LOPEZ vs LIBORO

Facts:
The will of Don Sixto Lopez in question comprises two pages, each of which is written on one
side of a separate sheet. The first sheet is not paged either in letters or in Arabic numerals. This,
the appellant believes, is a fatal defect. Beneficiaries are testator's sister, Clemencia Lopez, and
the herein proponent, Jose S. Lopez.

Issue:
WoN the will is valid as to forms.

Held:
Yes. The purpose of the law in prescribing the paging of wills is guard against fraud, and to
afford means of preventing the substitution or of defecting the loss of any of its pages. (Abangan
vs. Abangan, 40 Phil., 476.) In the present case, the omission to put a page number on the first
sheet, if that be necessary, is supplied by other forms of identification more trustworthy than the
conventional numerical words or characters. The unnumbered page is clearly identified as the
first page by the internal sense of its contents considered in relation to the contents of the second
page. By their meaning and coherence, the first and second lines on the second page are
undeniably a continuation of the last sentence of the testament, before the attestation clause,
which starts at the bottom of the preceding page. Furthermore, the unnumbered page contains the
caption "TESTAMENTO," the invocation of the Almighty, and a recital that the testator was in
full use of his testamentary faculty, — all of which, in the logical order of sequence, precede the
direction for the disposition of the marker's property. Again, as page two contains only the two
lines above mentioned, the attestation clause, the mark of the testator and the signatures of the
witnesses, the other sheet can not by any possibility be taken for other than page one.

The testator affixed his thumbmark to the instrument instead of signing his name. The reason for
this was that the testator was suffering from "partial paralysis." While another in testator's place
might have directed someone else to sign for him, as appellant contends should have been done,
there is nothing curious or suspicious in the fact that the testator chose the use of mark as the
means of authenticating his will. It was a matter of taste or preference. Both ways are good. A
statute requiring a will to be "signed" is satisfied if the signature is made by the testator's mark.

SUROZA vs HONRADO

Facts:
Mauro and Marcelina, childless, reared a boy named Agapito who used the surname Suroza and
who considered them as his parents as shown in his 1945 marriage contract with Nenita de Vera.

Marilyn used the surname Suroza. She stayed with Marcelina but was not legally adopted by
Agapito. She married Oscar Medrano and is residing at 7666 J.B. Roxas Street, Makati,
apparently a neighbor of Marina Paje, a resident of 7668 J.B. Roxas Street.
Marcelina supposedly executed a notarial will in Manila on July 23, 1973, when she was 73
years old. That will which is in English was thumbmarked by her. She was illiterate. Her letters
in English to the Veterans Administration were also thumbmarked by her (pp. 38-39, CA Rollo).
In that wig, Marcelina bequeathed all her estate to her supposed granddaughter Marilyn.

On January 13, 1975, Marina Paje, alleged to be a laundrywoman of Marcelina (P. 97, CA Rollo)
and the executrix in her will (the alternate executrix was Juanita Macaraeg, mother of Oscar,
Marilyn's husband), filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch 25, a petition for
the probate of Marcelina's alleged will. The case was assigned to Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado.

Upon motion of Marina, Judge Honrado issued another order dated April 11, 1975, instructing a
deputy sheriff to eject the occupants of the testatrix's house, among whom was Nenita V. Suroza,
and to place Marina in possession thereof.

That order alerted Nenita to the existence of the testamentary proceeding for the settlement of
Marcelina's estate. She and the other occupants of the decedent's house filed on April 18 in the
said proceeding a motion to set aside the order of April 11 ejecting them.

Issue:
WoN a will written in language not known to testator is valid.

Held:
No. In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a language "understood
and known" to the testatrix. But in its concluding paragraph, it was stated that the will was read
to the testatrix "and translated into Filipino language". (p. 16, Record of testate case). That could
only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate testatrix and,
therefore, it is void because of the mandatory provision of article 804 of the Civil Code that
every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. Thus, a will written in
English, which was not known to the Igorot testator, is void and was disallowed (Acop vs.
Piraso, 52 Phil. 660).
The hasty preparation of the will is shown in the attestation clause and notarial acknowledgment
where Marcelina Salvador Suroza is repeatedly referred to as the "testator" instead of "testatrix".

BALONAN vs. ABELLANA

Facts:
It appears on record that the last Will and Testament (Exhibit "A"), which is sought to be
probated, is written in the Spanish language and consists of two (2) typewritten pages (pages 4
and 5 of the record) double space. The first page is signed by Juan Bello and under his name
appears typewritten "Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana, residence Certificate A-1167629,
Enero 20, 1951, Ciudad de Zamboanga', and on the second page appears the signature of three
(3) instrumental witnesses Blas Sebastian, Faustino Macaso and Rafael Ignacio, at the bottom of
which appears the signature of T. de los Santos and below his signature is his official designation
as the notary public who notarized the said testament. On the first page on the left margin of the
said instrument also appear the signatures of the instrumental witnesses. On the second page,
which is the last page of said last Will and Testament, also appears the signature of the three (3)
instrumental witnesses and on that second page on the left margin appears the signature of Juan
Bello under whose name appears handwritten the following phrase, "Por la (by) Testadora
Anacleta Abellana'. The will is duly acknowledged before Notary Public Attorney Timoteo de
los Santos.

Issue:
WoN the will complied with the formal requisites.

Held:
The present law, Article 805 of the Civil Code, in part provides as follows:

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 witness in the presence
of the testator and of one another. (Emphasis supplied.)

The clause "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," is practically the
same as the provisions of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190)

In the case at bar the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written under the
will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan Abello. There is, therefore, a failure to comply with
the express requirement in the law that the testator must himself sign the will, or that his name be
affixed thereto by some other person in his presence and by his express direction.

GARCIA vs LACUESTA

Facts:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals disallowing the will of Antero
Mercado dated January 3, 1943. The will is written in the Ilocano dialect and contains the
following attestation clause:

We, the undersigned, by these presents to declare that the foregoing testament of Antero
Mercado was signed by himself and also by us below his name and of this attestation clause and
that of the left margin of the three pages thereof. Page three the continuation of this attestation
clause; this will is written in Ilocano dialect which is spoken and understood by the testator, and
it bears the corresponding number in letter which compose of three pages and all them were
signed in the presence of the testator and witnesses, and the witnesses in the presence of the
testator and all and each and every one of us witnesses.
The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero
Mercado, followed below by "A reugo del (at the request of) testator" and the name of Florentino
Javier. Antero Mercado is alleged to have written a cross immediately after his name.

Issue:
WoN the attestation clause is valid.

Held:
No. The attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero Mercado caused
Atty. Florentino Javier to write the testator's name under his express direction, as required by
section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The herein petitioner (who is appealing by way of
certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals) argues, however, that there is no need for
such recital because the cross written by the testator after his name is a sufficient signature and
the signature of Atty. Florentino Javier is a surplusage. Petitioner's theory is that the cross is as
much a signature as a thumbmark.

It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the usual signature of Antero
Mercado or even one of the ways by which he signed his name. After mature reflection, we are
not prepared to liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark, and the reason is obvious. The
cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.

NERA vs. RIMANDO

Facts:
This is about the probate of will of Pedro Rimando, A majority of the members of the court is of
opinion that this subscribing witness was in the small room with the testator and the other
subscribing witnesses at the time when they attached their signatures to the instrument, and this
finding, of course, disposes of the appeal and necessitates the affirmance of the decree admitting
the document to probate as the last will and testament of the deceased.

Issue:
WoN the will conforms with the formalities.

Held:
Yes. The true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the execution of a will is not
whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they might have been seen each other
sign, had they chosen to do so, considering their mental and physical condition and position with
relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each signature.
TABOADA vs. ROSAL

Facts:
In the petition for probate filed with the respondent court, the petitioner attached the alleged last
will and testament of the late Dorotea Perez. Written in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect, the will
consists of two pages. The first page contains the entire testamentary dispositions and is signed at
the end or bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the three (3)
instrumental witnesses. The second page which contains the attestation clause and the
acknowledgment is signed at the end of the attestation clause by the three (3) attesting witnesses
and at the left hand margin by the testatrix.

Issue:
WoN the will is valid.

Held:
Undoubtedly, under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will must be subscribed or signed at its
end by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by another 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.

It must be noted that the law uses the terms attested and subscribed Attestation consists in

witnessing the testator's execution of the will in order to see and take note mentally that those
things are done which the statute requires for the execution of a will and that the signature of the
testator exists as a fact. On the other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names
upon the same paper for the purpose of Identification of such paper as the will which was
executed by the testator. (Ragsdale v. Hill, 269 SW 2d 911).

Insofar as the requirement of subscription is concerned, it is our considered view that the will in
this case was subscribed in a manner which fully satisfies the purpose of Identification.
The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of the will
attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of
the will as embodied in the attestation clause.

We have examined the will in question and noticed that the attestation clause failed to state the
number of pages used in writing the will. This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the
fact that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire wig that it is really and actually composed
of only two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses.
CAGRO vs. CAGRO

Facts:
This is an appeal interposed by the oppositors from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Samar, admitting to probate the will allegedly executed by Vicente Cagro who died in Laoangan,
Pambujan, Samar, on February 14, 1949.
The main objection insisted upon by the appellant in that the will is fatally defective, because its
attestation clause is not signed by the attesting witnesses. There is no question that the signatures
of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause, although
the page containing the same is signed by the witnesses on the left-hand margin.

Issue:
WoN the will is valid.

Held:
No. The attestation clause is 'a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will'
required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear their
signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses, since
the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their participation.

The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three witnesses on the left-hand
margin conform substantially to the law and may be deemed as their signatures to the attestation
clause. This is untenable, because said signatures are in compliance with the legal mandate that
the will be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages. If an attestation clause not signed by
the three witnesses at the bottom thereof, be admitted as sufficient, it would be easy to add such
clause to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the
witnesses.

ABANGAN vs. ABANGAN

Facts:
On September 19, 1917, the Court of First Instance of Cebu admitted to probate Ana Abangan's
will executed July, 1916. From this decision the opponent's appealed.

Said document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's will, consists of two sheets, the first of which
contains all of the disposition of the testatrix, duly signed at the bottom by Martin Montalban (in
the name and under the direction of the testatrix) and by three witnesses. The following sheet
contains only the attestation clause duly signed at the bottom by the three instrumental witnesses.
Neither of these sheets is signed on the left margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses, nor
numbered by letters; and these omissions, according to appellants' contention, are defects

Issue:
WoN the will is valid.
Held:
Synthesizing our opinion, we hold that in a will consisting of two sheets the first of which
contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom by the testator and three
witnesses and the second contains only the attestation clause and is signed also at the bottom by
the three witnesses, it is not necessary that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the
testator and the witnesses, or be paged.

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad
faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and
authenticity. Therefore the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain
these primordal ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not
the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an
interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds
nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustative of the testator's
last will, must be disregarded.

ICASIANO vs. ICASIANO

Facts:
Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of Josefa Villacorte and for his
appointment as executor thereof. It appears from the evidence that the testatrix died on
September 12, 1958. She executed a will in Tagalog, and through the help of her lawyer, it was
prepared in duplicates, an original and a carbon copy.

On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only brought the original copy of the
will while the carbon duplicate (unsigned) was left in Bulacan. One of the witnesses failed to
sign one of the pages in the original copy but admitted he may have lifted 2 pages
simultaneously instead when he signed the will. Nevertheless, he affirmed that the will was
signed by the testator and other witnesses in his presence.

Issue:
WoN the will is valid.

Held:
Yes.  The failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or mere inadvertence. Since the
duplicated bore the required signatures, this proves that the omission was not intentional. Even if
the original is in existence, a duplicate may still be admitted to probate since the original is
deemed to be defective, then in law, there is no other will by the duly signed carbon duplicate
and the same can be probated.

The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of
the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she has no control of. Where the
purpose of the law is to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages, and
there is no intentional or deliberate deviation existed. Note that this ruling should not be taken as
a departure from the rules that the will should be signed by the witnesses on every page. The
carbon copy duplicate was regular in all respects.

Vda. DE RAMOS vs. CA

Facts:
Buenaventura and Marcelina (Martina) both surnamed Guerra filed an opposition on July 18,
1966 and an amended opposition on August 19, 1967, to the petition alleging among others that
they are the legally adopted son and daughter of the late spouses Florentino Guerra and Eugenia
Danila (Exhibit 1); that the purported will and codicil subject of the petition (Exhibits H and L)
were procured through fraud and undue influence; that the formalities requited by law for the
execution of a will and codicil have not been complied with as the same were not properly
attested to or executed and not expressing the free will and deed of the purported testatrix; that
the late Eugenia Danila had already executed on November 5, 1951 her last will and testament
(Exhibit 3) which was duly probated (Exhibit 4) and not revoked or annulled during the lifetime
of the testatrix, and that the petitioner is not competent and qualified to act as administration of
the estate.

After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered its decision dated July 6, 1971 allowing the
probate of the wilt In that decision, although two of the attesting witness Odon Sarmiento and
Rosendo Paz, testified that they did not see the testatrix Eugenia Danila sign the will but that the
same was already signed by her when they affixed their own signatures thereon, the trial court
gave more weight and ment to the .'straight-forward and candid" testimony of Atty. Ricardo
Barcenas, the Notary Public who assisted in the execution of the wilt that the testatrix and the
three (3) instrumental witnesses signed the will in the presence of each other, and that with
respect to the codicil the same manner was likewise observed as corroborated to by the testimony
of another lawyer, Atty. Manuel Alvero who was also present during the execution of the codicil.

Issue:
WoN the will is valid.

Held:
Yes. The oppositors' argument is untenable. There is ample and satisfactory evidence to convince
us that the will and codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities required by law. It
appears positively and convincingly that the documents were prepared by a lawyer, Atty. Manuel
Alvero The execution of the same was evidently supervised by his associate, Atty. Ricardo
Barcenas and before whom the deeds were also acknowledged. The solemnity surrounding the
execution of a will is attended by some intricacies not usually within the comprehension of an
ordinary layman. The object is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution
of the will and testament, and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. 2 If there should be any
stress on the participation of lawyers in the execution of a wig, other than an interested party, it
cannot be less than the exercise of their primary duty as members of the Bar to uphold the lofty
purpose of the law. There is no showing that the above-named lawyers had been remiss in their
sworn duty.

The presumption of regularity can of course be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary, but not easily by the mere expediency of the negative testimony of Odon Sarmiento
and Rosendo Paz that they did not see the testatrix sign the will. A negative testimony does not
enjoy equal standing with a positive assertion, and faced with the convincing appearance of the
will, such negative statement must be examined with extra care.

CRUZ vs. VILLASOR

Facts:
Petition to review on certiorari the judgment of the Court First Instance of Cebu allowing the
probate of the last will a testament of the late Valente Z. Cruz. Petitioner-appellant Agapita N.
Cruz, the surviving spouse of the said decease opposed the allowance of the will (Exhibit "E"),
alleging the will was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and undue influence; that
the said instrument was execute without the testator having been fully informed of the content
thereof, particularly as to what properties he was disposing and that the supposed last will and
testament was not executed in accordance with law.

Reduced to simpler terms, the question was attested and subscribed by at least three credible
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other, considering that the three attesting
witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the same. As the third witness is
the notary public himself, petitioner argues that the result is that only two witnesses appeared
before the notary public to acknowledge the will.

Issue:
WoN the will is valid.

Held:
No. 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.

To allow the notary public to act as third witness, or one the attesting and acknowledging
witnesses, would have the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the will which would
be in contravention of the provisions of Article 80 be requiring at least three credible witnesses
to act as such and of Article 806 which requires that the testator and the required number of
witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the will. The result would be, as
has been said, that only two witnesses appeared before the notary public for or that purpose. In
the circumstances, the law would not be duly in observed.
GARCIA vs. GATCHALIAN

Facts:
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.

Issue:
WoN the will was properly created.

Held:
No. 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.
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.

GABUCAN vs. MANTA

Facts:
The Court of First Instance of Camiguin in its "decision" of December 28, 1977 in Special
Proceeding No. 41 for the probate of the will of the late Rogaciano Gabucan, dismissed the
proceeding (erroneously characterizes as an "action")

The proceeding was dismissed because the requisite documentary stamp was not affixed to the
notarial acknowledgment in the will and, hence, according to respondent Judge, it was not
admissible in evidence, citing section 238 of the Tax Code, now section 250 of the 1977 Tax
Code,

Issue:
WoN the will is valid.
Held:
What the probate court should have done was to require the petitioner or proponent to affix the
requisite thirty-centavo documentary stamp to the notarial acknowledgment of the will which is
the taxable portion of that document.

That procedure may be implied from the provision of section 238 that the non-admissibility of
the document, which does not bear the requisite documentary stamp, subsists only "until the
requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled."

Thus, it was held that the documentary stamp may be affixed at the time the taxable document is
presented in evidence.

ECHAVEZ vs DOZEN CONSTRUCTION

Facts:
Vicente Echavez (Vicente) was the absolute owner of several lots in Cebu City, which includes
Lot No. 1956-A and Lot No. 1959 (subject lots). On September 7, 1985, Vicente donated the
subject lots to petitioner Manuel Echavez (Manuel) through a Deed of Donation Mortis
Causa.1 Manuel accepted the donation

BEFORE ME, Notary Public, this 7th day of September 1985 at Talisay, Cebu, personally
appeared VICENTE S. Echavez with Res. Cert. No. 16866094 issued on April 10, 1985 at [sic]
Talisay, Cebu known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument of
Deed of Donartion Mortis Causa before the Notary Public and in the presence of the foregoing
three (3) witnesses who signed this instrument before and in the presence of each other and of
the Notary Public and all of them acknowledge to me that the same is their voluntary act and
deed.

Issue:
WoN attestation clause and acknowledgment clause may be merged.

Held:
No.
Even granting that the Acknowledgment embodies what the attestation clause requires, we are
not prepared to hold that an attestation clause and an acknowledgment can be merged in one
statement.

That the requirements of attestation and acknowledgment are embodied in two separate
provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 805 and 806, respectively) indicates that the law
contemplates two distinct acts that serve different purposes. An acknowledgment is made by one
executing a deed, declaring before a competent officer or court that the deed or act is his own.
On the other hand, the attestation of a will refers to the act of the instrumental witnesses
themselves who certify to the execution of the instrument before them and to the manner of its
execution.81avvphi1

Although the witnesses in the present case acknowledged the execution of the Deed of Donation
Mortis Causa before the notary public, this is not the avowal the law requires from the
instrumental witnesses to the execution of a decedent’s will. An attestation must state all the
details the third paragraph of Article 805 requires. In the absence of the required avowal by the
witnesses themselves, no attestation clause can be deemed embodied in the Acknowledgement of
the Deed of Donation Mortis Causa.

GARCIA vs. VAZQUEZ

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. Gliceria was alleged to have
prepared another will dated 1956 (12 pages) as oppose to the 1960 (1 page). Gliceria is suffering
from cataract, hence, cannot read at far distance.

Issue:
WoN the requirements for blind testators should apply.

Held:
Yes. Provision of Article 808 mandatory. Therefore, For all intents and purposes of the rules on
probate, the testatrix was like a blind testator, and the due execution of her will would have
required observance of Article 808. The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to
the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will 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. Likewise, the 1970 will was done in Tagalog which the deceased is
not well versed but in Spanish. This creates doubt as to the due execution of the will and as well
as the typographical errors contain therein which show the haste in preparing the 1 page will
as compared to the 12 page will created in 1956 written in Spanish. ALSO, as to the blindness,
there was proof given by the testimony of the doctor that the deceased could not read at
near distances because of cataracts. (Testatrix’s vision was mainly for viewing distant objects
and not for reading print.) Since there is no proof that it was read to the deceased twice, the will
was NOT duly executed.

ALVARADO vs. GAVIOLA

Facts:
On 5 November 1977, 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled “Huling
Habilin” wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son, petitioner Cesar Alvarado, and expressly
revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate before the RTC of
Laguna.

According to Bayani Ma. Rino, private respondent, he was present when the said notarial will
was executed, together with three instrumental witnesses and the notary public, where the
testator did not read the will himself, suffering as he did from glaucoma.

Rino, a lawyer, drafted the eight-page document and read the same aloud before the testator, the
three instrumental witnesses and the notary public, the latter four following the reading with their
own respective copies previously furnished them.

Thereafter, a codicil entitled “Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng 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.
Said codicil was likewise not read by Brigido Alvarado and was read in the same manner as with
the previously executed will.

Issue:
WoN the will was properly created.

Held:
Yes. Cesar Alvardo was correct in asserting that his father was not totally blind (of counting
fingers at 3 feet) when the will and codicil were executed, but he can be so considered for
purposes of Art. 808.

There is no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil were not sufficiently made
known and communicated to the testator.

With four 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.

SEBASTIAN vs. PANGANIBAN

Facts:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan denying the probate
of the will of Pedro Pañganiban y Jacob upon the ground that the attestation clause was fatally
defective in that it did not strictly comply with the law.

The attestation clause in question and the will are in the Tagalog dialect. As translated into
Spanish by the Honorable Judge of the trial court
Issue:
WoN ambiguity in translation will render the will invalid.

Held:
No. "At once it can be conceded that the attestation clause is not written as clearly as it should
have been. It can, however, be further conceded that, while precision of language in drafting an
attestation clause is desirable, it is sufficient it from the language employed it can reasonably be
deduced that the attestation clause fulfills the requirements of the law. In this instance it is
contended on the one hand that the attestation clause fails to state that the testatrix signed each
and every page of the will in the presence of the three witnesses and in the presence of each
other, and on the other hand that the language is susceptible of a contrary meaning. In this
connection it should be recalled that the attestation clause was a part of the will prepared in the
Visayan dialect, which may be deficient in words properly usable in a will, and that in the
translation therefrom, clauses may be placed out of the regular order. While the words ’we have
each signed, the same and each page thereof in the presence of said testatrix and in the presence
of each other’ would be expected to relate to the attesting witnesses, it is possible to find that the
quoted words also relate to the testatrix. Otherwise stated, the word ’we’ could include both the
testatrix and the attesting witnesses.

"The basic decision in this respect, grounded on the doctrine of reasonableness and intention, is
found in the case of Abangan v. Abangan.

GIL vs. MURCIANO

Facts:
The Court of First Instance of Manila admitted to probate the alleged will and testament of the
deceased Carlos Gil.

It will be noted that the attestation clause above quoted does not state that the alleged testator
signed the will. It declares only that it was signed by the witnesses.

Issue:
WoN the will is valid.

Held:
No. This is a fatal defect, for the precise purpose of the attestation clause is to certify that the
testator signed the will, this being the most essential element of the clause. Without it there is no
attestation at all. It is said that the court may correct a mere clerical error. 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.

CANEDA vs. CA

Facts:
On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children and already in the
twilight years of his life, executed a last will and testament at his residence before 3 witnesses.
He was assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Emilio Lumontad.

In the course of the proceedings, petitioners opposed to the allowance of the testator’s will on the
ground that on the alleged date of its execution, the testator was already in poor state of health
such that he could not have possibly executed the same. Also the genuineness of the signature of
the testator is in doubt.

It is contended by petitioners that the attestation clause in the will failed to specifically state the
fact that the attesting witnesses witnessed the testator sign the will and all its pages in their
presence and that they, the witnesses, likewise signed the will and every page thereof in the
presence of the testator and of each other.

On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses and the notary public testified that the testator
executed the will in question in their presence while he was of sound and disposing mind and
that the testator was in good health and was not unduly influenced in any way in the execution of
his will.

Issue:
WoN the will should be probated.

Held:
No. Art. 809 does not apply to the present case because the attestation clause totally omits the
fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the presence of the
testator and of each other. The defect in this case is not only with respect to the form or the
language of the attestation clause. The defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied
by the will itself which is clearly lacking in this case.

GAN vs. YAP

Facts:
Felicidad Yap died of a heart failure, leaving properties in Pulilan, Bulacan, and in Manila.
Fausto E. Gan, her nephew, initiated the proceedings in the Manila CFI with a petition for the
probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by the deceased. Her surviving husband
Ildefonso Yap opposed the petition and asserted that the deceased had not left any will, nor
executed any testament during her lifetime.

During the probate, the alleged will itself was not presented. Petitioner tried to establish its
contents and due execution by the statements in open court of Felina Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes,
Socorro Olarte and Rosario Gan Jimenez who testified Felicidad’s intention to make a will and
allegedly saw it as well. According to the witnesses, Felicidad did not want her husband to know
about it, but she had made known to her other relatives that she made a will.

Issue:
WoN the will complied with the requirements for holographic will.

Held:
No. Holographic will is a radical departure from the form and solemnities provided for wills.
With regard to holographic wills, no such guaranties of truth and veracity are demanded, since as
stated, they need no witnesses; provided however, that they are “entirely written, dated, and
signed by the hand of the testator himself.”

“In the probate of a holographic will” says the New Civil Code, “it shall be necessary that at
least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that
the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least
three such witnesses shall be required. In the absence of any such witnesses, (familiar with
decedent’s handwriting) and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.”
The witnesses need not have seen the execution of the holographic will, but they must be
familiar with the decedent’s handwriting. Obviously, when the will itself is not submitted, these
means of opposition, and of assessing the evidence are not available. And then the only guaranty
of authenticity — the testator’s handwriting — has disappeared.

RODELAS vs. ARANZA

Facts:
Rodelas filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo
B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. Aranza, et al. filed a MTD on the
grounds of:

2. The copy of the alleged holographic will did not contain a disposition of property after death
and was not intended to take effect after death, and therefore it was not a will, it was merely
an instruction as to the management and improvement of the schools and colleges founded by the
decedent;
3. The hollographic will itself, and not an alleged copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it
would produce no effect because lost or destroyed holographic wills cannot be proved by
secondary evidence unlike ordinary wills.

And that the alleged holographic will was executed on January 25, 1962 while Ricardo B.
Bonilla died on May 13, 1976. The lapse of more than 14 years from the time of the execution of
the will to the death of the decedent and the fact that the original of the will could not be located
shows to that the decedent had discarded the alleged holographic will before his death.
Issue:
W/N a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a
photostatic copy.

Held:
Yes. If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will
cannot be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said
will. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the
testator and the handwritten will.

But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because
comparison can be made by the probate court with the standard writings of the testator. The
probate court would be able to determine the authenticity of the handwriting of the testator.

ROXAS vs. DE JESUS

Facts:
Bibiane Roxas died. Her brother, Simeon Roxas, filed a spec. pro. for partition of the estate of
the deceased and also delivered the holographic will of the deceased. Simeon stated that he found
a notebook belonging to deceased, which contained a “letter-will” entirely written and signed in
deceased’s handwriting. The will is dated “FEB./61 ” and states: “This is my will which I want
to be respected although it is not written by a lawyer. Roxas relatives corroborated the fact that
the same is a holographic will of deceased, identifying her handwriting and signature.
Respondent opposed probate on the ground that it such does not comply with Article 810 of the
CC because the date contained in a holographic will must signify the year, month, and day.

Issue:
WoN non-compliance with the format of the date is fatal.

Held:
No. As a general rule, the “date” in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and year
of its execution. However, when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith,
undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is
whether or not the date “FEB./61” appearing on the holographic Will is a valid compliance with
Article 810 of the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the
principle of substantial compliance.

Labrador vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
The antecedent and relevant facts are as follows: On June 10, 1972, Melecio Labrador died in the
Municipality of Iba, province of Zambales, where he was residing, leaving behind a parcel of
land designated as Lot No. 1916 under Original Certificate of Title No. P-1652, and the
following heirs, namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria
and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador, and a holographic will.

Contained in the second page, translated in English is the statement “And this is the day in which
we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the
said fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision
and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who made this writing is no
other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father.”

Issue:
WoN the will complied with the formal requirement.

Held:
Yes. The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will.
The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the
testator. These requirements are present in the subject will.

The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of the will is plain from the
tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will was not an
agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he was executing
was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning as the testator's
instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of the nature
of the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means to
control the disposition of his estate.

AZOALA vs. SINGSON

Facts:
Fortunata S. Vda. De Yance died in Quezon City on September 9, 1957. Petitioner submitted for
probate her holographic will, in which Maria Azaola was made the sole heir as against the
nephew, who is the defendant. Only one witness, Francisoco Azaola, was presented to testify on
the handwriting of the testatrix. He testified that he had seen it one month, more or less, before
the death of the testatrix, as it was given to him and his wife; and that it was in the testatrix’s
handwriting. He presented the mortgage, the special power of the attorney, and
the general power of attorney, and the deeds of sale including an affidavit to reinforce his
statement. Two residence certificates showing the testatrix’s signature were also exhibited for
comparison purposes.

The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the Civil Code, the proponent
must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature are in the writing
of the testatrix, the probate being contested; and because the lone witness presented “did not
prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix.”

Issue:
WoN the will should be probated.

Held:
Yes. Article 811 is merely permissive and not mandatory. Since the authenticity of the will was
not contested, petitioner was not required to produce more than one witness; but even if the
genuineness of the holographic will were contested, Article 811 can not be interpreted to require
the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under
penalty of having the probate denied. Since no witness may have been present at the execution of
a holographic will, none being required by law (Art. 810, new Civil Code), it becomes obvious
that the existence of witness possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control
of the proponent. For it is not merely a question of finding and producing any three witnesses;
they must be witnesses “who know the handwriting and signature of the testator” and who can
declare (truthfully, of course, even if the law does not so express) “that the will and the signature
are in the handwriting of the testator”. There may be no available witness of the testator’s hand;
or even if so familiarized, the witnesses may be unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance
with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811 may thus become an impossibility.

This is the reason why the 2nd paragraph of Article 811 allows the court to resort to expert
evidence. The law foresees the possibility that no qualified witness may be found (or what
amounts to the same thing, that no competent witness may be willing to testify to the authenticity
of the will), and provides for resort to expert evidence to supply the deficiency.