Icasiano v.

Icasiano Digest
Icasiano vs. Icasiano
G.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964

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

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

Issue: Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a page is sufficient to deny
probate of the will

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

The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single
witness over whose conduct she has no control of. Where the purpose of the law is to guarantee the identity of the testament
and its component pages, and there is no intentional or deliberate deviation existed.

Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the rules that the will should be signed by the witnesses on every
page. The carbon copy duplicate was regular in all respects.

Cagro v. Cagro
92 P 1032

FACTS:

Vicente Cagro died on Feb. 14, 1949 in Samar. Since the decedent allegedly made a will prior to his death, the will was probated
before the CFI of Samar. However, the oppositors-appellant objected the probate proceeding alleging that the will is
fatally defective because its attestation clause is not signed by the attesting witnesses. It is undisputed that the signatures of the
three witnesses to the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause, although the page containing the same is
signed by the witnesses on the left-hand margin.

ISSUE:

W/N the will may be probated even if the signatures of the witnesses do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause, and
instead, they were placed on the left-hand margin of the page containing the same.

HELD:

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

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

Bautista Angelo, J. dissenting:

I dissent. In my opinion the will in question has substantially complied with the formalities of the law and, therefore, should be
admitted to probate. It appears that the will was signed by the testator and was attested by three instrumental witnesses, not
only at the bottom, but also on the left-hand margin. The witnesses testified not only that the will was signed by the testator in
their presence and in the presence of each other but also that when they did so, the attestation clause was already written
thereon. Their testimony has not been contradicted. The only objection set up by the oppositors to the validity of the will is the
fact that the signatures of the instrumental witnesses do not appear immediately after the attestation clause.

This objection is too technical to be entertained. In the case of Abangan vs. Abangan, (40 Phil. 476), this court said that when the
testamentary dispositions “are wholly written on only one sheet signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses (as
the instant case),their signatures on the left margin of said sheet would be completely purposeless.” In such a case, the court
said, the requirement of the signatures on the left hand margin was not necessary because the purpose of the law — which is to
avoid the substitution of any of the sheets of the will, thereby changing the testator’s  dispositions — has already been
accomplished. We may say the same thing in connection with the will under consideration because while the three instrumental
witnesses did not sign immediately by the majority that it may have been only added on a subsequent occasion and not at the
uncontradicted testimony of said witnesses to the effect that such attestation clause was already written in the will when the
same was signed.

TUASON, J., dissenting:

I concur in Mr. Justice Bautista’s dissenting opinion and may add that the majority decision erroneously sets down as a fact that
the attestation clause was not signed when the witnesses’ signatures appear on the left margin and the real and only question is
whether such signatures are legally sufficient. The law on wills does not provide that the attesting witness should sign the clause
at the bottom. In the absence of such provision, there is no reason why the signatures on the margin are not acceptable

C. Rules when Testator is Deaf or Mute; Rules if the Testator is Blind;

Garcia v. Vasquez
32 SCRA 489

FACTS
This is a petition for appeal from the CFI of Manila admitting to probate the will of Gliceria Avelino del Rosario (“Gliceria”)
executed in 1960. Likewise, this is also an appeal to remove the current administrator, Consuelo Gonzales-Precilla( “Consuelo”)
as special administratrix of the estate on the ground of Consuelo possesses interest adverse to the estate and to order the RD of
Manila to annotate on the registered lands a notice of Lis Pendens.
When Gliceria died she had no descendants, ascendants, bros or sisses and 90 yrs old. After which, her
niece, Consuelo petitioned the court to be the administratrix of the properties. The court approved this because Consuelo has
been was already managing the properties of the deceased during her lifetime. What the respondents allege is that in the last
years of the deceased, Consuelo sought the transfer of certain parcels of land valued at 300k for a sale price of 30k to her
husband Alfonso through fraud and intimidation. In addition, the oppositors presented evidence that Consuelo asked the court
to issue new Certificates of Titles to certain parcels of land for the purpose of preparing the inventory to be used in the probate.
Also shown was that NEW TCTs were issued by the RD for certain lands of the deceased after Consuelo asked for the old TCTs.
At the end of the probate proceedings, the court ruled that Counsuelo should be made the administrator, and that the will was
duly executed because of these reasons: NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED to establish that the deceased was not of sound
mind, that eventough the allegations state that the deceased prepared another will in 1956 (12pages), the latter is not
prevented from executing another will in 1960 (1page), and that inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses prove their
truthfulness.
ISSUE:
Was the will in 1960 (1 page) duly/properly executed?
HELD:
NO. Provision of Article 808 mandatory. Therefore, For all intents and purposes of the rules on probate, the testatrix was like a
blind testator, and the due execution of her will would have required observance of Article 808. The rationale behind the
requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate) , is to
make the provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes.
Likewise, the 1970 will was done in Tagalog which the deceased is not well versed but in Spanish. This creates doubt as to the
due execution of the will and as well as the typographical errors contain therein which show the haste in preparing the 1 page
will as compared to the 12 page will created in 1956 written in Spanish. ALSO, as to the blindness, there was proof given by the
testimony of the doctor that the deceased could not read at near distances because of cataracts. (Testatrix’s vision was mainly
for viewing distant objects and not for reading print.) Since there is no proof that it was read to the deceased twice, the will was
NOT duly executed.
ALSO, Consuelo should be removed as administrator because she is not expected to sue her own husband to reconvey the lands
to the estate alleged to have been transferred by the deceased to her own husband.
The notice of lis pendens is also not proper where the issue is not an action in rem, affecting real property or the title thereto.

Alvarado v. Gaviola
226 SCRA 347

FACTS:

On 5 November 1977, 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled “Huling Habilin” wherein he disinherited an
illegitimate son, petitioner Cesar Alvarado, and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting
probate before the RTC of Laguna.
According to Bayani Ma. Rino, private respondent, he was present when the said notarial will was executed, together with three
instrumental witnesses and the notary public, where the testator did not read the will himself, suffering as he did from
glaucoma.
Rino, a lawyer, drafted the eight-page document and read the same aloud before the testator, the three instrumental witnesses
and the notary public, the latter four following the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them.
Thereafter, a codicil entitled “Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na May Petsa
Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado” was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the
testator’s eye operation.
Said codicil was likewise not read by Brigido Alvarado and was read in the same manner as with the previously executed will.
When the notarial will was submitted to the court for probate, Cesar Alvarado filed his opposition as he said that the will was
not executed and attested as required by law; that the testator was insane or mentally incapacitated due to senility and old age;
that the will was executed under duress, or influence of fear or threats; that it was procured by undue pressure and influence on
the part of the beneficiary; and that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick.

ISSUE:

W/N notarial will of Brigido Alvarado should be admitted to probate despite allegations of defects in the execution and
attestation thereof as testator was allegedly blind at the time of execution and the double-reading requirement under Art. 808
of the NCC was not complied with.

HELD:

YES. The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there should be strict compliance with the
substantial requirements of law in order to insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside
when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the testator’s will.
Cesar Alvardo was correct in asserting that his father was not totally blind (of counting fingers at 3 feet) when the will and codicil
were executed, but he can be so considered for purposes of Art. 808.
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil.
However, in the case at bar, there was substantial compliance where the purpose of the law has been satisfied: that of making
the provisions known to the testator who is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate) and enabling
him to object if they do not accord with his wishes.
Rino read the testator’s will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary
public.
Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read corresponded with his
instructions.
Only then did the signing and acknowledgment take place.
There is no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the
testator.
With four persons, mostly known to the testator, following the reading word for word with their own copies, it can be safely
concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that what was read to him were the terms actually appearing on the
typewritten documents.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is  blind or incapable of reading the will to himself
(as when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in
accordance with his wishes.
Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of law in order to insure the authenticity of the
will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account,
may only defeat the testator’s will.

D. Effect of Substantial Compliance (Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation of Wills);

Caneda v. CA
222 SCRA 781

FACTS:

On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children and already in the twilight years of his life, executed a
last will and testament at his residence before 3 witnesses.

He was assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Emilio Lumontad.

In the will, it was declared that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to several
people all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator.

4 months later, Mateo Caballero himself filed a case seeking the probate of his last will and testament, but numerous
postponements pushed back the initial hearing of the probate court regarding the will.

On May 29, 1980, the testator passed away before his petition could finally be heard by the probate court.

Thereafter one of the legatees, Benoni Cabrera, sought his appointment as special administrator of the testator’s estate.

Thereafter, the petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a second petition for intestate
proceedings. They also opposed the probate of the testator’s will and the appointment of a special administrator for his estate.

Benoni Cabrera died and was replaced by William Cabrera as special administrator and gave an order that the testate
proceedings for the probate of the will had to be heard and resolved first.

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

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

Probate court then rendered a decision declaring the will in question as the last will and testament of the late Mateo Caballero.

CA affirmed the probate court’s decision stating that it substantially complies with Article 805. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE:

W/N the attestation clause in the will of the testator is fatally defective or can be cured under the art. 809.

HELD:

No. It does not comply with the provisions of the law.

Ordinary or attested wills are governed by Arts. 804 to 809. The will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the attesting witnesses. The attestation clause need not be written in a language known to the testator or even to
the attesting witnesses.

It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the witnesses it
gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities required by law has been observed.

The attestation clause, therefore, provides strong legal guaranties for the due execution of a will and to  insure the authenticity
thereof.
It is contended by petitioners that the attestation clause in the will failed to specifically state the fact that the attesting witnesses
witnessed the testator sign the will and all its pages in their presence and that they, the witnesses, likewise signed the will and
every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. And the Court agrees.

The attestation clause 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.

The phrase, “and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the space provided for his signature and on the
left hand margin,” obviously refers to the testator and not the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the
words” as his last will and testament.”

Clearly lacking is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of
one another. That the absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in
the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be probated.

Also, Art. 809 does not apply to the present case because the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting
witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The  defect in this case is not
only with respect to the form or the language of the attestation clause. The defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence
supplied by the will itself which is clearly lacking in this case.

Therefore, the probate of the will is set aside and the case for the intestate proceedings shall be revived.

Article 809 cannot be used to cure the defects of the will when it does not pertain to the form or language of the will. This is
because there is not substantial compliance with Article 805.

E. Definition of Holographic Will; Advantages and Disadvantages; Formalities of Holographic Will;

Roxas v. De Jesus
134 SCRA 245

FACTS:

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

ISSUE:

W/N the date “FEB./61 ” appearing on the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the
Article 810 of the Civil Code.

HELD:

Valid date.

This will not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict and literal application of the statutory requirements regarding
the due execution of Wills. The underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the provisions of the law wills 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. If a Will has been executed in substantial compliance with the formalities of
the law, and the possibility of bad faith and fraud in the exercise thereof is obviated, said Will should be admitted to probate
(Rey v. Cartagena 56 Phil. 282).

If the testator, in executing his Will, attempts to comply with all the requisites, although compliance is not literal, it is sufficient if
the objective or purpose sought to be accomplished by such requisite is actually attained by the form followed by the testator. In
Abangan v. Abanga 40 Phil. 476, we ruled that: 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. …
In particular, a complete date is required to provide against such contingencies as that of two competing Wills executed on the
same day, or of a testator becoming insane on the day on which a Will was executed (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720). There is no
such contingency in this case.

We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there
any substitution of Wins and Testaments. There is no question that the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus
was entirely written, dated, and signed by the testatrix herself and in a language known to her. There is also no question as to its
genuineness and due execution. All the children of the testatrix agree on the genuineness of the holographic Will of their mother
and that she had the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of said Will. The objection interposed by the oppositor-
respondent Luz Henson is that the holographic Will is fatally defective because the date “FEB./61 ” appearing on the holographic
Will is not sufficient compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code. This objection is too technical to be entertained.

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

Labrador v. CA
184 SCRA 170

FACTS:

Melecio died leaving behind a parcel of land to his heirs. However, during probate proceedings, Jesus and Gaudencio filed
an opposition on the ground that the will has been extinguished by implication of law alleging that before Melecio’s death, the
land was sold to them evidenced by TCT No. 21178. Jesus eventually sold it to Navat.
Trial court admitted the will to probate and declared the TCT null and void. However, the CA on appeal denied probate on the
ground that it was undated.

ISSUE:

W/N the alleged holographic will is dated, as provided for in Article 810 of CC.

HELD:

YES. The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The only requirements are that
the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.

The intention to show March 17 1968 as the date of the execution is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the
paragraph. It states that “this being in the month of March 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision and or  instruction of
mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than Melecio Labrador, their father.” This
clearly shows that this is a unilateral act of Melecio who plainly knew that he was executing a will.