G.R. No.

122880

April 12, 2006

FELIX AZUELA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO s !s"i" "#$ !% ERNESTO G. CASTILLO, Respondents. DECISION TINGA, J.: The core of this petition is a highly defective notarial will, p rportedly e!ec ted "y E genia E. Igsolo #decedent$, who died on %& Dece'"er %()* at the age of )+. In ref sing to give legal recognition to the d e e!ec tion of this doc 'ent, the Co rt is provided the opport nity to assert a few i'portant doctrinal r les in the e!ec tion of notarial wills, all self,evident in view of -rticles )+. and )+& of the Civil Code. A &ill &'os# (""#s"("io) *l( s# $o#s )o" *o)"(i) "'# ) +!#r o, p(-#s o) &'i*' "'# &ill is &ri""#) is ,("(ll% $#,#*"i.#. A &ill &'os# (""#s"("io) *l( s# is )o" si-)#$ !% "'# i)s"r +#)"(l &i")#ss#s is ,("(ll% $#,#*"i.#. A)$ p#r'(ps +os" i+por"()"l%, ( &ill &'i*' $o#s )o" *o)"(i) () (*/)o&l#$-+#)", ! " ( +#r# jurat, is ,("(ll% $#,#*"i.#. A)% o)# o, "'#s# $#,#*"s is s ,,i*i#)" "o $#)% pro!("#. A )o"(ri(l &ill &i"' (ll "'r## $#,#*"s is 0 s" (*'i)- ,or 0 $i*i(l r#0#*"io). There is a distinct and conse/ ential reason the Civil Code provides a co'prehensive catalog of i'peratives for the proper e!ec tion of a notarial will. 0 ll and faithf l co'pliance with all the detailed re/ isites nder -rticle )+. of the Code leave little roo' for do "t as to the validity in the d e e!ec tion of the notarial will. -rticle )+& li1ewise i'poses another safeg ard to the validity of notarial wills 2 that they "e ac1nowledged "efore a notary p "lic "y the testator and the witnesses. - notarial will e!ec ted with indifference to these two codal provisions opens itself to nagging / estions as to its legiti'acy. The case ste's fro' a petition for pro"ate filed on %+ -pril %()3 with the Regional Trial Co rt #RTC$ of 4anila. The petition filed "y petitioner 0eli! -5 ela so ght to ad'it to pro"ate the notarial will of E genia E. Igsolo, which was notari5ed on %+ 6 ne %()%. Petitioner is the son of the co sin of the decedent. The will, consisting of two #*$ pages and written in the vernac lar Pilipino, read in f ll7 89:IN; 8-<I:IN NI E9;ENI- E. I;SO:O S- N;-:-N N; 4-=>-P-:, -4EN7 ->O, si E9;ENI- E. I;SO:O, na1atira sa .++ San Diego St., Sa'paloc, 4anila, pitongp t siya' #?($ na g lang, nasa h stong pagi,isip, pag, nawa at 'e'oria ay nag,hahayag na ito na ang a1ing h ling ha"ilin at testa'ento, at "ina"ali wala 1o lahat ang na nang ginawang ha"ilin o testa'ento7 9na,8inihiling 1o na a1o ay 'aili"ing sa Se'enterio del Norte, :a :o'a sang,ayong sa 1a galian at pata1aran ng si'"ahang 1atoli1o at ang taga,pag,ingat #E!ec tor$ ng ha"iling ito ay 'agtatayo ng "antayog pang sil"ing ala,ala sa a1in ng a1ing pa'ilya at 1ai"igan@ Pangalawa,-1ing ipinag1a1aloo" at isinasalin ang lahat ng 1arapatan sa a1ing pa'ang1in na si 0eli! -5 ela, na siyang nag,alaga sa a1in sa 'aha"ang panahon, yaong 'ga "ahay na na1atiri1 sa lote n 'ero *), <loc1 *3 at na1apangalan sa Pechaten >orporasyon, ganoon din i"ini"igay 1o ang lahat ng 1arapatan sa "ahay na na1atiri1 sa inoopahan 1ong lote, n 'ero 3A, <loc1 *3 na pag,aari ng Pechaten Corporation. Ipinag1a1aloo" 1ong " ong " o ang lahat ng 1arapatan sa "ahay at l pa na nasa .++ San Diego St., :ot 3*, <loc1 *3, Sa'paloc, 4anila 1ay 0eli! -5 ela at ang pag1a1aloo" 1ong ito ay walang pas "aliBt at 1ondiciones@ Pangatlo, Na nin n '"rahan 1o si C-RT P-;9E na siyang nagpapat pad ng h ling ha"iling ito at 1ag st han 1o rin na hindi na 1ailan'an siyang 'ag,laga1 ng piyansiya. -1ing nilagdaan ang 8 ling 8a"ilin na ito dito sa 4aynila i1a %+ ng 8 nyo, %()%.

#Sgd.$ E9;ENI- E. I;SO:O #Tagapag'ana$ P-T9N-= N; 4;- S->SI -ng 1as latang ito, na "in " o ng DDDD dahon pati ang h ling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa a'in ni E genia E. Igsolo, tagapag'ana na siya niyang 8 ling 8a"ilin, ngayon i1a,%+ ng 8 nyo %()%, ay nilagdaan ng nasa"ing tagapag'ana sa ilali' ng 1as latang na"anggit at sa 1aliwang panig ng lahat at "awaBt dahon, sa harap ng lahat at "awaBt sa a'in, at 1a'i na'ang 'ga sa1si ay l 'agda sa harap ng nasa"ing tagapag'ana at sa harap ng lahat at "awaBt isa sa a'in, sa ilali' ng nasa"ing 1as latan at sa 1aliwang panig ng lahat at "awaBt dahon ng 1as latan ito. E9;ENI- E. I;SO:O address7 .++ San Diego St. Sa'paloc, 4anila Res. Cert. No. -,??%?,A? Iss ed at 4anila on 4arch %+, %()%. E9IRINO -;R-Caddress7 %**),Int. A, >ahil ' Pandacan, 4anila Res. Cert. No. -,3.)A&. Iss ed at 4anila on 6an. *%, %()% :-4<ERTO C. :E-FO address7 -ven e *, <lco1 ?, :ot &%, San ;a"riel, ;.4-., Cavite Res. Cert. No. -,?&)*?? iss ed at Car'ona, Cavite on 0e". ?, %()% 69-NITO ESTRERaddress7 City Co rt Co'po nd, City of 4anila Res. Cert. No. -.?3)*( Iss ed at 4anila on 4arch *, %()%. Nilagdaan 1o at ninotario 1o ngayong %+ ng 8 nyo %+, %()% dito sa : ngsod ng 4aynila. #Sgd.$ PETRONIO =. <-9TISTDoc. No. %*A* @ NOT-RIO P9<:I>O Page No. )& @ 9ntil Dec. A%, %()% <oo1 No. 3A @ PTR,%.*+3%,%G*G)%,4anila Series of %()% T-N H %3A?,(??,)% The three na'ed witnesses to the will affi!ed their signat res on the left,hand 'argin of "oth pages of the will, " t not at the "otto' of the attestation cla se. The pro"ate petition adverted to only two #*$ heirs, legatees and devisees of the decedent, na'ely7 petitioner hi'self, and one Irene :ynn Igsolo, who was alleged to have resided a"road. Petitioner prayed that the will "e allowed, and that letters testa'entary "e iss ed to the designated e!ec tor, Cart Prag e. The petition was opposed "y ;eralda -ida Castillo #;eralda Castillo$, who represented herself as the attorney,in,fact of Ithe %* legiti'ate heirsI of the decedent.* ;eralda Castillo clai'ed that the will is a forgery, and that the tr e p rpose of its e'ergence was so it co ld "e tili5ed as a defense in several co rt cases filed "y oppositor against petitioner, partic larly for forci"le entry and s rpation of real property, all centering on petitionerBs right to occ py the properties of the decedent.A It also asserted that contrary to the representations of petitioner, the decedent was act ally s rvived "y %* legiti'ate heirs, na'ely her grandchildren, who were then residing a"road. Per records, it was s "se/ ently alleged that decedent was the widow of <onifacio Igsolo, who died in %(&., 3 and the 'other of a legiti'ate child, -s ncion E. Igsolo, who predeceased her 'other "y three #A$ 'onths..

Oppositor ;eralda Castillo also arg ed that the will was not e!ec ted and attested to in accordance with law. She pointed o t that decedentBs signat re did not appear on the second page of the will, and the will was not properly ac1nowledged. These twin arg 'ents are a'ong the central 'atters to this petition. -fter d e trial, the RTC ad'itted the will to pro"ate, in an Order dated %+ - g st %((*. & The RTC favora"ly too1 into acco nt the testi'ony of the three #A$ witnesses to the will, E irino -grava, :a'"erto :eano, and 6 anito Estrada. The RTC also called to fore Ithe 'odern tendency in respect to the for'alities in the e!ec tion of a will ! ! ! with the end in view of giving the testator 'ore freedo' in e!pressing his last wishes@I ? and fro' this perspective, re" tted oppositorBs arg 'ents that the will was not properly e!ec ted and attested to in accordance with law. -fter a caref l e!a'ination of the will and consideration of the testi'onies of the s "scri"ing and attesting witnesses, and having in 'ind the 'odern tendency in respect to the for'alities in the e!ec tion of a will, i.e., the li"erali5ation of the interpretation of the law on the for'al re/ ire'ents of a will with the end in view of giving the testator 'ore freedo' in e!pressing his last wishes, this Co rt is pers aded to r le that the will in / estion is a thentic and had "een e!ec ted "y the testatri! in accordance with law. On the iss e of lac1 of ac1nowledge'ent, this Co rt has noted that at the end of the will after the signat re of the testatri!, the following state'ent is 'ade nder the s ",title, IPat nay Ng 4ga Sa1siI7 I-ng 1as latang ito, na "in " o ng DDDDD dahon pati ang h ling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa a'in ni E genia N. Igsolo, tagapag'ana na siya niyang 8 ling 8a"ilin, ngayong i1a,%+ ng 8 nyo %()%, ay nilagdaan ng nasa"ing tagapag'ana sa ilali' ng 1as latang na"anggit at sa 1aliwang panig ng lahat at "awaBt dahon, sa harap ng lahat at "awaBt sa a'in, at 1a'i na'ang 'ga sa1si ay l 'agda sa harap ng nasa"ing tagapag'ana at sa harap ng lahat at "awaBt isa sa a'in, sa ilali' ng nasa"ing 1as latan at sa 1aliwang panig ng lahat at "awaBt dahon ng 1as latan ito.I The afore/ oted declaration co'prises the attestation cla se and the ac1nowledge'ent and is considered "y this Co rt as a s "stantial co'pliance with the re/ ire'ents of the law. On the oppositorBs contention that the attestation cla se was not signed "y the s "scri"ing witnesses at the "otto' thereof, this Co rt is of the view that the signing "y the s "scri"ing witnesses on the left 'argin of the second page of the will containing the attestation cla se and ac1nowledg'ent, instead of at the "otto' thereof, s "stantially satisfies the p rpose of identification and attestation of the will. Jith regard to the oppositorBs arg 'ent that the will was not n '"ered correlatively in letters placed on pper part of each page and that the attestation did not state the n '"er of pages thereof, it is worthy to note that the will is co'posed of only two pages. The first page contains the entire te!t of the testa'entary dispositions, and the second page contains the last portion of the attestation cla se and ac1nowledge'ent. S ch "eing so, the defects are not of a serio s nat re as to invalidate the will. 0or the sa'e reason, the fail re of the testatri! to affi! her signat re on the left 'argin of the second page, which contains only the last portion of the attestation cla se and ac1nowledg'ent is not a fatal defect. -s regards the oppositorBs assertion that the signat re of the testatri! on the will is a forgery, the testi'onies of the three s "scri"ing witnesses to the will are convincing eno gh to esta"lish the gen ineness of the signat re of the testatri! and the d e e!ec tion of the will.) The Order was appealed to the Co rt of -ppeals "y Ernesto Castillo, who had s "stit ted his since deceased 'other,in, law, ;eralda Castillo. In a Decision dated %? - g st %((., the Co rt of -ppeals reversed the trial co rt and ordered the dis'issal of the petition for pro"ate.( The Co rt of -ppeals noted that the attestation cla se failed to state the n '"er of pages sed in the will, th s rendering the will void and ndeserving of pro"ate. %+ 8ence, the present petition. Petitioner arg es that the re/ ire'ent nder -rticle )+. of the Civil Code that Ithe n '"er of pages sed in a notarial will "e stated in the attestation cla seI is 'erely directory, rather than 'andatory, and th s s scepti"le to what he ter'ed as Ithe s "stantial co'pliance r le.I%% The sol tion to this case calls for the application of -rticles )+. and )+& of the Civil Code, which we replicate in f ll.

-rt. )+.. Every will, other than a holographic will, ' st "e s "scri"ed at the end thereof "y the testator hi'self or "y the testatorKs na'e written "y so'e other person in his presence, and "y his e!press direction, and attested and s "scri"ed "y three or 'ore credi"le witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The testator or the person re/ ested "y hi' to write his na'e and the instr 'ental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, e!cept the last, on the left 'argin, and all the pages shall "e n '"ered correlatively in letters placed on the pper part of each page. The attestation shall state the n '"er of pages sed pon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or ca sed so'e other person to write his na'e, nder his e!press direction, in the presence of the instr 'ental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. If the attestation cla se is in a lang age not 1nown to the witnesses, it shall "e interpreted to the'. -rt. )+&. Every will ' st "e ac1nowledged "efore a notary p "lic "y the testator and the witnesses. The notary p "lic shall not "e re/ ired to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Cler1 of Co rt. The appellate co rt, in its Decision, considered only one defect, the fail re of the attestation cla se to state the n '"er of pages of the will. < t an e!a'ination of the will itself reveals several 'ore deficiencies. -s ad'itted "y petitioner hi'self, the attestation cla se fails to state the n '"er of pages of the will. %* There was an inco'plete atte'pt to co'ply with this re/ isite, a space having "een allotted for the insertion of the n '"er of pages in the attestation cla se. =et the "lan1 was never filled in@ hence, the re/ isite was left nco'plied with. The Co rt of -ppeals po nced on this defect in reversing the trial co rt, citing in the process Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca%A and In re: Will of Andrada.%3 In Uy Coque, the Co rt noted that a'ong the defects of the will in / estion was the fail re of the attestation cla se to state the n '"er of pages contained in the will. %. In r ling that the will co ld not "e ad'itted to pro"ate, the Co rt 'ade the following consideration which re'ains highly relevant to this day7 IThe p rpose of re/ iring the n '"er of sheets to "e stated in the attestation cla se is o"vio s@ "'# $o* +#)" +i-'" #(sil% !# so pr#p(r#$ "'(" "'# r#+o.(l o, ( s'##" &o l$ *o+pl#"#l% *'()-# "'# "#s"(+#)"(r% $isposi"io)s o, "'# &ill ()$ i) "'# (!s#)*# o, ( s"("#+#)" o, "'# "o"(l ) +!#r o, s'##"s s *' r#+o.(l +i-'" !# #,,#*"#$ !% "(/i)- o " "'# s'##" ()$ *'()-i)- "'# ) +!#rs (" "'# "op o, "'# ,ollo&i)- s'##"s or p(-#s . If, on the other hand, the total n '"er of sheets is stated in the attestation cla se the falsification of the doc 'ent will involve the inserting of new pages and the forging of the signat res of the testator and witnesses in the 'argin, a 'atter attended with ' ch greater diffic lty.I %& The case of In re Will of Andrada concerned a will the attestation cla se of which failed to state the n '"er of sheets or pages sed. This consideration alone was s fficient for the Co rt to declare I nani'LityM pon the point that the defect pointed o t in the attesting cla se is fatal.I %? It was f rther o"served that Iit cannot "e denied that the ! ! ! re/ ire'ent affords additional sec rity against the danger that the will 'ay "e ta'pered with@ and as the :egislat re has seen fit to prescri"e this re/ ire'ent, it ' st "e considered 'aterial.I %) -gainst these cited cases, petitioner cites Singson v. Florentino%( and Taboada v. on. !osal,*+ wherein the Co rt allowed pro"ate to the wills concerned therein despite the fact that the attestation cla se did not state the n '"er of pages of the will. =et the appellate co rt itself considered the i'port of these two cases, and 'ade the following distinction which petitioner is na"le to re" t, and which we adopt with approval7 Even a c rsory e!a'ination of the Jill #E!hi"it IDI$, will readily show that the attestation does not state the n '"er of pages sed pon which the will is written. 8ence, the Jill is void and ndeserving of pro"ate. Je are not i'pervio s of the Decisions of the S pre'e Co rt in I4an el Singson vers s E'ilia 0lorentino, et al., (* Phil. %&% and -polonio LTa"oadaM vers s 8on. -velino Rosal, et al., %%) SCR- %(.,I to the effect that a will 'ay still "e valid even if the attestation does not contain the n '"er of pages sed pon which the Jill is written. 8owever, the Decisions of the S pre'e Co rt are not applica"le in the afore'entioned appeal at "ench. This is so "eca se, in the case of I4an el Singson vers s E'ilia 0lorentino, et al., s pra,I altho gh the attestation in the s "Nect Jill did not state the n '"er of pages sed in the will, however, the sa'e was fo nd in the last part of the "ody of the Jill7 The law referred to is article &%) of the Code of Civil Proced re, as a'ended "y -ct No. *&3., which re/ ires that the attestation cla se shall state the n '"er of pages or sheets pon which the will is written, which re/ ire'ent has "een held to "e 'andatory as an effective safeg ard against the possi"ility of interpolation or o'ission of so'e of the pages of

the will to the preN dice of the heirs to who' the property is intended to "e "e/ eathed #In re Jill of -ndrada, 3* Phil. %)+@ 9y Co/ e vs. Navas :. Sioca, 3A Phil., 3+.@ ; '"an vs. ;orcho, .+ Phil. A+@ E into vs. 4orata, .3 Phil. 3)%@ Echevarria vs. Sar'iento, && Phil. &%%$. The ratio decidendi of these cases see's to "e that the attestation cla se ' st contain a state'ent of the n '"er of sheets or pages co'posing the will and that if this is 'issing or is o'itted, it will have the effect of invalidating the will if the deficiency cannot "e s pplied, not "y evidence ali nde, " t "y a consideration or e!a'ination of the will itself. < t here the sit ation is different. Jhile the attestation cla se does not state the n '"er of sheets or pages pon which the will is written, however, the last part of the "ody of the will contains a state'ent that it is co'posed of eight pages, which circ 'stance in o r opinion ta1es this case o t of the rigid r le of constr ction and places it within the real' of si'ilar cases where a "road and 'ore li"eral view has "een adopted to prevent the will of the testator fro' "eing defeated "y p rely technical considerations.I #page %&.,%&., s pra$ #9nderscoring s pplied$ In I-polonio Ta"aoda vers s 8on. -velino Rosal, et al.I s pra, the notarial ac1nowledge'ent in the Jill states the n '"er of pages sed in the7 Je have e!a'ined the will in / estion and noticed that the attestation cla se failed to state the n '"er of pages sed in writing the will. This wo ld have "een a fatal defect were it not for the fact that, in this case, it is discerni"le fro' the entire will that it is really and act ally co'posed of only two pages d ly signed "y the testatri! and her instr 'ental witnesses. -s earlier stated, the first page which contains the entirety of the testa'entary dispositions is signed "y the testatri! at the end or at the "otto' while the instr 'ental witnesses signed at the left 'argin. The other page which is 'ar1ed as IPagina dosI co'prises the attestation cla se and the ac1nowledg'ent. The ac1nowledg'ent itself states that Ithis :ast Jill and Testa'ent consists of two pages incl ding this pageI #pages *++,*+%, s pra$ #9nderscoring s pplied$. 8owever, in the appeal at "ench, the n '"er of pages sed in the will is not stated in any part of the Jill. The will does not even contain any notarial ac1nowledg'ent wherein the n '"er of pages of the will sho ld "e stated. *% <oth Uy Coque and Andrada were decided prior to the enact'ent of the Civil Code in %(.+, at a ti'e when the stat tory provision governing the for'al re/ ire'ent of wills was Section &%) of the Code of Civil Proced re.** Reliance on these cases re'ains apropos, considering that the re/ ire'ent that the attestation state the n '"er of pages of the will is e!tant fro' Section &%). *A 8owever, the enact'ent of the Civil Code in %(.+ did p t in force a r le of interpretation of the re/ ire'ents of wills, at least insofar as the attestation cla se is concerned, that 'ay vary fro' the philosophy that governed these two cases. -rticle )+( of the Civil Code states7 IIn the a"sence of "ad faith, forgery, or fra d, or nd e and i'proper press re and infl ence, defects and i'perfections in the for' of attestation or in the lang age sed therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact e!ec ted and attested in s "stantial co'pliance with all the re/ ire'ents of article )+..I In the sa'e vein, petitioner cites the report of the Civil Code Co''ission, which stated that Ithe nderlying and f nda'ental o"Nective per'eating the provisions on the LlawM on LwillsM in this proNect consists in the Lli"erali5ationM of the 'anner of their e!ec tion with the end in view of giving the testator 'ore Lfreedo'M in Le!pressingM his last wishes. This o"Nective is in accord with the L'odern tendencyM in respect to the for'alities in the e!ec tion of wills.I *3 8owever, petitioner conveniently o'its the / alification offered "y the Code Co''ission in the very sa'e paragraph he cites fro' their report, that s ch li"erali5ation "e I" t with s fficient safeg ards and restrictions to prevent the co''ission of fra d and the e!ercise of nd e and i'proper press re and infl ence pon the testator.I *. Caneda v. Court of A""eals*& feat res an e!tensive disc ssion 'ade "y 6 stice Regalado, spea1ing for the Co rt on the conflicting views on the 'anner of interpretation of the legal for'alities re/ ired in the e!ec tion of the attestation cla se in wills.*? Uy Coque and Andrada are cited therein, along with several other cases, as e!a'ples of the application of the r le of strict constr ction.*) 8owever, the Code Co''ission opted to reco''end a 'ore li"eral constr ction thro gh the Is "stantial co'pliance r leI nder -rticle )+(. - ca tionary note was str c1 tho gh "y 6 stice 6.<.:. Reyes as to how -rticle )+( sho ld "e applied7 ! ! ! The r le ' st "e li'ited to disregarding those defects that can "e s pplied "y an e!a'ination of the will itself7 whether all the pages are consec tively n '"ered@ whether the signat res appear in each and every page@ whether the s "scri"ing witnesses are three or the will was notari5ed. -ll these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even o'issions concerning the' in the attestation cla se can "e safely disregarded. 1 " "'# "o"(l ) +!#r o, p(-#s, ()$ &'#"'#r (ll p#rso)s r#2 ir#$ "o si-) $i$ so i) "'# pr#s#)*# o, #(*' o"'#r + s" s !s"()"i(ll% (pp#(r i) "'# (""#s"("io) *l( s#, !#i)- "'# o)l% *'#*/ (-(i)s" p#r0 r% i) "'# pro!("# pro*##$i)-s .*( #E'phasis s pplied.$ The Co rt of -ppeals did cite these co''ents "y 6 stice 6.<.:. Reyes in its assailed decision, considering that the fail re to state the n '"er of pages of the will in the attestation cla se is one of the defects which cannot "e si'ply disregarded.

In Caneda itself, the Co rt ref sed to allow the pro"ate of a will whose attestation cla se failed to state that the witnesses s "scri"ed their respective signat res to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other, A+ the other o'ission cited "y 6 stice 6.<.:. Reyes which to his esti'ation cannot "e lightly disregarded. Caneda s ggested7 ILIMt 'ay th s "e stated that the r le, as it now stands, is that o'ission which can "e s pplied "y an e!a'ination of the will itself, witho t the need of resorting to e!trinsic evidence, will not "e fatal and, correspondingly, wo ld not o"str ct the allowance to pro"ate of the will "eing assailed. 8owever, those o'issions which cannot "e s pplied e!cept "y evidence aliunde wo ld res lt in the invalidation of the attestation cla se and lti'ately, of the will itself.IA% Th s, a fail re "y the attestation cla se to state that the testator signed every page can "e li"erally constr ed, since that fact can "e chec1ed "y a vis al e!a'ination@ while a fail re "y the attestation cla se to state that the witnesses signed in one anotherBs presence sho ld "e considered a fatal flaw since the attestation is the only te!t al g arantee of co'pliance.A* The fail re of the attestation cla se to state the n '"er of pages on which the will was written re'ains a fatal flaw, despite -rticle )+(. The p rpose of the law in re/ iring the cla se to state the n '"er of pages on which the will is written is to safeg ard against possi"le interpolation or o'ission of one or so'e of its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages.AA The fail re to state the n '"er of pages e/ ates with the a"sence of an aver'ent on the part of the instr 'ental witnesses as to how 'any pages consisted the will, the e!ec tion of which they had ostensi"ly N st witnessed and s "scri"ed to. 0ollowing Caneda, there is s "stantial co'pliance with this re/ ire'ent if the will states elsewhere in it how 'any pages it is co'prised of, as was the sit ation in Singson andTaboada. 8owever, in this case, there co ld have "een no s "stantial co'pliance with the re/ ire'ents nder -rticle )+. since there is no state'ent in the attestation cla se or anywhere in the will itself as to the n '"er of pages which co'prise the will. -t the sa'e ti'e, -rticle )+( sho ld not deviate fro' the need to co'ply with the for'al re/ ire'ents as en 'erated nder -rticle )+.. Jhatever the inclinations of the 'e'"ers of the Code Co''ission in incorporating -rticle )+., the fact re'ains that they saw fit to prescri"e s "stantially the sa'e for'al re/ isites as en 'erated in Section &%) of the Code of Civil Proced re, convinced that these re'ained effective safeg ards against the forgery or intercalation of notarial wills.A3 Co'pliance with these re/ ire'ents, however picay ne in i'pression, affords the p "lic a high degree of co'fort that the testator hi'self or herself had decided to convey property "ost #orte# in the 'anner esta"lished in the will.A. T'# "r()s*#)$#)" l#-isl("i.# i)"#)", #.#) (s #3pr#ss#$ i) "'# *i"#$ *o++#)"s o, "'# Co$# Co++issio), is ,or "'# ,r i"io) o, "'# "#s"("or4s i)*o)"#s"(!l# $#sir#s, ()$ )o" ,or "'# i)$ l-#)" ($+issio) o, &ills "o pro!("# . The Co rt co ld th s end here and affir' the Co rt of -ppeals. 8owever, an e!a'ination of the will itself reveals a co ple of even 'ore critical defects that sho ld necessarily lead to its reNection. For o)#, "'# (""#s"("io) *l( s# &(s )o" si-)#$ !% "'# i)s"r +#)"(l &i")#ss#s. Jhile the signat res of the instr 'ental witnesses appear on the left,hand 'argin of the will, they do not appear at the "otto' of the attestation cla se which after all consists of their aver'ents "efore the notary p "lic. Cagro v. CagroA& is 'aterial on this point. -s in this case, Ithe signat res of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the "otto' of the attestation cla se, altho gh the page containing the sa'e is signed "y the witnesses on the left,hand 'argin.IA? Jhile three #A$ 6 sticesA) considered the signat re re/ ire'ent had "een s "stantially co'plied with, a 'aNority of si! #&$, spea1ing thro gh Chief 6 stice Paras, r led that the attestation cla se had not "een d ly signed, rendering the will fatally defective. There is no / estion that the signat res of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the "otto' of the attestation cla se, altho gh the page containing the sa'e is signed "y the witnesses on the left,hand 'argin. Je are of the opinion that the position ta1en "y the appellant is correct. The attestation cla se is Ia 'e'orand ' of the facts attending the e!ec tion of the willI re/ ired "y law to "e 'ade "y the attesting witnesses, and it ' st necessarily "ear their signat res. -n nsigned attestation cla se cannot "e considered as an act of the witnesses, since the o'ission of their signat res at the "otto' thereof negatives their participation. The petitioner and appellee contends that signat res of the three witnesses on the left,hand 'argin confor' s "stantially to the law and 'ay "e dee'ed as their signat res to the attestation cla se. This is ntena"le, "eca se said signat res are in co'pliance with the legal 'andate that the will "e signed on the left,hand 'argin of all its pages. If an attestation cla se not signed "y the three witnesses at the "otto' thereof, "e ad'itted as s fficient, it wo ld "e easy to add s ch cla se to a will on a s "se/ ent occasion and in the a"sence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses. A(

The Co rt today reiterates the contin ed efficacy of Cagro. -rticle )+. partic larly segregates the re/ ire'ent that the instr 'ental witnesses sign each page of the will, fro' the re/ isite that the will "e Iattested and s "scri"ed "y Lthe instr 'ental witnessesM.I The respective intents "ehind these two classes of signat re are distinct fro' each other. The signat res on the left,hand corner of every page signify, a'ong others, that the witnesses are aware that the page they are signing for's part of the will. On the other hand, the signat res to the attestation cla se esta"lish that the witnesses are referring to the state'ents contained in the attestation cla se itself. Indeed, the attestation cla se is separate and apart fro' the disposition of the will. -n nsigned attestation cla se res lts in an nattested will. Even if the instr 'ental witnesses signed the left,hand 'argin of the page containing the nsigned attestation cla se, s ch signat res cannot de'onstrate these witnessesB nderta1ings in the cla se, since the signat res that do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal. The Co rt 'ay "e 'ore charita"ly disposed had the witnesses in this case signed the attestation cla se itself, " t not the left,hand 'argin of the page containing s ch cla se. Jitho t di'inishing the val e of the instr 'ental witnessesB signat res on each and every page, the fact ' st "e noted that it is the attestation cla se which contains the tterances red ced into writing of the testa'entary witnesses the'selves. It is the witnesses, and not the testator, who are re/ ired nder -rticle )+. to state the n '"er of pages sed pon which the will is written@ the fact that the testator had signed the will and every page thereof@ and that they witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. The only proof in the will that the witnesses have stated these ele'ental facts wo ld "e their signat res on the attestation cla se. Th s, the s "Nect will cannot "e considered to have "een validly attested to "y the instr 'ental witnesses, as they failed to sign the attestation cla se. =et, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition sho ld also hinge. The re/ ire'ent nder -rticle )+& that Ievery will ' st "e ac1nowledged "efore a notary p "lic "y the testator and the witnessesI has also not "een co'plied with. The i'portance of this re/ ire'ent is highlighted "y the fact that it had "een segregated fro' the other re/ ire'ents nder -rticle )+. and entr sted into a separate provision, -rticle )+&. The non,o"servance of -rticle )+& in this case is e/ ally as critical as the other cited flaws in co'pliance with -rticle )+., and sho ld "e treated as of e/ ivalent i'port. In lie of an ac1nowledg'ent, the notary p "lic, Petronio =. <a tista, wrote I Nilagdaan $o at ninotario $o ngayong%& ng unyo %& 'sic() %*+% dito sa Lungsod ng ,aynila.I3+ <y no 'anner of conte'plation can those words "e constr ed as an ac1nowledg'ent. -n ac1nowledg'ent is the act of one who has e!ec ted a deed in going "efore so'e co'petent officer or co rt and declaring it to "e his act or deed.3% It involves an e!tra step nderta1en where"y the signor act ally declares to the notary that the e!ec tor of a doc 'ent has attested to the notary that the sa'e is hisGher own free act and deed. It 'ight "e possi"le to constr e the aver'ent as a -urat, even tho gh it does not hew to the s al lang age thereof. - -urat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that "efore hi'Gher, the doc 'ent was s "scri"ed and sworn to "y the e!ec tor.3* Ordinarily, the lang age of the -urat sho ld avow that the doc 'ent was s "scri"ed and sworn "efore the notary p "lic, while in this case, the notary p "lic averred that he hi'self Isigned and notari5edI the doc 'ent. Possi"ly tho gh, the word IninotarioI or Inotari5edI enco'passes the signing of and swearing in of the e!ec tors of the doc 'ent, which in this case wo ld involve the decedent and the instr 'ental witnesses. =et even if we consider what was affi!ed "y the notary p "lic as a -urat, the will wo ld nonetheless re'ain invalid, as the e!press re/ ire'ent of -rticle )+& is that the will "e Iac1nowledgedI, and not 'erely s "scri"ed and sworn to. The will does not present any te!t al proof, ' ch less one nder oath, that the decedent and the instr 'ental witnesses e!ec ted or signed the will as their own free act or deed. The ac1nowledg'ent 'ade in a will provides for another all,i'portant legal safeg ard against sp rio s wills or those 'ade "eyond the free consent of the testator. -n ac1nowledge'ent is not an e'pty 'eaningless act.3A The ac1nowledg'ent coerces the testator and the instr 'ental witnesses to declare "efore an officer of the law that they had e!ec ted and s "scri"ed to the will as their own free act or deed. S ch declaration is nder oath and nder pain of perN ry, th s allowing for the cri'inal prosec tion of persons who participate in the e!ec tion of sp rio s wills, or those e!ec ted witho t the free consent of the testator. It also provides a f rther degree of ass rance that the testator is of certain 'indset in 'a1ing the testa'entary dispositions to those persons heGshe had designated in the will. It 'ay not have "een said "efore, " t we can assert the r le, self,evident as it is nder -rticle )+&. A )o"(ri(l &ill "'(" is )o" (*/)o&l#$-#$ !#,or# ( )o"(r% p !li* !% "'# "#s"("or ()$ "'# &i")#ss#s is ,("(ll% $#,#*"i.#, #.#) i, i" is s !s*ri!#$ ()$ s&or) "o !#,or# ( )o"(r% p !li*.

There are two other re/ ire'ents nder -rticle )+. which were not f lly satisfied "y the will in / estion. Je need not disc ss the' at length, as they are no longer 'aterial to the disposition of this case. The provision re/ ires that the testator and the instr 'ental witnesses sign each and every page of the will on the left 'argin, e!cept the last@ and that all the pages shall "e n '"ered correlatively in letters placed on the pper part of each page. In this case, the decedent, nli1e the witnesses, failed to sign "oth pages of the will on the left 'argin, her only signat re appearing at the so,called Ilogical endI 33 of the will on its first page. -lso, the will itself is not n '"ered correlatively in letters on each page, " t instead n '"ered with -ra"ic n 'erals. There is a line of tho ght that has disa" sed the notion that these two re/ ire'ents "e constr ed as 'andatory. 3. Ta1en in isolation, these o'issions, "y the'selves, 'ay not "e s fficient to deny pro"ate to a will. =et even as these o'issions are not decisive to the adN dication of this case, they need not "e dwelt on, tho gh indicative as they 'ay "e of a general lac1 of d e regard for the re/ ire'ents nder -rticle )+. "y whoever e!ec ted the will. -ll told, the string of 'ortal defects which the will in / estion s ffers fro' 'a1es the pro"ate denial ine!ora"le. J8ERE0ORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. LETICIA 5AL6ONTE ORTEGA, G.R. No. 178971 P#"i"io)#r, Pr#s#)": P()-()i!(), J., C'(ir+(), S()$o.(l;G "i#rr#<, Coro)(, C(rpio 6or(l#s, ()$ Pro+ l-("#$: D#*#+!#r 16, 2007 DECISION PANGANI1AN, J.: T he law favors the pro"ate of a will. 9pon those who oppose it rests the " rden of showing why it sho ld not "e allowed. In the present case, petitioner has failed to discharge this " rden satisfactorily. 0or this reason, the Co rt cannot attri" te any reversi"le error on the part of the appellate tri" nal that allowed the pro"ate of the will. T'# C(s# <efore the Co rt is a Petition for Review L%M nder R le 3. of the R les of Co rt, see1ing to reverse and set aside the Dece'"er %*, *++* Decision L*M and the 4arch ?, *++A Resol tion LAM of the Co rt of -ppeals #C-$ in C-,;R CC No. 33*(&. The assailed Decision disposed as follows7 OJ8ERE0ORE, the appeal is GRANTED, and the Decision appealed fro' is RE5ERSED and SET ASIDE. In its place N dg'ent is rendered approving and allowing pro"ate to the said last will and testa'ent of Placido Cal'onte and ordering the iss ance of letters testa'entary to the petitioner 6osefina Cal'onte. :et this case "e re'anded to the co rt a quo for f rther and conco'itant proceedings.PL3M The assailed Resol tion denied petitionerBs 4otion for Reconsideration. T'# F(*"s The facts were s ''ari5ed in the assailed Decision of the C-, as follows7

; .#rs s ; G(r*i(, JJ =OSEFINA C. 5AL6ONTE, R#spo)$#)".

7 :i1e so 'any others "efore hi', Placido toiled and lived for a long ti'e in the 9nited States ntil he finally reached retire'ent. In %()+, Placido finally ca'e ho'e to stay in the Philippines, and he lived in the ho se and lot located at H(*++ Cat'on St., San -ntonio Cillage, 4a1ati, which he owned in co''on with his sister Ciriaca Cal'onte and titled in their na'es in TCT %*A3&). Two years after his arrival fro' the 9nited States and at the age of )+ he wed 6osefina who was then *) years old, in a cere'ony sole'ni5ed "y 6 dge Perfecto :ag io, 6r. on 0e"r ary ., %()*. < t in a little 'ore than two years of wedded "liss, Placido died on Octo"er ), %()3 of a ca se written down as C.! /UL,.NAL0. OPlacido e!ec ted a notarial last will and testa'ent written in English and consisting of two #*$ pages, and dated 6 ne %., %()A " t ac1nowledged only on - g st (, %()A. The first page contains the entire testa'entary dispositions and a part of the attestation cla se, and was signed at the end or "otto' of that page "y the testator and on the left hand 'argin "y the three instr 'ental witnesses. The second page contains the contin ation of the attestation cla se and the ac1nowledg'ent, and was signed "y the witnesses at the end of the attestation cla se and again on the left hand 'argin. It provides in the "ody that7 Q:-ST JI:: -ND TEST-4ENT O0 P:-CIDO C-:4ONTE IN T8E N-4E O0 T8E :ORD -4EN7 QI, P:-CIDO C-:4ONTE, of legal age, 'arried to 6osefina Ca"ansag Cal'onte, and a resident of (*++ Cat'on Street, 4a1ati, 4etro 4anila, )A years of age and "eing of so nd and disposing 'ind and 'e'ory, do here"y declare this to "e 'y last will and testa'ent7 %. It is 'y will that I "e " ried in the Catholic Ce'etery, nder the a spices of the Catholic Ch rch in accordance with the rites and said Ch rch and that a s ita"le 'on 'ent to "e erected and provided 'y "y e!ec tri! #wife$ to perpet ate 'y 'e'ory in the 'inds of 'y fa'ily and friends@ *. I give, devise and "e/ eath nto 'y loving wife, 6OSE0IN- C. C-:4ONTE, one half #%G*$ portion of the follow,descri"ed properties, which "elongs to 'e as Lco,ownerM7 a. :ot 3,-, <loc1 %A descri"ed on plan Psd,*).?., :RC, #;:RO$, sit ated in 4a1ati, 4etro 4anila, descri"ed and covered "y TCT No. %*A3&) of the Register of Deeds of Pasig, 4etro,4anila registered Nointly as co,owners with 'y deceased sister #Ciriaca Cal'onte$, having share and share ali1e@ *,storey " ilding standing on the a"ove,descri"ed property, 'ade of strong and 'i!ed 'aterials sed as 'y residence and 'y wife and located at No. (*++ Cat'on Street, 4a1ati, 4etro 4anila also covered "y Ta! Declaration No. -,+*.,++3)*, 4a1ati, 4etro,4anila, Nointly in the na'e of 'y deceased sister, Ciriaca Cal'onte and 'yself as co,owners, share and share ali1e or e/ al co,owners thereof@

".

A. -ll the rest, resid e and re'ainder of 'y real and personal properties, incl ding 'y savings acco nt "an1 "oo1 in 9S- which is in the possession of 'y nephew, and all others whatsoever and wherever fo nd, I give, devise and "e/ eath to 'y said wife, 6osefina C. Cal'onte@ 3. I here"y appoint 'y wife, 6osefina C. Cal'onte as sole e!ec tri! of 'y last will and testa'ent, and it is 'y will that said e!ec tri! "e e!e'pt fro' filing a "ond@ IN JITNESS J8EREO0, I have here nto set 'y hand this %. th day of 6 ne %()A in E e5on City, Philippines.B OThe allowance to pro"ate of this will was opposed "y :eticia on the gro nds that7 %. Petitioner failed to allege all assets of the testator, especially those fo nd in the 9S-@

*. A. 3. .. &. ?.

Petitioner failed to state the na'es, ages, and residences of the heirs of the testator@ or to give the' proper notice p rs ant to law@ Jill was not e!ec ted and attested as re/ ired "y law and legal sole'nities and for'alities were not co'plied with@ Testator was 'entally incapa"le to 'a1e a will at the ti'e of the alleged e!ec tion he "eing in an advance sate of senility@ Jill was e!ec ted nder d ress, or the infl ence of fear or threats@ Jill was proc red "y nd e and i'proper infl ence and press re on the part of the petitioner andGor her agents andGor assistants@ andGor Signat re of testator was proc red "y fra d, or tric1, and he did not intend that the instr 'ent sho ld "e his will at the ti'e of affi!ing his signat re thereto@B

and she also opposed the appoint'ent as E!ec tri! of 6osefina alleging her want of nderstanding and integrity. O-t the hearing, the petitioner 6osefina testified and called as witnesses the notary p "lic -tty. 0loro Sar'iento who prepared and notari5ed the will, and the instr 'ental witnesses spo ses E genio ;o'e5, 6r. and 0eli5a ;o'e5 and 6osie Collado. 0or the opposition, the oppositor :eticia and her da ghter 4ary 6ane Ortega testified. O-ccording to 6osefina after her 'arriage with the testator they lived in her parents ho se at Salingco", <acnotan, :a 9nion " t they ca'e to 4anila every 'onth to get his RA&&.++ 'onthly pension and stayed at the said 4a1ati residence. There were ti'es tho gh when to shave off on e!penses, the testator wo ld travel alone. -nd it was in one of his travels "y his loneso'e self when the notarial will was 'ade. The will was witnessed "y the spo ses E genio and 0eli5a ;o'e5, who were their wedding sponsors, and "y 6osie Collado. 6osefina said she had no 1nowledge of the e!istence of the last will and testa'ent of her h s"and, " t N st serendipito sly fo nd it in his attache case after his death. It was only then that she learned that the testator "e/ eathed to her his properties and she was na'ed the e!ec tri! in the said will. To her esti'ate, the val e of property "oth real and personal left "y the testator is worth 'ore or less P%++,+++.++. 6osefina declared too that the testator never s ffered 'ental infir'ity "eca se despite his old age he went alone to the 'ar1et which is two to three 1ilo'eters fro' their ho'e coo1ed and cleaned the 1itchen and so'eti'es if she co ld not acco'pany hi', even traveled to 4anila alone to clai' his 'onthly pension. 6osefina also asserts that her h s"and was in good health and that he was hospitali5ed only "eca se of a cold " t which event ally res lted in his death. ONotary P "lic 0loro Sar'iento, the notary p "lic who notari5ed the testatorBs will, testified that it was in the first wee1 of 6 ne %()A when the testator together with the three witnesses of the will went to his ho se c ' law office and re/ ested hi' to prepare his last will and testa'ent. -fter the testator instr cted hi' on the ter's and dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary p "lic told the' to co'e "ac1 on 6 ne %., %()A to give hi' ti'e to prepare it. -fter he had prepared the will the notary p "lic 1ept it safely hidden and loc1ed in his drawer. The testator and his witnesses ret rned on the appointed date " t the notary p "lic was o t of town so they were instr cted "y his wife to co'e "ac1 on - g st (, %()A, and which they did. <efore the testator and his witnesses signed the prepared will, the notary p "lic e!plained to the' each and every ter' thereof in Ilocano, a dialect which the testator spo1e and nderstood. 8e li1ewise e!plained that tho gh it appears that the will was signed "y the testator and his witnesses on 6 ne %., %()A, the day when it sho ld have "een e!ec ted had he not gone o t of town, the for'al e!ec tion was act ally on - g st (, %()A. 8e reasoned that he no longer changed the typewritten date of 6 ne %., %()A "eca se he did not li1e the doc 'ent to appear dirty. The notary p "lic also testified that to his o"servation the testator was physically and 'entally capa"le at the ti'e he affi!ed his signat re on the will. OThe attesting witnesses to the will corro"orated the testi'ony of the notary p "lic, and testified that the testator went alone to the ho se of spo ses E genio and 0eli5a ;o'e5 at ;SIS Cillage, E e5on City and re/ ested the' to acco'pany hi' to the ho se of -tty. 0loro Sar'iento p rposely for his intended will@ that after giving his instr ctions to -tty. 0loro Sar'iento, they were told to ret rn on 6 ne %., %()A@ that they ret rned on 6 ne %., %()A for the e!ec tion of the will " t were as1ed to co'e "ac1

instead on - g st (, %()A "eca se of the a"sence of the notary p "lic@ that the testator e!ec ted the will in / estion in their presence while he was of so nd and disposing 'ind and that he was strong and in good health@ that the contents of the will was e!plained "y the notary p "lic in the Ilocano and Tagalog dialect and that all of the' as witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. -nd that d ring the e!ec tion, the testatorBs wife, 6osefina was not with the'. OThe oppositor :eticia declared that 6osefina sho ld not inherit alone "eca se aside fro' her there are other children fro' the si"lings of Placido who are N st as entitled to inherit fro' hi'. She attac1ed the 'ental capacity of the testator, declaring that at the ti'e of the e!ec tion of the notarial will the testator was already )A years old and was no longer of so nd 'ind. She 1new whereof she spo1e "eca se in %()A Placido lived in the 4a1ati residence and as1ed :eticiaBs fa'ily to live with hi' and they too1 care of hi'. D ring that ti'e, the testatorBs physical and 'ental condition showed deterioration, a"errations and senility. This was corro"orated "y her da ghter 4ary 6ane Ortega for who' Placido too1 a fancy and wanted to 'arry. OSifting thro gh the evidence, the co rt a quo held that 1t23e evidence adduced) reduces t3e o""osition to t4o grounds) na#ely: %. 8. Non5co#"liance 4it3 t3e legal sole#nities and for#alities in t3e e6ecution and attestation of t3e 4ill7 and ,ental inca"acity of t3e testator at t3e ti#e of t3e e6ecution of t3e 4ill as 3e 4as t3en in an advanced state of senility

OIt then fo nd these gro nds e!tant and proven, and accordingly disallowed pro"ate.P L.M R li)- o, "'# Co r" o, App#(ls Reversing the trial co rt, the appellate co rt ad'itted the will of Placido Cal'onte to pro"ate. The C- pheld the credi"ility of the notary p "lic and the s "scri"ing witnesses who had ac1nowledged the d e e!ec tion of the will. 4oreover, it held that the testator had testa'entary capacity at the ti'e of the e!ec tion of the will. It added that his Ose! al e!hi"itionis' and nhygienic, cr de and i'polite waysPL&M did not 'a1e hi' a person of nso nd 'ind. 8ence, this Petition.L?M Iss #s Petitioner raises the following iss es for o r consideration7 Jhether or not the findings of the pro"ate co rt are entitled to great respect. OII. Jhether or not the signat re of Placido Cal'onte in the s "Nect will was proc red "y fra d or tric1ery, and that Placido Cal'onte never intended that the instr 'ent sho ld "e his last will and testa'ent. OIII. Jhether or not Placido Cal'onte has testa'entary capacity at the ti'e he allegedly e!ec ted the s "Nect will.PL)M In short, petitioner assails the C-Bs allowance of the pro"ate of the will of Placido Cal'onte. T'is Co r"4s R li)The Petition has no 'erit. 6(i) Iss #: Probate of a Will -t the o tset, we stress that only / estions of law 'ay "e raised in a Petition for Review nder Section % of R le 3. of the R les of Co rt. -s an e!ception, however, the evidence presented d ring the trial 'ay "e e!a'ined and the

fact al 'atters resolved "y this Co rt when, as in the instant case, the findings of fact of the appellate co rt differ fro' those of the trial co rt.L(M The fact that p "lic policy favors the pro"ate of a will does not necessarily 'ean that every will presented for pro"ate sho ld "e allowed. The law lays down the proced res and re/ isites that ' st "e satisfied for the pro"ate of a will.L%+M Cerily, -rticle )A( of the Civil Code states the instances when a will 'ay "e disallowed, as follows7 O-rticle )A(. The will shall "e disallowed in any of the following cases7 #%$ #*$ its e!ec tion@ #A$ If the for'alities re/ ired "y law have not "een co'plied with@ If the testator was insane, or otherwise 'entally incapa"le of 'a1ing a will, at the ti'e of If it was e!ec ted thro gh force or nder d ress, or the infl ence of fear, or threats@ nd e and i'proper press re and infl ence, on the part of the

#3$ If it was proc red "y "eneficiary or of so'e other person@ #.$

If the signat re of the testator was proc red "y fra d@

#&$ If the testator acted "y 'ista1e or did not intend that the instr 'ent he signed sho ld "e his will at the ti'e of affi!ing his signat re thereto.P In the present case, petitioner assails the validity of Placido Cal'onteBs will "y i'p ting fra d in its e!ec tion and challenging the testatorBs state of 'ind at the ti'e. Existence of Fraud in the Execution of a Will Petitioner does not disp te the d e o"servance of the for'alities in the e!ec tion of the will, " t 'aintains that the circ 'stances s rro nding it are indicative of the e!istence of fra d. Partic larly, she alleges that respondent, who is the testatorBs wife and sole "eneficiary, conspired with the notary p "lic and the three attesting witnesses in deceiving Placido to sign it. Deception is allegedly reflected in the varying dates of the e!ec tion and the attestation of the will. Petitioner contends that it was Ohighly d "io s for a wo'an at the pri'e of her yo ng life LtoM al'ost i''ediately pl nge into 'arriage with a 'an who LwasM thrice her age ! ! ! and who happened to "e LaM 0il,-'erican pensionado,PL%%M th s casting do "t on the intention of respondent in see1ing the pro"ate of the will. 4oreover, it s pposedly Odefies h 'an reason, logic and co''on e!perienceP L%*M for an old 'an with a severe psychological condition to have willingly signed a last will and testa'ent. Je are not convinced. 0ra d Ois a tric1, secret device, false state'ent, or pretense, "y which the s "Nect of it is cheated. It 'ay "e of s ch character that the testator is 'isled or deceived as to the nat re or contents of the doc 'ent which he e!ec tes, or it 'ay relate to so'e e!trinsic fact, in conse/ ence of the deception regarding which the testator is led to 'a1e a certain will which, " t for the fra d, he wo ld not have 'ade.P L%AM Je stress that the party challenging the will "ears the " rden of proving the e!istence of fra d at the ti'e of its e!ec tion.L%3M The " rden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will only pon a showing of credi"le evidence of fra d.L%.M 9nfort nately in this case, other than the self,serving allegations of petitioner, no evidence of fra d was ever presented. It is a settled doctrine that the o'ission of so'e relatives does not affect the d e e!ec tion of a will. L%&M That the testator was tric1ed into signing it was not s fficiently esta"lished "y the fact that he had instit ted his wife, who was 'ore than fifty years his N nior, as the sole "eneficiary@ and disregarded petitioner and her fa'ily, who were the ones who had ta1en Othe c dgels of ta1ing care of Lthe testatorM in his twilight years.P L%?M 4oreover, as correctly r led "y the appellate co rt, the conflict "etween the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the doc 'ent, O"eca se the law does not even re/ ire that a LnotarialM will ! ! ! "e e!ec ted and ac1nowledged on the sa'e occasion.PL%)M 4ore i'portant, the will ' st "e s "scri"ed "y the testator, as well as "y three or 'ore credi"le witnesses who ' st also attest to it in the presence of the testator and of one another. L%(M 0 rther'ore, the testator and the witnesses ' st ac1nowledge the will "efore a notary p "lic. L*+M In any event, we agree with the C- that

Othe variance in the dates of the will as to its s pposed e!ec tion and attestation was satisfactorily and pers asively e!plained "y the notary p "lic and the instr 'ental witnesses.P L*%M The pertinent transcript of stenographic notes ta1en on 6 ne %%, %()., Nove'"er *., %()., Octo"er %A, %()&, and Octo"er *%, %()? ,, as / oted "y the C- ,, are reprod ced respectively as follows7 O-tty. 0loro Sar'iento7 E E =o typed this doc 'ent e!hi"it C, specifying the date 6 ne %. when the testator and his witnesses were s pposed to "e in yo r officeS =es sir. On 6 ne %., %()A, did the testator and his witnesses co'e to yo r ho seS They did as of agree'ent " t nfort nately, I was o t of town. !!! E E E !!! !!!

The doc 'ent has "een ac1nowledged on - g st (, %()A as per ac1nowledge'ent appearing therein. Jas this the act al date when the doc 'ent was ac1nowledgedS =es sir. Jhat a"o t the date when the testator and the three witnesses affi!ed their respective signat re on the first and second pages of e!hi"it CS On that partic lar date when it was ac1nowledged, - g st (, %()A. Jhy did yo not 'a1e the necessary correction on the date appearing on the "ody of the doc 'ent as well as the attestation cla seS <eca se I do not li1e any'ore to 'a1e so'e alterations so I p t it in 'y own handwriting - g st (, %()A on the ac1nowledge'ent. #tsn, 6 ne %%, %()., pp. ),%+$

E genio ;o'e57 E It appears on the first page 4r. Jitness that it is dated 6 ne %., %()A, whereas in the ac1nowledge'ent it is dated - g st (, %()A, will yo loo1 at this doc 'ent and tell s this discrepancy in the dateS Je went to -tty. Sar'iento together with Placido Cal'onte and the two witnesses@ that was first wee1 of 6 ne and -tty. Sar'iento told s to ret rn on the %. th of 6 ne " t when we ret rned, -tty. Sar'iento was not there. Jhen yo did not find -tty. Sar'iento on 6 ne %., %()A, did yo again go "ac1S Je ret rned on the (th of - g st and there we signed. This - g st (, %()A where yo said it is there where yo signed, who were yo r co'panionsS The two witnesses, 'e and Placido Cal'onte. #tsn, Nove'"er *., %()., pp. ?,)$

E E -

0elisa ;o'e5 on cross,e!a'ination7 E Jhy did yo have to go to the office of -tty. 0loro Sar'iento, three ti'esS !!! !!! !!!

The reason why we went there three ti'es is that, the first wee1 of 6 ne was o t first ti'e. Je went there to tal1 to -tty. Sar'iento and Placido Cal'onte a"o t the last will and testa'ent. -fter that what they have tal1ed what will "e placed in the testa'ent, what -tty. Sar'iento said was that he will go "ac1 on the %. th of 6 ne. Jhen we ret rned on 6 ne %., -tty. Sar'iento was not there so we were not a"le to sign it, the will. That is why, for the third ti'e we went there on - g st ( and that was the ti'e we affi!ed o r signat re. #tsn, Octo"er %A, %()&, pp. 3,&$

6osie Collado7 E Jhen yo did not find -tty. Sar'iento in his ho se on 6 ne %., %()A, what transpiredS The wife of -tty. Sar'iento told s that we will "e "ac1 on - g st (, %()A.

E E E -

-nd on - g st (, %()A did yo go "ac1 to the ho se of -tty. Sar'ientoS =es, Sir. 0or what p rposeS O r p rpose is N st to sign the will. Jere yo a"le to sign the will yo 'entionedS =es sir. #tsn, Octo"er *%, %()?, pp. 3,.$PL**M

Nota"ly, petitioner failed to s "stantiate her clai' of a Ogrand conspiracyP in the co''ission of a fra d. There was no showing that the witnesses of the proponent stood to receive any "enefit fro' the allowance of the will. The testi'onies of the three s "scri"ing witnesses and the notary are credi"le evidence of its d e e!ec tion. L*AM Their testi'ony favoring it and the finding that it was e!ec ted in accordance with the for'alities re/ ired "y law sho ld "e affir'ed, a"sent any showing of ill 'otives.L*3M Capacity to Make a Will In deter'ining the capacity of the testator to 'a1e a will, the Civil Code gives the following g idelines7 O-rticle ?(). In order to 'a1e a will it is essential that the testator "e of so nd 'ind at the ti'e of its e!ec tion. O-rticle ?((. To "e of so nd 'ind, it is not necessary that the testator "e in f ll possession of all his reasoning fac lties, or that his 'ind "e wholly n"ro1en, ni'paired, or shattered "y disease, inN ry or other ca se. OIt shall "e s fficient if the testator was a"le at the ti'e of 'a1ing the will to 1now the nat re of the estate to "e disposed of, the proper o"Nects of his "o nty, and the character of the testa'entary act. O-rticle )++. The law pres 'es that every person is of so nd 'ind, in the a"sence of proof to the contrary. OThe " rden of proof that the testator was not of so nd 'ind at the ti'e of 'a1ing his dispositions is on the person who opposes the pro"ate of the will@ " t if the testator, one 'onth, or less, "efore 'a1ing his will was p "licly 1nown to "e insane, the person who 'aintains the validity of the will ' st prove that the testator 'ade it d ring a l cid interval.P -ccording to -rticle ?((, the three things that the testator ' st have the a"ility to 1now to "e considered of so nd 'ind are as follows7 #%$ the nat re of the estate to "e disposed of, #*$ the proper o"Nects of the testatorBs "o nty, and #A$ the character of the testa'entary act. -pplying this test to the present case, we find that the appellate co rt was correct in holding that Placido had testa'entary capacity at the ti'e of the e!ec tion of his will. It ' st "e noted that despite his advanced age, he was still a"le to identify acc rately the 1inds of property he owned, the e!tent of his shares in the' and even their locations. -s regards the proper o"Nects of his "o nty, it was s fficient that he identified his wife as sole "eneficiary. -s we have stated earlier, the o'ission of so'e relatives fro' the will did not affect its for'al validity. There "eing no showing of fra d in its e!ec tion, intent in its disposition "eco'es irrelevant. Jorth reiterating in deter'ining so ndness of 'ind is Alsua59etts v. CA)L*.M which held th s7 I<etween the highest degree of so ndness of 'ind and 'e'ory which n/ estiona"ly carries with it f ll testa'entary capacity, and that degrees of 'ental a"erration generally 1nown as insanity or idiocy, there are n '"erless degrees of 'ental capacity or incapacity and while on one hand it has "een held that 'ere wea1ness of 'ind, or partial i'"ecility fro' disease of "ody, or fro' age, will not render a person incapa"le of 'a1ing a will@ a wea1 or fee"le'inded person 'ay 'a1e a valid will, provided he has nderstanding and 'e'ory s fficient to ena"le hi' to 1now what he is a"o t to do and how or to who' he is disposing of his property. To constit te a so nd and disposing 'ind, it is not necessary that the 'ind "e n"ro1en or ni'paired or nshattered "y disease or otherwise. It has "een held that testa'entary incapacity does not necessarily re/ ire that a person shall act ally "e insane or of nso nd 'ind.IL*&M

J8ERE0ORE, the Petition is DEN ED, and the assailed Decision and Resol tion of the Co rt of -ppeals are!FF "MED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. 6an ary %(, %(+& ;.R. No. %&3% GER6AN =A1ONETA, plaintiff,appellant, vs. RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL., defendants,appellees. Ledes#a) Su#ulong and :uintos for a""ellant. ;el5/an) .rtigas and Fis3er for a""ellees. CARSON, J.: In these proceedings pro"ate was denied the last will and testa'ent of 4acario 6a"oneta, deceased, "eca se the lower co rt was of the opinion fro' the evidence add ced at the hearing that 6 lio 6avellana, one of the witnesses, did not attach his signat re thereto in the presence of Isa"elo 6ena, another of the witnesses, as re/ ired "y the provisions of section &%) of the Code of Civil Proced re. The following is a copy of the evidence which appears of record on this partic lar point, "eing a part of the testi'ony of the said Isa"eo 6ena7 :. < < < %=>% < < W3o first signed t3e 4ill? A. < < < %=>% < < I signed it first) and after4ards Aniceto and t3e ot3ers. :. < < < %=>% < < W3o 4ere t3ose ot3ers to 43o# you 3ave -ust referred? A. < < < %=>% < < After t3e 4itness Aniceto signed t3e 4ill I left t3e 3ouse) because I 4as in a 3urry) and at t3e #o#ent 43en I 4as leaving I sa4 @ulio @avellana 4it3 t3e "en in 3is 3and in "osition ready to sign 'en actitud de fir#ar(. I believe 3e signed) because 3e 4as at t3e table. . . . :. < < < %=>% < < State "ositively 43et3er @ulio @avellana did or did not sign as a 4itness to t3e 4ill. A. < < < %=>% < < I canAt say certainly) because as I 4as leaving t3e 3ouse I sa4 @ulio @avellana 4it3 t3e "en in 3is 3and) in "osition ready to sign. I believe 3e signed. :. < < < %=>% < < W3y do you believe @ulio @avellana signed? A. < < < %=>% < < 9ecause 3e 3ad t3e "en in 3is 3and) 43ic3 4as resting on t3e "a"er) t3oug3 I did not actually see 3i# sign. :. < < < %=>% < < 06"lain t3is contradictory state#ent. A. < < < %=>% < < After I signed I as$ed "er#ission to leave) because I 4as in a 3urry) and 43ile I 4as leaving @ulio 3ad already ta$en t3e "en in 3is 3and) as it a""eared) for t3e "ur"ose of signing) and 43en I 4as near t3e door I 3a""ened to turn #y face and I sa4 t3at 3e 3ad 3is 3and 4it3 t3e "en resting on t3e 4ill) #oving it as if for t3e "ur"ose of signing. :. < < < %=>% < < State "ositively 43et3er @ulio #oved 3is 3and 4it3 t3e "en as if for t3e "ur"ose of signing) or 43et3er 3e 4as signing A. < < < I believe 3e 4as signing. The tr th and acc racy of the testi'ony of this witness does not see' to have "een / estioned "y any of the parties to the proceedings, " t the co rt, nevertheless, fo nd the following facts7 On the *&th day of Dece'"er, %(+%, 4acario 6a"oneta e!ec ted nder the following circ 'stances the doc 'ent in / estion, which has "een presented for pro"ate as his will7 9eing in t3e 3ouse of Arcadio @arandilla) in @aro) in t3is "rovince) 3e ordered t3at t3e docu#ent in question be 4ritten) and calling @ulio @avellana) Aniceto @albuena) and Isabelo @ena as 4itnesses) e6ecuted t3e said docu#ent as 3is 4ill. T3ey 4ere all toget3er) and 4ere in t3e roo# 43ere @aboneta 4as) and 4ere "resent 43en 3e signed t3e docu#ent)

Isabelo @ena signing after4ards as a 4itness) at 3is request) and in 3is "resence and in t3e "resence of t3e ot3er t4o 4itnesses. Aniceto @albuena t3en signed as a 4itness in t3e "resence of t3e testator) and in t3e "resence of t3e ot3er t4o "ersons 43o signed as 4itnesses. At t3at #o#ent Isabelo @ena) being in a 3urry to leave) too$ 3is 3at and left t3e roo#. As 3e 4as leaving t3e 3ouse @ulio @avellana too$ t3e "en in 3is 3and and "ut 3i#self in "osition to sign t3e 4ill as a 4itness) but did not sign in t3e "resence of Isabelo @ena7 but nevert3eless) after @ena 3ad left t3e roo# t3e said @ulio @avellana signed as a 4itness in t3e "resence of t3e testator and of t3e 4itness Aniceto @albuena. Je can not agree with so ' ch of the a"ove finding of facts as holds that the signat re of 6avellana was not signed in the presence of 6ena, in co'pliance with the provisions of section &%) of the Code of Civil Proced re. The fact that 6ena was still in the roo' when he saw 6avellana 'oving his hand and pen in the act of affi!ing his signat re to the will, ta1en together with the testi'ony of the re'aining witnesses which shows that 6avellana did in fact there and then sign his na'e to the will, convinces s that the signat re was affi!ed in the presence of 6ena. The fact that he was in the act of leaving, and that his "ac1 was t rned while a portion of the na'e of the witness was "eing written, is of no i'portance. 8e, with the other witnesses and the testator, had asse'"led for the p rpose of e!ec ting the testa'ent, and were together in the sa'e roo' for that p rpose, and at the 'o'ent when the witness 6avellana signed the doc 'ent he was act ally and physically present and in s ch position with relation to 6avellana that he co ld see everything which too1 place "y 'erely casting his eyes in the proper direction, and witho t any physical o"str ction to prevent his doing so, therefore we are of opinion that the doc 'ent was in fact signed "efore he finally left the roo'. The p rpose of a stat tory re/ ire'ent that the witness sign in the presence of the testator is said to "e that the testator 'ay have oc lar evidence of the identity of the instr 'ent s "scri"ed "y the witness and hi'self, and the generally accepted tests of presence are vision and 'ental apprehension. #See -'. T Eng. Enc. of :aw, vol. A+, p. .((, and cases there cited.$ In the 'atter of <edell #* Connoly #N.=.$, A*)$ it was held that it is s fficient if the witnesses are together for the p rpose of witnessing the e!ec tion of the will, and in a position to act ally see the testator write, if they choose to do so@ and there are 'any cases which lay down the r le that the tr e test of vision is not whether the testator act ally saw the witness sign, " t whether he 'ight have seen hi' sign, considering his 'ental and physical condition and position at the ti'e of the s "scription. #Spoone'ore vs. Ca"les, && 4o., .?(.$ The principles on which these cases rest and the tests of presence as "etween the testator and the witnesses are e/ ally applica"le in deter'ining whether the witnesses signed the instr 'ent in the presence of each other, as re/ ired "y the stat te, and applying the' to the facts proven in these proceedings we are of opinion that the stat tory re/ isites as to the e!ec tion of the instr 'ent were co'plied with, and that the lower co rt erred in denying pro"ate to the will on the gro nd stated in the r ling appealed fro'. Je are of opinion fro' the evidence of record that the instr 'ent propo nded in these proceedings was satisfactorily proven to "e the last will and testa'ent of 4acario 6a"oneta, deceased, and that it sho ld therefore "e ad'itted to pro"ate. The N dg'ent of the trial co rt is reversed, witho t especial conde'nation of costs, and after twenty days the record will "e ret rned to the co rt for' whence it ca'e, where the proper orders will "e entered in confor'ance herewith. So ordered. G.R. No. 10>779 6(% 28, 1??> TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, =UAN CA1ALLERO, AUREA CA1ALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, @ELEN CA1ALLERO, SANTOS CA1ALLERO, PA1LO CA1ALLERO, 5ICTOR RAGA, 6AURICIA RAGA, AUIRICA RAGA, RUPERTO A1APO, r#pr#s#)"#$ '#r#i) !% 'is A""or)#%;i);F(*", AR6STICIA B A1APO 5ELANO, ()$ CONSESO CANEDA, r#pr#s#)"#$ '#r#i) !% 'is '#irs, =ESUS CANEDA, NATI5IDAD CANEDA ()$ ARTURO CANEDA, petitioners, vs. @ON. COURT OF APPEALS ()$ CILLIA6 CA1RERA, (s Sp#*i(l A$+i)is"r("or o, "'# Es"("# o, 6("#o C(!(ll#ro, respondents. /al#a) /al#a B Associates for "etitioners. 0#ilio Lu#ontad) @r. for "rivate res"ondents. REGALADO, J.:

Presented for resol tion "y this Co rt in the present petition for review on certiorari is the iss e of whether or not the attestation cla se contained in the last will and testa'ent of the late 4ateo Ca"allero co'plies with the re/ ire'ents of -rticle )+., in relation to -rticle )+(, of the Civil Code. The records show that on Dece'"er ., %(?), 4ateo Ca"allero, a widower witho t any children and already in the twilight years of his life, e!ec ted a last will and testa'ent at his residence in Talisay, Ce" "efore three attesting witnesses, na'ely, Cipriano :a" ca, ;regorio Ca"ando and 0laviano Toregosa. The said testator was d ly assisted "y his lawyer, -tty. E'ilio : 'ontad, and a notary p "lic, -tty. 0iloteo 4anigos, in the preparation of that last will. 1 It was declared therein, a'ong other things, that the testator was leaving "y way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to Presentacion ;aviola, -ngel -"atayo, Rogelio -"atayo, Isa"elito -"atayo, <enoni ;. Ca"rera and 4arcosa -lcantara, all of who' do not appear to "e related to the testator. 2 0o r 'onths later, or on -pril 3, %(?(, 4ateo Ca"allero hi'self filed a petition doc1eted as Special Proceeding No. A)((, R "efore <ranch II of the then Co rt of 0irst Instance of Ce" see1ing the pro"ate of his last will and testa'ent. The pro"ate co rt set the petition for hearing on - g st *+, %(?( " t the sa'e and s "se/ ent sched led hearings were postponed for one reason to another. On 4ay *(, %()+, the testator passed away "efore his petition co ld finally "e heard "y the pro"ate co rt. > On 0e"r ary *., %()%, <enoni Ca"rera, on of the legatees na'ed in the will, so gh his appoint'ent as special ad'inistrator of the testatorKs estate, the esti'ated val e of which was P*3,+++.++, and he was so appointed "y the pro"ate co rt in its order of 4arch &, %()%. 9 Thereafter, herein petitioners, clai'ing to "e nephews and nieces of the testator, instit ted a second petition, entitled IIn the 4atter of the Intestate Estate of 4ateo Ca"alleroI and doc1eted as Special Proceeding No. A(&.,R, "efore <ranch IU of the aforesaid Co rt of 0irst Instance of Ce" . On Octo"er %), %()*, herein petitioners had their said petition intestate proceeding consolidated with Special Proceeding No. A)((,R in <ranch II of the Co rt of 0irst Instance of Ce" and opposed thereat the pro"ate of the TestatorKs will and the appoint'ent of a special ad'inistrator for his estate. 7 <enoni Ca"rera died on 0e"r ary ), %()* hence the pro"ate co rt, now 1nown as <ranch UC of the Regional Trial Co rt of Ce" , appointed Jillia' Ca"rera as special ad'inistrator on 6 ne *%, %()A. Thereafter, on 6 ly *+, %()A, it iss ed an order for the ret rn of the records of Special Proceeding No. A(&.,R to the archives since the testate proceeding for the pro"ate of the will had to "e heard and resolved first. On 4arch *&, %()3 the case was reraffled and event ally assigned to <ranch UII of the Regional Trial Co rt of Ce" where it re'ained ntil the concl sion of the pro"ate proceedings. 6 In the co rse of the hearing in Special Proceeding No. A)((,R, herein petitioners appeared as oppositors and o"Nected to the allowance of the testatorKs will on the gro nd that on the alleged date of its e!ec tion, the testator was already in the poor state of health s ch that he co ld not have possi"ly e!ec ted the sa'e. Petitioners li1ewise reiterated the iss e as to the gen ineness of the signat re of the testator therein. 8 On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses, Cipriano :a" ca, and the notary p "lic -tty. 0iloteo 4anigos, testified that the testator e!ec ted the will in / estion in their presence while he was of so nd and disposing 'ind and that, contrary to the assertions of the oppositors, 4ateo Ca"allero was in good health and was not nd ly infl enced in any way in the e!ec tion of his will. :a" ca also testified that he and the other witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The other two attesting witnesses were not presented in the pro"ate hearing as the had died "y then. 8 On -pril ., %()), the pro"ate co rt rendered a decision declaring the will in / estion as the last will and testa'ent of the late 4ateo Ca"allero, on the ratiocination that7 . . . The self,serving testi'ony of the two witnesses of the oppositors cannot overco'e the positive testi'onies of -tty. 0iloteo 4anigos and Cipriano :a" ca who clearly told the Co rt that indeed 4ateo Ca"allero e!ec ted the :ast Jill and Testa'ent now 'ar1ed E!hi"it ICI on Dece'"er ., %(?). 4oreover, the fact that it was 4ateo Ca"allero who initiated the pro"ate of his Jill d ring his lifeti'e when he ca sed the filing of the original petition now 'ar1ed E!hi"it IDI clearly nderscores the fact that this was indeed his :ast Jill. -t the start, co nsel for the oppositors 'anifested that he wo ld want the signat re of 4ateo Ca"allero in E!hi"it ICI e!a'ined "y a handwriting e!pert of the N<I " t it wo ld see' that despite their avowal and intention for the e!a'ination of this signat re of 4ateo Ca"allero in E!hi"it ICI, nothing ca'e o t of it "eca se they a"andoned the idea and instead presented - rea Ca"allero and 8elen Ca"allero Ca'po as witnesses for the oppositors. -ll told, it is the finding of this Co rt that E!hi"it ICI is the :ast Jill and Testa'ent of 4ateo Ca"allero and that it was e!ec ted in accordance with all the re/ isites of the law. ?

9nda nted "y the said N dg'ent of the pro"ate co rt, petitioners elevated the case in the Co rt of -ppeals in C-,;.R. CC No. %(&&(. They asserted therein that the will in / estion is n ll and void for the reason that its attestation cla se is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the instr 'ental 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. On Octo"er %., %((%, respondent co rt pro' lgated its decision 10 affir'ing that of the trial co rt, and r ling that the attestation cla se in the last will of 4ateo Ca"allero s "stantially co'plies with -rticle )+. of the Civil Code, th s7 The / estion therefore is whether the attestation cla se in / estion 'ay "e considered as having s "stantialy co'plied with the re/ ire'ents of -rt. )+. of the Civil Code. Jhat appears in the attestation cla se which the oppositors clai' to "e defective is Iwe do certify that the testa'ent was read "y hi' and the attestator, 4ateo Ca"allero, has p "lished nto s the foregoing will consisting of T8REE P-;ES, incl ding the ac1nowledg'ent, each page n '"ered correlatively in letters of the pper part of each page, as his :ast Jill and Testa'ent, and 3e 3as signed t3e sa#e and every "age t3ereof) on t3e s"aces "rovided for 3is signature and on t3e left 3and #argin in t3e "resence of t3e said testator and in t3e "resence of eac3 and all of us #e'phasis s pplied$. To o r thin1ing, this is s fficient co'pliance and no evidence need "e presented to indicate the 'eaning that the said will was signed "y the testator and "y the' #the witnesses$ in the presence of all of the' and of one another. Or as the lang age of the law wo ld have it that the testator signed the will Iin the presence of the instr 'ental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.I If not co'pletely or ideally perfect in accordance with the wordings of -rt. )+. " t #sic$ the phrase as for' lated is in s "stantial co'pliance with the re/ ire'ent of the law.I 11 Petitioners 'oved for the reconsideration of the said r ling of respondent co rt, " t the sa'e was denied in the latterKs resol tion of 6an ary %3, %((*, 12 hence this appeal now "efore s. Petitioners assert that respondent co rt has r led pon said iss e in a 'anner not in accord with the law and settled N rispr dence on the 'atter and are now / estioning once 'ore, on the sa'e gro nd as that raised "efore respondent co rt, the validity of the attestation cla se in the last will of 4ateo Ca"allero. Je find the present petition to "e 'eritorio s, as we shall shortly hereafter, after so'e prefatory o"servations which we feel sho ld "e 'ade in aid of the rationale for o r resol tion of the controversy. %. - will has "een defined as a species of conveyance where"y a person is per'itted, with the for'alities prescri"ed "y law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate after his death. 1> 9nder the Civil Code, there are two 1inds of wills which a testator 'ay e!ec te. 19 the first 1ind is the ordinary or attested will, the e!ec tion of which is governed "y -rticles )+3 to )+( of the Code. -rticle )+. re/ ires that7 -rt. )+.. Every will, other than a holographic will, ' st "e s "scri"ed at the end thereof "y the testator hi'self or "y the testatorKs na'e written "y so'e other person in his presence, and "y his e!press direction, and attested and s "scri"ed "y three or 'ore credi"le witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The testator or the person re/ ested "y hi' to write his na'e and the instr 'ental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, e!cept the last, on the left 'argin, and all the pages shall "e n '"ered correlatively in letters placed on the pper part of each page. The attestation sho ld state the n '"er of pages sed pon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or ca sed so'e other person to write his na'e, nder his e!press direction, in the presence of the instr 'ental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. If the attestation cla se is in a lang age not 1nown to the witness, it shall "e interpreted to the'. In addition, the ordinary will ' st "e ac1nowledged "efore a notary p "lic "y a testator and the attesting witness. 17 hence it is li1ewise 1nown as notarial will. Jhere the attestator is deaf or deaf,' te, -rticle )+? re/ ires that he ' st personally read the will, if a"le to do so. Otherwise, he sho ld designate two persons who wo ld read the will and co'' nicate its

contents to hi' in a practica"le 'anner. On the other hand, if the testator is "lind, the will sho ld "e read to hi' twice@ once, "y anyone of the witnesses thereto, and then again, "y the notary p "lic "efore who' it is ac1nowledged. 16 The other 1ind of will is the holographic will, which -rticle )%+ defines as one that is entirely written, dated, and signed "y the testator hi'self. This 1ind of will, nli1e the ordinary type, re/ ires no attestation "y witnesses. - co''on re/ ire'ent in "oth 1inds of will is that they sho ld "e in writing and ' st have "een e!ec ted in a lang age or dialect 1nown to the testator. 18 8owever, in the case of an ordinary or attested will, its attestation cla se need not "e written in a lang age or dialect 1nown to the testator since it does not for' part of the testa'entary disposition. 0 rther'ore, the lang age sed in the attestation cla se li1ewise need not even "e 1nown to the attesting witnesses. 18 The last paragraph of -rticle )+. 'erely re/ ires that, in s ch a case, the attestation cla se shall "e interpreted to said witnesses. -n attestation cla se refers to that part of an ordinary will where"y the attesting witnesses certify that the instr 'ent has "een e!ec ted "efore the' and to the 'anner of the e!ec tion the sa'e. 1? It is a separate 'e'orand ' or record of the facts s rro nding the cond ct of e!ec tion and once signed "y the witnesses, it gives affir'ation to the fact that co'pliance with the essential for'alities re/ ired "y law has "een o"served. 20 It is 'ade for the p rpose of preserving in a per'anent for' a record of the facts that attended the e!ec tion of a partic lar will, so that in case of fail re of the 'e'ory of the attesting witnesses, or other cas alty, s ch facts 'ay still "e proved. 21 9nder the third paragraph of -rticle )+., s ch a cla se, the co'plete lac1 of which wo ld res lt in the invalidity of the will, 22 sho ld state #%$ t3e nu#ber of t3e "ages used pon which the will is written@ #*$ that the testator signed, or e!pressly ca sed another to sign, the will and every page thereof in t3e "resence of t3e attesting 4itnesses@ and #A$ that the attesting 4itnesses 4itnessed t3e signing by t3e testator of t3e 4ill and all its pages,and that said 4itnesses also signed t3e 4ill and every page thereof in t3e "resence of t3e testator and of one anot3er. The p rpose of the law in re/ iring the cla se to state the n '"er of pages on which the will is written is to safeg ard against possi"le interpolation or o'ission of one or so'e of its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages@ 2> whereas the s "scription of the signat re of the testator and the attesting witnesses is 'ade for the p rpose of a thentication and identification, and th s indicates that the will is the very sa'e instr 'ent e!ec ted "y the testator and attested to "y the witnesses. 29 0 rther, "y attesting and s "scri"ing to the will, the witnesses there"y declare the d e e!ec tion of the will as e'"odied in the attestation cla se. 27 The attestation cla se, therefore, provide strong legal g aranties for the d e e!ec tion of a will and to ins re the a thenticity thereof. 26 -s it appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator, it need "e signed only "y the'. 28 Jhere it is left nsigned, it wo ld res lt in the invalidation of the will as it wo ld "e possi"le and easy to add the cla se on a s "se/ ent occasion in the a"sence of the testator and its witnesses. 28 In its report, the Code Co''ission co''ented on the reasons of the law for re/ iring the for'alities to "e followed in the e!ec tion of wills, in the following 'anner7 The nderlying and f nda'ental o"Nectives per'eating the provisions on the law on wills in this ProNect consists in the li"erali5ation of the 'anner of their e!ec tion with the end in view of giving the testator 'ore freedo' in e!pressing his last wishes, " t with s fficient safeg ards and restrictions to prevent the co''ission of fra d and the e!ercise of nd e and i'proper press re and infl ence pon the testator. This o"Nective is in accord with the 'odern tendency with respect to the for'alities in the e!ec tion of wills. . . . 2? *. -n e!a'ination of the last will and testa'ent of 4ateo Ca"allero shows that it is co'prised of three sheets all of which have "een n '"ered correlatively, with the left 'argin of each page thereof "earing the respective signat res of the testator and the three attesting witnesses. The part of the will containing the testa'entary dispositions is e!pressed in the Ce" ano,Cisayan dialect and is signed at the foot thereof "y the testator. The attestation cla se in / estion, on the other hand, is recited in the English lang age and is li1ewise signed at the end thereof "y the three attesting witnesses hereto. >0 Since it is the prover"ial "one of contention, we reprod ce it again for facility of reference7 Je, the ndersigned attesting Jitnesses, whose Residences and postal addresses appear on the Opposite of o r respective na'es, we do here"y certify that the Testa'ent was read "y hi' and the testator, 4-TEO C-<-::ERO@ has p "lished nto s the foregoing Jill consisting of T8REE P-;ES, incl ding the -c1nowledg'ent, each page n '"ered correlatively in the letters on the pper part of each

page, as his :ast Jill and Testa'ent and he has the sa'e and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signat re and on the left hand 'argin, in the presence of the said testator and in the presence of each and all of s. It will "e noted that -rticle )+. re/ ires that the witness sho ld "oth attest and s "scri"e to the will in the presence of the testator and of one another. I-ttestationI and Is "scriptionI differ in 'eaning. -ttestation is the act of senses, while s "scription is the act of the hand. The for'er is 'ental, the latter 'echanical, and to attest a will is to 1now that it was p "lished as s ch, and to certify the facts re/ ired to constit te an act al and legal p "lication@ " t to s "scri"e a paper p "lished as a will is only to write on the sa'e paper the na'es of the witnesses, for the sole p rpose of identification. >1 In Taboada vs. !iCal, >2 we clarified that attestation consists in witnessing the testatorKs e!ec tion of the will in order to see and ta1e note 'entally that those things are done which the stat te re/ ires for the e!ec tion of a will and that the signat re of the testator e!ists as a fact. On the other hand, s "scription is the signing of the witnessesK na'es pon the sa'e paper for the p rpose of identification of s ch paper as the will which was e!ec ted "y the testator. -s it involves a 'ental act, there wo ld "e no 'eans, therefore, of ascertaining "y a physical e!a'ination of the will whether the witnesses had indeed signed in the presence of the testator and of each other nless this is s "stantially e!pressed in the attestation. It is contended "y petitioners that the afore/ oted attestation cla se, in contravention of the e!press re/ ire'ents of the third paragraph of -rticle )+. of the Civil Code for attestation cla ses, fails to specifically state the fact that the attesting witnesses the testator sign the will and all its pages in their presence and that they, the witnesses, li1ewise signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. Je agree. Jhat is fairly apparent pon a caref l reading of the attestation cla se herein assailed is the fact that while it 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 n '"er of pages that were sed, the sa'e does not e!pressly state therein the circ 'stance that said witnesses s "scri"ed their respective signat res to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The phrase Iand he has signed the sa'e and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signat re and on the left hand 'argin,I o"vio sly refers to the testator and not the instr 'ental witnesses as it is i''ediately preceded "y the words Ias his :ast Jill and Testa'ent.I On the other hand, altho gh the words Iin the presence of the testator and in the presence of each and all of sI 'ay, at first "l sh, appear to li1ewise signify and refer to the witnesses, it ' st, however, "e interpreted as referring only to the testator signing in the presence of the witnesses since said phrase i''ediately follows the words I3e has signed the sa'e and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for 3is signat re and on the left hand 'argin.I Jhat is then clearly lac1ing, in the final logical analysis , is t3e state#ent t3at t3e 4itnesses signed t3e 4ill and every "age t3ereof in t3e "resence of t3e testator and of one anot3er . It is o r considered view that the a"sence of that state'ent re/ ired "y law is a fatal defect or i'perfection which ' st necessarily res lt in the disallowance of the will that is here so ght to "e ad'itted to pro"ate. Petitioners are correct in pointing o t that the aforestated defect in the attestation cla se o"vio sly cannot "e characteri5ed as 'erely involving the for' of the will or the lang age sed therein which wo ld warrant the application of the s "stantial co'pliance r le, as conte'plated in the pertinent provision thereon in the Civil Code, to wit7 -rt. )+(. In the a"sence of "ad faith, forgery, or fra d, or nd e and i'proper press re and infl ence, defects and i'perfections in the for# of attestation or in t3e language sed therein shall not render the will invalid if it is not proved that the will was in fact e!ec ted and attested in s "stantial co'pliance with all the re/ ire'ents of article )+.I #E'phasis s pplied.$ Jhile it 'ay "e tr e that the attestation cla se is indeed s "scri"ed at the end thereof and at the left 'argin of each page "y the three attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot "e concl sively inferred therefro' that the said witness affi!ed their respective signat res in the presence of the testator and of each other since, as petitioners correctly o"served, the presence of said signat res only esta"lishes the fact that it was indeed signed, " t it does not prove that the attesting witnesses did s "scri"e to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The e!ec tion of a will is s pposed to "e one act so that where the testator and the witnesses sign on vario s days or occasions and in vario s co'"inations, the will cannot "e sta'ped with the i'pri'at r of effectivity. >> Je "elieve that the f rther co''ent of for'er 6 stice 6.<.:. Reyes >9 regarding -rticle )+(, wherein he rged ca tion in the application of the s "stantial co'pliance r le therein, is correct and sho ld "e applied in the case nder consideration, as well as to f t re cases with si'ilar / estions7

. . . The r le ' st "e li'ited to disregarding those defects that can "e s pplied "y an e!a'ination of the will itself7 whether all the pages are consec tively n '"ered@ whether the signat res appear in each and every page@ whether the s "scri"ing witnesses are three or the will was notari5ed. -ll theses are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even o'issions concerning the' in the attestation cla se can "e safely disregarded. < t the total n '"er of pages, and 43et3er all "ersons required to sign did so in t3e "resence of eac3 ot3er #ust substantially a""ear in t3e attestation clause) being t3e only c3ec$ against "er-ury in t3e "robate "roceedings. #E'phasis o rs.$ A. Je stress once 'ore that nder -rticle )+(, the defects and i'perfections ' st only "e with respect to the for' of the attestation or the lang age e'ployed therein. S ch defects or i'perfections wo ld not render a will invalid sho ld it "e proved that the will was really e!ec ted and attested in co'pliance with -rticle )+.. In this regard, however, the 'anner of proving the d e e!ec tion and attestation has "een held to "e li'ited to 'erely an e!a'ination of the will itself witho t resorting to evidence aliunde, whether oral or written. The foregoing considerations do not apply where the attestation cla se totally o'its the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. >7 In s ch a sit ation, the defect is not only in the for' or lang age of the attestation cla se " t the total a"sence of a specific ele'ent re/ ired "y -rticle )+. to "e specifically stated in the attestation cla se of a will. That is precisely the defect co'plained of in the present case since there is no pla si"le way "y which we can read into the / estioned attestation cla se state'ent, or an i'plication thereof, that the attesting witness did act ally "ear witness to the signing "y the testator of the will and all of its pages and that said instr 'ental witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. 0 rther'ore, the r le on s "stantial co'pliance in -rticle )+( cannot "e revo1ed or relied on "y respondents since it pres pposes that the defects in the attestation cla se can "e c red or s pplied "y the te!t of the will or a consideration of 'atters apparent therefro' which wo ld provide the data not e!pressed in the attestation cla se or fro' which it 'ay necessarily "e gleaned or clearly inferred that the acts not stated in the o'itted te!t al re/ ire'ents were act ally co'plied within the e!ec tion of the will. In other words, defects ' st "e re'edied "y intrinsic evidence s pplied "y the will itself. In the case at "ar, contrarily, proof of the acts re/ ired to have "een perfor'ed "y the attesting witnesses can "e s pplied "y only e!trinsic evidence thereof, since an overall appreciation of the contents of the will yields no "asis whatsoever fro' with s ch facts 'ay "e pla si"ly ded ced. Jhat private respondent insists on are the testi'onies of his witnesses alleging that they saw the co'pliance with s ch re/ ire'ents "y the instr 'ental witnesses, o"livio s of the fact that he is there"y resorting to e!trinsic evidence to prove the sa'e and wo ld accordingly "e doing "y the indirection what in law he cannot do directly. 3. Prior to the advent of the Civil Code on - g st A+, %(.+, there was a divergence of views as to which 'anner of interpretation sho ld "e followed in resolving iss es centering on co'pliance with the legal for'alities re/ ired in the e!ec tion of wills. The for'al re/ ire'ents were at that ti'e e'"odied pri'arily in Section &%) of -ct No. %(+, the Code of Civil Proced re. Said section was later a'ended "y -ct No. *&3., " t the provisions respecting said for'alities fo nd in -ct. No. %(+ and the a'end'ent thereto were practically reprod ced and adopted in the Civil Code. One view advance the li"eral or s "stantial co'pliance r le. This was first laid down in the case of Abangan vs. Abangan, >6 where it was held that the o"Nect of the sole'nities s rro nding the e!ec tion of wills is to close the door against "ad faith and fra d, to avoid s "stit tion of wills and testa'ents and to g arantee their tr th and a thenticity. Therefore, the laws on this s "Nect sho ld "e interpreted in s ch a way as to attain these pri'ordial ends. Nonetheless, it was also e'phasi5ed that one ' st not lose sight of the fact that it is not the o"Nect of the law to restrain and c rtail the e!ercise of the right to 'a1e a will, hence when an interpretation already given ass res s ch ends, any other interpretation whatsoever that adds nothing " t de'ands 'ore re/ isites entirely nnecessary, seless and fr strative of the testatorKs last will, ' st "e disregarded. The s "se/ ent cases of Avera vs. Darcia, >8 Aldaba vs. !oque, >8 Unson vs. Abella, >? /ecson vs. Coronel, 90 FernandeC vs. Eergel de ;ios) et al., 91 and Nayve vs. ,o-al) et al. 92 all adhered to this position. The other view which advocated the r le that stat tes which prescri"e the for'alities that sho ld "e o"served in the e!ec tion of wills are 'andatory in nat re and are to "e strictly constr ed was followed in the s "se/ ent cases of In t3e ,atter of t3e 0state of Saguinsin, 9> In re Will of Andrada, 99 Uy Coque vs. Sioca, 97 In re 0state of Neu#ar$, 96 and Sano vs. :uintana. 98

Du#ban vs. Dorec3o) et al., 98 provided the Co rt with the occasion to clarify the see'ingly conflicting decisions in the afore'entioned cases. In said case of Du#ban, the attestation cla se had failed to state that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof on the left 'argin in the presence of the testator. The will in / estion was disallowed, with these reasons therefor7 In s pport of their arg 'ent on the assign'ent of error a"ove,'entioned, appellants rely on a series of cases of this co rt "eginning with #I$n the 4atter of the #E$state of Sag insin #L%(*+M, 3% Phil., )?.$, contin ing with In re Jill of -ndrada L%(*%M, 3* Phil., %)+$, 9y Co/ e vs. Navas :. Sioca L%(**M, 3A Phil., 3+.$, and In re Estate of Ne 'ar1 #L%(*AM, 3& Phil., )3%$, and ending with Sano vs. :uintana#L%(*.M, 3) Phil., .+&$. -ppellee co nters with the citation of a series of cases "eginning with Abangan vs. Abangan #L%(%(M, 3+ Phil., 3?&$, contin ing thro gh Aldaba vs. !oque #L%(**M, 3A Phil., A?)$, and FernandeC vs. Eergel de ;ios #L%(*3M, 3& Phil., (**$, and c l'inating in Nayve vs. ,o-al and Aguilar #L%(*3M, 3? Phil., %.*$. In its last analysis, o r tas1 is to contrast and, if possi"le, conciliate the last two decisions cited "y opposing co nsel, na'ely, those of Sano vs. :uintana,su"ra, and Nayve vs. ,o-al and Aguilar, su"ra. In the case of Sano vs. :uintana, su"ra, it was decided that an attestation cla se which does not recite that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof on the left 'argin in the presence of the testator is defective, and s ch a defect ann ls the will. The case of Uy Coque vs. Sioca, su"ra, was cited, " t the case of Nayve vs. ,o-al and Aguilar, su"ra, was not 'entioned. In contrast, is the decision in Nayve vs. ,o-al and Aguilar, su"ra, wherein it was held that the attestation cla se ' st estate the fact that the testator and the witnesses reciprocally saw the signing of the will, for s ch an act cannot "e proved "y the 'ere e!hi"ition of the will, if it is not stated therein. It was also held that the fact that the testator and the witnesses signed each and every page of the will can "e proved also "y the 'ere e!a'ination of the signat res appearing on the doc 'ent itself, and the o'ission to state s ch evident facts does not invalidate the will. It is a ha"it of co rts to reaffir' or disting ish previo s cases@ seldo' do they ad'it inconsistency in doctrine. =et here, nless aided i'possi"le to reconcile the 4oNal and E intana decisions. They are f nda'entally at variance. If we rely on one, we affir'. If we rely on the other, we reverse. In resolving this p 55ling / estion of a thority, three o tstanding points 'ay "e 'entioned. In the first place, the 4oNal, decision was conc rred in "y only fo r 'e'"ers of the co rt, less than a 'aNority, with two strong dissenting opinions@ the E intana decision was conc rred in "y seven 'e'"ers of the co rt, a clear 'aNority, with one for'al dissent. In the second place, the 4oNal decision was pro' lgated in Dece'"er, %(*3, while the E intana decision was pro' lgated in Dece'"er, %(*.@ the E intana decision was th s s "se/ ent in point of ti'e. -nd in the third place, the E intana decision is "elieved 'ore nearly to confor' to the applica"le provisions of the law. The right to dispose of property "y will is governed entirely "y stat te. The law of the case is here fo nd in section &% of the Code of Civil Proced re as a'ended "y -ct No. *&3., and in section &A3 of the sa'e Code, as na'ended. It is in part provided in section &%, as a'ended that INo 4ill . . . s3all be valid . . . unless . . ..I It is f rther provided in the sa'e section that IThe attestation s3all state the n '"er of sheets or pages sed, pon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or ca sed so'e other person to write his na'e, nder his e!press direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.I Codal section &A3 provides that IThe will s3all "e disallowed in either of the following case7 %. If not e!ec ted and attested as in this -ct provided.I The law not alone caref lly 'a1es se of the i'perative, " t ca tio sly goes f rther and 'a1es se of the negative, to enforce legislative intention. It is not within the province of the co rts to disregard the legislative p rpose so e'phatically and clearly e!pressed. Je adopt and reaffir' the decision in the case of Sano vs. :uintana, su"ra, and, to the e!tent necessary, 'odify the decision in the case of Nayve vs. ,o-al and Aguilar, su"ra. #E'phases in the original te!t$. < t after the Du#ban clarificatory prono nce'ent, there were decisions of the Co rt that once 'ore appeared to revive the see'ing diversity of views that was earlier threshed o t therein. The cases of :uinto vs. ,orata, 9?!odrigueC vs. Alcala, 70 0nc3evarria vs. Sar#iento, 71 and Testate 0state of Toray 72 went the way of the r ling as restated in Du#ban. < t ;e Dala vs. DonCales) et al., 7> !ey vs. Cartagena, 79 ;e Ticson vs. ;e DorostiCa, 77Sebastian vs. /anganiban, 76 !odrigueC vs. Fa", 78 Drey vs. Fabia, 78 LeyneC vs. LeyneC, 7? ,artir vs. ,artir, 60Alcala vs. ;e Eilla, 61 Sabado vs.

FernandeC, 62 ,endoCa vs. /ila"il, 6> and Lo"eC vs. Liboro, 69 veered away fro' the strict interpretation r le and esta"lished a trend toward an application of the li"eral view. The Code Co''ission, cogni5ant of s ch a conflicting welter of views and of the ndenia"le inclination towards a li"eral constr ction, reco''ended the codification of the s "stantial co'pliance r le, as it "elieved this r le to "e in accord with the 'odern tendency to give a li"eral approach to the interpretation of wills. Said r le th s "eca'e what is now -rticle )+( of the Civil Code, with this e!planation of the Code Co''ission7 The present law provides for only one for' of e!ec ting a will, and that is, in accordance with the for'alities prescri"ed "y Section &%) of the Code of Civil Proced re as a'ended "y -ct No. *&3.. The S pre'e Co rt of the Philippines had previo sly pheld the strict co'pliance with the legal for'alities and had even said that the provisions of Section &%) of the Code of Civil Proced re, as a'ended regarding the contents of the attestation cla se were 'andatory, and non,co'pliance therewith invalidated the will #9y Co/ e vs. Sioca, 3A Phil. 3+.$. These decisions necessarily restrained the freedo' of the testator in disposing of his property. 8owever, in recent years the S pre'e Co rt changed its attit de and has "eco'e 'ore li"eral in the interpretation of the for'alities in the e!ec tion of wills. This li"eral view is en nciated in the cases of!odrigueC vs. Fa", ;.R. No. 3.(*3, 4ay %), %(A(@ LeyneC vs. LeyneC, ;.R. No. 3&+(?, Octo"er %), %(A(@ ,artir vs. ,artir, ;.R. No. 3&((., 6 ne *%, %(3+@ and Alcala vs. Eilla, ;.R. No. 3?A.%, -pril %), %(3%. In the a"ove 'entioned decisions of o r S pre'e Co rt, it has practically gone "ac1 to the original provisions of Section &%) of the Code of Civil Proced re "efore its a'end'ent "y -ct No. *&3. in the year %(%&. To t rn this attit de into a legislative declaration and to attain the 'ain o"Nective of the proposed Code in the li"erali5ation of the 'anner of e!ec ting wills, article )*( of the ProNect is reco''ended, which reads7 I-rt. )*(. In the a"sence of "ad faith, forgery, or fra d, or nd e and i'proper press re and infl ence, defects and i'perfections in the for' of attestation or in the lang age sed therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact e!ec ted and attested in s "stantial co'pliance with all the re/ ire'ents of article )*(.I 67 The so,called li"eral r le, the Co rt said in Dil vs. ,urciano, 66 Idoes not offer any p 55le or diffic lty, nor does it open the door to serio s conse/ ences. The later decisions do tell s when and where to stop@ they draw the dividing line with precision. They do not allow evidence aliunde to fill a void in any part of the doc 'ent or s pply 'issing details that sho ld appear in the will itself. They only per'it a pro"e into the will, an e!ploration into its confines, to ascertain its 'eaning or to deter'ine the e!istence or a"sence of the re/ isite for'alities of law. This clear, sharp li'itation eli'inates ncertainty and o ght to "anish any fear of dire res lts.I It 'ay th s "e stated that the r le, as it now stands, is that o'issions which can "e s pplied "y an e!a'ination of the will itself, witho t the need of resorting to e!trinsic evidence, will not "e fatal and, correspondingly, wo ld not o"str ct the allowance to pro"ate of the will "eing assailed. 8owever, those o'issions which cannot "e s pplied e!cept "y evidence aliunde wo ld res lt in the invalidation of the attestation cla se and lti'ately, of the will itself. 68 J8ERE0ORE, the petition is here"y ;R-NTED and the i'p gned decision of respondent co rt is here"y RECERSED and SET -SIDE. The co rt a quo is accordingly directed to forthwith DIS4ISS its Special Proceeding No. A)((,R #Petition for the Pro"ate of the :ast Jill and Testa'ent of 4ateo Ca"allero$ and to RECICE Special Proceeding No. A(&.,R #In the 'atter of the Intestate Estate of 4ateo Ca"allero$ as an active case and thereafter d ly proceed with the settle'ent of the estate of the said decedent. SO ORDERED.