1. Ahmad vs. Ahmad GR#176943, Oct.

17, 2008 (GRANDA)

Facts Petitioners’ mother, Maria Aluad, and respondent Zenaido Aluad were raised by the childless
spouses Matilde Aluad and Crispin Aluad. On November 14, 1981, Matilde executed a document
entitled "Deed of Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos"​2 (Deed of Donation) in favor of
petitioners’ mother Maria​3 covering all the six lots which Matilde inherited from her husband
Crispin. ​On August 26, 1991, Matilde sold Lot No. ​676 to respondent by a Deed of Absolute
Sale of Real Property. Subsequently or on January 14, 1992, Matilde executed a last will and
testament,​6 devising Lot Nos. 675, 677, 682, and 680 to Maria, and her "remaining properties"
including Lot No. ​674 to respondent. Matilde died on January 25, 1994, while Maria died on
September 24 of the same year.

The trial court, by Decision​18 of September 20, 1996, held that Matilde could not have
transmitted any right over Lot Nos. ​674 and ​676 to respondent, she having previously alienated
them to Maria via the Deed of Donation. By Decision​21 of August 10, 2006, the Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court’s decision, it holding that the Deed of Donation was actually a donation
mortis causa,​ not ​inter vivos,​ and as such it had to, but did not, comply with the formalities of a
will. Thus, it found that the Deed of Donation was witnessed by only two witnesses and had no
attestation clause which is not in accordance with Article 805 of the Civil Code

Issue WON the Deed of Donation complied with the formalities of a will

Ruling No. ​The Deed of Donation which is, as already discussed, one of mortis causa, not having
followed the ​formalities of a will​, it is void and transmitted no right to petitioners’ mother.

Court finds the donation to petitioners’ mother one of mortis causa. The phrase in the
earlier-quoted Deed of Donation "to become effective upon the death of the DONOR" admits of
no other interpretation than to mean that Matilde did not intend to transfer the ownership of the
six lots to petitioners’ mother during her (Matilde’s) lifetime. As the Court of Appeals observed,
"x x x [t]hat the donation is ​mortis causa is fortified by Matilde’s acts of possession as she
continued to pay the taxes for the said properties which remained under her name; appropriated
the produce; and applied for free patents for which OCTs were issued under her name.

The donation being then ​mortis causa,​ the formalities of a will should have
been observed ​but they were not, as it was witnessed by only two, not three or more
witnesses following Article 805 of the Civil Code. Further, the witnesses did not even sign the
​
attestation clause, the execution of which clause is a requirement ​separate from the subscription
of the will and the affixing of signatures on the left-hand margins of the pages of the will.

Article 805 particularly ​segregates the requirement that the instrumental witnesses sign each
page of the will from the requisite that the will be "attested and subscribed by [the instrumental
witnesses]. The respective intents behind these two classes of signature[s] are distinct from each
other. The signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify, among others, that the
witnesses are aware that the page they are signing forms part of the will​. On the other hand, the
signatures to the attestation clause establish that the ​witnesses are referring to the statements
contained in the attestation clause itself​. Indeed, the attestation clause is separate and apart from
the disposition of the will. ​An unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested will​.
 Furthermore, the witnesses did not acknowledge the will before the notary public,​40 which is not
in accordance with the requirement of Article 806 of the Civil Code that every will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.

More. The requirement that all the pages of the will must be numbered correlatively in letters
placed on the upper part of each page was not also followed.

2. Alvarado vs. Ramon Gaviola G.R.# 74695, Sept. 14, 1993 (MORANTE)

Facts Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled, “Huling Habilin” wherein he
disinherited an illegitimate son, Cesar Alvarado, and expressly revoked a
previously executed a holographic will at the time awaiting probate before RTC.

As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary public and Cesar,
the testator did not read the final draft of the will, instead, Atty. Rino, as the
lawyer who drafted the document read the same aloud in the presence of the
testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public.

While the testator’s will was admitted to probate, a codicil was subsequently
executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the
testator’s eye operation because he was then suffering from glaucoma. But the
disinheritance and the revocatory clauses remained and as in the case of the
notarial will, the testator did not personally read the final draft of the codicil.
Instead, it was Atty. Rino who read it aloud in his presence and in the presence
of the three instrumental witnesses and of the notary public.

Upon the testator’s death, Atty Rino as executor filed a petition for probate of
the notarial will which was in turn opposed by Cesar alleging that the will sought
to be probated was not executed and attested as required by law.

Upon failure of Cesar to substantiate his Opposition, a Probate Order was

issued from which an appeal was made to IAC stating that the probate of the
deceased’s last will and codicil should have been denied because the testator
was blind within the meaning of the law at the time his “Huling Habilin” and the
codicil thereto was executed and that since reading required by Art. 808 was
admittedly not complied with. CA concluded that although Art. 808 was not
followed, there was, however, as substantial compliance.

Issue 1. WHETHER OR NOT BRIGIDO ALVARADO WAS BLIND WITHIN THE

MEANING OF ARTICLE 808 AT THE TIME HIS “HULING HABILIN” AND
CODICIL WERE EXECUTED.

2. IF SO, WHETHER OR NOT THE REQUIREMENT OF DOUBLE READING

IN SAID ARTICLE WAS COMPLIED WITH SUCH THAT WHETHER OR NOT,
 THEY WERE VALIDLY EXECUTED.

Ruling 1. ​YES. 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 the
deceased was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on the
separate occasions of their execution due to his “poor,” “defective,” or “blurred”
vision, there can be no other course but to conclude that he comes within the
scope of the term “blind’ as used in Art. 808. Unless the contents were read to
him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the lawyer who drafted the
will and codicil did so conformably with his instruction.

Hence, to consider his will as validly executed and entitled to probate, it is

essential to ascertain whether or not Art. 808 had been complied with. There is
no evidence and Cesar does not allege that the contents of the will and codicil
were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator. On the
contrary, with respect to the “Huling Habilin,” the day of the execution was not
the first time that the testator had affirmed the truth and authenticity of the
contents of the draft.

2. ​YES. ​Moreover, with four persons 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. ​This is especially true considering
the fact that the three instrumental witnesses were persons known to the
testator.

The spirit behind that law was served though the letter was not. Although there
should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of the law in order
to insure authenticity of the will, the formal imperfection should be brushed
aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account
may only defeat the testator’s will.

Substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been
satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of will
are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are
never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary
privilege.

3. In the Matter of the Petition for Probate of the Will of Dorotea Perez vs. Hon.
Avelino Rosal, GR#36033, Nov. 5, 1982 (BULATAO)

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.

Since no opposition was filed after the petitioner's compliance with the
requirement of publication, the trial court commissioned the branch clerk of
court to receive the petitioner's evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted
his evidence and presented Vicente Timkang, one of the subscribing witnesses
to the will, who testified on its genuineness and due execution.

The trial court, thru then Presiding Judge Ramon C. Pamatian issued the
questioned order denying the probate of the will of Dorotea Perez for want of a
formality in its execution. The respondent Judge interprets Article 805 of the
Civil Code to require that, for a notarial will to be valid, it is not enough that only
the testatrix signs at the "end" but that the three subscribing witnesses must
also sign at the same place or at the end, in the presence of the testatrix and of
one another because the attesting witnesses to a will attest not merely the will
itself but also the signature of the testator. It is not sufficient compliance to sign
the page, where the end of the will is found, at the left hand margin of that page.

On the other hand, the petitioner maintains that Article 805 of the Civil Code
does not make it a condition precedent or a matter of absolute necessity for the
extrinsic validity of the wig that the signatures of the subscribing witnesses
should be specifically located at the end of the wig after the signature of the
testatrix. He contends that it would be absurd that the legislature intended to
place so heavy an import on the space or particular location where the
signatures are to be found as long as this space or particular location wherein
the signatures are found is consistent with good faith and the honest frailties of
human nature.

Issue Whether or not Article 805 requires that, for a notarial will to be valid, the
testatrix, as well as the three subscribing witnesses, shall sign at the "end" of
the will in the presence of the testatrix and of one another.

Ruling NO. 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.

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.

While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial

departure from the usual forms should be ignored, especially where the
authenticity of the will is not assailed.

The law is to be liberally construed, “the underlying and fundamental objective

permeating the provisions on the law on wills in this project consists in the
liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving the
testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes but with sufficient
safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise
of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. This objective
is in accord with the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the
execution of a will.”

The objects of attestation and of subscription were fully met and satisfied in the
present case when the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the
sole page which contains all the testamentary dispositions, especially so when
the will was properly Identified by subscribing witness Vicente Timkang to be
the same will executed by the testatrix. There was no question of fraud or
substitution behind the questioned order.

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. As earlier stated, the first
page which contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions is signed by
the testatrix at the end or at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed
at the left margin. The other page which is marked as "Pagina dos" comprises
the attestation clause and the acknowledgment. The acknowledgment itself
states that "This Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including this
page".

WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby granted.

4. Dy Yieng Seangco vs. Reyes 508 SCRA 177 (SUYAT)

Facts On September 21, 1988, private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of
the intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio and praying for the appointment of
private respondent Elisa D. Seangio–Santos as special administrator and guardian
ad litem of petitioner Dy Yieng Seangio.

Petitioners Dy Yieng, Barbara and Virginia, all surnamed Seangio, opposed the
petition. They contended that Segundo left a holographic will, dated September 20,
1995, disinheriting one of the private respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for cause. In
view of the purported holographic will, petitioners averred that in the event the
decedent is found to have left a will, the intestate proceedings are to be
automatically suspended and replaced by the proceedings for the probate of the
will.

The petitioner instituted a petition for the probation of the will. Private respondents
moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings5 primarily on the ground that
the document purporting to be the holographic will of Segundo does not contain any
disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus does not meet the definition of a
will under Article 783 of the Civil Code. According to private respondents, the will
only shows an alleged act of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son,
Alfredo, and nothing else; that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor
instituted as heir, devisee or legatee, hence, there is preterition which would result
to intestacy.

RTC dismissed the petition for probate proceedings on the reason that there is
preterition in the will.

Issue Whether the court erred in dismissing the probate proceeding.

Ruling Yes. For disinheritance to be valid, Article 916 of the Civil Code requires that the
same must be effected through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be
specified. With regard to the reasons for the disinheritance that were stated by
Segundo in his document, the Court believes that the incidents, taken as a whole,
can be considered a form of maltreatment of Segundo by his son, Alfredo, and that
the matter presents a sufficient cause for the disinheritance of a child or descendant
under Article 919 of the Civil Code.

Segundo’s document, although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance

instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is
written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose
mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and while it
does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter’s property, the disinheritance
of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. In other words, the
disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator Segundo in
favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.
 With regard to the issue on preterition, the Court believes that the compulsory heirs
in the direct line were not preterited in the will. It was, in the Court’s opinion,
Segundo’s last expression to bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs, with
the sole exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did not institute an heir16 to the
exclusion of his other compulsory heirs. Considering that the questioned document
is Segundo’s holographic will, and that the law favors testacy over intestacy, the
probate of the will cannot be dispensed with. Article 838 of the Civil Code provides
that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and
allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, unless the will is probated, the
right of a person to dispose of his property may be rendered nugatory

5. Conde vs. Abaya 13 Phils 240 (FERRIOLS)

Facts Casiano Abaya died unmarried, was being claimed by Paula Conde since she
alleges that her children, Jose and Teopista Conde, have Casiano Abaya as
their natural father. Subsequently, Roman Abaya, the brother of Casiano Abaya
came forward and opposed Conde’s claim and demanding that he is the sole
heir of the estate of his brother. As trials ensued, it was ruled that the
administrator of Casiano’s estate should recognize Teofista and Jose as being
natural children of Casiano and that the petitioner Conde should succeed to the
hereditary rights of her children with respect to the inheritance and be declared
as the sole heir, to the exclusion of Roman Abaya.

Issue Whether or not the petitioner may enforce an action in the acknowledgment of
the natural child from Casiano Abaya?

Ruling No, the right of action for the acknowledgment of natural children to which
article 137 refers, can never be transmitted, for the reason that the code makes
no mention of it in any case, not even as an exception. This is taken into
consideration that the case was reversed from the judgement from the trial.The
Supreme Court ruled that the mother of a natural child now deceased, but who
survived the person who, it is claimed, was his natural father, also deceased,
may not bring an action for the acknowledgment of the natural filiation in favor of
such child in order to appear in his behalf to receive the inheritance from the
person who is supposed to be his natural father. While the right of action for the
acknowledgment of a natural child does not last his whole lifetime, and, as a
general rule, it can not be instituted against the heirs of the presumed parents,
inasmuch as it can be exercised only during the life of the presumed parents.

6. Pamplona vs. CA 96 SCRA 775 (DIMAANO)

Facts Flaviano and Monica were husband and wife who acquired lots during the
marriage. They have 6 children: Moreto children, and all the heirs of Moreto
children are the respondents. In 1946, Monica died intestate. 6 years after,
Flaviano without the consent of heirs and before any liquidation of the conjugal
partnership, sold Lot No. 1495 to petitioners spouses Geminiano and Apolonia.
After sale, the spouses constructed house and piggery on Lot 1496, also their
son Rafael built house within Lot 1496. Flaviano and Geminiano thought that
the portion of 781 sq. m. was Lot No. 1495, although in fact it is part of Lot No.
1496.

Flaviano died intestate. Private respondent heiirs of Monica demanded the

defendants to leave property because they had no right to be there, but the
latter refused. Heirs filed a declaration of nullity of deed of sale.

Issue Whether petitioners are entitled to full ownership of property in litigation

Ruling YES. ​Under Article 776, New Civil Code, the inheritance which private respondents
received from their deceased parents and/or predecessors-in-interest included all
the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents'
death. And under Art. 1311, paragraph 1, New Civil Code, the contract of sale
executed by the deceased Flaviano Moreto took effect between the parties, their
assigns and heirs, who are the private respondents herein. Accordingly, to the
private respondents transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole
area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners (which was the original obligation of their
predecessor Flaviano Moreto) and not only one-half thereof. Private respondents
must comply with said obligation.

The records reveal that the area of 781 sq. meters sold to and occupied by
petitioners for more than 9 years already as of the filing of the complaint in 1961
had been re-surveyed by private land surveyor Daniel Aranas. Petitioners are
entitled to a segregation of the area from Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9843
covering Lot 1496 and they are also entitled to the issuance of a new Transfer
Certificate of Title in their name based on the relocation survey.

7. Guerrero vs. Bihis 521 SCRA 394 (TRINIDAD)

On February 19, 1994, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner

Bella A. Guerrero and respondent Resurreccion A. Bihis, died at the
Metropolitan Hospital in Tondo, Manila. On May 24, 1994, petitioner filed a
petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the decedent in Branch
95 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where the case was docketed as
Sp. Proc. No. Q-94-20661. Respondent opposed her elder sister's petition on
 the following grounds: the will was not executed and attested as required by
law; its attestation clause and acknowledgment did not comply with the
requirements of the law; the signature of the testatrix was procured by fraud and
petitioner and her children procured the will through undue and improper
pressure and influence.

On January 17, 2000, after petitioner presented her evidence, respondent filed
a demurrer thereto alleging that petitioner's evidence failed to establish that the
decedent's will complied with Articles 804 and 805 of the Civil Code. In a
resolution dated July 6, 2001, the trial court denied the probate of the will ruling
that Article 806 of the Civil Code was not complied with because the will was
"acknowledged" by the testatrix and the witnesses at the testatrix's, residence at
No. 40 Kanlaon Street, Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a
commissioned notary public for and in Caloocan City.

Issue WON the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses
before a notary public acting outside the place of his commission satisfy the
requirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code?

Ruling NO. One of the formalities required by law in connection with the execution of a
notarial will is that it must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses. This formal requirement is one of the indispensable
requisites for the validity of a will. In other words, a notarial will that is not
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the instrumental
witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for probate. An acknowledgment is
the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer
and declaring it to be his act or deed. In the case of a notarial will, that
competent officer is the notary public.

A notary public’s commission is the grant of authority in his favor to perform

notarial acts. It is issued “within and for” a particular territorial jurisdiction and
the notary public’s authority is co-extensive with it. In other words, a notary
public is authorized to perform notarial acts, including the taking of
acknowledgments, within that territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the place of his
commission, he is bereft of power to perform any notarial act; he is not a notary
public. Any notarial act outside the limits of his jurisdiction has no force and
effect. As this Court categorically pronounced in Tecson v. Tecson, 61 Phil. 781
(1935): An acknowledgment taken outside the territorial limits of the officer’s
jurisdiction is void as if the person taking it were wholly without official character.

The acknowledgement of a notarial will coerces the testator and the

instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law, the notary public,
that they executed and subscribed the will as their own free act or deed. Such
declaration is under oath and under pain of perjury, thus paving the way for the
criminal prosecution of persons who participate in the execution of spurious
 wills, or those executed without the free consent of the testator. It also provides
a further degree of assurance that the testator is of a certain mindset in making
the testamentary dispositions to the persons instituted as heirs or designated as
devisees or legatees in the will. Acknowledgment can only be made before a
competent officer, that is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public.

8. Dolor vs. Diancin 55 Phil 479 (GRANDA)

Facts The will in question is alleged to have been executed by Paulino Diancin at Dumangas, Iloilo, on
November 13, 1927. A thumbmark appears at the end of the will and on the left hand margin of
each of its pages in the following manner: "Paulino Diancin, Su Signo, Por Pedro Diamante."
The witnesses to the will were the same Pedro Diamante, Inocentes Deocampo, and Juan
Dominado. The will is detailed in nature, and disposes of an estate amounting approximately to
P50,000.

CFI
The will of the deceased Paulino Diancin was denied probate in the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo on the sole ground that the thumbmarks appearing thereon were not the thumbmarks of the
testator. Disregarding the other errors assigned by the proponent of the will, we would direct
attention to the third error which challenges squarely the correctness of this finding.

SUPREME COURT
We reach the very definite conclusion that the document presented for probate as the last will of
the deceased Paulino Diancin was, in truth, his will, and that the thumbmarks appearing thereon
were the thumbmarks of the testator .Accordingly, error is found, which means that the judgment
appealed from must be, as it is hereby, reversed, and the will ordered admitted to probate,
without special finding as to costs in this instance.

Issue WON THUMBARK CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF A SIGNATURE

Ruling YES. The requirement of the statute that the will shall be "signed" is satisfied not only the
customary written signature but also by the testator's or testatrix' thumbmark .Expert testimony
as to the identity of thumbmarks or fingerprints is of course admissible. The method of
identification of fingerprints is a science requiring close study .Where thumb impressions are
blurred and many of the characteristic marks far from clear, thus rendering it difficult to trace the
features enumerated by experts as showing the identity or lack of identity of the impressions, the
court is justified in refusing to accept the opinions of alleged experts and in substituting its own
opinion that a distinct similarity in some respects between the admittedly genuine thumbmark
and the questioned thumbmarks, is evident .This we do here.

There is another means of approach to the question and an obvious one. The three instrumental
witnesses united in testifying concerning the circumstances surrounding the execution of the
will. It was stated that in addition to the testator and themselves, on other person, Diosdado
Dominado, was present. This latter individual was called as a witness by the oppositors to the
will to identify Exhibit 8. He was later placed on the witness stand by the proponent on rebuttal,
and thereupon declared positively that he was the one who prepared the will for the signature of
Paulino Diancin; that the thumbmarks appearing on the will were those of Paulino Diancin, and
 that he saw Paulino Diancin make these impressions. The testimony of a witness called by both
parties is worthy of credit.

9. Yap Tua vs Yap ka Kuan 27 Phil 579 (MORANTE)

Facts Perfecto Gabriel, representing the petitioner, Yap Tua, presented a petition in
the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, asking that the will of Tomasa
Elizaga Yap Caong be admitted to probate. Accompanying said petition and
attached thereto was the alleged will of the deceased.

The will was signed by the deceased, as well as Anselmo Zacarias, Severo
Tabora, and Timoteo Paez. Gabriel La O, as guardian ad litem of Yap Ca Kuan
and Yap Ca Llu, appeared in court and presented a motion in which he alleged
that the will which was admitted to probate by order of the court was null, for the
following reasons:

First:
(a) Because the same had not been authorized nor signed by the witnesses as
the law prescribes.
(b) Because at the time of the execution of the will, the said Tomasa Elizaga
Yap Caong was not then mentally capacitated to execute the same, due to her
sickness.
(c) Because her signature to the will had been obtained through fraud and illegal
influence upon the part of persons who were to receive a benefit from the same,
and
(d) Because the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong had no intention of executing
the same.

Second. That before the execution of the said will, which they alleged to be null,
the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong had executed another will, with all the
formalities required by law, upon the 6th day of August, 1909.

Third. That the said Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu were minors and that, even
though they had been negligent in presenting their opposition to the legalization
of the will, said negligence was excusable, on account of their age.

Allegedly, Tomasa was in another room different from that in which the will was
written and the will was not written in the presence of Tomasa.

Issue WHETHER OR NOT THE REQUIREMENT OF HAVING THE WILL SIGNED

BY THE TESTATOR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE WITNESSES WAS MET

Ruling Yes. ​A plan of the room or rooms in which the will was signed was presented as
proof and it was shown that there was but one room; that one part of the room
 was one or two steps below the floor of the other; that the table on which the
witnesses signed the will was located upon the lower floor of the room.

It was also shown that from the bed in which Tomasa was lying, it was possible
for her to see the table on which the witnesses signed the will. While the rule is
absolute that one who makes a will must sign the same in the presence of the
witnesses and that the witnesses must sign in the presence of each other, as
well as in the presence of the one making the will, yet, nevertheless, the actual
seeing of the signatures made is not necessary. It is sufficient if the signatures
are made where it is possible for each of the necessary parties if they desire to
see, may see the signatures placed upon the will.

10. Avera vs. Garcia 42 Phil 145 (BULATAO)

Facts Marino Garcia and Juan Rodriguez, the latter in the capacity of guardian for the
minors Jose Garcia and Cesar Garcia, contested the probate of the will,
instituted by Eutiquia Avera, of one Esteban Garcia.

During the hearing, the proponent of the will introduced one of the three
attesting witnesses who testified that the will was executed with all necessary
external formalities, and that the testator was at the time in full possession of
disposing faculties. Upon the latter point the witness was corroborated by the
person who wrote the will at the request of the testator. Two of the attesting
witnesses were not introduced, nor was their absence accounted for by the
proponent of the will.

When the proponent rested the attorney for the opposition introduced a single
witness whose testimony tended to show in a vague and indecisive manner that
at the time the will was made the testator was so debilitated as to be unable to
comprehend what he was about.

After the cause had been submitted for determination upon the proof thus
presented, the trial judge found that the testator at the time of the making of the
will was of sound mind and disposing memory and that the will had been
properly executed. He accordingly admitted the will to probate.

From this judgment, an appeal was taken in behalf of the persons contesting the
will, raising the following issues: first, whether a will can be admitted to probate,
where opposition is made, upon the proof of a single attesting witness, without
producing or accounting for the absence of the other two; and, secondly,
whether the will in question is rendered invalid by reason of the fact that the
signature of the testator and of the three attesting witnesses are written on the
right margin of each page of the will instead of the left margin.

Issues 1. Whether a will can be admitted to probate, where opposition is made,

 upon the proof of a single attesting witness, without producing or
accounting for the absence of the other two;
2. Whether the will in question is rendered invalid by reason of the fact that
the signature of the testator and of the three attesting witnesses are
written on the right margin of each page of the will instead of the left
margin

Ruling 1. NO. in Cabang vs. Delfinado, the court declared after an elaborate
examination of the American and English authorities that ​when a contest is
instituted, all of the attesting witnesses must be examined, if alive and within
reach of the process of the court.

In the present case no explanation was made at the trial as to why all three of
the attesting witnesses were not produced, but the probable reason is found in
the fact that, although the petition for the probate of this will had been pending
from December 21, 1917, until the date set for the hearing, which was April 5,
1919, no formal contest was entered until the very day set for the hearing; and it
is probable that the attorney for the proponent, believing in good faith the
probate would not be contested, repaired to the court with only one of the three
attesting witnesses at hand, and upon finding that the will was contested,
incautiously permitted the case to go to proof without asking for a postponement
of the trial in order that he might produce all the attesting witnesses.

Although this circumstance may explain why the three witnesses were not
produced, it does not in itself supply any basis for changing the rule expounded
in the case above referred to; and were it not for a fact now to be mentioned,
this court would probably be compelled to reverse this case on the ground that
the execution of the will had not been proved by a sufficient number of attesting
witnesses.

It appears, however, that this point was not raised by the appellant in the lower
court either upon the submission of the cause for determination in that court or
upon the occasion of the filing of the motion for a new trial. Accordingly it is
insisted for the appellee that this question cannot now be raised for the first time
in this court.

2. NO.The instrument now before us contains the necessary signatures on

every page, and the only point of deviation from the requirement of the statute is
that these signatures appear in the right margin instead of the left. By the mode
of signing adopted every page and provision of the will is authenticated and
guarded from possible alteration in exactly the same degree that it would have
been protected by being signed in the left margin; and the resources of
casuistry could be exhausted without discovering the slightest difference
between the consequences of affixing the signatures in one margin or the other.

Indeed, it is true that the statute says that the testator and the instrumental
witnesses shall sign their names on the left margin of each and every page; and
 it is undeniable that the general doctrine is to the effect that all statutory
requirements as to the execution of wills must be fully complied with. ​However,
some details at times creep into legislative enactments which are so trivial it
would be absurd to suppose that the Legislature could have attached any
decisive importance to them. The provision to the effect that the signatures of
the testator and witnesses shall be written on the left margin of each page —
rather than on the right margin — seems to be this character. So far as
concerns the authentication of the will, and of every part thereof, it can make no
possible difference whether the names appear on the left or no the right margin,
provided they are on one or the other.

11. Nayue vs. Mojal 47 Phil 152 (SUYAT)

Facts This is a proceeding for the probate of the will of the decease deceased Antonio
Mojal instituted by his surviving spouse, Filomena Nayve. The probate is
opposed by Leona Mojal and Luciana Aguilar, sister and niece, respectively, of
the deceased. The will in question is composed of four sheets with written
matter on only side of each, that is, four pages written on four sheets. The four
sides or pages containing written matter are paged “Pag. 1,” “Pag. 2,” “Pag. 3,”
“Pag. 4,” successively. Each of the first two sides or pages, which was issued,
was signed by the testator and the three witnesses on the margin, left side of
the reader. On the third page actually used, the signatures of the three
witnesses appear also on the margin, left side of the reader, but the signature of
the testator is not on the margin, but about the middle of the page, at the end of
the will and before the attestation clause. On the fourth page, the signatures of
the witnesses do not appear on the margin, but at the bottom of the attestation
clause, it being the signature of the testator that is on the margin, left side of the
reader.
The defects attribu attributed to the will are:
(a) The fact of not having been The fact of not having been signed by the
testator signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and the witnesses on
each and every sheet on the left margin;
(b) the fact of the sheets of the document not being paged with letters; (c) the
fact that the attestation clause does not state the number of sheets or pages
actually used of the will; and
(d) the fact that the testator does not appear to have signed all the sheets in the
presence of the three witnesses, and the latter to have attested and signed all
the sheets in the presence of the testator and of each other.

Trial court admitted the will to probate and from the judgment, the opponents
appealed.

Issue Whether or not the will can be admitted to probate

Ruling Yes.
 First defect: As each and every page used of the will bears the signatures of the
testator and the witnesses, the fact that said signatures do not all appear on the
left margin of each page does not detract from the validity of the will.

Second defect: The court held in Unson vs. Abella that paging with Arabic
numerals and not with letters, as in the case before us, is within the spirit of the
law and is just as valid as paging with letters.

Third defect: The attestation clause must state the number of sheets or pages
composing the will; but when, as in the case before us, such fact, while it is not
stated in the attestation clause, appears at the end of the will proper, so that no
proof aliunde is necessary of the number of the sheets of the will, then there
can be no doubt that it complies with the intention of the law that the number of
sheets of which the will is composed be shown by the document itself, to
prevent the number of the sheets of the will from being unduly increased or
decreased.

Fourth defect: It must be noted that in the attestation clause above set out it is
said that the testator signed the will “in the presence of each of the witnesses”
and the latter signed “in the presence of each other and of the testator.” So that,
as to whether the testator and the attesting witnesses saw each other sign the
will, such a requirement was clearly and sufficiently complied with. What is not
stated in this clause is whether the testator and the witnesses signed all the
sheets of the will. The act of the tes the testator and the witnesses seeing
recipro reciprocally the sig the signing of the will is one which cannot be proven
by the mere exhibition of the will unless it is stated in the document. And this
fact is expressly stated in the attestation clause now before us. But the fact of
the testator and the witnesses having signed all the sheets of the will may be
proven by the mere examination of the document, although it does not say
anything about this, and if that is the fact, as it is in the instant case, the danger
of fraud in this respect, which is what the law tries to avoid, does not exist. The
fact that the testa e testator and the witnesses sig ses signed each and every p
every page of the will is proven by the mere examination of the signatures in the
will, the omission to expressly state such evident fact does not invalidate the will
nor prevent its probate.

12. Testate Estate of Pilapil vs. Ca 72 Phil 546 (FERRIOLS)

Facts Father Eleuterio Pilapil, being a priest of the parish of Mualboal of the Province
of Cebu, died in the city of this name on December 6, 1935. No testament of his
had been presented after his death! At least until the beginning of February
1939, his brother Calixto Pilapil filed on the 6th day of said month and year, the
intestate file No. 399 to request that he be appointed administrator of the relic
property. A few days later appellee promoted the file No. 407 of which
 aforementioned was made, to request the legalization as a testament of the
deceased stating “I institute and appoint Mr. Adriano rIendoza, my political
nephew, married, of legal age and neighbor of the Municipality of Liloan,
Province of Cebu, EXECUTOR of this my Will and Last Will”

Issue Whether the will is valid considering that: (a) That it has not been proven that
the deceased possessed knowledge in Spanish, which is the language in which
the aforementioned documents appear; (b) That neither of the two has been
prepared, signed and attested in accordance with the provisions of Article 618
of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ruling Yes, since there was substantial compliance. The Supreme Court maintains the
criterion that strict compliance with the substantive requirements of the will must
be required to ensure its authenticity, but, at the same time, we believe that
defects should not be taken into account in a way that can not affect this
purpose and that, on the other hand, , if taken into account, could frustrate the
will of the testator.

Regarding the age of the testator and as to whether he spoke Spanish, which is
the language in which the two exhibits are written, or not, it must be said that
being a priest and a priest of the parish of Mualboal, Cebu, it must be presumed
that he was of the age competent to test, and who understood and spoke
Spanish, then, it is generally known that to be a priest of a parish, one must be
a priest, and to be a priest, many years of study are necessary in seminars
where Spanish is spoken. A language as official as English. On the other hand,
it does not appear that it has been proven that the testator did not understand
said language.

It is enough to draw attention to the fact that at the bottom of the first page there
are in letters the note that clearly says: " Go to the 2nd page "; and the fact that,
at the bottom of this second page, there is this other note: "Go to the 3rd page";
and it is enough to draw attention to the first two lines of said third page, which
is the last one, where, to complete the disposition that is the last-paragraph of
the previous page, or second, sc says the following:"... consists of two articles,
contains sixteen provisions and is written in three pages", \

The purpose of the law in establishing the formalities required in a will, is

undoubtedly to ensure and guarantee its authenticity against bad faith and
fraud, to prevent those who have no right to succeed the testator, succeed him
and leave benefited with the legalization of it. This purpose has been fulfilled in
the case that it has been discussed because, in the same body of the will and
on the same page where the clause of assurance appears, that is, the third, it is
stated that the will consists of three pages and because each one of the first two
is partly the note in letters, and partly the note in figures, which are respectively
the first and second pages of it. These facts evidently exclude any fear, any
suspicion, or any hint of doubt that one of their pages has been replaced with
 another.

13. Testate Estate of Abada vs. Abaja 450 SCRA 264 (DIMAANO)

Facts Abada died in 1940, and his widow Toray followed soon. They died without
legitimate children. Thereafter, grandchild Alipio filed an action for probate of will
of Abada because the latter allegedly named as his testamentary heirs his
natural children.
Caponong opposed the petition on the ground that there was no will, and if
there is, it is not executed and attested as required by law.
Alipio filed another action for probate of will of Toray. RTC admitted to probate,
designated petitioner Caponong-Noble as Special Administratrix of the estate of
Abada and Toray.

Issue W/n Civil Code governs the will of abada

Ruling NO. ​Abada executed his will on 4 June 1932. The laws in force at that time are
the Civil Code of 1889 or the Old Civil Code, and Act No. 190 or the Code of
Civil Procedure ​which governed the execution of wills before the enactment of
the New Civil Code.
However, the Code of Civil Procedure repealed Article 685 of the Old Civil
Code. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the intervention of a notary is not
necessary in the execution of ​any will. Therefore, Abada's will does not require
acknowledgment before a notary public.
We rule to apply the liberal construction in the probate of Abada's will. Abada's
will clearly shows four signatures: that of Abada and of three other persons. It is
reasonable to conclude that there are three witnesses to the will. The question
on the number of the witnesses is answered by an examination of the will itself
and without the need for presentation of evidence ​aliunde​.
Precision of language in the drafting of an attestation clause is desirable.
However, it is not imperative that a parrot-like copy of the words of the statute
be made. It is sufficient if from the language employed it can reasonably be
deduced that the attestation clause fulfills what the law expects of it.

14. Caneda vs. CA 222 SCRA 781 (TRINIDAD)

Facts Petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of testator Mateo Caballero,

elevated to the SC the decision of the CA affirming the RTC, which found the
will of Caballero to have been executed in accordance with law.

Petitioners asserted that the will in question is null and void for the reason that
its attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the
 instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their
presence and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the
presence of the testator and of one another. The attestation clause contained
“...and he (testator) has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces
provided for his signature and on the left hand margin, in the presence of the
said testator and in the presence of each and all of us.”

The CA held that said phrase was in substantial compliance with the
requirements of the law.

Issue 1. WON the attestation clause fatally defective?

2. WON the defect be cured under Article 809?

Ruling 1. ​Yes​, it is fatally defective. Under the 3rd par of Article 805, such a clause, the
complete lack of which would result in the invalidity of the will, should state (1)
the number of the pages used upon which the will is written; (2) that the testator
signed, or expressly caused another to sign, the will and every page thereof in
the presence of the attesting witnesses; and (3) that the attesting witnesses
witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages, and that said
witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the
testator and of one another.

While the clause in question recites that the testator indeed signed the will and
all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well
the number of pages that were used, the same does not expressly state therein
the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.

2. ​No​, it cannot be cured under Art. 809 which provides that 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 not proved that the will was in fact
executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of
article 805.

The absence of that statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection

which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will. Petitioners are
correct in pointing out that the aforestated defect in the attestation clause
obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the form of the will or the
language used therein which would warrant the application of the substantial
compliance rule. 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 attestation clause,
being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings.

15. Labrador vs. CA 184 SCRA 322 (GRANDA)

Facts On June 10, 1972, Melecio Labrador died in 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. Sagrado
Labrador (now deceased but substituted by his heirs), Enrica Labrador and Cristobal Labrador,
filed in the court ​a quo​ a petition for the probate.

Subsequently, on September 30, 1975, Jesus Labrador (now deceased but substituted by his
heirs), and Gaudencio Labrador filed an opposition to the petition on the ground that the will has
been extinguished or revoked by implication of law, alleging therein that on September 30, 1971,
that is, before Melecio's death, for the consideration of Six Thousand (P6,000) Pesos, testator
Melecio executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and conveying in favor of
oppositors Jesus and Gaudencio Lot No. 1916. Earlier however, in 1973, Jesus Labrador sold
said parcel of land to Navat for only Five Thousand (P5,000) Pesos.

The trial court decided, allowing the probate of the holographic will and declaring null and void
the Deed of Absolute sale. The court ​a quo had also directed the respondents (the defendants in
Civil Case No. 934-I) to reimburse to the petitioners

The Court of Appeals, modified said joint decision of the court ​a quo by denying the allowance
of the probate of the will for being undated and reversing the order of reimbursement.

Issue Whether or not the alleged holographic will of one Melecio Labrador is ​dated​, as provided
for in Article 810​ of the New Civil Code.

Ruling 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.

Respondents claim that the date 17 March 1968 in the will was when the testator and his
beneficiaries entered into an agreement among themselves about "the partitioning and assigning
the respective assignments of the said fishpond," and was not the date of execution of the
holographic will; hence, the will is more of an "agreement" between the testator and the
beneficiaries thereof to the prejudice of other compulsory heirs like the respondents. This was
thus a failure to comply with Article 783 which defines a will as "an act whereby a person is
permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of
his estate, to take effect after his death."

Respondents are in error. 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.

16. Rodelas vs. Aranza 119 SCRA 116 (MORANTE)

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:

1.Rodelas was estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will by failing to
produce the will within twenty days of the death of the testator as required by
Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules of Court;

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 holographic 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.

4.the deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise, executed and
attested as required by law.

MTD was denied. Aranza et al. filed an MR, Rodelas filed an opposition.

The CFI set aside its order and dismissed the petition for the probate of the will
stating that “in the case of Gan vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, 522, the Supreme Court
held that ‘in the matter of holographic wills the law, it is reasonable to suppose,
regards the document itself as the material proof of authenticity of said 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 that the decedent had
discarded the alleged holographic will before his death.

Rodelas filed an MR which was denied. Rodelas appealed to the CA. Aranza et
al. moved to forward the case to the SC as it involves a question of law not of
fact.
Issue W/N a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by
means of a photostatic copy/photocopy.

Ruling YES. ​Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is
the allowance of the will by the court after its due execution has been proved.
The probate may be uncontested or not. If uncontested, at least one identifying
witness is required and, if no witness is available, experts may be resorted to. If
contested, at least three identifying witnesses are required.

However, if the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is
available, the will can not 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 with the standard writings of the testator. In
the case of Gan v. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, the Court ruled that "the execution and
the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the
bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself
must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the
document itself as material proof of authenticity." But, in Footnote 8 of said
decision, it says that "Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or
photostatic copy.

Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar means, if any,

whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited
and tested before the probate court." ​Evidently, the photostatic or xerox
copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because
then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be
determined by the probate court.

17. Codoy vs. Calugay 312 SCRA 333 (BULATAO)

Facts Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees and
legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal,
filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition for probate of the holographic will of
the deceased.

In the petition, respondents claimed that the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de
Ramonal, was of sound and disposing mind when she executed the will, that
there was no fraud, undue influence, and duress employed in the person of the
testator, and will was written voluntarily.

Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an opposition to the

 petition for probate, alleging that the holographic will was a forgery and that the
same is even illegible. This gives an impression that a "third hand" of an
interested party other than the "true hand" of Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal
executed the holographic will.

Petitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated or appearing on will

after every disposition is out of the ordinary. If the deceased was the one who
executed the will, and was not forced, the dates and the signature should
appear at the bottom after the dispositions, as regularly done and not after
every disposition. And assuming that the holographic will is in the handwriting of
the deceased, it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence
on the part of the beneficiaries, or through fraud and trickery.

Respondents presented witnesses and various documentary evidence. The first

witness was the clerk of court of the probate court. He produced and identified
the records of the case bearing the signature of the deceased. The second
witness, an election registrar, was asked to produce and identify the voter’s
affidavit but failed, as the same was already destroyed and no longer available.
The third witness, the deceased’s niece, claimed that she had acquired
familiarity with the deceased’s signature and handwriting as she used to
accompany her in collecting rentals from her various tenants of commercial
buildings and the deceased always issued receipts. The niece also testified that
the deceased left a holographic will entirely written, dated, and signed by said
deceased. The fourth witness was a former lawyer for the deceased in the
intestate proceedings of her late husband, who said that the signature on the
will was similar to that of the deceased, but that he cannot be sure of. The fifth
was an employee of the DENR who testified that she was familiar with the
signature of the deceased which appeared in the latter’s application for pasture
permit. The fifth, respondent Evangeline Calugay, claimed that she had lived
with the deceased since birth where she had become familiar with her signature
and that the one appearing on the will was genuine.

Issue 1) Whether Article 811 of the Civil Code, providing that at least three witnesses
shall explicitly declare the signature in a contested will as the genuine signature
of the testator, mandatory or directory?

2) Whether the authenticity and due execution of the deceased’s holographic

will was sufficiently established?

Ruling 1) Based on the language used, Article 811 of the Civil Code is ​mandatory​. The
word "shall" connotes a mandatory order. We have ruled that "shall" in a statute
commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of
discretion and that the presumption is that the word "shall," when used in a
statute is mandatory.

Laws are enacted to achieve a goal intended and to guide against an evil or
mischief that aims to prevent. In the case at bar, the goal to achieve is to give
 effect to the wishes of the deceased and the evil to be prevented is the
possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit will employ means
to defeat the wishes of the testator.

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 primordial 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.

However, we cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document being

adjudged as the will of the testator, which is why if the holographic will is
contested, that law requires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the
handwriting of the deceased.

2) NO. None of the witnesses was able to sufficiently establish the authenticity
and due execution of the deceased’s holographic will. A visual examination of
the holographic will convince us that the strokes are different when compared
with other documents written by the testator. The signature of the testator in
some of the disposition is not readable. There were uneven strokes, retracing
and erasures on the will.

Comparing the signature in the holographic will dated August 30, 1978, and the
signatures in several documents such as the application letter for pasture permit
dated December 30, 1980, and a letter dated June 16, 1978, the strokes are
different. In the letters, there are continuous flows of the strokes, evidencing that
there is no hesitation in writing unlike that of the holographic will. The Court,
therefor, cannot be certain that ruling holographic will was in the handwriting by
the deceased.

18. Ajero vs. CA 236 SCRA 488 (SUYAT)

Facts The holographic will of Annie San was submitted for probate.

Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the
testament’s body nor the signature therein was in decedent’s
handwriting; it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly
signed by decedent; and, the will was procured by petitioners through
improper pressure and undue influence.

The petition was also contested by Dr. Ajero with respect to the
disposition in the will of a house and lot. He claimed that said property
could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole
 owner.

However, the trial court still admitted the decedent’s holographic will to
probate.

The trial court held that since it must decide only the question of the
identity of the will, its due execution and the testamentary capacity of the
testatrix, it finds no reason for the disallowance of the will for its failure
to comply with the formalities prescribed by law nor for lack of
testamentary capacity of the testatrix.

On appeal, the CA reversed said Decision holding that the decedent did
not comply with Articles 313 and 314 of the NCC. It found that certain
dispositions in the will were either unsigned or undated, or signed by not
dated. It also found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations made
had not been authenticated by decedent.

Issue Whether the CA erred in holding that Articles 813 and 814 of the NCC
were not complies with.

Ruling YES. A reading of Article 813 shows that its requirement affects the
validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its
probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the
result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure,
however, does not render the whole testament void.

Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate

notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814.

Unless the authenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were

made on the date of the holographic will or on testator’s signature, their
presence does not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will
only result in disallowance of such changes.

It is also proper to note that he requirements of authentication of changes

and signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Article 813
and 814) separate from that which provides for the necessary conditions
for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810).

This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that

only the requirements of Article 810 of the NCC – and not those found in
Articles 813 and 814 – are essential to the probate of a holographic will.

Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court and Article 839 of the Civil Code
enumerate the grounds for disallowance of wills. These lists are exclusive;
 no other grounds can serve to disallow a will.

In a petition to admit a holographic will, the only issues to be resolved

are:

1.whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent’s last will
and testament;

2.whether said will was executed in accordance with the formalities

prescribed by law;

3.whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the

time the will was executed; and

4.whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts
of the decedent.

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close

the door against bad faith and fraud; accordingly, laws on this subject
should be interpreted to attain these primordial ends.

In the case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity is the

requirement that they be totally authographic or handwritten by the
testator himself. Failure to strictly observe other formalities will no result
in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionable
handwritten by the testator.

19. Azaola vs. Singson 109 Phil 102 (FERRIOLS)

Facts Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance died at Quezon City, known to be the last residence
of said testatrix; that Francisco Azaola, petitioner herein for probate of the
holographic will, submitted the said holographic will whereby Maria Milagros
Azaola was made the sole heir as against the nephew of deceased Cesario
Singson; that witness Francisco Azaola testified that he saw the holographic will
one month, more or less, before the death of the testatrix, as the same was
handed to him and his wife; that the witness testified also that he recognized all
the signatures appearing in the holographic will as the handwriting of the
testatrix.The opposition to the probate was on the ground that (1) the execution
of the will was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the
part of the petitioner and his wife, and (2) that the testatrix did not seriously
intend the instrument to be her last will, and that the same was actually written
either on the 5th or 6th day of August 1957 and not on November 20, 1956 as
appears on the will. 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 by the
proponent "did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written in the
handwriting of the testatrix."

Issue Whether the holographic will is valid considering that he was not bound to
produce more than one witness because the will's authenticity was not
questioned; and that Article 811 does not mandatorily require the production of
three witnesses to identify the handwriting and signature of a holographic will,
even if its authenticity should be denied by the adverse party?

Ruling Yes, the holographic will is valid. According to Art.811 of the Civil Code “In the
probate of a holographic will, 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 of such witnesses shall be required.

In the absence of any competent witnesses referred to in the preceding

paragraph, and if the court deems it necessary, expert testimony may be
resorted to. (691a). “

We agree with the appellant that since the authenticity of the will was not
contested, he was not required to produce more than one witness; but even if
the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, we are of the opinion
that Article 811 of our present Civil Code can not be interpreted as to require the
compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the
testator, under penalty of having the probate denied.

Furthermore, under Article 811, the resort to expert evidence is conditioned by

the words "if the Court deem it necessary", which reveal that what the law
deems essential is that the Court should be convinced of the will's authenticity.
Where the prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the court is
convinced by their testimony that the ill is genuine, it may consider it
unnecessary to call for expert evidence.

20. Nazareno vs. CA 343 SCRA 637 (DIMAANO)

Facts

Issue

Ruling
21. Rivera vs. IAC 182 SCRA 322 (TRINIDAD)

Facts Venancio Rivera, a prominent and wealthy man, died. Jose Rivera (Jose),
claiming to be the only surviving legitimate son of the deceased, filed a petition
for the issuance of letters of administration over Venancio's estate. This petition
was opposed by Adelaido J. Rivera (Adelaido), who denied that Jose was the
son of the decedent. Adelaido averred that Venancio was his father and did not
die intestate but in fact left two holographic wills.

The trial court found that Jose was not the son of the decedent but of a different
Venancio Rivera who was married to Maria Vital. The Venancio Rivera whose
estate was in question was married to Maria Jocson, by whom he had seven
children, including Adelaido. Jose had no claim to this estate because the
decedent was not his father. The holographic wills were also admitted to
probate.

Issue WON Jose Rivera the proper party to contest the authenticity of a holographic
will as contemplated under Art. 811?

Ruling No. The existence and therefore also the authenticity of the holographic wills
were questioned by Jose Rivera and claimed that they were spurious.
Consequently, it may be argued, the respondent court should have applied
Article 811 of the Civil Code, providing as follows: “In the probate of a
holographic will, 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 of such witnesses shall be required.”

However, as already determined, Jose Rivera is not the son of the deceased
Venancio Rivera whose estate is in question. Hence, being a mere stranger, he
had no personality to contest the wills and his opposition thereto did not have
the legal effect of requiring the three witnesses. The testimony of Zenaida and
Venancio Rivera, Jr., who authenticated the wills as having been written and
signed by their father, was sufficient.

Hence, there is no necessity of presenting the three witnesses required under

Article 811 because the authenticity of the holographic wills had not been
questioned.

22. Capitle vs. Elbambuena 509 SCRA 444 (GRANDA)

Facts A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) was issued to Cristobal Olar (Olar) covering an
 agricultural lot in Nueva Ecija. Respondents Fortunata Elbambuena (Fortunata) and Rosalinda
Olar (Rosalinda), spouse and daughter-in-law, respectively, of Olar, now deceased, claim that
Olar relinquished one-half or 0.9072 hectare of the lot to Rosalinda by a "Kasunduan"​1 dated
July 17, 1992 the execution of which was witnessed by petitioner Cirilo Capitle; and that the
remaining portion of the lot was surrendered to Fortunata by an undated document. ​Iluminada
and Cirilo Capitle, on the other hand, claim that they have been in possession of the lot since
1960 and presented a “Waiver of Rights” executed by Olar, wherein he acknowledged that he
co-possessed the lot with petitioners Capitle. A ―Pinagsamang Patunay‖ certifying that they
are the actual tillers and possessors of the lot was likewise presened.

While Elbambuena and Olar‘s petition was pending before the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD), petitioners Capitle filed before the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
(​MARO​), Nueva Ecija a petition for ​cancellation of the CLOA issued to Olar, on the ground that
they are the new farmer-beneficiaries as shown by, among other things, the “Waiver of Rights”
executed by Olar.
PARAD ruled in favor of petitioners Capitle. Elbambuena and Olar appealed the decision to the
DARAB. The DARAB set aside PARAD‘s decision. The case was then elevated to the Court of
Appeals via petition for review. The ​appellate​ court affirmed in toto the DARAB decision.

Issue WON DARAB erred in finding THAT THE PRESUMPTION, THE CLOA WAS ISSUED TO
CRISTOBAL OLAR IN THE REGULAR COURSE [OF] OFFICIAL FUNCTION WAS
NEVER OVERCOME BY CONTRARY EVIDENCE; (Who has the better right, heirs or
tenants?)

Ruling Petitioners concede that although Olar's death passed all his rights and interest over the lot to his
legal heirs, his intent of not bequeathing them to his estranged wife but to a relative, who helped
him in tilling the lot and who took care of him, should be accorded respect over the intent of the
law on hereditary succession.

The petition fails.

Petitioners' argument that "[i]t would be absurd for [Olar] to bequeath his property to his
estranged wife not to a relative who had indeed ​helped ​him in tilling the property and [took]
good care of his needs​,"​ ​15 is a virtual admission that their possession was not in the concept of
owners, they having merely "helped" in tilling the lot, thereby acknowledging that Olar was ​the
actual possessor and tiller.

Absent evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the public officers who issued the CLOA
to Olar regularly performed their duties, including adhering to the provisions of Section 22 of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) thus stands.

Although estranged from Olar, respondent Fortunata remained his wife and legal heir, mere
estrangement not being a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of
the deceased spouse.Rosalinda, on the other hand, is the surviving spouse of Olar's son. The two
are thus real parties-in-interest who stand to be injured or benefited by the judgment on the
cancellation of the CLOA issued in Olar's name.

23. Paz Samaniego-Celada vs. Abence 556 SCRA 569 (MORANTE)

Facts Petitioner Paz Samaniego-Celada was the first cousin of decedent Margarita S.
Mayores (Margarita) while respondent was the decedent’s lifelong companion
since 1929. Sometime in 1987, Margarita died single and without any neither
ascending nor descending heirs as her parents, grandparents and siblings
predeceased her and were survived by her first cousins who included petitioner.

Before her death, Margarita executed a Last Will and Testament where she
bequeathed one-half of her undivided shares of a real property to respondent,
Norma Pahingalo, and Florentino Abena in equal shares or one-third portion
each; bequeathed also one-half of her undivided shares of a real property to
respondent, Isabelo Abena, and Amanda Abena in equal shares or one-third
portion each. Margarita also left all her personal properties to respondents
whom she likewise designated as sole executor of her will.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for letters of administration of the estate of

Margarita a month later respondent filed a petition for probate of the will of
Margarita. In 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the last will and
testament of Margarita probated and respondent as the executor of the will.
Petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appealswhich was
however affirmed in toto the RTC ruling.

Issue (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the will invalid for failure
to comply with the formalities required by law,

(2) whether said court erred in not declaring the will invalid because it was
procured through undue influence and pressure, and

(3) whether it erred in not declaring petitioner and her siblings as the legal heirs
of Margarita, and in not issuing letters of administration to petitioner.

Ruling *PROCEDURAL ASPECT* ​After careful consideration of the parties'

contentions, we rule in favor of the respondent. We find that the issues raised
by petitioner concern pure questions of fact, which may not be the subject of a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Nonetheless, a review of the findings of the RTC as upheld by the Court of

Appeals, reveal that petitioner's arguments lack basis.

1. With regard to the contention of the oppositors was not mentally capable of
making a will at the time of the execution thereof, the same is without merit. ​The
oppositors failed to establish, by preponderance of evidence, said
allegation and contradict the presumption that the testator was of sound
mind (See Article 800 of the Civil Code). I​n fact, witness for the oppositors,
Dr. Ramon Lamberte, who, in some occasions, attended to the testator months
before her death, testified that Margarita Mayores could engage in a normal
conversation and he even stated that the illness of the testator does not warrant
hospitalization. Not one of the oppositors witnesses has mentioned any instance
that they observed act/s of the testator during her lifetime that could be
construed as a manifestation of mental incapacity. The testator may be admitted
to be physically weak but it does not necessarily follow that she was not of
sound mind. [The] testimonies of contestant witnesses are pure aforethought.

Anent the contestants submission that the will is fatally defective for the reason
that its attestation clause states that the will is composed of three (3) pages
while in truth and in fact, the will consists of two (2) pages only because the
attestation is not a part of the notarial will, the same is not accurate. While it is
true that the attestation clause is not a part of the will, the court, after examining
the totality of the will, is of the considered opinion that error in the number of
pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate
the subject will. It must be noted that the subject instrument is consecutively
lettered with pages A, B, and C which is a sufficient safeguard from the
possibility of an omission of some of the pages. The error must have been
brought about by the honest belief that the will is the whole instrument
consisting of three (3) pages inclusive of the attestation clause and the
acknowledgement. The position of the court is in consonance with the doctrine
of liberal interpretation enunciated in Article 809 of the Civil Code which reads:

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.

2. ​NO. ​Finally, the court finds that ​no pressure nor undue influence was
exerted on the testator to execute the subject will. In fact, the picture
reveals that the testator was in a good mood and smiling with the other
witnesses while executing the subject will.

In fine, the court finds that the testator was mentally capable of making the will
at the time of its execution, that the notarial will presented to the court is the
same notarial will that was executed and that all the formal requirements (See
Article 805 of the Civil Code) in the execution of a will have been substantially
complied with in the subject notarial will.

3. ​NO. ​Since, petitioner and her siblings are not compulsory heirs of the
decedent under Article 887 of the Civil Code and as the decedent validly
disposed of her properties in a will duly executed and probated, petitioner has
no legal right to claim any part of the decedent’s estate.

Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:

(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents
and ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect
to their legitimate children and descendants;
 (3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in
Nos. 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one another.
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned,
shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code.

24. Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte 700 SCRA 778 (BULATAO)

Facts This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
which raised a pure question of law.

Petitioners, together with some of their cousins, filed a complaint for

Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance with Damages against respondent
Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte a.k.a. "Gaudioso E. Ypon.” They alleged that
Magdaleno Ypon died intestate and childless, leaving behind parcels of land.
Claiming to be the sole heir of Magdaleno, Gaudioso executed an Affidavit of
Self-Adjudication and caused the cancellation of the aforementioned certificates
of title, leading to their subsequent transfer in his name, to the prejudice of
petitioners who are Magdaleno’s collateral relatives and successors-in-interest.

In his Answer, Gaudioso alleged that he is the lawful son of Magdaleno as

evidenced by: (a) his certificate of Live Birth; (b) two (2) letters from Polytechnic
School; and (c) a certified true copy of his passport. Further, by way of
affirmative defense, he claimed that: (a) petitioners have no cause of action
against him; (b) the complaint fails to state a cause of action; and (c) the case is
not prosecuted by the real parties-in-interest, as there is no showing that the
petitioners have been judicially declared as Magdaleno’s lawful heirs.

The RTC issued the assailed Order, finding that the subject complaint failed to
state a cause of action against Gaudioso. It observed that while the plaintiffs
therein had established their relationship with Magdaleno in a previous special
proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration, this did not mean that
they could already be considered as the decedent’s compulsory heirs. Quite the
contrary, Gaudioso satisfactorily established the fact that he is Magdaleno’s son
– and hence, his compulsory heir – through the documentary evidence he
submitted.

Issue Whether or not the case should be dismissed on the ground that the subject
complaint failed to state a cause of action.

Ruling YES. In the case of Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. CA, the Court, citing several
 other precedents, held that the determination of who are the decedent’s lawful
heirs must be made in the proper special proceeding for such purpose, and not
in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and/or possession, as in this case.
This must take precedence over the action for recovery of possession and
ownership.

The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of
heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be
made in a special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues another for
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong
while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration
of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the
petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right.

By way of exception, the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the
determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as
when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial
court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and
the RTC had consequently rendered judgment thereon, or when a special
proceeding had been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, and
hence, cannot be re-opened.

In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or those of similar nature, appear
to exist. Hence, there lies the need to institute the proper special proceeding in
order to determine the heirship of the parties involved, ultimately resulting to the
dismissal of the civil case.

25. Rebusquillo vs. Galvez 725 SCRA 259 (SUYAT)

Facts Petitioner was one of the seven children of deceased, Eulalio Abarientos and
Victoria Villareal. Both of them died intestate. The deceased left a parcel of land
in Legazpi City. In 2001, respondent Emelinda (daughter of petitioner), made
petitioner sign two documents. In 2003, the petitioner discovered that the two
documents were an affidavit of self-adjudication, and a deed of absolute sale in
favor of the respondent spouses. Petitioner then filed an action to annul the two
documents before the RTC. In the respondents’ answer, they admitted the
execution of the affidavit and deed, but they argued that it was with the consent
of all the heirs of Eulalio and Victoria, and that such was agreed to be done to
facilitate the titling of the property. Respondents further argued that the
petitioner received the amount of Php 50,000 for the sale.
 The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. The CA reversed the RTC’s decision
and said that the affidavit and the sale were valid.

Issue Whether or not the affidavit of self-adjudication and the sale are valid

Ruling No. ​An Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only proper when the affiant is the sole
heir of the decedent. (Sec. 1, Rule 74, ROC). As admitted by respondents,
Avelina was not the sole heir of Eulalio. In fact, as admitted by respondents,
petitioner Salvador is one of the co-heirs by right of representation of his mother.
Without a doubt, Avelina had perjured herself when she declared in the affidavit
that she is the only daughter and sole heir of spouses Eulalio and Victoria. The
falsity of this claim renders her act of adjudicating to herself the inheritance left
by her father invalid.

In effect, Avelina was not in the right position to sell and transfer the absolute
ownership of the subject property to respondents. As she was not the sole heir of
Eulalio and her Affidavit of Self- Adjudication is void, the subject property is
still subject to partition. Avelina, in fine, did not have the absolute ownership of
the subject property but only an aliquot portion. What she could have transferred
to respondents was only the ownership of such aliquot portion. It is apparent
from the admissions of respondents and the records of this case that Avelina had
no intention to transfer the ownership, of whatever extent, over the property to
respondents. Hence, the Deed of Absolute Sale is nothing more than a simulated
contract.

The Civil Code provides:

Art. 1345. Simulation of a contract may be absolute or relative. The former takes
place when the parties do not intend to be bound at all; the latter, when the
parties conceal their true agreement.

Art. 1346. An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void. A relative

simulation, when it does not prejudice a third person and is not intended for any
purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy
binds the parties to their real agreement.

In the present case, respondents admitted that the purpose of the sale was to
facilitate titling and not the transfer of ownership.

26. Heirs of Valentin Basbas vs. Basbas 735 SCRA 625 (FERRIOLS)

Facts Both parties, petitioners, Heirs of Valentin Basbas, and respondent Ricardo
 trace their claim of ownership over herein subject property to Severo.
Petitioners filed an Action for Annulment of Title, Reconveyance with Damages
against Crispiniano and respondent Ricardo seeking to: (1) annul Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-294295 issued in the names of Crispiniano and Ricardo
covering the contested lot, and (2) recover possession of the subject property
before the Municipal Trial Court, Santa Rosa, Laguna, docketed as Civil Case
No. 1913. Countering petitioners' allegations, Crispiniano and Ricardo
denied petitioners' ownership over Lot No. 39 and contended that upon
Severo's death, he was survived by two heirs, Valentin (grandfather of
petitioners) and Nicolas Basbas (Nicolas) (paternal grandfather of Crispiniano
and Ricardo) who evenly divided Severo's estate, comprising of two lots.
Together with this is an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of deceased
Severo Basbas executed by Crispiniano and Ricardo which included the lot 39
is to be adjudicated to them. The trial courts annulled Crispiniano and Ricardo’s
TCT and ordered the reconveyance to the heirs.

Issue Whether or not the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Severo

Basbas executed by Crispiniano and Ricardo Basbas is valid.

Ruling
No, since based on the evidence on hand, defendants [including herein
respondent Ricardo] acquired the property in question through fraud and,
therefore, an implied trust was created in favor of [petitioners] under Article
1456 of the New Civil Code, which provides, thus: If property is acquired
through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered
a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property
comes. Claiming to be the only heirs of Felomino Basbas (their father), and that
Felomino Basbas and Melencio Casubha are the only heirs of the late Severo
Basbas, Crispiniano Basbas and Ricardo Basbas executed an Extra-Judicial
Settlement of Estate of Deceased Severo Basbas on November 12, 1993,
whereby they adjudicated to themselves Lot No. 39 of the Santa Rosa
Detached Estate Since a constructive trust was created, [petitioners] have the
right to recover the property subject of this action. The fact that the decision of
the RTC, Biñan, Laguna approving/granting the petition for the reconstitution of
the title covering Lot No. 39 and said decision has obtained its finality, is of no
moment.

27. Margie Santos Mitra vs Perpetua Sablan-Guevarra GR #213994 April 18, 2018
(DIMAANO)

Facts Petitioner Mitra filed a petition for probate of notarial will of Legaspi alleging that
she (petitioner) is the de facto adopted daughter of Legaspi. Legaspi left a will
instituting respondents Castro, Sablan and Guevarra as heirs, devisees and
legatees, leaving them approx 1M, designated Castro as executor of the will.
 Respondents claiming to be Legaspi’s legal heirs opposed the petition on the
ground that the will was not executed in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by law.
RTC admitted probate. CA reversed and set aside the decision.

Issue 1. W/n CA erred in finding the instrumental witnesses to the will failed to
sign on each and every page on the left margin as required under Art.
805, CC
2. W/n CA erred in ruling that the failure to state number of pages renders
such will defective

Ruling 1. YES. Art. 805 of the CC provides that 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.
In the original copy, they signed on the left margins except the last. The
confusion arose when respondents presented an ​altered photocopy stating
otherwise. In any event, it is uncontested and can be readily gleaned that the
instrumental witnesses signed on each and every page of the will, except the
last page. Such being the case, the CA erred in concluding otherwise. There is
no doubt that the requirement under the Article 805 of the Civil Code, which
calls for the signature of the testator and of the instrumental witnesses on each
and every page of the will on the left margin, except the last, was complied with.

2. YES. Article 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. An
examination of the will in question reveals that the attestation clause
indeed failed to state the number of pages comprising the will. However,
as was the situation in ​Taboada,​ this omission was supplied in the
Acknowledgment. It was specified therein that the will is composed of
four pages, the Acknowledgment included.

28. In the Matter of the Petition for the Probate of the Will of Enrique Lopez, Richard
Lopez vs Diana Lopez November 12,2012 (TRINIDAD)

Facts On June 21, 1999, Enrique S. Lopez (Enrique) died leaving his wife, Wendy B.
Lopez, and their four legitimate children, namely, petitioner Richard B. Lopez
(Richard) and the respondents Diana Jeanne Lopez (Diana), Marybeth de Leon
(Marybeth) and Victoria L. Tuazon (Victoria) as compulsory heirs. Before Enrique’s
​
death, he executed a Last Will and Testament on August 10, 1996 and constituted
 Richard as his executor and administrator.

On September 27, 1999, Richard filed a petition for the probate of his father's Last
Will and Testament before the RTC of Manila with prayer 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.

The instrumental witnesses presented by Richard 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. In the Decision dated August 26, 2005, the RTC
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.

Issue WON the will should be allowed.

Ruling
NO. ​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. 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.

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.

29. Taboada vs Hon RosalG.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982. (GRANDA)

Facts Petitioner Apolonio Taboada filed a petition for probate of the will of the late Dorotea perez.
The will consisted of two pages, the first page containing all the testamentary dispositions of
the testator and was signed at the end or bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the
left hand margin by the three instrumental witnesses. The second page consisted of the
attestation clause and the acknowledgment was signed at the end of the attestation clause by
the three witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix. The trial court disallowed the
 will for want of formality in its execution because the will was signed at the bottom of the
page solely by the testatrix, while the three witnesses only signed at the left hand margin of
the page. The judge opined that compliance with the formalities of the law required that the
witnesses also sign at the end of the will because the witnesses attest not only the will itself
but the signature of the testatrix. Hence, this petition.

Issue (1) ​For the validity of a formal notarial will, does Article 805 of the Civil Code
require that the testatrix and all the three instrumental and attesting witnesses
sign ​at the end ​of the will and in the presence of the testatrix and of one
another? (Yes.)

(2) ​Whether or not the will is void for failure to state the number of pages used in
writing the will. (No.)

Ruling 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).

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. While perfection in the drafting
of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be ignored,
especially where the authenticity of the will is not assailed. (Gonzales v. Gonzales, 90 Phil.
444, 449).

The law is to be liberally construed, "the underlying and fundamental objective permeating
the provisions on the law on wills in this project consists in the liberalization of the manner
of their execution with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his
last wishes but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud
and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. This
objective is in accord with the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the execution
of a will" (Report of the Code Commission, p. 103).

The objects of attestation and of subscription were fully met and satisfied in the present case
when the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page which contains all
the testamentary dispositions, especially so when the will was properly identified by
subscribing witness Vicente Timkang to be the same will executed by the testatrix. There
was no question of fraud or substitution behind the questioned order.

Anent the second issue, this would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that, in
this case, it is discernible from the entire will that it is really and actually composed of only
two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses. [T]he first page which
contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions is signed by the testatrix at the end or
at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin. The other page
which is marked as “​Pagina dos”​ comprises the attestation clause and the acknowledgment.
The acknowledgment itself states that “This Last Will and Testament consists of two pages
including this page”.