.
And the administratrix being the widow and heir of
the alleged transferee, cannot be expected to sue
herself in an action to recover property that may
turn out to belong to the estate.
This, plus her conduct in securing new copies of the
owner’s duplicate of titles without the court’s
knowledge and authority and having the contract
bind the land through issuance of new titles in her
husband’s name, cannot but expose her to the
charge of unfitness or unsuitability to discharge the
trust, justifying her removal from the administration
of the estate.
We also find merit in the complaint of oppositors
Lucio V. Garcia, Et Al., against the denial by the
probate court of their petition for the removal of
Consuelo Gonzales Vda. de Precilla as special
administratrix of the estate of the deceased Doña
Gliceria (Petition, G.R. No. L-26615, Annex "B").
PROCEDURAL
The oppositors’ petition was based allegedly on the
existence in the special administratrix of an interest
adverse to that of the estate.
It was their contention that through fraud her
husband had caused the deceased Gliceria del
Rosario to execute a deed of sale, dated 10 January
1961, by virtue of which the latter purportedly
conveyed unto said Alfonso D. Precilla, married to
Consuelo Gonzales y Narciso, the ownership of 3
parcels of land and the improvements thereon,
assessed at P334,050.00, for the sum of P30,000.00.
The issue in controversy here is simply the fitness or
unfitness of said special administratrix to continue
holding the trust, it does not involve or affect at all
the title to, or possession of, the properties covered
by TCT Nos. 81735, 81736 and 81737. Clearly, the
pendency of such case (L-26615) is not an action that
can properly be annotated in the record of the titles
to the properties.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the order of the court below
allowing to probate the alleged 1960 will of Gliceria A. del Rosario
is hereby reversed and set aside. The petition in G.R. No. L-26615
being meritorious, the appealed order is set aside and the court
below is ordered to remove the administratrix, Consuelo Gonzales
Vda. de Precilla, and appoint one of the heirs intestate of the
deceased Doña Gliceria Avelino del Rosario as special
administrator for the purpose of instituting action on behalf of her
estate to recover the properties allegedly sold by her to the late
Alfonso D. Precilla. And in Case G.R. No. L-26864, petition is
dismissed. No costs.
19

61. In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and
Testament of the Deceased Brigido Alvarado,
CESAR ALVARADO 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
G.R. No. 74695
September 14, 1993
BELLOSILLO, ​J.
Digest Author: Dizon
RELEVANT LAW:​ Art. 808, NCC
DOCTRINE: ​see underlined texts
DECEDENT: ​Brigido Alvarado
WILL: ​Yes
FACTS:
This is an appeal from the Decision of the
Intermediate Appellate Court which affirmed the
Order of the Regional Trial Court admitting to
probate the last will and testament with codicil of
the late Brigido Alvarado.
On 5 November 1977, the 79-year old Brigido
Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled "Huling
Habilin" wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son
(petitioner) and expressly revoked a previously
executed holographic will at the time awaiting
probate.
3 instrumental witnesses, the notary public and the
respondent, who were present at the execution,
testified that the testator did not read the final draft
of the will himself.
Instead, respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the
8-paged document, read the same aloud in the
presence of the testator, the 3 instrumental
witnesses and the notary public.
The latter 4 followed the reading with their own
respective copies previously furnished them.
Meanwhile, Alvarado's holographic will was
subsequently admitted to probate on 9 December
1977.
Later that month, a codicil entitled "Kasulatan ng
Pagbabago sa Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa
Huling Habilin na may Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni
Brigido Alvarado" 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 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 death on by
private respondent as executor with the CFI.
Petitioner filed an Opposition alleging -
● that the will sought to be probated was not
executed and attested as required by law;
● that the testator was insane or mentally
incapacitated to make a will at the time of its
execution due to senility and old age;
● that the will was executed under duress, or
influence of fear and threats;
● that it was procured by undue and improper
pressure and influence on the part of the
beneficiary who stands to get the lion's share of
the testator's estate; and
● that the signature of the testator was procured
by fraud or trick.
Oppositor (petitioner) failed to substantiate the
grounds, thus, a Probate Order was issued from
which an appeal was made to respondent court.
The main contentions were -
● that the deceased was blind within the meaning
of the law at the time his will and the codicil
attached was executed; and
● that since the reading required by Art. 808 of
the Civil Code was admittedly not complied
with, probate of the deceased's last will and
codicil should have been denied.
CA:
● Alvarado was not blind at the time his last will
and codicil were executed;
● that assuming his blindness, the reading
requirement of Art. 808 was substantially
complied with when both documents were read
aloud to the testator with each of the 3
instrumental witnesses and the notary public
following the reading with their respective
copies of the instruments.
● Although Art. 808 was not followed to the letter,
there was substantial compliance since its
purpose of making known to the testator the
contents of the drafted will was served.
ISSUES:
20
1) Was Alvarado “blind” as per Art. 808 at the time
his will and its codicil were executed? (Yes)
2) If so, was the double-reading requirement of said
article complied with? (No)
RULING:
1) ​There is no dispute that Alvarado was not totally
blind at the time the will and codicil were executed.
However, his vision on both eyes was only of
"counting fingers at three feet" by reason of the
glaucoma which he had been suffering from for
several years and even prior to his first consultation
with an eye specialist on
14 December 1977.
Art. 808 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read
to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing
witnesses, and again, by the notary public before
whom the will is acknowledged​.
Petitioner contends that although his father was not
totally blind when the will and codicil were
executed, he can be so considered within the scope
of the term as it is used in Art. 808.
Petitioner presented before the trial court a medical
certificate issued by Dr. Salceda, Director of the
Institute of Opthalmology (Philippine Eye Research
Institute), the contents of which were interpreted in
layman's terms by Dr. Roasa, whose expertise was
admitted by respondent.
Dr. Roasa explained that although the testator could
visualize fingers at 3 feet, he could no longer read
either printed or handwritten matters as of 14
December 1977, the day of his first consultation.
CA: the testator could still read on the day the will
and the codicil were executed but chose not to do so
because of "poor eyesight." Since the testator was
still capable of reading at that time, the court
concluded that Art. 808 need not be complied with.
SC: agrees with petitioner – regardless of
respondent's 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 Alvarado did not do
so because of his "poor," "defective," or "blurred"
vision making it necessary for 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 wills." Since 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, the
Court concluded that Alvarado comes within the
scope of the term "blind". 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 with his instructions.
2)​ ​Art. 808 provides that in case of a blind testator,
the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of
the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary
public before whom the will is acknowledged.​
In this case, instead of the notary public and an
instrumental witness, it was the lawyer (respondent)
who drafted the will and codicil, who read the same
aloud to the testator, and read them only once, not
twice, as required by law.
Respondent insists that there was substantial
compliance and that the single reading suffices for
purposes of the law. On the other hand, petitioner
maintains that neither the notary public nor an
instrumental witness read the contents of the will
and codicil to Alvarado, probate of the latter's will
and codicil should have been disallowed.
The lawyer read the testator’s will and codicil aloud
in the presence of the testator, his 3 instrumental
witnesses, and the notary public.
Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed,
upon being asked, that the contents read
​ nly then did
corresponded with his instructions.​ O
the signing and acknowledgment take place.
There is no evidence that the contents of the will
and the codicil were not sufficiently made known
and communicated to the testator.
With 4 persons, mostly known to the testator,
following the reading word for word with their own
copies, it can be safely concluded that the testator
was reasonably assured that what was read to him
were the terms actually appearing on the
typewritten documents.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the
will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of
reading the will to himself (as when he is illiterate), is
to make the provisions thereof known to him, so
that he may be able to object if they are not in
accordance with his wishes.
Although there should be strict compliance with the
substantial requirements of law in order to insure
the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections
should be brushed aside when they do not affect its
purpose and which, when taken into account, may
only defeat the testator’s will.
21
The Court sustained respondent's stand, thus, the
petition was denied.

22
62. IN THE MATTER FOR THE PETITION FOR THE
PROBATE OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF
ENRIQUE LOPEZ V DIANA LOPEZ ET.AL
GR No. 189984
Date November 12, 2012
Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe J.
Digest Author: LAI
Topic:
Testamentary Succession
Relevant Law:
ART. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will,
must be subscribed at the end thereof by the
testator himself or by the testator's name written by
some other person in his presence, and by his
express direction, and attested and subscribed by
three or more credible witnesses in the presence of
the testator and of one another.
The testator or the person requested by him to write
his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will,
shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page
thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all
the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters
placed on the upper part of each page.
The attestation shall state the number of pages used
upon which the will is written, and the fact that the
testator signed the will and every page thereof, or
caused some other person to write his name, under
his express direction, in the presence of the
instrumental witnesses, and that the latter
witnessed and signed the will and all the pages
thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
another.
If the attestation clause is in a language not known
to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them.
ART. 809. In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or
fraud, or undue and improper pressure and
influence, defects and imperfections in the form of
attestation or in the language used therein shall not
render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was
in fact executed and attested in substantial
compliance with all the requirements of Article 805.
Parties:
PETITIONER: Richard Lopez – son / executor and
administrator
RESPONDENT: Diana Lopez and 3 others -daughters
FACTS:
● Before Enrique Lopez died, he executed a last
will on Aug 1996 and constituted Richard as
executor and administrator.
○ He left his wife Wendy Lopez, and their 4
legit children namely petitioner Richard and
Respondents Diana, Marybeth, and Victoria
as compulsory heirs.
● Then, Richard filed a petition for the probate of
his father's Last Will before the RTC and for the
issuance of letters testamentary in his favor.
● Marybeth opposed the petition contending -
○ that the purported last will and testament
was not executed and attested as required
by law, and
○ that it was procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence on the
part of Richard.
● The said opposition was also adopted by
Victoria.
● Richard presented attesting witnesses, who
testified that after the late Enrique read and
signed the will on each and every page, they
also read and signed the same in the latter's
presence and of one another.
○ Photographs of the incident were taken and
presented during trial.
○ One of them even testified that she was the
one who prepared the drafts and revisions
from Enrique before the final copy of the
will was made.
○ The lawyer witness also testified that he
prepared the will in accordance with
Enrique's instruction and added that
Enrique was in good health and of sound
mind at that time.
● The only witness presented by the Respondents
was Paraon OIC of the Notarial Section, Office of
the Clerk of Court, RTC, Manila saying that Atty.
Nolasco was not a notary public for the City of
Manila at that time.
● RTC: It disallowed the probate of the will for
failure to comply with Article 805 of the Civil
Code which requires a statement in the
attestation clause of the number of pages used
upon which the will is written.
○ It held that while Arti 809 of the same Code
requires mere substantial compliance of the
form laid down in Art 805, the rule only
applies if the number of pages is reflected
somewhere else in the will with no
evidence aliunde or extrinsic evidence
required.
○ While the acknowledgment portion stated
that the will consists of 7 pages including
the page on which the ratification and
acknowledgment are written, the RTC
observed that it has 8 pages including the
acknowledgment portion.
○ As such, it disallowed the will for not having
been executed and attested in accordance
with law.
● CA: RTC Affirmed
○ It found no valid reason to deviate from the
findings of the RTC that the failure to state
23
 the number of pages of the will in the attestation clause, being the only check against
attestation clause was fatal. perjury in the probate proceedings.
○ While Article 809 of the Civil Code sanctions ● The CA properly sustained the disallowance of
mere substantial compliance with the the will. DENIED
formal requirements set forth in Article 805
thereof, there was a total omission of such
fact in the attestation clause.
○ Moreover, while the acknowledgment of
the will made mention of "7 pages including
the page on which the ratification and
acknowledgment are written," the will had
actually 8 pages including the
acknowledgment portion thus,
necessitating the presentation of evidence
aliunde to explain the discrepancy.

MR Denied. Hence this petition

ISSUES:
1) WON there was a substantial compliance in the
formal requirements of a will for it to be on probate

RULING:

NO, petition lacks merit

While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for

defects in the form of the attestation clause, Richard
likewise failed in this respect.

The statement in the Acknowledgment portion of

the subject last will and testament that it "consists of
7 pages including the page on which the ratification
and acknowledgment are written" cannot be
deemed substantial compliance.

The will actually consists of 8 pages including its

acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be
explained by mere examination of the will itself but
through the presentation of evidence aliunde.

On the application of Art 809, JBL Reyes made a

comment, to wit:
● The rule must be limited to disregarding those
defects that can be supplied by an examination
of the will itself:
○ whether all the pages are consecutively
numbered;
○ whether the signatures appear in each and
every page;
○ whether the subscribing witnesses are
three or the will was notarized.
● All these are facts that the will itself can reveal,
and defects or even omissions concerning them
in the attestation clause can be safely
disregarded.
● But the total number of pages, and whether all
persons required to sign did so in the presence
of each other must substantially appear in the

24
63. CAGRO v. CAGRO signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their
GR No. L-5828 participation.
Date ​April 29, 1953
Ponente: ​Paras, C.J. Signatures of the witnesses on the left-hand margin
Digest Author: Lim does not substantially conform to the law and may
not be deemed as their signatures to the
Topic in the Syllabus: attestation clause.
Testamentary Succession; Two kinds of wills;
Holographic Said signatures are in compliance with the legal
mandate that the will be signed on the left-hand
Relevant Law: margin of all its pages.
[insert text]
If an attestation clause not signed by the three
Doctrine: witnesses at the bottom thereof, be admitted as
Inasmuch as the signatures of the three witnesses to sufficient, it would be easy to add such clause to a
the wil do not appear at the bottom of the will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of
attestation clause, although the page containing the the testator and any or all of the witnesses
same is signed by the witnesses on the left-hand
margin, the will is fatally defective. The attestation DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
clause is “a memorandum of the facts attending to Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed and
the execution of the will” required by law to be the probate of the will in question denied. So
made by the attesting witnesses, and it must ordered with costs against the petitioner and
necessarily bear their signatures. appellee.

Decedent: Vicente Cagro

Will: ​Yes

Parties:
● Petitioner-appellee: Testate estate of the
late Vicente Cagro, Jesusa Cagro
● Oppositors-appellants: Pelagio Cagro, Et al

FACTS:

● Oppositors, Pelagio Cagro et al, appealed the

decision admitting to probate the will executed
by Vicente Cagro.
● Oppositors contend that the will is fatally
defective because its attestation clause is not
signed by the attesting witnesses.
○ The signatures of the 3 witnesses do not
appear at the bottom of the attestation
clause,
○ but the page containing the same is signed
by the witnesses on the left-hand margin

ISSUES:
Whether the will is fatally defective because its
attestation clause is not signed by the attesting
witnesses. ​[YES]

RULING:

The attestation clause is “a memorandum of the

facts attending to the execution of the will”
required by law to be made by the attesting
witnesses, AND MUST BEAR THEIR SIGNATURES.

An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered

as an act of the witnesses, since the omission of their
25