PERRY VS.

ELIO

JABONETA VS. GUSTILO

NEYRA VS NEYRA

ABANGAN VS ABANGAN
(DIGESTED ALREADY)

EUTIQUIA AVERA V. MARINO GARCIA, and JUAN RODRIGUEZ

G.R. No. 15566; September 14, 1921
STREET, J.:

Facts:
In proceedings in the court below, instituted by Eutiquia Avera for probate of the will of
one Esteban Garcia, contest was made by Marino Garcia and Juan Rodriguez, the latter in
the capacity of guardian for the minors Jose Garcia and Cesar Garcia. Upon the date
appointed for the hearing, the proponent of the will introduced one of the three attesting
witnesses who testified — with details not necessary to be here specified — 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.

Issue:
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) When the petition for probate of a will is contested, the proponent should introduce all
three of the attesting witnesses, if alive and within reach of the process of the court; and
the execution of the will cannot be considered sufficiently proved by the testimony of only
one, without satisfactory explanation of the failure to produce the other two.
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 but 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.

2) A will otherwise properly executed in accordance with the requirements of existing law
is not rendered invalid by the fact that the paginal signatures of the testator and attesting
witnesses appear in the right margin instead of the left.

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOSEFA VILLACORTE. 

CELSO ICASIANO V. NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO
G.R. No. L-18979; June 30, 1964
REYES, J.B.L., J.:

FACTS
. This special proceeding was begun on October 2, 1958 by a petition for the allowance and
admission to probate of the original as the alleged will of Josefa Villacorte (testatrix),
deceased.
. The court set the proving of the alleged will and caused notice thereof to be published for
3 successive weeks, previous to the time appointed, in the newspaper "Manila Chronicle",
and also caused personal service of copies thereof upon the known heirs.
A daughter and son of the testatrix opposed the probate of the alleged will.
. Celso later filed a motion for the admission of an amended and supplemental petition,
alleging that the decedent left a will executed in duplicate with all the legal requirements,
and that he was submitting the signed duplicate. This was also opposed.
-Court, after hearing the parties, issued the order admitting the will and its duplicate to
probate. Natividad and Enrique were unhappy so they appealed to SC directly
.The evidence presented for the petitioner is summarized as follows: Testatrix executed a
last will and testament in duplicate at the house of her daughter Mrs. Felisa Icasiano at
Manila, published before and attested by 3 instrumental witnesses, namely; attorneys
Torres, Jr. and Jose Natividad (Jose), and Dr. Diy; that the will was acknowledged by the
testatrix and by the said three instrumental witnesses on the same date before attorney
Ong, Notary Public in and for Manila; and that the will was actually prepared by attorney
Samson, who was also present during the execution and signing of the decedent's last will
and testament, together with former Governor Rustia of Bulacan, Judge Ramon Icasiano,
and a little girl. Of the said three instrumental witnesses to the execution of the decedent's
last will and testament attorneys Torres and Jose were in the Philippines at the time of the
hearing, and both testified as to the due execution and authenticity of the said will. So did
the Notary Public before whom the will was acknowledged by the testatrix and attesting
witnesses, and also attorney Samson.
. The original consists of five pages, and while signed at the end and in every page, it does
not contain the signature of one of the attesting witnesses, Jose, on page (3); but the
duplicate copy is signed by the testatrix and her 3 attesting witnesses in each and every
page.
.Witness Jose admits that he may have lifted two pages instead of one when he signed the
same, but affirmed that page 3 was signed in his presence.

ISSUE
WON the inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament,
due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is NOT per se sufficient
to justify denial of probate.

HELD
YES. It DOES NOT JUSTIFY DENIAL of probate. Impossibility of substitution of this page is
assured not only the fact that the testatrix and two other witnesses did sign the defective
page, but also by its bearing the coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public before
whom the testament was ratified by testatrix and all three witnesses. The law should not be
so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the
inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she had no control, where the
purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is
sufficiently attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation existed, and the evidence on
record attests to the full observance of the statutory requisites. Otherwise, as stated in Vda.
de Gil vs. Murciano, "witnesses may sabotage the will by muddling or bungling it or the
attestation clause".
.This would not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict and literal application
of the statutory requirements, where the purposes of the law are otherwise satisfied. Thus,
despite the literal tenor of the law, this Court has held that a testament, with the only page
signed at its foot by testator and witnesses, but not in the left margin, could nevertheless be
probated (Abangan vs. Abangan); and that despite the requirement for the correlative
lettering of the pages of a will, the failure to mark the first page either by letters or
numbers is not a fatal defect (Lopez vs. Liboro). These precedents exemplify the Court's
policy to require satisfaction of the legal requirements in order to guard against fraud and
bad faith but without undue or unnecessary curtailment of the testamentary privilege.
. SC is satisfied that : the testatrix signed both original and duplicate copies of the will
spontaneously, on the same occasion, in the presence of the three attesting witnesses, the
notary public who acknowledged the will, and Atty. Samson, who actually prepared the
documents; that the will and its duplicate were executed in Tagalog, a language known to
and spoken by both the testator and the witnesses, and read to and by the testatrix and
Atty. Samson together before they were actually signed; that the attestation clause is also in
a language known to and spoken by the testatrix and the witnesses. .The opinion of expert
for oppositors did not convince the SC principally because said expert failed to show
convincingly that there are radical differences that would justify the charge of forgery,
taking into account the advanced age of the testatrix.
.There is also no adequate evidence of fraud or undue influence. The fact that some heirs
are more favored than others is proof of neither.
.That the carbon duplicate was produced & admitted without a new publication does not
affect the jurisdiction of the probate court, already conferred by the original publication of
the petition for probate

FERNANDEZ VS. VERGEL

TESTACY OF SIXTO LOPEZ. JOSE S. LOPEZ V. AGUSTIN LIBORO

G.R. NO. L-1787; AUGUST 27, 1948
TUASON, J.:
FACTS:
The will of Don Sixto Lopez was submitted for probate by Jose Lopez and Clemencia Lopez,
the Don’s sister. The probate was opposed by Agustin Liboro who contended that the will is
not valid due to the following grounds:
That the deceased never executed the alleged will; 2) that his signature appearing in said
will was a forgery; (3) that at the time of the execution of the will, he was wanting in
testamentary as well as mental capacity due to advanced age; (4) that, if he did ever
execute said will, it was not executed and attested as required by law, and one of the
alleged instrumental witnesses was incapacitated to act as such; and it was procured by
duress, influence of fear and threats and undue and improper pressure and influence on
the part of the beneficiaries instituted therein, principally the testator's sister, Clemencia
Lopez, and the herein proponent, Jose S. Lopez; and (5) that the signature of the testator
was procured by fraud or trick. Liboro pointed out that the first page of the will, which was
contained in two pages in all, was not numbered in letters or Arabic numbers as what
should have been required by law. It was also argued that the testator should have signed
the will with his signature and not only with his thumb print if he indeed had the capacity
to execute the will. Furthermore, the will did not expressly state that the language used is a
language which the Don understood; in this case, it was in Spanish.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was substantial compliance to qualify the will for probate.

RULING:

Yes, it was executed in all particulars as required by law.

The purpose of the law in prescribing the paging of wills is guard against fraud, and to
afford means of preventing the substitution or of defecting the loss of any of its pages. In
the present case, the omission to put a page number on the first sheet, if that be necessary,
is supplied by other forms of identification more trustworthy than the conventional
numerical words or characters. The unnumbered page is clearly identified as the first page
by the internal sense of its contents considered in relation to the contents of the second
page. By their meaning and coherence, the first and second lines on the second page are
undeniably a continuation of the last sentence of the testament, before the attestation
clause, which starts at the bottom of the preceding page. Furthermore, the unnumbered
page contains the caption "TESTAMENTO," the invocation of the Almighty, and a recital that
the testator was in full use of his testamentary faculty, all of which, in the logical order of
sequence, precede the direction for the disposition of the marker's property. Again, as page
two contains only the two lines above mentioned, the attestation clause, the mark of the
testator and the signatures of the witnesses, the other sheet can not by any possibility be
taken for other than page one.
 
The testator affixed his thumbmark to the instrument instead of signing his name. The
reason for this was that the testator was suffering from "partial paralysis." While another in
testator's place might have directed someone else to sign for him, as appellant contends
should have been done, there is nothing curious or suspicious in the fact that the testator
chose the use of mark as the means of authenticating his will. It was a matter of taste or
preference. Both ways are good. A statute requiring a will to be "signed" is satisfied if the
signature is made by the testator's mark.

As for the question on the language of the will, there is no statutory requirement that such
knowledge be expressly stated in the will itself. It is a matter that may be established by
proof aliunde.

The will may therefore be submitted for probate.

ABANGAN V. ABANGAN

LOPEZ V. LOPEZ

CANEDA V. CA
(SAME CASE @ NO. 53)

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF THE WILL OF DOROTEA
PEREZ, APOLONIO TABOADA V. HON. AVELINO S. ROSAL
G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982  
GUTIERREZ, JR. J.:

FACTS:
The petitioner filed a petition to probate the will of the deceased with the respondent court
and 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 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 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.
Instead of complying with the order of the trial court, the petitioner filed a manifestation
and/or motion, ex parte praying for a thirty-day period within which to deliberate on any
step to be taken as a result of the disallowance of the will.
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the probate of the
will. However, the motion together with the previous manifestation and/or motion could
not be acted upon by the Honorable Ramon C. Pamatian due to his transfer to his new
station at Pasig, Rizal. The said motions or incidents were still pending resolution when
respondent Judge Avelino S. Rosal assumed the position of presiding judge of the
respondent court.
Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of special administrator.
Subsequently, the new Judge denied the motion for reconsideration as well as the
manifestation and/or motion filed ex parte. In the same order of denial, the motion for the
appointment of special administrator was likewise denied.
The petitioner decided to file the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent erred in denying the probate the will of the deceased filed
by petitioner.

HELD: The Court find the petition meritorious.

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).
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. (Gonzales v. Gonzales).
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).
Parenthetically, Judge Ramon C. Pamatian stated in his questioned order that were not for
the defect in the place of signatures of the witnesses, he would have found the testimony
sufficient to establish the validity of the 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.

MARAVILLA V. MARAVILLA

ROSARIO FELICIANO VDA. DE RAMOS, ET AL. V. COURT OF APPEALS, MARCELINA

(MARTINA) GUERRA and THE HEIRS OF BUENAVENTURA GUERRA
 G.R. No. L-40804 January 31, 1978
GUERRERO, J.:

FACTS:  
Adelaida Nista who claimed to be one of the instituted heirs, filed a petition for the probate
of the alleged will and testament and codicil of the late Eugenia Danila. The petitioner
prayed that after due notice and proper hearing, the alleged will and codicil be probates
and allowed and that she or any other person be appointed as administrator of the
testatrix's estate. Buenaventura and Marcelina (Martina) both surnamed Guerra filed an
opposition and an amended opposition to the petition alleging that they are the legally
adopted son and daughter of the late spouses Florentino Guerra and Eugenia Danila that
the purported will and codicil subject of the petition were procured through fraud and
undue influence; that the formalities required by law for the execution of a will and codicil
have not been complied with as the same were not properly attested to or executed and not
expressing the free will and deed of the purported testatrix.
Then, the petitioner and the oppositors, entered into a Compromise Agreement and was
approved by the lower court.
Rosario de Ramos, Miguel Danila Felix Danila Miguel Gavino Amor Danila Consolacion
Santos and Miguel Danila son of the late Fortunato Danila filed a motion for leave to
intervene as co-petitioners alleging that being instituted heirs or devisees, they have rights
and interests to protect in the estate of the late Eugenia Danila.
The intervenors also filed a motion for new trial and to set aside the judgment based on
compromise. The oppositors interposed an opposition to the motion to which the
intervenors filed their reply.
The lower court resolved the motions in an order declaring movants Rosario de Ramos
and are allowed and admitted to intervene to this proceeding, the compromise agreement
is disapproved and he original Petition and amended opposition to probate of the alleged
will and codicil stand.
A motion for reconsideration of the foregoing order was filed by the intervenors co-
petitioners but the motion was denied.
After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered its decision dated allowing the probate
of the will in that decision, although two of the attesting witness Odon Sarmiento and
Rosendo Paz, testified that they did not see the testatrix Eugenia Danila sign the will but
that the same was already signed by her when they affixed their own signatures thereon,
the trial court gave more weight to the 'straight-forward and candid" testimony of Atty.
Ricardo Barcenas, the Notary Public who assisted in the execution of the will that the
testatrix.
Oppositors Marcelina Guam and the heirs of Buenaventura Guam appealed the foregoing
decision to the Court of Appeals and ruled that the lower court acted correctly in setting
aside its judgment approving the Compromise Agreement and in allowing the intervenor
petitioners to participate in the instant probate proceedings; however, it disallowed the
probate of the will.
Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the last testament and its accompanying codicil were executed in
accordance with the formalities of the law, considering the complicated circumstances that
two of the attesting witnesses testified against their due execution while other non-
subscribing witnesses testified to the contrary.

HELD: We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and restore the decision of the trial
court allowing probate of the will and codicil in question.
There is ample and satisfactory evidence to convince us that the will and codicil were
executed in accordance with the formalities required by law. It appears positively and
convincingly that the documents were prepared by a lawyer, Atty. Manuel Alvero The
execution of the same was evidently supervised by his associate, Atty. Ricardo Barcenas
and before whom the deeds were also acknowledged. The solemnity surrounding the
execution of a will is attended by some intricacies not usually within the comprehension of
an ordinary layman. The object is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of the will and testament, and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. If
there should be any stress on the participation of lawyers in the execution of a wig, other
than an interested party, it cannot be less than the exercise of their primary duty as
members of the Bar to uphold the lofty purpose of the law. There is no showing that the
above-named lawyers had been remiss in their sworn duty. Consequently, respondent
court failed to consider the presumption of ty in the execution of the questioned
documents. There were no incidents brought to the attention of the trial court to arouse
suspicion of anomaly. While the opposition alleged fraud and undue influence, no evidence
was presented to prove their occurrence. There is no question that each and every page of
the will and codicil carry the authentic signatures of Eugenia Danila and the 3 attesting
witnesses. Similarly, the attestation claim far from being deficient, were properly signed by
the attesting witnesses. Neither is it disputed that these witnesses took turns in signing the
will and codicil in the presence of each other and the testatrix. Both instruments were duly
acknowledged before a Notary Public who was all the time present during the execution.
Unlike other deeds, ordinary wills by necessity of law must contain an attestation clause
which, significantly is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding that the
conduct of execution. Once signed by the attesting witnesses, it that compliance with the
indispensable legal formalities had been observed. This Court had previously hold that the
attestation clause basically contracts the pretense of undue ex execution which later on
may be made by the attesting witnesses. In the attestation clause, the witnesses do not
merely attest to the signature of the testatrix but also to the proper execution of the will,
and their signature following that of the testatrix show that they have in fact at not only to
the genuineness of the testatrix's signature but also to the due execution of the will as
embodied in the attention clause. By signing the will the witnesses impliedly to the truth of
the facts which admit to probate, including the sufficiency of execution, the capacity of the
testatrix, the absence of undue influence, and the like.

ALDABA V. ROQUE