SUCCESSION CASES

1. Rosario Garcia vs Juliana Lacuesta, Et Al

GR No. L-4067 – November 29, 1951
Facts:
 This case involves the will of Antero Mercado, which among other defects was signed by
the testator through a cross mark (an “X”). The will was signed by Atty. Javier who wrote
the name of Mercado as testator and the latter allegedly wrote a cross mark after his name.
The CFI allowed the will but the CA disallowed it because its attestation clause was
defective for failing to certify 1) that the will was signed by Atty. Javier at the express
direction of the testator, 2) that the testator wrote a cross at the end of his name after Atty.
Javier signed for him, and 3) that the 3 witnesses signed the will in the presence of the
testator and of each other.
Issue:
 Whether or not the will should be allowed probate.
Held:
 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. The herein petitioner (who is appealing by
way of certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals) argues, however, that there is
no need for such recital because the cross written by the testator after his name is a
sufficient signature and the signature of Atty. Florentino Javier is a surplusage. Petitioner's
theory is that the cross is as much a signature as a thumbmark, the latter having been held
sufficient by this Court in the cases of De Gala vs. Gonzales and several cases.
 It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the usual signature of Antero
Mercado or even one of the ways by which he signed his name. After mature reflection, we
are 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. What
has been said makes it unnecessary for us to determine there is a sufficient recital in the
attestation clause as to the signing of the will by the testator in the presence of the
witnesses, and by the latter in the presence of the testator and of each other.

2. Victorio Payad vs Aquilina Tolentino

GR No. 42258 – September 5, 1936
Facts:
 Attorney Marciano Almario prepared the will of Leoncia Tolentino after she had expressed
to said attorney her desire to make a will and bequeath her property to the petitioner
Victorio Payad in compensation according to her, for his diligent and faithful services
rendered to her. Victorio Payad had grown up under the care of the testatrix who had been
in her home from childhood. The will was written by Attorney Almario in his own
handwriting, and was written in Spanish because he had been instructed to do so by the
testatrix. It was later read to her in the presence of Pedro L. Cruz, Jose Ferrer Cruz,
Perfecto L. Ona and other persons who were then present. The testatrix approved all the
contents of the document and requested Attorney Almario to write her name where she had
to sign by means of her thumbmark in view of the fact that her fingers no longer had the
necessary strength to hold a pen. She did after having taken the pen and tried to sign
without anybody's help. Attorney Almario proceeded to write the name of the testatrix on the
three pages composing the will and the testatrix placed her thumbmark on said writing with
the help of said attorney, said help consisting in guiding her thumb in order to place the
mark between her name and surname, after she herself had moistened the tip of her thumb
 with which she made such mark, on the ink pad which was brought to her for said purpose.
Said attorney later signed the three pages of the will in the presence of the testatrix and
also of Pedro L. Cruz, and Jose Ferrer Cruz and Perfecto L. Ona, who, in turn, forthwith
signed it successively and exactly under the same circumstances above stated.
 In support of her claim that the testatrix did not place her thumbmark on the will, and that
she never made said will because she was no longer physically or mentally in a condition
do so due to her advanced age (92 y.o.).
 The oppositor bases her motion for reconsideration upon the following facts relied upon in
her pleading: 1. That the testatrix did not personally place her thumbmark on her alleged
will; 2. That the testatrix did not request Attorney Almario to write her name and surname on
the spaces of the will where she should place her thumbmarks; 3. That the will in question
was not signed by the testatrix on the date indicated therein; 4. That the testatrix never
made the will in question; and 5. That on the date the will in question was executed, the
testatrix was no longer in a physical or mental condition to make it.
Issue:
 Whether or not the will may be allowed probate based on the facts relied upon by the
oppositor.
Held:
 The evidence of record established the fact that Leoncia Tolentino, assisted by Attorney
Almario, placed her thumb mark on each and every age of time questioned will and the said
attorney merely wrote her name to indicate the place where she placed said thumb mark. In
other words Attorney Almario did not sign for the testatrix. She signed for placing her thumb
mark on each and every page thereof "A statute requiring a will to be 'signed' is satisfied if
the signature is made by the testator's mark." (Quoted by this court from 28 R.C.L., p, 117;
De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil., 104, 108.) It is clear, therefore, that it was not
necessary that the attestation clause in question should state that the testatrix requested
Attorney Almario to sign her name inasmuch as the testratrix signed the will in question in
accordance with law.

3. German Jaboneta vs Ricardo Gustilo et., al.,

GR No. 1641 – January 19, 1906
Facts:
 On the 26th day of December, 1901, Macario Jaboneta executed a will, calling Julio
Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and Isabelo Jena as witnesses. They were all together, and
were in the room where Jaboneta was, and were present when he signed the document,
Isabelo Jena signing afterwards as a witness, at his request, and in his presence and in the
presence of the other two witnesses. Aniceto Jalbuena then signed as a witness in the
presence of the testator, and in the presence of the other two persons who signed as
witnesses. At that moment Isabelo Jena, being in a hurry to leave, took his hat and left the
room. As he was leaving the house Julio Javellana took the pen in his hand and put himself
in position to sign the will as a witness, but did not sign in the presence of Isabelo Jena; but
nevertheless, after Jena had left the room the said Julio Javellana signed as a witness in
the presence of the testator and of the witness Aniceto Jalbuena.
Issue:
 Whether or not the statutory requirement that the witnesses sign in the presence of the
testator and other witnesses was satisfied in the case at bar.
Held:
 We cannot agree with so much of the above finding of facts as holds that the signature of
Javellana was not signed in the presence of Jena, in compliance with the provisions of
section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that Jena was still in the room when he
 saw Javellana moving his hand and pen in the act of affixing his signature to the will, taken
together with the testimony of the remaining witnesses which shows that Javellana did in
fact there and then sign his name to the will, convinces us that the signature was affixed in
the presence of Jena. The fact that he was in the act of leaving, and that his back was
turned while a portion of the name of the witness was being written, is of no importance.
He, with the other witnesses and the testator, had assembled for the purpose of executing
the testament, and were together in the same room for that purpose, and at the moment
when the witness Javellana signed the document he was actually and physically present
and in such position with relation to Javellana that he could see everything which took place
by merely casting his eyes in the proper direction, and without any physical obstruction to
prevent his doing so, therefore we are of opinion that the document was in fact signed
before he finally left the room.

4. Beatriz Nera vs Narcisa Rimando

GR No. L-5971 – February 27, 1911
Facts:
 The case concerns the probate of the last will and testament of Pedro Rimando and
whether one of the subscribing witnesses was present in the small room where it was
executed at the time when the testator and the other subscribing witnesses attached their
signatures; or whether at that time he was outside, some eight or ten feet away, in a large
room connecting with the smaller room by a doorway, across which was hung a curtain
which made it impossible for one in the outside room to see the testator and the other
subscribing witnesses in the act of attaching their signatures to the instrument.
Issue:
 Whether or not there was due execution of the instrument propounded as a will.
Held:
 Had this subscribing witness been proven to have been in the outer room at the time when
the testator and the other subscribing witnesses attached their signatures to the instrument
in the inner room, it would have been invalid as a will, the attaching of those signatures
under circumstances not being done "in the presence" of the witness in the outer room.
This because the line of vision from this witness to the testator and the other subscribing
witnesses would necessarily have been impeded by the curtain separating the inner from
the outer one "at the moment of inscription of each signature.
 The true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the execution of a will is not
whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they might have been seen each
other sign, had they chosen to do so, considering their mental and physical condition and
position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each signature.

5. Riggs vs Riggs
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

6. Apolonio Taboada vs Hon. Avelino S. Rosal

GR No. L-36033 – November 5, 1982
Facts:
 In the petition for probate filed with the respondent court, the petitioner attached the alleged
last will and testament of the late Dorotea Perez. Written in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect,
the will consists of two pages. The first page contains the entire testamentary dispositions
and is signed at the end or bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand
 margin by the three (3) instrumental witnesses. The second page which contains the
attestation clause and the acknowledgment is signed at the end of the attestation clause by
the three (3) attesting witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix.
 Since no opposition was filed after the petitioner's compliance with the requirement of
publication, the trial court commissioned the branch clerk of court to receive the petitioner's
evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his evidence and presented Vicente
Timkang, one of the subscribing witnesses to the will, who testified on its genuineness and
due execution.
 The trial court, thru then Presiding Judge. Pamatian issued the questioned order denying
the probate of the will of Dorotea Perez for want of a formality in its execution.
 Instead of complying with the order of the trial court, the petitioner filed a manifestation
and/or motion, ex parte praying for a thirty-day period within which to deliberate on any step
to be taken as a result of the disallowance of the will. The petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order denying the probate of the will. However, the motion together
with the previous manifestation and/or motion could not be acted upon by the Honorable
Ramon C. Pamatian due to his transfer to his new station.
 Subsequently, the new Judge denied the motion for reconsideration as well as the
manifestation and/or motion filed ex parte. In the same order of denial, the motion for the
appointment of special administrator was likewise denied because of the petitioner's failure
to comply with the order requiring him to submit the names of' the intestate heirs and their
addresses.
Issue:
 Whether or not Article 805 of the Civil Code does not make it a condition precedent or a
matter of absolute necessity for the extrinsic validity of the wig that the signatures of the
subscribing witnesses should be specifically located at the end of the wig after the signature
of the testatrix.
Held:
 Undoubtedly, under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will must be subscribed or signed at
its end by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by another person in his
presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
 It must be noted that the law uses the terms attested and subscribed Attestation consists in
witnessing the testator's execution of the will in order to see and take note mentally that
those things are, done which the statute requires for the execution of a will and that the
signature of the testator exists as a fact. On the other hand, subscription is the signing of
the witnesses' names upon the same paper for the purpose of Identification of such paper
as the will which was executed by the testator.
 The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of the will
attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due
execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause.
 While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the
usual forms should be ignored, especially where the authenticity of the will is not assailed.
 The objects of attestation and of subscription were fully met and satisfied in the present
case when the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page which
contains all the testamentary dispositions, especially so when the will was properly
Identified by subscribing witness Vicente Timkang to be the same will executed by the
testatrix. There was no question of fraud or substitution behind the questioned order.
 We have examined the will in question and noticed that the attestation clause failed to state
the number of pages used in writing the will. This would have been a fatal defect were it not
 for the fact that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire wig that it is really and actually
composed of only two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses.

7. Celso Icasiano vs Natividad Icasiano

GR No. L-18979 – June 30, 1964
Facts:
 Josefa Villacorte died in the City of Manila on September 12, 1958; that on June 2, 1956,
the late Josefa Villacorte executed a last will and testament in duplicate at the house of her
daughter Mrs. Felisa Icasiano. When the original will was presented for probate, it was
shown that one of the witnesses, Atty. Jose Natividad, failed to affix his signature on the
third page of the will.
Issue:
 Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a
page is sufficient to deny probate of the will.
Held:
 We hold that the inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to one page of a
testament, due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is not per
se sufficient to justify denial of probate. Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured
not only the fact that the testatrix and two other witnesses did sign the defective page, but
also by its bearing the coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public before whom the
testament was ratified by testatrix and all three witnesses. The law should not be so strictly
and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a
single witness over whose conduct she had no control, where the purpose of the law to
guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained, no
intentional or deliberate deviation existed, and the evidence on record attests to the full
observance of the statutory requisites. Otherwise, as stated in Vda. de Gil. vs. Murciano, 49
Off. Gaz. 1459, at 1479 (decision on reconsideration) "witnesses may sabotage the will by
muddling or bungling it or the attestation clause".
 That the failure of witness Natividad to sign page three (3) was entirely through pure
oversight is shown by his own testimony as well as by the duplicate copy of the will, which
bears a complete set of signatures in every page. The text of the attestation clause and the
acknowledgment before the Notary Public likewise evidence that no one was aware of the
defect at the time.

8. Clemente Calde vs Court of Appeals

GR No. 93980 – June 27, 1994
Facts:
 Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang left behind nine thousand pesos (P9,000.00) worth of property.
She also left a Last Will and Testament, dated October 30, 1972, and a Codicil thereto,
dated July 24, 1973. Both documents contained the thumbmarks of decedent. They were
also signed by three (3) attesting witnesses each, and acknowledged before Tomas A.
Tolete, then the Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio.
 Nicasio Calde, the executor named in the will, filed a Petition for its allowance before the.
However, he died during the pendency of the proceedings, and was duly substituted by
petitioner. Private respondents, relatives of decedent, opposed the Petitioner filed by Calde,
on the grounds that the will and codicil were written in Ilocano, a dialect that decedent did
not know; that decedent was mentally incapacitated to execute the two documents because
of her advanced age, illness and deafness; that decedent’s thumbmarks were procured
 through fraud and undue influence; and that the codicil was not executed in accordance
with law.
 Later, the trial court rendered judgment on the case, approving and allowing decedent’s will
and its codicil. The decision was appealed to and reversed by the respondent Court of
Appeals. The Appellate held that the will and codicil could pass the safeguards under
Article 805 of the New Civil Code but for one crucial factor of discrepancy in the color of ink
when the instrumental witnesses affixed their respective signatures. And the admissions
from instrumental witnesses are indeed significant since they point to no other conclusion
than that the documents were not signed by them in their presence but on different
occasions since the same ballpen used by them supposedly in succession could not have
produced a different color from blue to black and from black to blue.
Issue:
 Whether or not, based on the evidence submitted, respondent appellate court erred in
concluding that both decedent’s Last Will and Testament, and its Codicil were subscribed
by the instrumental witnesses on separate occasions.
Held:
 As sharply noted by respondent appellate court, the signatures of some attesting witnesses
in decedent’s will and its codicil were written in blue ink, while the others were in black. This
discrepancy was not explained by petitioner. Nobody of his six (6) witnesses testified that
two pens were used by the signatories on the two documents. In fact, two (2) of petitioner’s
witnesses even testified that only one (1) ballpen was used in signing the two testamentary
documents.
 It is accepted that there are three sources from which a tribunal may properly acquire
knowledge for making its decisions, namely: circumstantial evidence, testimonial evidence,
and real evidence or autoptic proference.
 In the case at bench, the autoptic proference contradicts the testimonial evidence produced
by petitioner. The will and its codicil, upon inspection by the respondent court, show in black
and white — or more accurately, in black and blue — that more than one pen was used by
the signatories thereto. Thus, it was not erroneous nor baseless for respondent court to
disbelieve petitioner’s claim that both testamentary documents in question were subscribed
to in accordance with the provisions of Art. 805 of the Civil Code.
 Neither did respondent court err when it did not accord great weight to the testimony of
Judge Tomas A. Tolete. It is true that his testimony contains a narration of how the two
testamentary documents were subscribed and attested to, starting from decedent’s
thumbmarking thereof, to the alleged signing of the instrumental witnesses thereto in
consecutive order. Nonetheless, nowhere in Judge Tolete’s testimony is there any kind of
explanation for the different-colored signatures on the testaments.

9. Jesusa Cagro vs Pelagio Cagro, et., al.,

GR No. L-5826 – April 29, 1953
Facts:
 This is an appeal interposed by the oppositors from a decision of the Court of First
Instance, admitting to probate the will allegedly executed by Vicente Cagro who died on
February 14, 1949. The main objection insisted upon by the appellant in that the will is
fatally defective, because its attestation clause is not signed by the attesting witnesses.
There is no question that the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at
the bottom of the attestation clause, although the page containing the same is signed by the
witnesses on the left-hand margin.
Issue:
 Whether or not there was a valid attestation of the will.
Held:
 The attestation clause is 'a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will'
required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear their
signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the
witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their
participation.
 The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three witnesses on the left-hand
margin conform substantially to the law and may be deemed as their signatures to the
attestation clause. This is untenable, because said signatures are in compliance with the
legal mandate that the will be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages. If an
attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at the bottom thereof, be admitted as
sufficient, it would be easy to add such clause to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the
absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses.

10. Agapita Cruz vs Hon. Guillermo Villasor

GR No. L-32214 – November 16, 1973
Facts:
 Public Respondent, Hon. Guillermo Villasor allowed the probate of the last will a testament
of the late Valente Z. Cruz. Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto, namely Deogracias
T. Jamaloas Jr., Dr. Francisco Pañares and Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr., one of them, the last
named, is at the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to have
been acknowledged. As the third witness is the notary public himself, petitioner argues that
the result is that only two witnesses appeared before the notary public to acknowledge the
will. On the other hand, private respondent-appellee, Manuel B. Lugay, who is the
supposed executor of the will, following the reasoning of the trial court, maintains that there
is substantial compliance with the legal requirement of having at least three attesting
witnesses even if the notary public acted as one of them.
Issue:
 Whether or not the supposed last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz was executed in
accordance with law, particularly Article 806.
Held:
 We are inclined to sustain that of the appellant that the last will and testament in question
was not executed in accordance with law. The notary public before whom the will was
acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot
acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. To acknowledge before means to
avow; to own as genuine, to assent, to admit; and "before" means in front or preceding in
space or ahead of. Consequently, if the third witness were the notary public himself, he
would have to avow assent, or admit his having signed the will in front of himself. This
cannot be done because he cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear
before the other to acknowledge his participation in the making of the will. To permit such a
situation to obtain would be sanctioning a sheer absurdity.
 To allow the notary public to act as third witness, or one the attesting and acknowledging
witnesses, would have the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the will which
would be in contravention of the provisions of Article 805 be requiring at least three credible
witnesses to act as such and of Article 806 which requires that the testator and the required
number of witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the will. The
result would be, as has been said, that only two witnesses appeared before the notary
public for or that purpose. In the circumstances, the law would not be duly in observed.

11. Cesar Alvarado vs Ramon Gaviola

 GR No. 74695 – Septemeber 14, 1993
Facts:
 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled "Huling Habilin" wherein he
disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner) and expressly revoked a previously executed
holographic will at the time awaiting probate before the Regional Trial Court.
 As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary public and by private
respondent who were present at the execution, the testator did not read the final draft of the
will himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the eight-page
document, read the same aloud in the presence of the testator, the three instrumental
witnesses and the notary public. The latter four followed the reading with their own
respective copies previously furnished them.
 Meanwhile, Brigido's holographic will was subsequently admitted to probate on 9 December
1977. On the day of the same month, a codicil entitled "Kasulatan ng Pagbabago sa Ilang
Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na may Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido
Alvarado" was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for
the testator's eye operation. Brigido was then suffering from glaucoma. But the
disinheritance and revocatory clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will,
the testator did not personally read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private
respondent who read it aloud in his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental
witnesses (same as those of the notarial will) and the notary public who followed the
reading using their own copies.
 A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed upon the testator's death
on by private respondent as executor with the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner, in turn, filed
an Opposition on the following grounds: that the will sought to be probated was not
executed and attested as required by law; that the testator was insane or otherwise
mentally incapacitated to make a will at the time of its execution due to senility and old age;
that the will was executed under duress, or influence of fear and threats; that it was
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary who
stands to get the lion's share of the testator's estate; and lastly, that the signature of the
testator was procured by fraud or trick.
 When the oppositor (petitioner) failed to substantiate the grounds relied upon in the
Opposition, a Probate Order was issued from which an appeal was made to respondent
court.
 Later, the Court of Appeals rendered the decision under review with the following findings:
that Brigido Alvarado was not blind at the time his last will and codicil were executed; that
assuming his blindness, the reading requirement of Art. 808 was substantially complied with
when both documents were read aloud to the testator with each of the three instrumental
witnesses and the notary public following the reading with their respective copies of the
instruments. The appellate court then concluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to
the letter, there was substantial compliance since its purpose of making known to the
testator the contents of the drafted will was served.
Issue:
 Whether or not the double-reading requirement of said article complied with.
Held:
 Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be read
twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary public before
whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known to the incapacitated
testator the contents of the document before signing and to give him an opportunity to
object if anything is contrary to his instructions.
 That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead of the notary public and an
instrumental witness, it was the lawyer (private respondent) who drafted the eight-paged
will and the five-paged codicil who read the same aloud to the testator, and read them only
once, not twice as Art. 808 requires.
 This Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial compliance is acceptable
where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities
surrounding the execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud
and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the
testamentary privilege.

 In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud in the
presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and
subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read
corresponded with his instructions. Only then did the signing and acknowledgement take
place. There is no evidence, and petitioner does not so allege, that the contents of the will
and codicil were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator. On the
contrary, with respect to the "Huling Habilin," the day of the execution was not the first time
that Brigido had affirmed the truth and authenticity of the contents of the draft. The
uncontradicted testimony of Atty. Rino is that Brigido Alvarado already acknowledged that
the will was drafted in accordance with his expressed wishes even prior to 5 November
1977 when Atty. Rino went to the testator's residence precisely for the purpose of securing
his conformity to the draft.

12. Simeon Roxas vs Andres De Jesus

GR No. L-38338 – January 28, 1985
Facts:
 After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. Petitioner
Simeon R. Roxas, the brother of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus filed a Special
Proceeding for the probate Settlement of the Spouses’ estate. Later, petitioner Simeon R.
Roxas was appointed administrator. After Letters of Administration had been granted to the
petitioner, he delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic Will
of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus.
 Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testified that after his appointment as administrator, he found a
notebook belonging to the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus and that on pages 21, 22, 23 and
24 thereof, a letter-win addressed to her children and entirely written and signed in the
handwriting of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was found. The will is dated "FEB./61 "
and states: "This is my win which I want to be respected although it is not written by a
lawyer.
 The testimony of Simeon R. Roxas was corroborated by the testimonies of Pedro Roxas de
Jesus and Manuel Roxas de Jesus who likewise testified that the letter dated "FEB./61 " is
the holographic Will of their deceased mother, Bibiana R. de Jesus. Both recognized the
handwriting of their mother and positively Identified her signature. They further testified that
their deceased mother understood English, the language in which the holographic Will is
written, and that the date "FEB./61 " was the date when said Will was executed by their
mother.
 Respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir filed an "opposition to probate"
assailing the purported holographic Will of Bibiana R. de Jesus because a it was not
executed in accordance with law, (b) it was executed through force, intimidation and/or
under duress, undue influence and improper pressure, and (c) the alleged testatrix acted by
 mistake and/or did not intend, nor could have intended the said Will to be her last Will and
testament at the time of its execution.
 Respondent Judge Jose C. Colayco issued an order allowing the probate of the holographic
Will which he found to have been duly executed in accordance with law. Respondent Luz
Roxas de Jesus filed a motion for reconsideration alleging inter alia that the alleged
holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was not dated as required by Article
810 of the Civil Code. She contends that the law requires that the Will should contain the
day, month and year of its execution and that this should be strictly complied with.
 Respondent Judge Colayco reconsidered his earlier order and disallowed the probate of the
holographic Will on the ground that the word "dated" has generally been held to include the
month, day, and year.
Issue:
 Whether or not the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will of the deceased
Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code.
Held:
 The petitioners contend that while Article 685 of the Spanish Civil Code and Article 688 of
the Old Civil Code require the testator to state in his holographic Win the "year, month, and
day of its execution," the present Civil Code omitted the phrase Año mes y dia and simply
requires that the holographic Will should be dated. The petitioners submit that the liberal
construction of the holographic Will should prevail.
 A complete date is required to provide against such contingencies as that of two competing
Wills executed on the same day, or of a testator becoming insane on the day on which a
Will was executed (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720). There is no such contingency in this
case.
 As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and year
of its execution. However, when as in the case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad
faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the
only issue is whether or not the date "FEB./61" appearing on the holographic Will is a valid
compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be
allowed under the principle of substantial compliance.

13. Melecio Labrador vs Court of Appeals

GR No. 83843-44 – April 5, 1990
Facts:
 Melecio Labrador died leaving behind a parcel of land, and the instituting his children,
namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita,
all surnamed Labrador, on a holographic will.
 Sagrado Labrador (substituted by his heirs), Enrica Labrador and Cristobal Labrador, filed
in the court a quo a petition for the probate of the alleged holographic will of the late
Melecio Labrador.
 Subsequently , Jesus Labrador (substituted by his heirs), and Gaudencio Labrador filed an
opposition to the petition on the ground that the will has been extinguished or revoked by
implication of law, alleging therein that, before Melecio's death, for the consideration of Six
Thousand (P6,000) Pesos, testator Melecio executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling,
transferring and conveying in favor of oppositors.
 Sagrado thereupon filed a complaint against his brothers, Gaudencio and Jesus, for the
annulment of said purported Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land which Sagrado
allegedly had already acquired by devise from their father Melecio Labrador under a
holographic will executed on March 17, 1968, the complaint being premised on the fact that
the aforesaid Deed of Absolute Sale is fictitious.
 After both parties had rested and submitted their respective evidence, the trial court
rendered a joint decision allowing the probate of the holographic will and declaring null and
void the Deed of Absolute sale. Respondents appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals
modified said decision of the court a quo by denying the allowance of the probate of the will
for being undated.
Issue:
 Whether or not the alleged holographic will of one Melecio Labrador is dated, as provided
for in Article 810 of the New Civil Code.
Held:
 The petition, which principally alleges that the holographic will is really dated, although the
date is not in its usual place, is impressed with merit. The will has been dated in the hand of
the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810.
 The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will.
The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the
testator. These requirements are present in the subject will.
 The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of the will is plain from
the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will was
not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he
was executing was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning
as the testator's instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully
aware of the nature of the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the
testamentary act as a means to control the disposition of his estate.

14. Fausto Gan vs Idelfonso Yap

GR No. L-12190 – August 30, 1958
Facts:
 On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died leaving several properties. On
March 17, 1952, Fausto E. Gan initiated proceedings in the court of first instance with a
petition for the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by the deceased, leaving
two (2) properties to herein petitioner and to herein oppositor the remaining properties on
the condition that the latter will construct a health center worth sixty thousand pesos.
Opposing the petition, her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that the deceased had
not left any will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime.
 After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the court refused to probate the
alleged will. A seventy-page motion for reconsideration failed. Hence this appeal. However,
The will itself was not presented.
Issue:
 Whether or not a holographic will be probated solely based upon the testimony of witnesses
who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in the handwriting of the testator
Held:
 In the matter of holographic wills, no such guaranties of truth and veracity are demanded,
since as stated, they need no witnesses; provided however, that they are "entirely written,
dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself." The law, it is reasonable to suppose,
regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity, and as its own safeguard,
since it could at any time, be demonstrated to be — or not to be — in the hands of the
testator himself. "In the probate of a holographic will" says the New Civil Code, "it shall be
necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator
explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the
will is contested, at least three such witnesses shall be required. In the absence of any such
 witnesses, (familiar with decedent's handwriting) and if the court deem it necessary, expert
testimony may be resorted to."
 Obviously, when the will itself is not submitted, these means of opposition, and of assessing
the evidence are not available. And then the only guaranty of authenticity — the testator's
handwriting — has disappeared.

15. Federico Azaola vs Cesario Singson

GR No. L-14003 – August 5, 1960
Facts:
 When Fortunata Vda de Yance died, Francisco Azaola filed a petition for the probate of the
former’s will, whereby Maria Milgaros Azaola was made the sole heir as against the
nephew of the deceased Cesario Singson. Francisco witnessed that one month before the
death of the testator, the same was handed to him and his wife.
 The opposition to the probate was on the ground that (1) the execution of the will was
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the petitioner and
his wife, and (2) that the testatrix did not seriously intend the instrument to be her last will,
and that the same was actually written either on the 5th or 6th day of August 1957and not
on November 20, 1956 as appears on the will.
 The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the Civil Code, the
proponent must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature
are in the writing of the testatrix, the probate being contested.
Issue:
 Whether or not the will may be allowed probate.
Held:
 We agree with the appellant that since the authenticity of the will was not contested, he was
not required to produce more than one witness; but even if the genuineness of the
holographic will were contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 of our present Civil
Code cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to
identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the probate denied. Since
no witness may have been present at the execution of a holographic will, none being
required by law (Art. 810, new Civil Code), it becomes obvious that the existence of witness
possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. For
it is not merely a question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be
witnesses "who know the handwriting and signature of the testator" and who can declare
(truthfully, of course, even if the law does not so express) "that the will and the signature
are in the handwriting of the testator". There may be no available witness of the testator's
hand; or even if so familiarized, the witnesses may be unwilling to give a positive opinion.
Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811 may thus become an impossibility.
That is evidently the reason why the second paragraph of Article 811 prescribes that in the
absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court
deems it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.

16. Eugenia Codoy vs Evangeline Calungay

GR No. 123486 – August 12, 1999
Facts:
 Respondents Evangeline Calugay, Josepine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, being the
devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. De
Ramonal, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Misamis Oriental, a petition for
probate of the said holographic will. On the other hand, petitioners Eugenia Ramonal Codoy
and Manuel Ramonal filed an opposition thereto, alleging that the holographic will was a
 forgery and that the same was even illegible which gives an impression that a third hand of
an interested party other than the true hand of Matilde Seo Vda. De Ramonal executed the
holographic will. At the hearing, respondents presented six ordinary witnesses and various
documentary evidence. Petitioners, instead of presenting their evidence, filed a demurrer to
evidence which the trial court granted. Respondents appealed, and in support thereof, they
once again reiterated the testimony of their ordinary witnesses who testified as to the
similarity, authenticity genuineness of the signature of the deceased in the holographic will.
 The Court of Appeals rendered a decision which ruled that the appeal was meritorious.
Paraphrasing Azaola vs. Singson, even if the genuineness of the holographic will were
contested, Article 811 of the civil code cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory
presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of
the having the probate denied. No witness need be present in the execution of the
holographic will. And the rule requiring the production of three witnesses is merely
permissive.
Issue:
 Whether or not the ruling of the case of Azaola vs. Singson, 109 Phil. 102, relied upon by
the respondent Court of Appeals, was applicable to the case.
Held:
 In this petition, the petitioners ask whether the provisions of Article 811 of the Civil Code are
permissive or mandatory. The article provides, as a requirement for the probate of a
contested holographic will, that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the signature
in the will is the genuine signature of the testator. We are convinced, based on the
language used, that Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The word “shall” in a statute
commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion
and that the presumption is that the word shall, when used in a statute is mandatory.
 In the case of Ajero vs. Court of Appeals, we said that "the object of the solemnities
surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore,
the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial
ends. But on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object
of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will.

17. Rosa Kalaw vs Hon. Benjamin Relova

GR No. L-40207 – September 28, 1984
Facts:
 Private respondent Gregorio K. Kalaw, claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased sister,
Natividad K. Kalaw, filed a petition before the Court of First Instance for the probate of her
holographic Will executed on December 24, 1968.
 The holographic Will, as first written, named Rosa K. Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix as her
sole heir. Hence, on November 10, 1971, petitioner Rosa K. Kalaw opposed probate
alleging, in substance, that the holographic Will contained alterations, corrections, and
insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as required
by Article 814 of the Civil Code. Rosa's position was that the holographic Will, as first
written, should be given effect and probated so that she could be the sole heir thereunder.
 After trial, respondent Judge denied probate based on the fact that the NBI reported that
the handwriting, the signature, the insertions and/or additions and the initial were made by
one and the same person, although the alterations and/or insertions or additions above-
mentioned were not authenticated by the full signature of the testatrix pursuant to Art. 814
of the Civil Code.
 From that Order, GREGORIO moved for reconsideration arguing that since the alterations
and/or insertions were the testatrix, the denial to probate of her holographic Will would be
contrary to her right of testamentary disposition.
Issue:
 Whether or not a will containing alterations which lacks the authentication by the full
signature of the testatrix should be probated.
Held:
 Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator
in a holographic Will litem not been noted under his signature, the Will is not thereby
invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected
or interlined.
 However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial
provision, which was altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which
alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator,
the effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing
remains in the Will after that which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first written
should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. But
that change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the
manner required by law by affixing her full signature.
 The ruling in Velasco, supra, must be held confined to such insertions, cancellations,
erasures or alterations in a holographic Will, which affect only the efficacy of the altered
words themselves but not the essence and validity of the Will itself. As it is, with the
erasures, cancellations and alterations made by the testatrix herein, her real intention
cannot be determined with certitude.

18. Rizalina Gonzales v. Court of Appeals

GR No. L-37453 – May 25, 1979
Facts:
 Herein private respondent Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition with the Court of First Instance
for the probate of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased Isabel Gabriel and
designating therein petitioner as the principal beneficiary and executrix.
 There is no dispute in the records that the late Isabel Andres Gabriel died as a widow at the
age of eighty-five (85). It is likewise not controverted that herein private respondent
Lutgarda Santiago and petitioner Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales are nieces of the deceased,
and that private respondent, with her husband and children, lived with the deceased at the
latters residence prior an- d up to the time of her death.
 The will submitted for probate was typewritten and in Tagalog, appears to have been
executed barely two (2) months prior to the death of Isabel Gabriel. It consists of five (5)
pages, including the pages whereon the attestation clause and the acknowledgment of the
notary public were written. The signatures of the deceased Isabel Gabriel appear at the end
of the will on page four and at the left margin of all the pages.
 The petition was opposed by Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales, herein petitioner, assailing the
document purporting to be the will of the deceased on the grounds that the same is not
genuine; and in the alternative; that the same was not executed and attested as required by
law; that, at the time of the alleged execution of the purported wilt the decedent lacked
testamentary capacity due to old age and sickness; and in the second alternative; that the
purported Will was procured through undue and improper pressure and influence on the
part of the principal beneficiary, and/or of some other person for her benefit.
 After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment disallowing the probate of the last will and
testament. From this judgment of disallowance, Lutgarda Santiago appealed to respondent
 Court. The Court of Appeals, upon consideration of the evidence adduced by both parties,
rendered the decision now under review, holding that the will in question was signed and
executed by the deceased Isabel Gabriel in the presence of the three attesting witnesses,
Matilde Orobia, Celso Gimpaya and Maria Gimpaya, signing and witnessing the document
in the presence of the deceased and of each other as required by law, hence allowed
probate.
Issue:
 Whether or not there is a need of absolute proof that the three instrumental witnesses were
credible witnesses.
Held:
 Under the law, there is no mandatory requirement that the witness testify initially or at any
time during the trial as to his good standing in the community, his reputation for
trustworthythiness and reliableness, his honesty and uprightness in order that his testimony
may be believed and accepted by the trial court. It is enough that the qualifications
enumerated in Article 820 of the Civil Code are complied with, such that the soundness of
his mind can be shown by or deduced from his answers to the questions propounded to
him, that his age (18 years or more) is shown from his appearance, testimony , or
competently proved otherwise, as well as the fact that he is not blind, deaf or dumb and that
he is able to read and write to the satisfaction of the Court, and that he has none of the
disqualifications under Article 821 of the Civil Code. We reject petitioner's contention that it
must first be established in the record the good standing of the witness in the community,
his reputation for trustworthiness and reliableness, his honesty and uprightness, because
such attributes are presumed of the witness unless the contrary is proved otherwise by the
opposing party.