SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993

TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, JUAN
CABALLERO, AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, HELEN
CABALLERO, SANTOS CABALLERO, ABLO CABALLERO, !"CTOR RAGA,
MAUR"C"A RAGA, #U"R"CA RAGA, RUERTO ABAO, $%&$%'%()%* +%$%,( -y
+,' A))o$(%y.,(./a0), ARMST"C"A 1 ABAO !ELANO, a(* CONSESO CANEDA,
$%&$%'%()%* +%$%,( -y +,' +%,$', JESUS CANEDA, NAT"!"DAD CANEDA a(*
ARTURO CANEDA,petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT O/ AEALS a(* 2"LL"AM CABRERA, a' S&%0,a3 A*4,(,')$a)o$
o5 )+% E')a)% o5 Ma)%o Ca-a33%$o,respondents.
Palma, Palma & Associates for petitioners.
Emilio Lumontad, Jr. for private respondents.

REGALADO, J.:
Presented for resolution by tis Court in te present petition for revie! on certiorari is
te issue of !eter or not te attestation "lause "ontained in te last !ill and testament
of te late #ateo Caballero "omplies !it te re$uirements of %rti"le &'(, in relation to
%rti"le &'), of te Civil Code.
*e re"ords so! tat on De"ember (, +),&, #ateo Caballero, a !ido!er !itout any
"ildren and already in te t!ili-t years of is life, e.e"uted a last !ill and testament at
is residen"e in *alisay, Cebu before tree attestin- !itnesses, namely, Cipriano Labu"a,
/re-orio Cabando and 0laviano *ore-osa. *e said testator !as duly assisted by is
la!yer, %tty. Emilio Lumontad, and a notary publi", %tty. 0iloteo #ani-os, in te
preparation of tat last !ill.
1
It !as de"lared terein, amon- oter tin-s, tat te testator
!as leavin- by !ay of le-a"ies and devises is real and personal properties to
Presenta"ion /aviola, %n-el %batayo, 1o-elio %batayo, Isabelito %batayo, 2enoni /.
Cabrera and #ar"osa %l"antara, all of !om do not appear to be related to te testator.
2

0our monts later, or on %pril 3, +),), #ateo Caballero imself filed a petition do"4eted
as Spe"ial Pro"eedin- No. 5&))61 before 2ran" II of te ten Court of 0irst Instan"e of
Cebu see4in- te probate of is last !ill and testament. *e probate "ourt set te petition
for earin- on %u-ust 7', +),) but te same and subse$uent s"eduled earin-s !ere
postponed for one reason to anoter. On #ay 7), +)&', te testator passed a!ay before
is petition "ould finally be eard by te probate "ourt.
3
On 0ebruary 7(, +)&+, 2enoni
Cabrera, on of te le-atees named in te !ill, sou- is appointment as spe"ial
administrator of te testator8s estate, te estimated value of !i" !as P73,'''.'', and e
!as so appointed by te probate "ourt in its order of #ar" 9, +)&+.
4
*ereafter, erein petitioners, "laimin- to be nepe!s and nie"es of te testator, instituted
a se"ond petition, entitled :In te #atter of te Intestate Estate of #ateo Caballero: and
do"4eted as Spe"ial Pro"eedin- No. 5)9(61, before 2ran" I; of te aforesaid Court of
0irst Instan"e of Cebu. On O"tober +&, +)&7, erein petitioners ad teir said petition
intestate pro"eedin- "onsolidated !it Spe"ial Pro"eedin- No. 5&))61 in 2ran" II of te
Court of 0irst Instan"e of Cebu and opposed tereat te probate of te *estator8s !ill and
te appointment of a spe"ial administrator for is estate.
5
2enoni Cabrera died on 0ebruary &, +)&7 en"e te probate "ourt, no! 4no!n as 2ran"
;V of te 1e-ional *rial Court of Cebu, appointed <illiam Cabrera as spe"ial
administrator on June 7+, +)&5. *ereafter, on July 7', +)&5, it issued an order for te
return of te re"ords of Spe"ial Pro"eedin- No. 5)9(61 to te ar"ives sin"e te testate
pro"eedin- for te probate of te !ill ad to be eard and resolved first. On #ar" 79,
+)&3 te "ase !as reraffled and eventually assi-ned to 2ran" ;II of te 1e-ional *rial
Court of Cebu !ere it remained until te "on"lusion of te probate pro"eedin-s.
6
In te "ourse of te earin- in Spe"ial Pro"eedin- No. 5&))61, erein petitioners
appeared as oppositors and ob=e"ted to te allo!an"e of te testator8s !ill on te -round
tat on te alle-ed date of its e.e"ution, te testator !as already in te poor state of
ealt su" tat e "ould not ave possibly e.e"uted te same. Petitioners li4e!ise
reiterated te issue as to te -enuineness of te si-nature of te testator terein.
7
On te oter and, one of te attestin- !itnesses, Cipriano Labu"a, and te notary publi"
%tty. 0iloteo #ani-os, testified tat te testator e.e"uted te !ill in $uestion in teir
presen"e !ile e !as of sound and disposin- mind and tat, "ontrary to te assertions of
te oppositors, #ateo Caballero !as in -ood ealt and !as not unduly influen"ed in any
!ay in te e.e"ution of is !ill. Labu"a also testified tat e and te oter !itnesses
attested and si-ned te !ill in te presen"e of te testator and of ea" oter. *e oter
t!o attestin- !itnesses !ere not presented in te probate earin- as te ad died by ten.
8
On %pril (, +)&&, te probate "ourt rendered a de"ision de"larin- te !ill in $uestion as
te last !ill and testament of te late #ateo Caballero, on te ratio"ination tat>
. . . *e self6servin- testimony of te t!o !itnesses of te oppositors "annot
over"ome te positive testimonies of %tty. 0iloteo #ani-os and Cipriano Labu"a
!o "learly told te Court tat indeed #ateo Caballero e.e"uted te Last <ill
and *estament no! mar4ed E.ibit :C: on De"ember (, +),&. #oreover, te
fa"t tat it !as #ateo Caballero !o initiated te probate of is <ill durin- is
lifetime !en e "aused te filin- of te ori-inal petition no! mar4ed E.ibit
:D: "learly unders"ores te fa"t tat tis !as indeed is Last <ill. %t te start,
"ounsel for te oppositors manifested tat e !ould !ant te si-nature of #ateo
Caballero in E.ibit :C: e.amined by a and!ritin- e.pert of te N2I but it
!ould seem tat despite teir avo!al and intention for te e.amination of tis
si-nature of #ateo Caballero in E.ibit :C:, notin- "ame out of it be"ause tey
abandoned te idea and instead presented %urea Caballero and ?elen Caballero
Campo as !itnesses for te oppositors.
%ll told, it is te findin- of tis Court tat E.ibit :C: is te Last <ill and
*estament of #ateo Caballero and tat it !as e.e"uted in a""ordan"e !it all te
re$uisites of te la!.
9


@ndaunted by te said =ud-ment of te probate "ourt, petitioners elevated te "ase in te
Court of %ppeals in C%6/.1. CV No. +)99). *ey asserted terein tat te !ill in
$uestion is null and void for te reason tat its attestation "lause is fatally defe"tive sin"e
it fails to spe"ifi"ally state tat te instrumental !itnesses to te !ill !itnessed te
testator si-nin- te !ill in teir presen"e and tat tey also si-ned te !ill and all te
pa-es tereof in te presen"e of te testator and of one anoter.
On O"tober +(, +))+, respondent "ourt promul-ated its de"ision
10
affirmin- tat of te
trial "ourt, and rulin- tat te attestation "lause in te last !ill of #ateo Caballero
substantially "omplies !it %rti"le &'( of te Civil Code, tus>
*e $uestion terefore is !eter te attestation "lause in $uestion may be
"onsidered as avin- substantialy "omplied !it te re$uirements of %rt. &'( of
te Civil Code. <at appears in te attestation "lause !i" te oppositors "laim
to be defe"tive is :!e do "ertify tat te testament !as read by im and te
attestator, #ateo Caballero, as publised unto us te fore-oin- !ill "onsistin-
of *?1EE P%/ES, in"ludin- te a"4no!led-ment, ea" pa-e numbered
"orrelatively in letters of te upper part of ea" pa-e, as is Last <ill and
*estament, and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces
provided for his signature and on the left hand margin in the presence of the said
testator and in the presence of each and all of us Aempasis suppliedB.
*o our tin4in-, tis is suffi"ient "omplian"e and no eviden"e need be presented
to indi"ate te meanin- tat te said !ill !as si-ned by te testator and by tem
Ate !itnessesB in te presen"e of all of tem and of one anoter. Or as te
lan-ua-e of te la! !ould ave it tat te testator si-ned te !ill :in te
presen"e of te instrumental !itnesses, and tat te latter !itnessed and si-ned
te !ill and all te pa-es tereof in te presen"e of te testator and of one
anoter.: If not "ompletely or ideally perfe"t in a""ordan"e !it te !ordin-s of
%rt. &'( but Asi"B te prase as formulated is in substantial "omplian"e !it te
re$uirement of te la!.:
11

Petitioners moved for te re"onsideration of te said rulin- of respondent "ourt, but te
same !as denied in te latter8s resolution of January +3, +))7,
12
en"e tis appeal no!
before us. Petitioners assert tat respondent "ourt as ruled upon said issue in a manner
not in a""ord !it te la! and settled =urispruden"e on te matter and are no!
$uestionin- on"e more, on te same -round as tat raised before respondent "ourt, te
validity of te attestation "lause in te last !ill of #ateo Caballero.
<e find te present petition to be meritorious, as !e sall sortly ereafter, after some
prefatory observations !i" !e feel sould be made in aid of te rationale for our
resolution of te "ontroversy.
+. % !ill as been defined as a spe"ies of "onveyan"e !ereby a person is permitted, !it
te formalities pres"ribed by la!, to "ontrol to a "ertain de-ree te disposition of is
estate after is deat.
13
@nder te Civil Code, tere are t!o 4inds of !ills !i" a
testator may e.e"ute.
14
te first 4ind is te ordinary or attested !ill, te e.e"ution of
!i" is -overned by %rti"les &'3 to &') of te Code. %rti"le &'( re$uires tat>
%rt. &'(. Every !ill, oter tan a olo-rapi" !ill, must be subs"ribed at te end
tereof by te testator imself or by te testator8s name !ritten by some oter
person in is presen"e, and by is e.press dire"tion, and attested and subs"ribed
by tree or more "redible !itnesses in te presen"e of te testator and of one
anoter.
*e testator or te person re$uested by im to !rite is name and te
instrumental !itnesses of te !ill, sall also si-n, as aforesaid, ea" and every
pa-e tereof, e."ept te last, on te left mar-in, and all te pa-es sall be
numbered "orrelatively in letters pla"ed on te upper part of ea" pa-e.
*e attestation sould state te number of pa-es used upon !i" te !ill is
!ritten, and te fa"t tat te testator si-ned te !ill and every pa-e tereof, or
"aused some oter person to !rite is name, under is e.press dire"tion, in te
presen"e of te instrumental !itnesses, and tat te latter !itnessed and si-ned
te !ill and all te pa-es tereof in te presen"e of te testator and of one
anoter.
If te attestation "lause is in a lan-ua-e not 4no!n to te !itness, it sall be
interpreted to tem.

In addition, te ordinary !ill must be a"4no!led-ed before a notary publi" by a testator
and te attestin- !itness.
15
en"e it is li4e!ise 4no!n as notarial !ill. <ere te
attestator is deaf or deaf6mute, %rti"le &', re$uires tat e must personally read te !ill,
if able to do so. Oter!ise, e sould desi-nate t!o persons !o !ould read te !ill and
"ommuni"ate its "ontents to im in a pra"ti"able manner. On te oter and, if te testator
is blind, te !ill sould be read to im t!i"eC on"e, by anyone of te !itnesses tereto,
and ten a-ain, by te notary publi" before !om it is a"4no!led-ed.
16

*e oter 4ind of !ill is te olo-rapi" !ill, !i" %rti"le &+' defines as one tat is
entirely !ritten, dated, and si-ned by te testator imself. *is 4ind of !ill, unli4e te
ordinary type, re$uires no attestation by !itnesses. % "ommon re$uirement in bot 4inds
of !ill is tat tey sould be in !ritin- and must ave been e.e"uted in a lan-ua-e or
diale"t 4no!n to te testator.
17

?o!ever, in te "ase of an ordinary or attested !ill, its attestation "lause need not be
!ritten in a lan-ua-e or diale"t 4no!n to te testator sin"e it does not form part of te
testamentary disposition. 0urtermore, te lan-ua-e used in te attestation "lause
li4e!ise need not even be 4no!n to te attestin- !itnesses.
18
*e last para-rap of
%rti"le &'( merely re$uires tat, in su" a "ase, te attestation "lause sall be interpreted
to said !itnesses.
%n attestation "lause refers to tat part of an ordinary !ill !ereby te attestin-
!itnesses "ertify tat te instrument as been e.e"uted before tem and to te manner of
te e.e"ution te same.
19
It is a separate memorandum or re"ord of te fa"ts surroundin-
te "ondu"t of e.e"ution and on"e si-ned by te !itnesses, it -ives affirmation to te fa"t
tat "omplian"e !it te essential formalities re$uired by la! as been observed.
20
It is
made for te purpose of preservin- in a permanent form a re"ord of te fa"ts tat attended
te e.e"ution of a parti"ular !ill, so tat in "ase of failure of te memory of te attestin-
!itnesses, or oter "asualty, su" fa"ts may still be proved.
21

@nder te tird para-rap of %rti"le &'(, su" a "lause, te "omplete la"4 of !i" !ould
result in te invalidity of te !ill,
22
sould state A+B the number of the pages usedupon
!i" te !ill is !rittenC A7B tat te testator signed, or e.pressly "aused anoter to si-n,
te !ill and every pa-e tereof in the presence of the attesting witnessesC and A5B tat te
attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pa-es, and
tat said witnesses also signed the willand every pa-e tereof in the presence of the
testator and of one another.
*e purpose of te la! in re$uirin- te "lause to state te number of pa-es on !i" te
!ill is !ritten is to safe-uard a-ainst possible interpolation or omission of one or some of
its pa-es and to prevent any in"rease or de"rease in te pa-esC
23
!ereas te subs"ription
of te si-nature of te testator and te attestin- !itnesses is made for te purpose of
autenti"ation and identifi"ation, and tus indi"ates tat te !ill is te very same
instrument e.e"uted by te testator and attested to by te !itnesses.
24
0urter, by attestin- and subs"ribin- to te !ill, te !itnesses tereby de"lare te due
e.e"ution of te !ill as embodied in te attestation "lause.
25
*e attestation "lause,
terefore, provide stron- le-al -uaranties for te due e.e"ution of a !ill and to insure te
autenti"ity tereof.
26
%s it appertains only to te !itnesses and not to te testator, it need
be si-ned only by tem.
27
<ere it is left unsi-ned, it !ould result in te invalidation of
te !ill as it !ould be possible and easy to add te "lause on a subse$uent o""asion in te
absen"e of te testator and its !itnesses.
28
In its report, te Code Commission "ommented on te reasons of te la! for re$uirin- te
formalities to be follo!ed in te e.e"ution of !ills, in te follo!in- manner>
*e underlyin- and fundamental ob=e"tives permeatin- te provisions on te la!
on !ills in tis Pro=e"t "onsists in te liberaliDation of te manner of teir
e.e"ution !it te end in vie! of -ivin- te testator more freedom in e.pressin-
is last !ises, but !it suffi"ient safe-uards and restri"tions to prevent te
"ommission of fraud and te e.er"ise of undue and improper pressure and
influen"e upon te testator.
*is ob=e"tive is in a""ord !it te modern tenden"y !it respe"t to te
formalities in te e.e"ution of !ills. . . .
29

7. %n e.amination of te last !ill and testament of #ateo Caballero so!s tat it is
"omprised of tree seets all of !i" ave been numbered "orrelatively, !it te left
mar-in of ea" pa-e tereof bearin- te respe"tive si-natures of te testator and te tree
attestin- !itnesses. *e part of te !ill "ontainin- te testamentary dispositions is
e.pressed in te Cebuano6Visayan diale"t and is si-ned at te foot tereof by te testator.
*e attestation "lause in $uestion, on te oter and, is re"ited in te En-lis lan-ua-e
and is li4e!ise si-ned at te end tereof by te tree attestin- !itnesses ereto.
30
Sin"e it
is te proverbial bone of "ontention, !e reprodu"e it a-ain for fa"ility of referen"e>
<e, te undersi-ned attestin- <itnesses, !ose 1esiden"es and postal addresses
appear on te Opposite of our respe"tive names, !e do ereby "ertify tat te
*estament !as read by im and te testator, #%*EO C%2%LLE1OC as
publised unto us te fore-oin- <ill "onsistin- of *?1EE P%/ES, in"ludin-
te %"4no!led-ment, ea" pa-e numbered "orrelatively in te letters on te
upper part of ea" pa-e, as is Last <ill and *estament and e as te same and
every pa-e tereof, on te spa"es provided for is si-nature and on te left and
mar-in, in te presen"e of te said testator and in te presen"e of ea" and all of
us.

It !ill be noted tat %rti"le &'( re$uires tat te !itness sould bot attest and subs"ribe
to te !ill in te presen"e of te testator and of one anoter. :%ttestation: and
:subs"ription: differ in meanin-. %ttestation is te a"t of senses, !ile subs"ription is te
a"t of te and. *e former is mental, te latter me"ani"al, and to attest a !ill is to 4no!
tat it !as publised as su", and to "ertify te fa"ts re$uired to "onstitute an a"tual and
le-al publi"ationC but to subs"ribe a paper publised as a !ill is only to !rite on te same
paper te names of te !itnesses, for te sole purpose of identifi"ation.
31
In Taboada vs. Rizal,
32
!e "larified tat attestation "onsists in !itnessin- te testator8s
e.e"ution of te !ill in order to see and ta4e note mentally tat tose tin-s are done
!i" te statute re$uires for te e.e"ution of a !ill and tat te si-nature of te testator
e.ists as a fa"t. On te oter and, subs"ription is te si-nin- of te !itnesses8 names
upon te same paper for te purpose of identifi"ation of su" paper as te !ill !i" !as
e.e"uted by te testator. %s it involves a mental a"t, tere !ould be no means, terefore,
of as"ertainin- by a pysi"al e.amination of te !ill !eter te !itnesses ad indeed
si-ned in te presen"e of te testator and of ea" oter unless tis is substantially
e.pressed in te attestation.
It is "ontended by petitioners tat te afore$uoted attestation "lause, in "ontravention of
te e.press re$uirements of te tird para-rap of %rti"le &'( of te Civil Code for
attestation "lauses, fails to spe"ifi"ally state te fa"t tat te attestin- !itnesses te
testator si-n te !ill and all its pa-es in teir presen"e and tat tey, te !itnesses,
li4e!ise si-ned te !ill and every pa-e tereof in te presen"e of te testator and of ea"
oter. <e a-ree.
<at is fairly apparent upon a "areful readin- of te attestation "lause erein assailed is
te fa"t tat !ile it re"ites tat te testator indeed si-ned te !ill and all its pa-es in te
presen"e of te tree attestin- !itnesses and states as !ell te number of pa-es tat !ere
used, te same does not e.pressly state terein te "ir"umstan"e tat said !itnesses
subs"ribed teir respe"tive si-natures to te !ill in te presen"e of te testator and of
ea" oter.
*e prase :and e as si-ned te same and every pa-e tereof, on te spa"es provided
for is si-nature and on te left and mar-in,: obviously refers to te testator and not te
instrumental !itnesses as it is immediately pre"eded by te !ords :as is Last <ill and
*estament.: On te oter and, altou- te !ords :in te presen"e of te testator and in
te presen"e of ea" and all of us: may, at first blus, appear to li4e!ise si-nify and refer
to te !itnesses, it must, o!ever, be interpreted as referrin- only to te testator si-nin-
in te presen"e of te !itnesses sin"e said prase immediately follo!s te !ords :he as
si-ned te same and every pa-e tereof, on te spa"es provided for his si-nature and on
te left and mar-in.: <at is ten "learly la"4in-, in te final lo-i"al analysis , is the
statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the
testator and of one another.
It is our "onsidered vie! tat te absen"e of tat statement re$uired by la! is a fatal
defe"t or imperfe"tion !i" must ne"essarily result in te disallo!an"e of te !ill tat is
ere sou-t to be admitted to probate. Petitioners are "orre"t in pointin- out tat te
aforestated defe"t in te attestation "lause obviously "annot be "ara"teriDed as merely
involvin- te form of te !ill or te lan-ua-e used terein !i" !ould !arrant te
appli"ation of te substantial "omplian"e rule, as "ontemplated in te pertinent provision
tereon in te Civil Code, to !it>
%rt. &'). In te absen"e of bad fait, for-ery, or fraud, or undue and improper
pressure and influen"e, defe"ts and imperfe"tions in te form of attestation or in
the language used terein sall not render te !ill invalid if it is not proved tat
te !ill !as in fa"t e.e"uted and attested in substantial "omplian"e !it all te
re$uirements of arti"le &'(: AEmpasis supplied.B
<ile it may be true tat te attestation "lause is indeed subs"ribed at te end tereof and
at te left mar-in of ea" pa-e by te tree attestin- !itnesses, it "ertainly "annot be
"on"lusively inferred terefrom tat te said !itness affi.ed teir respe"tive si-natures in
te presen"e of te testator and of ea" oter sin"e, as petitioners "orre"tly observed, te
presen"e of said si-natures only establises te fa"t tat it !as indeed si-ned, but it does
not prove tat te attestin- !itnesses did subs"ribe to te !ill in te presen"e of te
testator and of ea" oter. *e e.e"ution of a !ill is supposed to be one a"t so tat !ere
te testator and te !itnesses si-n on various days or o""asions and in various
"ombinations, te !ill "annot be stamped !it te imprimatur of effe"tivity.
33
<e believe tat te furter "omment of former Justi"e J.2.L. 1eyes
34
re-ardin- %rti"le
&'), !erein e ur-ed "aution in te appli"ation of te substantial "omplian"e rule
terein, is "orre"t and sould be applied in te "ase under "onsideration, as !ell as to
future "ases !it similar $uestions>
. . . *e rule must be limited to disre-ardin- tose defe"ts tat "an be supplied by
an e.amination of te !ill itself> !eter all te pa-es are "onse"utively
numberedC !eter te si-natures appear in ea" and every pa-eC !eter te
subs"ribin- !itnesses are tree or te !ill !as notariDed. %ll teses are fa"ts tat
te !ill itself "an reveal, and defe"ts or even omissions "on"ernin- tem in te
attestation "lause "an be safely disre-arded. 2ut te total number of pa-es, and
whether all persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other must
substantially appear in the attestation clause, being the only chec against
per!ury in the probate proceedings. AEmpasis ours.B

5. <e stress on"e more tat under %rti"le &'), te defe"ts and imperfe"tions must only be
!it respe"t to te form of te attestation or te lan-ua-e employed terein. Su" defe"ts
or imperfe"tions !ould not render a !ill invalid sould it be proved tat te !ill !as
really e.e"uted and attested in "omplian"e !it %rti"le &'(. In tis re-ard, o!ever, te
manner of provin- te due e.e"ution and attestation as been eld to be limited to merely
an e.amination of te !ill itself !itout resortin- to eviden"e aliunde, !eter oral or
!ritten.
*e fore-oin- "onsiderations do not apply !ere te attestation "lause totally omits te
fa"t tat te attestin- !itnesses si-ned ea" and every pa-e of te !ill in te presen"e of
te testator and of ea" oter.
35
In su" a situation, te defe"t is not only in te form or
lan-ua-e of te attestation "lause but te total absen"e of a spe"ifi" element re$uired by
%rti"le &'( to be spe"ifi"ally stated in te attestation "lause of a !ill. *at is pre"isely te
defe"t "omplained of in te present "ase sin"e tere is no plausible !ay by !i" !e "an
read into te $uestioned attestation "lause statement, or an impli"ation tereof, tat te
attestin- !itness did a"tually bear !itness to te si-nin- by te testator of te !ill and all
of its pa-es and tat said instrumental !itnesses also si-ned te !ill and every pa-e
tereof in te presen"e of te testator and of one anoter.
0urtermore, te rule on substantial "omplian"e in %rti"le &') "annot be revo4ed or
relied on by respondents sin"e it presupposes tat te defe"ts in te attestation "lause "an
be "ured or supplied by te te.t of te !ill or a "onsideration of matters apparent
terefrom !i" !ould provide te data not e.pressed in te attestation "lause or from
!i" it may ne"essarily be -leaned or "learly inferred tat te a"ts not stated in te
omitted te.tual re$uirements !ere a"tually "omplied !itin te e.e"ution of te !ill. In
oter !ords, defe"ts must be remedied by intrinsi" eviden"e supplied by te !ill itself.
In te "ase at bar, "ontrarily, proof of te a"ts re$uired to ave been performed by te
attestin- !itnesses "an be supplied by only e.trinsi" eviden"e tereof, sin"e an overall
appre"iation of te "ontents of te !ill yields no basis !atsoever from !it su" fa"ts
may be plausibly dedu"ed. <at private respondent insists on are te testimonies of is
!itnesses alle-in- tat tey sa! te "omplian"e !it su" re$uirements by te
instrumental !itnesses, oblivious of te fa"t tat e is tereby resortin- to e.trinsi"
eviden"e to prove te same and !ould a""ordin-ly be doin- by te indire"tion !at in
la! e "annot do dire"tly.
3. Prior to te advent of te Civil Code on %u-ust 5', +)(', tere !as a diver-en"e of
vie!s as to !i" manner of interpretation sould be follo!ed in resolvin- issues
"enterin- on "omplian"e !it te le-al formalities re$uired in te e.e"ution of !ills. *e
formal re$uirements !ere at tat time embodied primarily in Se"tion 9+& of %"t No. +)',
te Code of Civil Pro"edure. Said se"tion !as later amended by %"t No. 793(, but te
provisions respe"tin- said formalities found in %"t. No. +)' and te amendment tereto
!ere pra"ti"ally reprodu"ed and adopted in te Civil Code.
One vie! advan"e te liberal or substantial "omplian"e rule. *is !as first laid do!n in
te "ase of Abangan vs. Abangan,
36
!ere it !as eld tat te ob=e"t of te solemnities
surroundin- te e.e"ution of !ills is to "lose te door a-ainst bad fait and fraud, to
avoid substitution of !ills and testaments and to -uarantee teir trut and autenti"ity.
*erefore, te la!s on tis sub=e"t sould be interpreted in su" a !ay as to attain tese
primordial ends. Noneteless, it !as also empasiDed tat one must not lose si-t of te
fa"t tat it is not te ob=e"t of te la! to restrain and "urtail te e.er"ise of te ri-t to
ma4e a !ill, en"e !en an interpretation already -iven assures su" ends, any oter
interpretation !atsoever tat adds notin- but demands more re$uisites entirely
unne"essary, useless and frustrative of te testator8s last !ill, must be disre-arded. *e
subse$uent "ases of Avera vs. "arcia,
37
Aldaba vs. Roque,
38
#nson vs. Abella,
39
Pecson
vs. $oronel,
40
%ernandez vs. &ergel de 'ios, et al.,
41
and (ayve vs. )o!al, et al.
42
all
adered to tis position.
*e oter vie! !i" advo"ated te rule tat statutes !i" pres"ribe te formalities tat
sould be observed in te e.e"ution of !ills are mandatory in nature and are to be stri"tly
"onstrued !as follo!ed in te subse$uent "ases of *n the )atter of the +state of
,aguinsin,
43
*n re -ill of Andrada,
44
#y $oque vs. ,ioca,
45
In re +state of (eumar,
46
and
,ano vs. .uintana.
47
"umban vs. "orecho, et al.,
48
provided te Court !it te o""asion to "larify te
seemin-ly "onfli"tin- de"isions in te aforementioned "ases. In said "ase of "umban, te
attestation "lause ad failed to state tat te !itnesses si-ned te !ill and ea" and every
pa-e tereof on te left mar-in in te presen"e of te testator. *e !ill in $uestion !as
disallo!ed, !it tese reasons terefor>
In support of teir ar-ument on te assi-nment of error above6mentioned,
appellants rely on a series of "ases of tis "ourt be-innin- !it AIBn te #atter of
te AEBstate of Sa-uinsin AE+)7'F, 3+ Pil., &,(B, "ontinuin- !it *n re<ill of
%ndrada E+)7+F, 37 Pil., +&'B, @y Co$ue vs. Navas L. Sio"a E+)77F, 35 Pil.,
3'(B, and *n reEstate of Neumar4 AE+)75F, 39 Pil., &3+B, and endin- !it ,ano
vs. .uintanaAE+)7(F, 3& Pil., ('9B. %ppellee "ounters !it te "itation of a
series of "ases be-innin- !it Abangan vs. AbanganAE+)+)F, 3' Pil., 3,9B,
"ontinuin- trou- Aldaba vs. RoqueAE+)77F, 35 Pil., 5,&B, and %ernandez vs.
&ergel de 'iosAE+)73F, 39 Pil., )77B, and "ulminatin- in (ayve vs. )o!al and
AguilarAE+)73F, 3, Pil., +(7B. In its last analysis, our tas4 is to "ontrast and, if
possible, "on"iliate te last t!o de"isions "ited by opposin- "ounsel, namely,
tose of ,ano vs. .uintana, supra, and (ayve vs. )o!al and Aguilar, supra.
In te "ase of ,ano vs. .uintana, supra, it !as de"ided tat an attestation "lause
!i" does not re"ite tat te !itnesses si-ned te !ill and ea" and every pa-e
tereof on te left mar-in in te presen"e of te testator is defe"tive, and su" a
defe"t annuls te !ill. *e "ase of #y $oque vs. ,ioca, supra, !as "ited, but te
"ase of (ayve vs. )o!al and Aguilar, supra, !as not mentioned. In "ontrast, is
te de"ision in (ayve vs. )o!al and Aguilar, supra, !erein it !as eld tat te
attestation "lause must estate te fa"t tat te testator and te !itnesses
re"ipro"ally sa! te si-nin- of te !ill, for su" an a"t "annot be proved by te
mere e.ibition of te !ill, if it is not stated terein. It !as also eld tat te fa"t
tat te testator and te !itnesses si-ned ea" and every pa-e of te !ill "an be
proved also by te mere e.amination of te si-natures appearin- on te
do"ument itself, and te omission to state su" evident fa"ts does not invalidate
te !ill.
It is a abit of "ourts to reaffirm or distin-uis previous "asesC seldom do tey
admit in"onsisten"y in do"trine. Get ere, unless aided impossible to re"on"ile
te #o=al and Huintana de"isions. *ey are fundamentally at varian"e. If !e rely
on one, !e affirm. If !e rely on te oter, !e reverse.
In resolvin- tis puDDlin- $uestion of autority, tree outstandin- points may be
mentioned. In te first pla"e, te #o=al, de"ision !as "on"urred in by only four
members of te "ourt, less tan a ma=ority, !it t!o stron- dissentin- opinionsC
te Huintana de"ision !as "on"urred in by seven members of te "ourt, a "lear
ma=ority, !it one formal dissent. In te se"ond pla"e, te #o=al de"ision !as
promul-ated in De"ember, +)73, !ile te Huintana de"ision !as promul-ated
in De"ember, +)7(C te Huintana de"ision !as tus subse$uent in point of time.
%nd in te tird pla"e, te Huintana de"ision is believed more nearly to "onform
to te appli"able provisions of te la!.
*e ri-t to dispose of property by !ill is -overned entirely by statute. *e la!
of te "ase is ere found in se"tion 9+ of te Code of Civil Pro"edure as
amended by %"t No. 793(, and in se"tion 953 of te same Code, as unamended.
It is in part provided in se"tion 9+, as amended tat :No will . . . shall be
valid . . . unless. . ..: It is furter provided in te same se"tion tat :*e
attestation shall state te number of seets or pa-es used, upon !i" te !ill is
!ritten, and te fa"t tat te testator si-ned te !ill and every pa-e tereof, or
"aused some oter person to !rite is name, under is e.press dire"tion, in te
presen"e of tree !itnesses, and te latter !itnessed and si-ned te !ill and all
pa-es tereof in te presen"e of te testator and of ea" oter.: Codal se"tion
953 provides tat :*e !ill shall be disallo!ed in eiter of te follo!in- "ase> +.
If not e.e"uted and attested as in tis %"t provided.: *e la! not alone "arefully
ma4es use of te imperative, but "autiously -oes furter and ma4es use of te
ne-ative, to enfor"e le-islative intention. It is not !itin te provin"e of te
"ourts to disre-ard te le-islative purpose so empati"ally and "learly e.pressed.
<e adopt and reaffirm te de"ision in te "ase of ,ano vs. .uintana, supra, and,
to te e.tent ne"essary, modify te de"ision in te "ase of (ayve vs. )o!al and
Aguilar, supra. AEmpases in te ori-inal te.tB.

2ut after te "umban "larifi"atory pronoun"ement, tere !ere de"isions of te Court tat
on"e more appeared to revive te seemin- diversity of vie!s tat !as earlier tresed out
terein. *e "ases of .uinto vs. )orata,
49
Rodriguez vs. Alcala,
50
+nchevarria vs.
,armiento,
51
and Testate +state of Toray
52
!ent te !ay of te rulin- as restated in
"umban. 2ut 'e "ala vs. "onzales, et al.,
53
Rey vs. $artagena,
54
'e Ticson vs. 'e
"orostiza,
55
,ebastian vs. Panganiban,
56
Rodriguez vs. /ap,
57
"rey vs. %abia,
58
0eynez vs.
0eynez,
59
)artir vs. )artir,
60
Alcala vs. 'e &illa,
61
,abado vs.
%ernandez,
62
)endoza vs. Pilapil,
63
and 0opez vs. 0iboro,
64
veered a!ay from te stri"t
interpretation rule and establised a trend to!ard an appli"ation of te liberal vie!.
*e Code Commission, "o-niDant of su" a "onfli"tin- !elter of vie!s and of te
undeniable in"lination to!ards a liberal "onstru"tion, re"ommended te "odifi"ation of
te substantial "omplian"e rule, as it believed tis rule to be in a""ord !it te modern
tenden"y to -ive a liberal approa" to te interpretation of !ills. Said rule tus be"ame
!at is no! %rti"le &') of te Civil Code, !it tis e.planation of te Code
Commission>
*e present la! provides for only one form of e.e"utin- a !ill, and tat is, in
a""ordan"e !it te formalities pres"ribed by Se"tion 9+& of te Code of Civil
Pro"edure as amended by %"t No. 793(. *e Supreme Court of te Pilippines
ad previously upeld te stri"t "omplian"e !it te le-al formalities and ad
even said tat te provisions of Se"tion 9+& of te Code of Civil Pro"edure, as
amended re-ardin- te "ontents of te attestation "lause !ere mandatory, and
non6"omplian"e tere!it invalidated te !ill A@y Co$ue vs. Sio"a, 35 Pil.
3'(B. *ese de"isions ne"essarily restrained te freedom of te testator in
disposin- of is property.
?o!ever, in re"ent years te Supreme Court "an-ed its attitude and as be"ome
more liberal in te interpretation of te formalities in te e.e"ution of !ills. *is
liberal vie! is enun"iated in te "ases of Rodriguez vs. /ap, /.1. No. 3()73,
#ay +&, +)5)C 0eynez vs. 0eynez, /.1. No. 39'),, O"tober +&, +)5)C )artir vs.
)artir, /.1. No. 39))(, June 7+, +)3'C and Alcala vs. &illa, /.1. No. 3,5(+,
%pril +&, +)3+.
In te above mentioned de"isions of our Supreme Court, it as pra"ti"ally -one
ba"4 to te ori-inal provisions of Se"tion 9+& of te Code of Civil Pro"edure
before its amendment by %"t No. 793( in te year +)+9. *o turn tis attitude into
a le-islative de"laration and to attain te main ob=e"tive of te proposed Code in
te liberaliDation of te manner of e.e"utin- !ills, arti"le &7) of te Pro=e"t is
re"ommended, !i" reads>
:%rt. &7). In te absen"e of bad fait, for-ery, or fraud, or undue and
improper pressure and influen"e, defe"ts and imperfe"tions in te form
of attestation or in te lan-ua-e used terein sall not render te !ill
invalid if it is proved tat te !ill !as in fa"t e.e"uted and attested in
substantial "omplian"e !it all te re$uirements of arti"le &7).:
65

*e so6"alled liberal rule, te Court said in "il vs. )urciano,
66
:does not offer any puDDle
or diffi"ulty, nor does it open te door to serious "onse$uen"es. *e later de"isions do tell
us !en and !ere to stopC tey dra! te dividin- line !it pre"ision. *ey do not allo!
eviden"e aliunde to fill a void in any part of te do"ument or supply missin- details tat
sould appear in te !ill itself. *ey only permit a probe into te !ill, an e.ploration into
its "onfines, to as"ertain its meanin- or to determine te e.isten"e or absen"e of te
re$uisite formalities of la!. *is "lear, sarp limitation eliminates un"ertainty and ou-t
to banis any fear of dire results.:
It may tus be stated tat te rule, as it no! stands, is tat omissions !i" "an be
supplied by an e.amination of te !ill itself, !itout te need of resortin- to e.trinsi"
eviden"e, !ill not be fatal and, "orrespondin-ly, !ould not obstru"t te allo!an"e to
probate of te !ill bein- assailed. ?o!ever, tose omissions !i" "annot be supplied
e."ept by eviden"e aliunde !ould result in te invalidation of te attestation "lause and
ultimately, of te !ill itself.
67
<?E1E0O1E, te petition is ereby /1%N*ED and te impu-ned de"ision of
respondent "ourt is ereby 1EVE1SED and SE* %SIDE. *e "ourt a quo is a""ordin-ly
dire"ted to fort!it DIS#ISS its Spe"ial Pro"eedin- No. 5&))61 APetition for te
Probate of te Last <ill and *estament of #ateo CaballeroB and to 1EVIVE Spe"ial
Pro"eedin- No. 5)9(61 AIn te matter of te Intestate Estate of #ateo CaballeroB as an
a"tive "ase and tereafter duly pro"eed !it te settlement of te estate of te said
de"edent.
SO O1DE1ED.