CASE DIGEST: CANEDA V.
CA (222 SCRA 781) On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses and the notary public testified
Published by paul on July 1, 2013 | Leave a response
Caneda v. CA
222 SCRA 781
FACTS:
On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children and
already in the twilight years of his life, executed a last will and testament at his
residence before 3 witnesses.
He was assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Emilio Lumontad.
In the will, it was declared that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and
devises his real and personal properties to several people all of whom do not
appear to be related to the testator.
4 months later, Mateo Caballero himself filed a case seeking the probate of his
last will and testament, but numerous postponements pushed back the initial
hearing of the probate court regarding the will.
On May 29, 1980, the testator passed away before his petition could finally be
heard by the probate court.
Thereafter one of the legatees, Benoni Cabrera, sought his appointment as
special administrator of the testators estate.
Thereafter, the petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator,
instituted a second petition for intestate proceedings. They also opposed the
probate of the testators will and the appointment of a special administrator for
his estate.
Benoni Cabrera died and was replaced by William Cabrera as special
administrator and gave an order that the testate proceedings for the probate of
the will had to be heard and resolved first.
In the course of the proceedings, petitioners opposed to the allowance of the
testators will on the ground that on the alleged date of its execution, the
testator was already in poor state of health such that he could not have possibly
executed the same. Also the genuineness of the signature of the testator is in
doubt.
that the testator executed the will in question in their presence while he was of
sound and disposing mind and that the testator was in good health and was not
unduly influenced in any way in the execution of his will.
Probate court then rendered a decision declaring the will in question as the last
will and testament of the late Mateo Caballero.
CA affirmed the probate courts decision stating that it substantially complies
with Article 805. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
W/N the attestation clause in the will of the testator is fatally defective or can
be cured under the art. 809.
HELD:
No. It does not comply with the provisions of the law.
Ordinary or attested wills are governed by Arts. 804 to 809. The will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the attesting
witnesses. The attestation clause need not be written in a language known to
the testator or even to the attesting witnesses.
It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of
execution and once signed by the witnesses it gives affirmation to the fact that
compliance with the essential formalities required by law has been observed.
The attestation clause, therefore, provides strong legal guaranties for the due
execution of a will and to insure the authenticity thereof.
It is contended by petitioners that the attestation clause in the will failed to
specifically state the fact that the attesting witnesses witnessed the testator
sign the will and all its pages in their presence and that they, the witnesses,
likewise signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator
and of each other. And the Court agrees.
The attestation clause does not expressly state therein the circumstance that
said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence
of the testator and of each other.
The phrase, and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the space
provided for his signature and on the left hand margin, obviously refers to the
testator and not the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the
words as his last will and testament.
Clearly lacking is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every
page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. That the
absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which
must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be
probated.
Also, Art. 809 does not apply to the present case because the attestation clause
totally omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The defect in this case
is not only with respect to the form or the language of the attestation clause.
The defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself
which is clearly lacking in this case.
Therefore, the probate of the will is set aside and the case for the intestate
proceedings shall be revived.
Article 809 cannot be used to cure the defects of the will when it does not
pertain to the form or language of the will. This is because there is not
substantial compliance with Article 805.
Apolonio Taboada vs Avelino Rosal
118 SCRA 195 Succession Substantial Compliance
Dorotea Perez left a will. The will has two pages. On the first page, which contains
the entire testamentary dispositions, were the signatures of the three
instrumental witnesses and that of Dorotea Perez. The signatures of the three
instrumental
witnesses were on the left margin while Perez signature was on the bottom. On
the second page, which contains the attestation clause and the
acknowledgement, were the signatures of the three attesting witnesses and that
of Dorotea Perez. The attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used
in the will. Taboada petitioned for the admission to probate of the said will. The
judge who handled the petition was Judge Ramon Pamatian. He denied the
petition. Taboada filed a motion for reconsideration but Pamatian was not able to
act on it because he was transferred to another jurisdiction. The case was
inherited by Judge Rosal who also denied the MFR on the grounds that a) that the
testator and the instrumental witnesses did not all sign on the left margin of the
page as prescribed by law; that the testator and the witnesses should have placed
their signature in the same place b) that the attestation clause failed to state the
number of pages used in writing the will this, according to Judge Rosal violated
the requirement that the attestation clause shall state the number of pages or
sheets upon which the will is written, which requirement has been held to be
mandatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of interpolation or
omission of some of the pages of the will to the prejudice of the heirs to whom
the property is intended to be bequeathed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will should be admitted to probate.
HELD: Yes. The law must be interpreted liberally.
Further, there is substantial compliance with the law. It would be absurd that the
legislature intended to place so heavy an import on the space or particular
location where the signatures are to be found as long as this space or particular
location wherein the signatures are found is consistent with good faith.
The failure to include in the attestation clause of the number of pages used in
writing the will would have been a fatal defect. But then again, the matter should
be approached liberally. There were only two pages in the will left by Perez. The
first page contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions and signed by
the testatrix at the end or at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed
at the left margin. The other page which is marked as Pagina dos comprises the
attestation clause and the acknowledgment. Further, the acknowledgment itself
states that This Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including this
page.
40 Phil. 476
[ G.R. No. 13431, November 12, 1919 ]
IN RE WILL OF ANA ABANGAN. GERTRUDIS ABANGAN, EXECUTRIX AND
APPELLEE, VS. ANASTACIA ABANGAN ET AL., OPPONENTS AND APPELLANTS.
 sign on the sheet that it would consider that their signatures written on the
bottom do not guaranty the authenticity of the sheet but, if repeated on the
DECISION
margin, give sufficient security.

AVANCE'A, J.:
In requiring that each and every page of a will must be numbered correlatively in
letters placed on the upper part of the sheet, it is likewise clear that the object of
Act No. 2645 is to know whether any sheet of the will has been removed. But,
On September 19, 1917, the Court of First Instance of Cebu admitted to probate
when all the dispositive parts of a will! are written x>n one sheet only, the object
Ana Abangan's will executed July, 1916. From this decision the opponents
of the statute disappears because the removal of this single sheet, although
appealed.
Unnumbered, cannot be hidden.

Said document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's will, i' consists of two sheets,
What has been said is also applicable to the attestation clause. Wherefore, without
the first of which contains all of the disposition of the testatrix, duly signed at the
considering whether or not this clause is an essential part of the will, we hold that
bottom by Martin Montalban (in the name and under the direction of the testatrix)
in the one accompanying the will in question, the signatures of the testatrix and
and by three witnesses. The following sheet contains only the attestation clause
of the three witnesses on the margin and the numbering of the pages of the sheet
duly signed at the bottom by the three instrumental witnesses. Neither of these
are fprmalities not required by the statute. Moreover, referring specially to the
sheets is signed on the left margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses, nor
signature of the testatrix, we can add that same is not necessary in the attestation
numbered by letters; and these omissions, according to appellants' contention,
clause because this, as its name implies, appertains only to the witnesses and not
are defects whereby the probate of the will should have been denied. We are of
to the testator since the latter does not attest, but executes, the will.
the opinion that the will was duly admitted to probate.

Synthesizing our opinion, we hold that in a will consisting two sheets the first of
In requiring that each and every sheet of the will should also be signed on the
which contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom by
left margin by the testator and three witnesses in the presence of each other, Act
the testator and three witnesses and the second contains only the attestation
No. 2645 (which is the one applicable in the case) evidently has for its object
clause and is signed also at the bottom by the three witnesses, it is not necessary
(referring to the body of the will itself) to avoid the substitution of any of said
that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator and the
sheets, thereby changing the testator's dispositions. ^ But when these
witnesses, or be paged.
dispositions are wholly written on only one sheet signed at the bottom by the
testator and three witnesses (as the instant case), their signatures on the left
margin of said sheet would be completely purposeless. In requiring this signature
The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the
on the margin, the statute took into consideration, undoubtedly, the case of a will
door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments
written on several sheets and must have referred to the sheets which the testator
and to guaranty their "truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on this subject
and the witnesses do not have to sign at the bottom. A different interpretation
should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on
would assume that the statute requires that this sheet, already signed at the
the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of
bottom, be signed twice. We cannot attribute to the statute such an intention. As
the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when
these signatures must be written by the testator and the witnesses in the
an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation
presence of each other, it appears that, if the signatures at the bottom of the
whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely
sheet guaranties its authenticity, another signature on its left margin would be
unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be
unnecessary; and if they d.o not guaranty, same signatures, affixed on another
disregarded.
part of same sheet, would add nothing. We cannot assume that the statute
regards of such importance the place where the testator and the witnesses must
As another ground for this appeal, it is alleged the records do not show that the
testatrix knew the dialect in which the will is written. But the circumstance
appearing in the will itself that same was executed in the city of Cebu and in the
dialect of this locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is enough, in the absence
of any proof to the contrary, to presume that she knew this dialect in which this
will is written.

For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed
with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

In the Matter of the will of ANTERO MERCADO, deceased. ROSARIO

GARCIA, petitioner,
vs.
JULIANA LACUESTA, ET AL., respondents
90 Phil 489
November 29, 1951

Facts: Antero Mercado left a will dated January 3, 1943. The will is written in the
Ilocano dialect which is spoken and understood by the testator. The will also
contained an attestation clause which is signed by three witnesses. The
attestation clause states:
We, the undersigned, by these presents to declare that the foregoing testament
of Antero Mercado was signed by himself and also by us below his name and of
this attestation clause and that of the left margin of the three pages thereof. Page
three the continuation of this attestation clause; this will is written in Ilocano
dialect which is spoken and understood by the testator, and it bears the
corresponding number in letter which compose of three pages and all them were
signed in the presence of the testator and witnesses, and the witnesses in the
presence of the testator and all and each and every one of us witnesses.
The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the
name
of Antero Mercado, followed below by "A ruego del testador" and the name of
Florentino Javier. Antero Mercado is alleged also to have written a cross
immediately after his name.
Issue: Whether or not the attestation clause in the will is valid.
Ruling: No. The attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that
Antero Mercado caused Atty. Florentino Javier to write the testator's name under
his express direction, as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
When the testator expressly caused another to sign the formers name, this fact
must be recited in the attestation clause. Otherwise, the will is fatally defective.
Moreover, the cross appearing on the will is not the usual signature of Antero
Mercado nor is it even one of the ways by which he signed his name. After mature
reflection, the Court is not prepared to liken the mere sign of the cross to a
thumbmark, and the reason is obvious. The cross cannot and does not have the
trustworthiness of a thumbmark. Thus, the cross cannot be considered a valid
signature.
You are here: Home 2013 July Case Digest: Ortega v. Valmonte (478
SCRA 247)
CASE DIGEST: ORTEGA V. VALMONTE (478 SCRA 247)
Published by paul on July 1, 2013 | Leave a response
Ortega v. Valmonte
478 SCRA 247
FACTS:
Two years after the arrival of Placido from the United States and at the age of
80 he wed Josefina who was then 28 years old. But in a little more than two
years of wedded bliss, Placido died. Placido executed a notarial last will and
testament written in English and consisting of 2 pages, and dated 15 June
1983but acknowledged only on 9 August 1983. The allowance to probate of
this will was opposed by Leticia, Placidos sister. According to the notary public
who notarized the testators will, after the testator instructed him on the terms
and dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary public told them to come
back on 15 August 1983 to give him time to prepare. The testator and his
witnesses returned on the appointed date but the notary public was out of town
so they were instructed by his wife to come back on 9 August 1983. The
formal execution was actually on 9 August 1983. He reasoned he no longer
changed the typewritten date of 15 June 1983 because he did not like the
document to appear dirty.
Petitioners argument:
1. At the time of the execution of the notarial will Placido was already 83 years
old and was no longer of sound mind.
2. Josefina conspired with the notary public and the 3 attesting witnesses in
deceiving Placido to sign it. Deception is allegedly reflected in the varying dates
of the execution and the attestation of the will.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Placido has testamentary capacity at the time he allegedly executed the
will.
2. W/N the signature of Placido in the will was procured by fraud or trickery.
HELD:
1. YES. Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify accurately the
kinds of property he owned, the extent of his shares in them and even their
location. As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient that he
identified his wife as sole beneficiary. The omission of some relatives from the
will did not affect its formal validity. There being no showing of fraud in
its execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.
2. NO. Fraud is a trick, secret devise, false statement, or pretense, by which the
subject of it is cheated. It may be of such character that the testator is misled
or deceived as to the nature or contents of the document which he executes, or
it may relate to some extrinsic fact, in consequence of the deceptionregarding
which the testator is led to make a certain will which, but for fraud, he would
not have made.
The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving
the existence of fraud at the time of its execution. The burden
to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will only upon a showing of
credible evidence of fraud.
Omission of some relatives does not affect the due execution of a will.
Moreover, the conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not
invalidate the document, because the law does not even require that a notarial
will be executed and acknowledged on the same occasion. The variance in the
dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily
and persuasively explained by the notary public and instrumental witnesses.