1

1. GREGORIO MACAPINLAC VS. MARIANO ALIMURONG instrument in her presence and in the presence of each other.
ISSUE: Whether the placing of a cross, by a testatrix, opposite her name attached to an instrument purporting to be her last will
FACTS: and testament is a sufficient
RULING: We are of the opinion that the placing of the cross opposite her name at the conclusion of the instrument was a
Simplicia de los Santos died on June 19, 1907, her surviving husband, Gregorio Macapinlac, submitted her will to the Court of sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes that except where
First Instance for probate. wills are signed by some other person than the testator in the manner and form therein indicated, a valid will must be signed by
the testator. The right of a testator to sign his will by mark, executed animo testandi, has been uniformly sustained by the courts
Macario Alimurong, nephew of the deceased, opposed the proceedings stating that the will was not executed and signed by the of last resort of the United States in construing statutory provisions prescribing the mode of execution of wills in language
witnesses in accordance with law and that the will was made under duress and illegal influence identical with, or substantially similar to that found in section 618 of our code, which was taken from section 2349 of the Code
of Vermont. (Page on Wills, par. 173, and the cases there cited in support of the doctrine just announced.)
Accordingly the RTC narrated the sequence of the events. The RTC found that the provisions of section 618 of the Code of The trial judge was of contrary opinion, and declined to admit the instrument to probate as the last will and testament of the
Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings are fully complied with. The will bears the name of the testatrix written by decedent. We are of opinion. However, that the evidence of record satisfactorily establishes the execution of that instrument as
Amando de Ocampo in her presence and by her express direction, and has been witnessed and signed by more than three and for her last will and testament in the manner and form prescribed by law.
trustworthy witnesses, in the presence of the testatrix and of each other. In view of the said facts it concluded that the will
executed by Simplicia de los Santos must be admitted to probate. The judgment entered in the court admitting the instrument in question to probate in accordance with the prayer of the petitioner.

ISSUE:Whether or not the will be allowed for probate 4. GARCIA V. LA CUESTA

RULING:The appellant alleges that the will was not signed in accordance with the law. The law requires that when a person
signs in place of the testator he should write the name of the latter in the will as the signature. It was alleged that this was not
done by Amando de Ocampo when he signed for the testatrix.
It was also claimed that the form of signing for the testatrix "At the request of the testatrix Da. Simplicio de los Santos, I signed:
Amando de Ocampo," is not in accordance with the requirements of the law.
The Court anent these issues stated that the insertion of the words 'For Simplicia de los Santos' cannot affect the validity of the
will. The Court opined that the signature for the testatrix as if she signed the will, and also the signature of the witness who, at
her request, wrote the name of the testatrix and signed for her, affirming the truth of this fact, attested by the other witnesses then
present. Such circumstances fully comply with the provisions of section 618 of the Act.
On the duress and undue influence the Court found no showing that the person of Father Lupo directly influenced the provisions
of the will and that such is the illegal and improper influence which the law condemns as overcoming that freedom by which the
last will of a man must be expressed.Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed
2. GUISON V. CONCEPCION
Facts: Antero Mercado left a will dated January 3, 1943. The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier as he
wrote the name of Antero Mercado and his name for the testatior on the will. HOWEVER, immediately after Antero
Mercado’s will, Mercado himself placed an “X” mark.
The attestation clause was signed by three instrumental witnesses. Said attestation clause states that all pages of the will 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 attestation clause however did not indicate that Javier wrote Antero Mercado’s name.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will is valid.
HELD: 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.
But is there really a need for such to be included in the attestation clause considering that even though Javier signed for Antero,
Antero himself placed his signature by virtue of the “X” mark, and by that, Javier’s signature is merely a surplusage? That the
placing of the “X” mark is the same as placing Antero’s thumb mark.
No. It’s not the same as placing the testator’s thumb mark. It would have been different had it been proven that the “X” mark
was Antero’s usual signature or was even one of the ways by which he signs his name. If this were so, failure to state the writing
by somebody else would have been immaterial, since he would be considered to have signed the will himself.

Jacoba Concepcion Salcedo made her will in Manila, on January 3, 1904.DEFECT alleged:It will be seen that the witness 5. YAP TUA v. YAP CA KUAN
Feliciano Maglaqui, instead of writing the name of the testatrix on the will, wrote his own. Probate of the will was refused in the G.R. No. 6845 September 1, 1914
court below on the ground that the name of the testatrix was not signed thereto, and the petitioner has appealed. Ruling of
Supreme Court: Facts:
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant, and after the expiration of Perfecto Gabriel filed a petition to probate the will of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong. The will was signed by the
twenty days judgment should be entered in accordance herewith and the case remanded to the court below for execution. So deceased, as well as Anselmo Zacarias, Severo Tabora, and Timoteo Paez.
ordered. The testatrix was not able to sign her name to the will, and she requested another person to sign it for her. Instead of
writing her name he wrote his own upon the will. Held, That the will was not duly executed. Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu filed a petition thru Gabriel La O as their guardian ad litem, alleging that the will is
null and void, for the following reasons:
3. MARIANO LEANO v. ARCADIO LEAÑO (a) Because the same had not been authorized nor signed by the witnesses as the law prescribes.
(b) Because at the time of the execution of the will, the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong was not then
mentally capacitated to execute the same, due to her sickness.
DOCTRINE: WILLS; SIGNATURE BY MARK. — The right of a testatrix to sign her will by mark, executed animo testandi, (c) Because her signature to the will had been obtained through fraud and illegal influence upon the part of
sustained. persons who were to receive a benefit from the same, and because the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong had no intention of
The placing of a cross, by a testatrix, opposite her name attached to an instrument purporting to be her last will and testament is a executing the said will.
sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the form and manner in which
such instruments should be signed. The lower court admitted the said will to probate.
FACTS: The evidence of record satisfactorily discloses that Cristina Valdes, deceased, placed her cross against her name
attached by some other person to the instrument offered for probate which purports to be her last will and testament, in the Issues:
presence of the three witnesses whose names are attached to the attesting clause, and that they attested and subscribed the 1. Did the testator sign the will?
 2

2. Was the execution of the will in accordance with the law? 7.TEODORO CANEDA et. al. vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS et. al.

Ruling:
FACTS:Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children, executed a last will and testament at his residence before three
1. Yes, the testator signed the will.
witnesses and was assisted by his lawyer. In the will, it was declared that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and devises
One who makes a will may sign the same by using a mark, the name having been written by others. If writing a mark
his real and personal properties to several people all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator.
simply upon a will is sufficient indication of the intention of the person to make and execute a will, then certainly the writing of
a portion or all of her name ought to be accepted as a clear indication of her intention to execute the will.
When the testator passed away, one of the legatees, sought his appointment as special administrator of the testator’s estate.
It is sufficient, under the law requiring a signature by the person making a will, to make his mark, to place his initials or all or
Thereafter, the petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator, opposed the probate of the testator’s will and the
any part of his name thereon.
appointment of a special administrator for his estate. They asserted that the will in question is null and void because its
In the present case we think the proof shows, by a large preponderance, that Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong, if she did
attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed
not sign her full name, did at least sign her given name "Tomasa," with the intention to sign the same and that is sufficient to
the testator signing the will in their presence and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of
satisfy the statute.
the testator and of one another.
2. Yes. While the rule is absolute that one who makes a will must sign the same in the presence of the witnesses and that the
witnesses must sign in the presence of each other, as well as in the presence of the one making the will, yet, nevertheless, the
ISSUE:Is the attestation clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero valid?
actual seeing of the signatures made is not necessary.
The records show that the will was signed by the witnesses in one room and by Tomasa in another. That one part of
RULING:No, the attestation clause is invalid.
the room was one or two steps below the floor of the other and the table on which the witnesses signed the will was located upon
the lower floor of the room, which was possible for the testator, lying from the bed, to see the table on which the witnesses
Under the third paragraph of Article 805, such a clause, the complete lack of which would result in the invalidity of the
signed the will.
will, should state (1) the number of the pages used upon which the will is written; (2) that the testator signed, or expressly
It is sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possible for each of the necessary parties, if they desire to see,
caused another to sign, the will and every page thereof in the presence of the attesting witnesses; and (3) that the attesting
may see the signatures placed upon the will.
witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages, and that said witnesses also signed the will and every
page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
6. DE GALA VS. GONZALES
The attestation clause in this case does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective
Facts/Defect in the will:
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
The opposition to the will on the ground that it had not been executed in conformity with the provisions of section 618 of the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the words” as his last will and testament.”
Code of Civil Procedure. section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645. The principal points raised by
the appeal are (1) that the person requested to sign the name of the testatrix signed only the latter's name and not her own; (2) Clearly lacking is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of
that the attestation clause does not mention the placing of the thumb-mark of the testatrix in the will; and (3) that the fact that the one another. That the absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in
will had been signed in the presence of the witnesses was not stated in the attestation clause but only in the last paragraph of the the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be probated.
body of the will.

Held: On the 1st point: Under the law prior to the amendment, it had been held by this court that where a testator is unable to
write and his name is signed by another at his request, in his presence and in that of the subscribing witnesses thereto, it is
unimportant, so far as the validity of the will is concerned, whether the person who writes the name of the testator signs his own
or not. (Barut vs. Cabacungan (1912), 21 Phil., 461. The statute requiring a will to be signed is satisfied if the signature is made
by the testator’s mark. The testatrix thumb-mark appears in the center of her name as written by Serapia de Gala on all of the
pages of the will. The construction put upon the word 'signed' by most courts is the original meaning of a signum or sign, rather
than the derivative meaning of a sign manual or handwriting.
On the 2nd and 3rd points: The second and third points are sufficiently refuted by quoting the last clause of the body of the will
together with the attestation clause, both of which are written in the Tagalog dialect. It is not mentioned in the attestation clause
that the testatrix signed by thumb-mark, but it does there appear that the signature was affixed in the presence of the witnesses,
and the form of the signature is sufficiently described and explained in the last clause of the body of the will. It maybe conceded
that the attestation clause is not artistically drawn and that, standing alone, it does not quite meet the requirements of the statute,
but taken in connection with the last clause of the body of the will, it is fairly clear and sufficiently carries out the legislative
intent; it leaves no possible doubt as to the authenticity of the document.
The contention of the appellants Sinforoso Ona and Apolinario Gonzales that the fact that the will had been signed in the
presence of the witnesses was not stated in the attestation clause is without merit; the fact is expressly stated in that clause.
8. In re the estate of the deceased SOTERA BARRIENTOS. SAMUEL PERRY v. VICENTE ELIO
FACTS:Upon the death of Sotera Barrientos, 68 years of age, the wife of Samuel Perry in her third marriage, two documents
were presented in the Court of First Instance, each of which, according to those who respectively presented them, was the last
will and testament of the said deceased. The first will was presented by Samuel Perry, her surviving spouse. The second will was
presented by Vicente Eliot, son of her first husband.
In the first will, it was provided that Samuel Perry would be testatrix’s sole heir. In the second will, it was stated that
she had no children with Perry and that he had forsaken her during her serious illness, that Vicente Elio would be testatrix’s sole
heir, that testatrix authorized and begged her clerk, Santos Matayabas, to sign the will for her as she was too ill and weak to sign
her own will.
The will that Vicente presented was signed by 4 witnesses who certified that the signing was made in their presence.
Samuel Perry appealed the decision of the probate court. Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE:Is the second will valid?
RULING:No. The Supreme Court held that the will in favor of Vicente Elio was not valid.
In order that a will may be deemed valid, that is executed by one person and signed by another on account of
the testator’s inability to sign, the law requires that it shall have been signed under the express direction or by the express
order of the testator. In the present case, when Elio and his companions took the said document to the house of Sotera
Barrientos, there to be executed as her will, it already contained a statement in the paragraph preceding the space reserved for the
signatures of the testatrix and the witnesses, to the effect that, as the testatrix was unable to sign the will by reason of her

advanced age and her debility, she authorized and begged Santos Matayabas to do so at her request. There is no proof whatever
that Vicente Elio was instructed by Sotera Barrientos to have that statement inserted in the said document, when, as he testified,
the drafting and preparation of the instrument was commended to him. It is evident, therefore, that it was all merely the idea and
purpose of Elio himself.
From the testimony of the parties involved, it is gathered that the testatrix indicated by means of signs, which, as
Matayabas testified, were incomprehensible, her desire that the latter should sign the document as she was unable to do so. It was
also Elio himself who named Santos Matayabas as the person who should sign for Sotera Barrientos. It was his suggestion that
Sotera Barrientos should select from among them the one who should sign the document and it was he who in turn pointed out
Santos Matayabas as the party designated by her for the purpose mentioned. As in the document drawn up and prepared by Elio
himself, Santos Matayabas was already designated to sign at the request of Sotera Barrientos, before the latter was asked by Elio.
Thus, Santos Matayabas not only did not sign the said document under the express direction and order of Sotera
Barrientos, but also did not even do so at her request or in obedience to her own will because the will of Vicente Elio, who drew
up and prepared the document, was already expressed therein. It appears that Sotera Barrientos was subordinated in all respects,
not only with reference to the signing of the instrument, but also with regard to all else connected with the alleged execution of
the so-called will of this testatrix.
9. GERMAN JABONETA vs. RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL.,
FACTS: In these proceedings probate was denied the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta, deceased, because the lower
court was of the opinion from the evidence adduced at the hearing that Julio Javellana, one of the witnesses, did not attach his
signature thereto in the presence of Isabelo Jena, another of the witnesses, as required by the provisions of section 618 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
On the 26th day of December, 1901, Macario Jaboneta executed under the following circumstances the document in question,
which has been presented for probate as his will:
Being in the house of Arcadio Jarandilla, in Jaro, in this province, he ordered that the document in question be written, and
calling Julio Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and Isabelo Jena as witnesses, executed the said document as his will. 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 the presence requirement in witnessing a will was met given that one witness did not fully witness the actual
signing of another witness.
RULING: Yes. The purpose of a statutory requirement that the witness sign in the presence of the testator is said to be that the
testator may have ocular evidence of the identity of the instrument subscribed by the witness and himself, and the generally
accepted tests of presence are vision and mental apprehension
It is sufficient if the witnesses are together for the purpose of witnessing the execution of the will, and in a position to actually
see the testator write, if they choose to do so; and there are many cases which lay down the rule that the true test of vision is not
whether the testator actually saw the witness sign, but whether he might have seen him sign, considering his mental and physical
condition and position at the time of the subscription.
The principles on which these cases rest and the tests of presence as between the testator and the witnesses are equally applicable
in determining whether the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of each other, as required by the statute, and applying
them to the facts proven in these proceedings we are of opinion that the statutory requisites as to the execution of the instrument
were complied with, and that the lower court erred in denying probate to the will on the ground stated in the ruling appealed
from.
3
We are of opinion from the evidence of record that the instrument propounded in these proceedings was satisfactorily proven to
be the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta, deceased, and that it should therefore be admitted to probate.
10. NEYRA V. NEYRA
Facts: Severo Neyro died intestate leaving certain properties and 2 children named Encarnacion and Trinidad. The two sisters
had serious misunderstandings regarding the properties of their father.
Encarnacion was suffering from Addison’s disease and died single and executed a will disposing all her properties to a certain
church, Congregacion de Religiosas de la Virgen Maria" and her other relatives, making no provision whatsoever in said will, in
favor of her only sister of the whole blood, Trinidad Neyra, who had become her bitter enemy.
Teodora Neyra, Presentacion Blanco and Ceferina de la Cruz testified, however, that when the thumbmark of Encarnacion
Neyra was affixed to the agreement in question, dated November 3, 1942, she was sleeping on her bed in the sala; and that the
attesting witnesses were not present, as they were in the caida.
Issue: Were there witnesses at the time of the execution of the will?
Held: The contention that the attesting witnesses were not present, at the time Encarnacion Neyra thumb marked the agreement
and will in question, on her bed, in the sala of the house, as they were allegedly in the caida, is untenable. It has been fully shown
that said witnesses were present, at the time of the signing and execution of the agreement and will in question, in the sala, where
the testatrix was lying on her bed. The true test is not whether they actually saw each other at the time of the signing of the
documents, but whether they might have seen each other sign, had they chosen to do so; and the attesting witnesses actually saw
it all in this case. And the thumb mark placed by the testatrix on the agreement and will in question is equivalent to her signature.
It having been shown that the said compromise or agreement had been legally signed and executed by Encarnacion Neyra on
November 3, 1942, in the presence of credible and trustworthy witnesses, and that she was compos mentis and possessed the
necessary testamentary and mental capacity of the time, hence, the will is valid.
11. ABANGAN VS. ABANGAN
Facts:On September 1917, the CFI of Cebu admitted to probate Ana Abangan's will executed on July 1916. It is from this
decision which the opponent appealed. It is alleged that the records do not show the testatrix knew the dialect in which the will
was written.
Issue: Whether or not the will was validly probated
YES. The circumstance appearing on the will itself, that it was executed in Cebu City and in the dialect of the place where the
testarix is a resident is enough to presume that she knew this dialect in the absence of any proof to the contrary. On the authority
of this case and that of Gonzales v Laurel, it seems that for the presumption to apply, the following must appear: 1) that the will
must be in a language or dialect generally spoken in the place of execution, and, 2) that the testator must be a native or resident
of the said locality
12. EUTIQUIA AVERA V. MARINO GARCIA AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Facts:When the probate of the will of Esteban Garcia was allowed by the court, an appeal was instituted contest was made by
Marino Garcia and Juan Rodriguez, the latter in the capacity of guardian for the minors Jose Garcia and Cesar Garcia contesting
the validity of the will by reason of the fact that the signature of the testator and of the three attesting witnesses are written on the
right margin of each page of the will instead of the left margin.
Issue:Is there a need for the marginal signature of the testator and the witnesses to be on the left margin in order for the will to
be valid?
Ruling:While the statute says that the testator and the instrumental witnesses shall sign their names on the left margin of each
and every page, so far as concerns the authentication of the will, and of every part thereof, it can make no possible difference
whether the names appear on the left or on the right margin, provided they are on one or the other.

The will in herein case contains the necessary signatures on every page, and the only point of deviation from the requirement of
the statute is that these signatures appear in the right margin instead of the left. By the signing of every page of the will, every
page and provision of the will is authenticated and guarded from possible alteration in exactly the same degree that it would have
been protected by being signed in the left margin; and the resources of casuistry could be exhausted without discovering the
slightest difference between the consequences of affixing the signatures in one margin or the other.
Therefore, the legal errors assigned are not sustainable.
13. IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOSEFA VILLACORTE.
CELSO ICASIANO vs.NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO
DEFECT OF THE WILL:The records show that the original of the will, which was surrendered simultaneously with the filing
of the petition and marked as Exhibit "A" consists of five pages, and while signed at the end and in every page, it does not
contain the signature of one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose V. Natividad, on page three (3) thereof; but the duplicate copy
attached to the amended and supplemental petition and marked as Exhibit "A-1" is signed by the testatrix and her three attesting
witnesses in each and every page. Witness Natividad who testified on his failure to sign page three (3) of the original, admits that
he may have lifted two pages instead of one when he signed the same, but affirmed that page three (3) was signed in his
presence.
SC RULING: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.
14. Paz Samaniego-Caleda vs. Lucia Abena
Facts:The decedent in this case is Margarita Mayores who died without issue and left no ascendants. The decedent was survived
by her first cousins, including herein petitioner, Paz. Margarita left a will, disposing her real properties in equal proportions to
her first cousins, her personal properties were left with herein respondent, Lucia who was also designated as the sole executor of
her will.
The will under question was submitted for probate and was opposed by herein petitioner. She alleged before the regional court
that there is non-compliance with the formalities of wills set forth by law, because the attestation clause stated that there are three
(3) pages in the will where the testamentary dispositions are only found within the first two (2) pages.The trial court nonetheless
admitted the will of Margarita for probate ruling that the court found that there is a reasonable belief that the testator and the
witnesses thought that the pages where the attestation clause is solely written is also included in the entire document as part of
the will. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in full.
Issue:Is the error in the determination of the number of pages in the attestation clause as contrasted to the actual number
of pages of the actual disposition a ground for the nullification of the will?
Ruling:No, the discrepancy of the number of pages in the attestation clause and the actual number of pages of the disposition
will not warrant the nullification of the will. The Supreme Court, in this case affirmed the decision of the trial court and even
quoted the same in the decision. While it is true that the attestation clause is not part of the notarial will, the error in the
statement is not material to invalidate the will.
It must be noted that the pages of the will are aptly and consecutively lettered with pages “A, B, and C” which is
already a sufficient safeguard against possible omission of some pages. The error must have been thought about by the honest
belief that the will is the whole document consisting of three pages including the attestation clause and acknowledgement. The
doctrine of liberal interpretation under Article 809 of the Civil Code will have to be given effect where In the absence of bad
faith, forgery or fraud, or undue [and] improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the form of the
4
attestation or in the language used there in shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact
executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805.
15. RAMON J. FERNANDEZ v. FERNANDO VERGEL DE DIOS
Contentions:
1. The attestation clause is invalid because the sheet on which it is written is not numbered.
2. The attestation clause is insufficient because it is not stated in it that the testator signed on the margin of each sheet in
the presence of the three witnesses, or that the latter signed it in the presence of the testator and of each other
3. The attestation clause is not signed by the testator either at the margin or the bottom thereof.
Court Ruling:
1. A part of the attestation clause reads:
“We certify that the foregoing document written in Spanish, a language known by the testator Antonino Vergel de
Dios, consisting of three sheet actually used, correlatively enumerated, besides this sheet . . . .”
From the wordings of the clause, it is clear that the will has four sheets. This description contained in the
clause in question constitutes substantial compliance with the requirements prescribed by the law regarding the
paging as held in the case of Abangan vs. Abangan (40 Phil., 476). Furthermore the law does not require that the
sheet containing nothing but the attestation clause, wholly or in part, be numbered or paged. Consequently this lack of
paging on the attestation sheet does not take anything from the validity of the will
2. Quote: “…and he (the testator) signed at the bottom of the aforesaid will in our presence and we at his request did the
same in his presence and in that of each other as witnesses to the will, and lastly, the testator, as well as we, as
witnesses, signed in the same manner on the left margin of each sheet.”
The underscored phrase "in the same manner" mean that the testator and the witnesses signed on the left
margin of each sheet of the will "in the same manner" in which they signed at the bottom thereof, that is, the testator
in the presence of the witnesses and the latter in the presence of the testator and of each other. This phrase in the same
manner cannot, in view of the context of the pertinent part, refer to another thing, and was used here as a suppletory
phrase to include everything and avoid the repetition of a long and difficult one, such as what is meant by it.
3. Citing the case of Abangan vs. Abangan, it was held that:
“The testator's signature is not necessary in the attestation clause because this, as its name implies, appertains only to
the witnesses and not to the testator.”
16. TESTACY OF SIXTO LOPEZ. JOSE S. LOPEZ VS. AGUSTIN LIBORO
Facts:Don Sixto Lopez died at the age of 83. Six months before his death, he executed a will which comprises two pages, each of
which is written on one side of a separate sheet. Agustin Liboro specified five grounds for his opposition, to wit: (1) that the
deceased never executed the alleged will; (2) that his signature appearing in said will was a forgery; (3) that at the time of the
execution of the will, he was wanting in testamentary as well as mental capacity due to advanced age; (4) that, if he did ever
execute said will, it was not executed and attested as required by law, and one of the alleged instrumental witnesses was
incapacitated to act as such; and it was procured by duress, influence of fear and threats and undue and improper pressure and
influence on the part of the beneficiaries instituted therein, principally the testator's sister, Clemencia Lopez, and the herein
proponent, Jose S. Lopez; and (5) that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick.
In this instance only one of these objections is reiterated, formulated in these words: "That the court a quo erred in
holding that the document Exhibit "A" was executed in all particulars as required by law." To this objection is added the alleged
error of the court "in allowing the petitioner to introduce evidence that Exhibit "A" was written in a language known to the
decedent after petitioner rested his case and over the vigorous objection of the oppositor.
Issues:
a) Was the will valid despite the absence of page number on the first sheet either in letters or in Arabic numerals?
b) Was the will valid despite the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses?
c) Was the thumbmark of Don Sixto affixed to the instrument instead of signing his name sufficient?
d) Was the testator’s knowledge of the Spanish language used in the will material?

Held:
1. Yes. The omission to put a page number on the first sheet, if that be necessary, is supplied by other forms of
identification more trustworthy than the conventional numerical words or characters. The unnumbered page is clearly
identified as the first page by the internal sense of its contents considered in relation to the contents of the second
page. By their meaning and coherence, the first and second lines on the second page are undeniably a continuation of
the last sentence of the testament, before the attestation clause, which starts at the bottom of the preceding page.
Furthermore, the unnumbered page contains the caption "TESTAMENTO," the invocation of the Almighty, and a
recital that the testator was in full use of his testamentary faculty, — all of which, in the logical order of sequence,
precede the direction for the disposition of the marker's property. Again, as page two contains only the two lines
above mentioned, the attestation clause, the mark of the testator and the signatures of the witnesses, the other sheet
cannot by any possibility be taken for other than page one.
2. Yes. Such contradictions in the testimony of the instrumental witnesses as are set out in the appellant's brief are
incidents not all of which every one of the witnesses can be supposed to have perceived, or to recall in the same order
in which they occurred.
3. Yes. The thumbmark was sufficient in lieu of his signature. The reason for this was that the testator was suffering
from "partial paralysis." While another in testator's place might have directed someone else to sign for him, as
appellant contends should have been done, there is nothing curious or suspicious in the fact that the testator chose the
use of mark as the means of authenticating his will. It was a matter of taste or preference. Both ways are good. A
statute requiring a will to be "signed" is satisfied if the signature is made by the testator's mark.
4. No. The knowledge of Spanish language of the testator is immaterial according to the Supreme Court. There is no
statutory requirement that such knowledge be expressly stated in the will itself. It is a matter that may be established
by proof aliunde. Citing Gonzales vs. Laurel (46 Phil 781), there is presumption that the testator knew the language.
17. LOPEZ V. LOPEZ
FACTS:Enrique S. Lopez died leaving his wife, Wendy and their four legitimate children as compulsory heirs. Before Enrique’s
death, he executed a Last Will and Testament. Richard filed a petition for the probate of his father's Last Will and Testament .
His two sisters opposed contending that the document was not executed and attested as required by law, and that it was procured
by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of Richard.
After submitting proofs of compliance with requirements, Richard presented the attesting witnesses and the notary public who
notarized the will, Atty. Nolasco . They testified that after the late Enrique read and signed the will on each and every page, they
also read and signed the same in the latter's presence and of one another. Atty. Nolasco said he prepared the will in accordance
with Enrique's instruction and that before the latter and the attesting witnesses signed it in the presence of one another, he
translated the will which from English to Filipino and added that Enrique was in good health and of sound mind at that time.
The oppositors presented its lone witness Paraon, testtifying that Atty. Nolasco was not a notary public for the City of Manila in
1996.
The RTC disallowed the probate of the will for failure to comply with the required statement in the attestation clause as to the
number of pages used upon which the will is written. While the acknowledgment portion stated that the will consists of 7 pages
including the page on which the ratification and acknowledgment are written, it observed that it has 8 pages including the
acknowledgment portion.
ISSUE:Is the discrepancy between the number of pages in the attestation clause and the actual number of pages in the will
would warrant its disallowance?
RULING:YES. The provisions of the Civil Code on Forms of Wills, particularly, Articles 805 and 809 of the Civil Code
provide that the attestation must state the number of pages used upon which the will is written. The purpose of the law is to
safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and prevent any increase or decrease in the
pages.
While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the form of the attestation clause, Richard likewise failed in this
respect. The statement in the Acknowledgment portion of the subject last will and testament that it consists of 7 pages including
5
the page on which the ratification and acknowledgment are written cannot be deemed substantial compliance. The will actually
consists of 8 pages including its acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained by mere examination of the will itself
but through the presentation of evidence aliund.
The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by an examination of the will itself: whether all the
pages are consecutively numbered; whether the signatures appear in each and every page; whether the subscribing witnesses are
three or the will was notarized. All these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even omissions concerning them
in the attestation clause can be safely disregarded. But the total number of pages, 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 check against perjury in the
probate proceedings.
18. FELIX AZUELA v. CA
A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will
whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will
which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny
probate. A notarial will with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection.
Facts:Felix Azuela filed a petition with the trial court for the probate of a notarial will purportedly executed by Eugenia E.
Igsolo on June 10, 1981 and notarized on the same day. The will consisted of two (2) pages and was written in Filipino. The
attestation clause did not state the number of pagesand it was not signed by the attesting witnesses at the bottom thereof. The
said witnesses affixedtheir signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of the will though. Geralda Castillo opposedthe
petition, claiming that the will was a forgery. She also argued that the will was not executed andattested to in accordance with
law. She pointed out that the decedent’s signature did not appear onthe second page of the will, and the will was not properly
acknowledged. The trial court held the will to be authentic and to have been executed in accordance withlaw and, thus, admitted
it to probate, calling to fore “the modern tendency in respect to theformalities in the execution of a will…with the end in view of
giving the testator more freedom inexpressing his last wishes.” According to the trial court, the declaration at the end of the will
underthe sub-title, “Patunay Ng Mga Saksi,” comprised the attestation clause and the acknowledgement,and was a substantial
compliance with the requirements of the law. It also held that the signing by thesubscribing witnesses on the left margin of the
second page of the will containing the attestationclause and acknowledgment, instead of at the bottom thereof, substantially
satisfied the purpose of identification and attestation of the will. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial
court’sdecision and ordered the dismissal of the petition for probate. It noted that the attestation clausefailed to state the number
of pages used in the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of probate. Azuela argues that the requirement under
Article 805 of the Civil Code that “the number of pages used in a notarial will be stated in the attestation clause” is merely
directory, rather thanmandatory, and thus susceptible to what he termed as “the substantial compliance rule.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject will complied with the requirements of the law and, hence, should be admitted to probate
HELD: The petition is DENIED.
A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will
whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will
which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny
probate. A notarial will with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection.
RECENT JURISPRUDENCE – CIVIL LAW
Prior to the New Civil Code, the statutory provision governing the formal requirements of wills was Section 618 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. Extant therefrom is the requirement that the attestation state the number of pages of the will. The enactment of
the New Civil Code put in force a rule of interpretation of the requirements of wills, at least insofar as the attestation clause is
concerned, that may vary from the philosophy that governed the said Section 618. Article 809 of the Civil Code, the Code
Commission opted to recommend a more liberal construction through the “substantial compliance rule.” However, Justice J.B.L.
Reyes cautioned that the rule“must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by an examination of the will
itself: whether all the pages are consecutively numbered; whether the signatures appear in each and every page; whether the
subscribing witnesses are three or the will was notarized...But the total number of pages, 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 check against perjury in
the probate proceedings.”

The Court suggested in
Caneda v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103554, May 28, 1993,222 SCRA 781)
“the rule, as it now stands, is that omission which can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the need of
resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will
being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation
of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself.” The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on
which the will was written remains a fatal flaw, despite Art. 809. This requirement aims at safeguarding the will against possible
interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and thus preventing any increase or decrease in the pages. Following
Caneda , there is substantial compliance with this requirement if the will states elsewhere in it how many pages it is comprised
of, as was the situation in Singson and Taboada . In this case, however, there could have been no substantial compliance with
the requirements under Art. 805 of the Civil Code since there is no statement in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will
itself as to the number of pages which comprise the will. There was an incomplete attempt to comply with this requisite, a space
having been allotted for the insertion of the number of pages in the attestation clause. Yet the blank was never filled in. The
subject will cannot be considered to have been validly attested to by the instrumental witnesses. While the signatures of the
instrumental witnesses appear on the left-hand margin of the will, they do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause. Art.
805 particularly segregates the requirement that the instrumental witnesses sign each page of the will, from the requisite that the
will be attested and subscribed by them. The signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify, among others, that the
witnesses are aware that the page they are signing forms part of the will. On the other hand, the signatures to the attestation
clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the statements contained in the attestation clause itself. An unsigned attestation
clause results in an unattested will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin of the page containing the
unsigned attestation clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses’ undertakings in the clause, since the signatures
that do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal. The notary public who notarized the subject will
wrote,
“Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila .”
By no manner of contemplation can these words be construed as an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who
has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It might be possible to
construe the averment as a jurat , even though it does not follow to the usual language thereof. A jurat is that part of an affidavit
where the notary certifies that before him/her, the document was subscribed and sworn to by the executor. It may not have been
said before, but a notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses is fatally
defective, even if it is subscribed and sworn to before a notary public. The importance of the requirement of acknowledgment is
highlighted by the fact that it had been segregated from the other requirements under Art. 805 and entrusted into a separate
provision, Art. 806. The express requirement of Art. 806 is that the will be “acknowledged”, and not merely subscribed and
sworn to. The acknowledgment coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that
they had executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed. Such declaration is under oath and under pain of
perjury, thus allowing for the criminal prosecution of persons who participate in the execution of spurious wills, or those
executed without the free consent of the testator. It also provides a further degree of assurance that the testator is of certain
mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to those persons he/she had designated in the will.
19. TESTATE ESTATE OF ALIPIO ABADA V. ABAJA AND ABELLAR
FACTS: Abada died sometime in May 1940. His widow Paula Toray died sometime in September 1943. Both died without
legitimate children.
In 1968, Alipio C. Abaja filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of Abada. Abada allegedly
named as his testamentary heirs his natural children Eulogio and Rosario . Alipio is the son of Eulogio.
Nicanor Caponong opposed the petition on the ground that Abada left no will when he died in 1940. Caponong
further alleged that the will, if Abada really executed it, should be disallowed for the following reasons: (1) it was not executed
and attested as required by law; (2) it was not intended as the last will of the testator; and (3) it was procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries.
ISSUE: Is the will properly attested making it valid as to form?
6
RULING: Yes. The respondent’s argument that the attestation clause fails to state the number of pages on which the will is
written holds no water. The phrase en el margen izquierdo de todas y cada una de las dos hojas de que esta compuesto el mismo
which means in the left margin of each and every one of the two pages consisting of the same shows that the will consists of two
pages. The pages are numbered correlatively with the letters ONE and TWO as can be gleaned from the phrase las cuales estan
paginadas correlativamente con las letras UNO y DOS.
The respondent’s argument that the attestation clause fails to state expressly that the testator signed the will and its
every page in the presence of three witnesses likewise fails as the first sentence of the attestation clause reads: Suscrito y
declarado por el testador Alipio Abada como su ultima voluntad y testamento en presencia de nosotros, habiendo tambien el
testador firmado en nuestra presencia en el margen izquierdo de todas y cada una de las hojas del mismo. The English
translation is: Subscribed and professed by the testator Alipio Abada as his last will and testament in our presence, the testator
having also signed it in our presence on the left margin of each and every one of the pages of the same. The
attestation clause clearly states that Abada signed the will and its every page in the presence of the witnesses.
However, the respondent is correct that that the attestation clause does not indicate the number of
witnesses. However, it is, of course, not possible to lay down a general rule, rigid and inflexible, which would be applicable to
all cases. More than anything else, the facts and circumstances of record are to be considered in the application of any given rule.
If the surrounding circumstances point to a regular execution of the will, and the instrument appears to have been executed
substantially in accordance with the requirements of the law, the inclination should, in the absence of any suggestion of bad
faith, forgery or fraud, lean towards its admission to probate, although the document may suffer from some imperfection of
language, or other non-essential defect.
An attestation clause is made for the purpose of preserving, in permanent form, a record of the facts attending the
execution of the will, so that in case of failure of the memory of the subscribing witnesses, or other casualty, they may still be
proved.
Abadas will clearly shows four signatures: that of Abada and of three other persons. It is reasonable to conclude that
there are three witnesses to the will. The question on the number of the witnesses is answered by an examination of the will itself
and without the need for presentation of evidence aliunde.
The so-called liberal rule does not offer any puzzle or difficulty, nor does it open the door to serious consequences.
The later decisions do tell us when and where to stop; they draw the dividing line with precision. They do not allow
evidence aliunde to fill a void in any part of the document or supply missing details that should appear in the will itself.
They only permit a probe into the will, an exploration within its confines, to ascertain its meaning or to determine the
existence or absence of the requisite formalities of law. This clear, sharp limitation eliminates uncertainty and ought to banish
any fear of dire results.
The phrase en presencia de nosotros or in our presence coupled with the signatures appearing on the will itself and
after the attestation clause could only mean that: (1) Abada subscribed to and professed before the three witnesses that the
document was his last will, and (2) Abada signed the will and the left margin of each page of the will in the presence of these
three witnesses.
Finally, the allegation that the attestation clause does not expressly state the circumstances that the
witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the testator and of each other is untenable. Precision
of language in the drafting of an attestation clause is desirable. However, it is not imperative that a parrot-like copy of the words
of the statute be made. It is sufficient if from the language employed it can reasonably be deduced that the attestation clause
fulfills what the law expects of it.
The last part of the attestation clause means in its witness, every one of us also signed in our presence and of the
testator. This clearly shows that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing of the will of the testator, and that each witness
signed the will in the presence of one another and of the testator.
20. TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ALIPIO ABADA, BELINDA CAPONONG-NOBLE vs. ALIPIO ABAJA and
NOEL ABELLAR, respondents.
FACTS: Abada died sometime in May 1940. His widow Paula Toray (Toray) died sometime in September 1943. Both died
without legitimate children.

Alipio C. Abaja filed a petitionfor the probate of the last will and testament (will) of Abada. Abada allegedly named as his
testamentary heirs his natural children Eulogio Abaja (Eulogio) and Rosario Cordova. Alipio is the son of Eulogio. The
oppositors are the nephews, nieces and grandchildren of Abada and Toray.
Caponong-Noble points out that nowhere in the will can one discern that Abada knew the Spanish language. She alleges that
such defect is fatal and must result in the disallowance of the will.
ISSUE: Is it needed to state in the will itself that the testator knew the language or dialect used in the will?
RULING:No.
There is no statutory requirement to state in the will itself that the testator knew the language or dialect used in the
will. This is a matter that a party may establish by proof aliunde. Caponong-Noble further argues that Alipio, in his testimony,
has failed, among others, to show that Abada knew or understood the contents of the will and the Spanish language used in the
will. However, Alipio testified that Abada used to gather Spanish-speaking people in their place. In these gatherings, Abada and
his companions would talk in the Spanish language. This sufficiently proves that Abada speaks the Spanish language.
21.
22. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO PROBATE OF THE WILL OF DIGNA MARAVILLA v. PEDRO
MARAVILLA
Facts: Digna Maravilla died leaving an extensive estate. Her alleged will was denied probate. Appellant Herminio Maravilla,
husband of the decedent, universal heir and executor, died after the case was submitted for decision. Concepcion Maravilla
Kohlhaas and Rose Mary Kohlhaas became the substitute heirs. Pedro, Asuncion and Regina Maravilla, who are allegedly the
brother and sisters of the deceased Digna, opposed the probate of her will arguing that she and the instrumental witnesses did not
sign each and every page of the alleged will in the presence of each other and that she was not of sound and disposing mind
which the trial court affirmed. Col. (ret.) Aquilino Mansueto, the only remaining witness testified and identified his own
signature that of Digna Maravilla, and the other witnesses. Adelina Sajro, niece of Digna, was named a devisee under the
questioned will, appealed the judgment.
Held:The SC ruled that the trial court’s conclusion is far fetched, fanciful and unwarranted. It was but natural that witness
Mansueto should be positive about his own signature, since he was familiar with it. He had to be less positive about Digna
Maravilla’s signature since he could not be closely acquainted with the same: for aught the record shows, the signing of the will
was the only occasion he saw her sign; he had no opportunity to study her signature before or after the execution of the will.
Furthermore, he witnessed Digna’s signing not less than fourteen years previously. To demand that in identifying Digna’s
signature Mansueto should display a positiveness equal to the certainty shown by him in recognizing his own, exceeds the
bounds of the reasonable. The variation in the expressions used by the witness is the best evidence that he was being candid and
careful, and it is a clear badge of truthfulness rather than the reverse.
It is well to note that the cross examiner did not ask Mansueto if no one else besides those mentioned by him had seen him sign.
Any contradiction inferred from both statements is purely conjectural; it did not come from the witness and is insufficient to
impeach his veracity, the difference in the answers being due to no more than an accidental lapse of memory. A will may be
allowed even if some witnesses not remember having attested it, if other evidence satisfactorily show due execution and that
failure of witness to identify his signature does not bar probate. The will was duly executed by a qualified testatrix and
competent witnesses, in conformity with the statutory requirements.
23. VDA DE RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: Eugenia Danila died on May 21, 1966. She allegedly left a will and testament dated March 9, 1963 and codicil dated
April 18, 1963. The main point in controversy here is whether or not the last testament and its accompanying codicil were
executed in accordance with the formalities of the law, considering the complicated circumstances that two of the attesting
witnesses testified against their due execution while other non-subscribing witnesses testified to the contrary.
ISSUE: Was the will executed in compliance with the formalities requited by law?
7
RULING: YES. While the opposition alleged fraud and undue influence, no evidence was presented to prove their occurrence.
There is no question that each and every page of the will and codicil carry the authentic signatures of Eugenia Danila and
the three (3) attesting witnesses. Similarly, the attestation claim far from being deficient, were properly signed by the attesting
witnesses. Neither is it disputed that these witnesses took turns in signing the will and codicil in the presence of each other and
the testatrix. Both instruments were duly acknowledged before a Notary Public who was all the time present during the
execution.
Unlike other deeds, ordinary wills by necessity of law must contain an attestation clause, which, significantly is a separate
memorandum or record of the facts surrounding that the conduct of execution. Once signed by the attesting witnesses, it
evidences that compliance with the indispensable legal formalities had been observed. In the attestation clause, the
witnesses do not merely attest to the signature of the testatrix but also to the proper execution of the will, and their
signature following that of the testatrix show that they have in fact at not only to the genuineness of the testatrix's signature but
also to the due execution of the will as embodied in the attention clause.
As a rule, if any or all of the submitting witness testify against the due execution of the will, or do not remember having attested
to it, or are otherwise of doubtful ability, the will may, nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimony of
other witness and from all the evidence presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner by law. Accordingly,
although the subscribing witnesses to a contested will are the best witness in connection with its due execution, to deserve full
credit, their testimony must be reasonable, and unbiased; if otherwise it may be overcome by any competent evidence, direct or
circumstantial.
In the case at bar, there is a disparity in the quality of the testimonies of Odon Sarmiento and Rosendo Paz on one hand, and the
Notary Public, Atty. Ricardo A. Barcenas, on the other. The testimony of Odon Sarmiento was contradicted by his own
admission.
It has been regarded that the function of the Notary Public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements in the execution of a will. In the absence of any showing of self-interest that might possibly have warped his
judgment and twisted his declaration, the intervention of a Notary Public, in his professional capacity, in the execution of a will
deserves grave consideration.
24. IN RE: WILL OF MARIA ROQUE Y PARAISOCEFERINO ALDABA v. LUDOVICO ROQUE
FACTS: On July 9, 1918, Maria Roque executed her last will and testament in the Tagalog dialect with the help of Vicente
Platon and in the presence of three witnesses who signed the attestation clause and each of the four pages of the testament. Maria
Roque died on December 3, 1919. The probate of her will was contested by Ludovico Roque on the ground that "each and every
folio of the said testament is not paged correlatively in letter," since the will was paged in letters A, B, C, etc., instead of
spelled-out numbers “one,” “two,” and “three,” and "that the said will lacks the attestation clause required by law."
ISSUE: Was the will correlatively paged according to the requirements prescribed by law?
RULING: YES. The method of indicating the paging of the testament is in compliance with the spirit of the law, since either
one of the two ways above-mentioned indicates the correlation of the pages and serves to prevent the loss of any of them. It
might be said that the object of the law in requiring that the paging be made in letters is to make falsification more difficult, but it
should be noted that since all the pages of the testament are signed at the margin by the testatrix and the witnesses, the difficulty
of forging the signatures in either case remains the same. In other words the more or less degree of facility to imitate the writing
of the letters A, B, C, etc., does not make for the easiness to forge the signature. And as in the present case there exists the
guaranty of the authenticity of the testament, consisting in the signatures on the left margin of the testament and the paging
thereof as declared in the attestation clause, the holding of this court in Abangan vs. Abangan (40 Phil, 476), might as well be
repeated:
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 guarantee 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. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds
nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecesary, useless, and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be
disregarded.

In that case the testament was written on one page, and the attestation clause on another. Neither one of these pages was
numbered in any way; and it was held:
In a will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the
bottom by the testator and three witnesses and the second contains only the attestation clause and is signed also at the
bottom by the three witnesses, it is not necessary that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator
and the witnesses, or be paged.
This means that, according to the particular case, the omission of paging does not necessarily render the testament invalid.
The law provides that the numbering of the pages should be in letters placed on the upper part of the sheet, but if the paging
should be placed in the lower part, would the testament be void for his sole reason? NO.
The law also provides that the testator and the witnesses must sign the left margin of each of the sheets of the testament; but
if they should sign on the right margin, would this fact also annul the testament? NO.
This court has already held in Avera vs. Garcia and Rodriguez (42 Phil., 145):
It is true that the statute says that the testator and the instrumental witnesses shall sign their names on the left margin
of each and every page; and it is undeniable that the general doctrine is to the effect that all statutory requirements as
to the execution of wills must be fully complied with. The same doctrine is also deducible from cases heretofore
decided by this court
Still some details at times creep into legislative enactments which are so trivial that it would be absurd to suppose that
the Legislature could have attached any decisive importance to them. The provision to the effect that the signatures of
the testator and witnesses shall be written on the left margin of each page — rather than on the right margin — seems
to be of this character. So far as concerns the authentication of the will, and of every part thereof, it can make no
possible different whether the names appear on the left or on the right margin, provided they are on one or the other.
In Caraig vs. Tatlonghari (R. G. No. 12558, decided March 23, 1918, not reported), this court declared a will void
which was totally lacking in the signatures required to be written on its several pages; and in the case of Re estate of
Saguinsin (41 Phil., 875), a will was likewise declared void which contained the necessary signature on the margin of
each left (folio), but not on the margin of each page containing written matter.
We do not desire to intimate that the numbering in letters is a requisite of no importance. But since its principal object is to
give the correlation of the pages, we hold that this object may be attained by writing "one." "two," "three," etc., well as
by writing A, B, C, etc.
25. FERNANDEZ V. VERGEL
FACTS :In this case, the validity of the testator’s will is questioned by the opponents of the will on the following matters: (a) It
was not sufficiently proven that the testator knew the contents of the will. (b) The testator did not sign all the pages of the will.
(c) He did not request anybody to attest the document as his last will. (d) He did not sign it in the presence of any witness.(e) The
witnesses did not sign it in the presence of the testator, or of each other, nor with knowledge on the part of the testator that they
were signing his will. (f) The witnesses did not sign the attestation clause before the death of the testator. (g) This clause was
written after the execution of the dispositive part of the will and was attached to the will after the death of the testator. (h) The
signatures of the testator on page 3 of the will are not authentic.
ISSUE : Whether or not the will was executed in accordance with the requirements of law
RULING: The evidence sufficiently shows that when Attorney Lopez Lizo read the will to the testator, the latter's mind was
perfectly sane and he understood it: that he signed all the pages of the will proper, although he did not sign the page containing
the attestation clause; that while he did not personally call the witnesses, yet the latter were invited by Attorney Lopez Lizo to
act as such in his presence. The law does not require that the testator precisely be the person to request the witnesses to attest his
will.
It was also sufficiently established in the record that the testator signed the will in the presence of the three witnesses and that the
latter, in turn, signed it in the presence of the testator and of each other; that the witnesses signed the attestation clause before the
8
death of the testator; that this clause, with the names of the witnesses in blank, was prepared before the testator signed the will,
and that the sheet containing said clause, just as those of the will proper, and that all the four sheets of which the will was
actually composed were kept together and are the very ones presented in this case; and finally, that the signatures of the testator
on page 3 of said will are authentic.
As to the numbering of the sheet containing the attestation clause, it is true that it does not appeal on the upper part of the sheet,
but it does appear in its text. It is provided in the clause that the will is “of three sheet actually used, correlatively enumerated,
besides this sheet . . . .” It is clear that such a sheet of the attestation clause is the fourth and that the will, including said sheet,
has four sheets. This description contained in the clause constitutes substantial compliance with the requirements prescribed by
the law regarding the paging. The law does not require that the sheet containing the attestation clause only, wholly or in part, be
numbered or paged. Consequently this lack of paging on the attestation sheet does not take anything from the validity of the will.
26. BELLA A. GUERRERO VS. RESURRECCION A. BIHIS
FACTS:On February 19, 1994, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, who is the mother of both petitioner and respondent, died at the
Metropolitan Hospital.
Petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the decedent. However, respondent opposed
her elder sister's petition on the following grounds: the will was not executed and attested as required by law; its attestation
clause and acknowledgment did not comply with the requirements of the law; the signature of the testatrix was procured by fraud
and petitioner and her children procured the will through undue and improper pressure and influence.
ISSUE: Did the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses before a notary public acting outside the
place of his commission satisfy the requirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code?
RULING:NO. Article 806 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The
notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of
Court.
One of the formalities required by law in connection with the execution of a notarial will is that it must be acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. This formal requirement is one of the indispensable requisites for the
validity of a will. In other words, a notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for probate.
An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer and declaring it
to be his act or deed. In the case of a notarial will, that competent officer is the notary public. Acknowledgment can only be
made before a competent officer, that is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public.
The acknowledgment of a notarial will coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of
the law, the notary public, that they executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed. Such declaration is under
oath and under pain of perjury.
27. MANUEL LEE vs. ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO
A.C. NO. 5281, February 12, 2008
FACTS: Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty. Regino B. Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and the
Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a will that is alleged to be spurious in nature in containing forged signatures of his
father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses, which were also questioned for the unnotated Residence
Certificates that are known to be a copy of their respective voter's affidavit. In addition to such, the contested will was executed
and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears a Residence Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962,
which was never submitted for filing to the Archives Division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National
Commission for Culture and Arts (NCAA). Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that all allegations are falsely given because

he allegedly exercised his duties as Notary Public with due care and with due regards to the provision of existing law and had
complied with elementary formalities in the performance of his duties and that the complaint was filed simply to harass him
based on the result of a criminal case against him in the Ombudsman that did not prosper. However, he did not deny the
contention of non-filing a copy to the Archives Division of NCAA. In resolution, the court referred the case to the IBP and the
decision of which was affirmed with modification against the respondent and in favor of the complainant.
ISSUE:
Did Atty. Tambago acted negligently in exercising his duties as a Notary Public?
HELD:
YES. Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the performance of the elementary duties of his office. The Court finds
that he acted very irresponsibly in notarizing the will in question. Such recklessness warrants the less severe punishment of
suspension from the practice of law. It is, as well, a sufficient basis for the revocation of his commission and his perpetual
disqualification to be commissioned as a notary public.
The Civil Code requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The
importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it was segregated from the other requirements under Article 805
and embodied in a distinct and separate provision. A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows
that this particular requirement was neither strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous absence
of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the acknowledgment. Similarly, the
notation of the testator’s old residence certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These omissions by
respondent invalidated the will.
Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken
lightly in view of the importance and delicate nature of a will, considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are
no longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its contents. Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for his
acts. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a consequence of his breach of duty.
28. Ortega v. Valmonte
(G.R. No. 157451; December 16, 2005)
Alleged Defect:
Conflict between the dates appearing on the will of Placido Valmonte.
Ruling: The conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the document, because the law does not even
require that a notarial be executed and acknowledged on the same occasion.
29. AGAPITA N. CRUZ, petitioner, vs.
HON. JUDGE GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, Presiding Judge of Branch I, Court of First Instance of Cebu, and
MANUEL B. LUGAY,
FACTS: Petition to review on certiorari the judgment of the Court First Instance of Cebu allowing the probate of the last will a
testament of the late Valente Z. Cruz. Petitioner-appellant Agapita N. Cruz, the surviving spouse of the said decease opposed the
allowance of the will, alleging the will was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and undue influence; that the said
instrument was execute without the testator having been fully informed of the content thereof, particularly as to what properties
he was disposing and that the supposed last will and testament was not executed in accordance with law. Notwithstanding her
objection, the Court allowed the probate of the said last will and testament Hence this appeal by certiorari which was given due
course.
ISSUE: Whether the supposed last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz was executed in accordance with law, particularly
Articles 805 and 806 of the new Civil Code, the first requiring at least three credible witnesses to attest and subscribe to the will,
and the second requiring the testator and the witnesses to acknowledge the will before a notary public. Reduced to simpler terms,
the question was attested and subscribed by at least three credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other,
considering that the three attesting witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the same. 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.
9
RULING: 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.
Furthermore, the function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement. That function
would defeated if the notary public were one of the attesting instrumental witnesses. For them he would be interested sustaining
the validity of the will as it directly involves him and the validity of his own act. It would place him in inconsistent position and
the very purpose of acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud would be thwarted.
The notary public acted not only as attesting witness but also acknowledging witness, a situation not envisaged by Article 806 of
the Civil Code which reads: ART. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.
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 80 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. The
probate of the last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz is declared not valid and hereby set aside.
30. GARCIA V. VASQUEZ
Facts:
There were allegedly two wills executed by the testatrix Gliceria Del Rosario, one executed on June 9, 1956 and the other on
December 29, 1960. The decedent died in 1965 and left no descendant, ascendant or any brother or sister. Private respondent
filed for the probate of the latter will executed by the testatrix which was opposed by the petitioners who are relatives in the fifth
civil degree of the testator and are legatees in both wills. It is alleged that the second will was read silently by the testatrix when
it was made. The presentation of the ophthalmologist who treated the testatrix from 1960-1963 however testified that the
testatrix eyesight during the alleged time that the second will was executed, the eyesight if the testatrix was so poor that she
could not have read the will silently on her own.
Issue:
Whether or not the second will complies with the forms and solemnities required for by law
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the testatrix was legally blind in when the second will was executed based on the testimony of the
ophthalmologist. And when a testator is blind, Article 808 of the New Civil Code provides that when a testator is blind, the
entirety of the will must be read to the testator twice so that the testator can attest to or object to the provisions of the will and
make it so that the will contains the true wishes and intent of the testator. In this case it was alleged by the respondents that the
testatrix read the will silently after it was executed, which is opposed by the fact that the eyesight of the testatrix was so poor at
that time that she could not have read it on her own. For non-compliance with the requirements of Article 808 in the forms and
solemnities required by law for a will executed by a blind testator, the will executed in 1960 is invalid and probate for that will is
disallowed.
31. ALVARADO v. GAVIOLA
Facts: A 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.
Brigido's holographic will was subsequently admitted to probate, however a codicil entitled "Kasulatan ng Pagbabago
sa Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin ni Brigido Alvarado" was executed changing some dispositions in the
notarial will to generate cash for the testator's eye operation due to 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 and the notary public
who followed the reading using their own copies.

The notarial will was admitted to probate upon the testator's death but it was opposed by the petitioner 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.
Issues:
1. Was Brigido Alvarado blind at the time his "Huling Habilin" and its codicil were executed?
2. Was the double-reading requirement of said article complied with?
Ruling:
1. Yes. Art. 808 states that If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing
witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged.
In the case, regardless of respondent's contention that the testator was still capable of reading at the time his will and
codicil were prepared, the fact remains and this was testified to by his witnesses, that Brigido did not do so because of his
"poor," "defective," or "blurred" vision making it necessary for private respondent to do the actual reading for him.
2.Yes. The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator is to make the provisions thereof known
to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes.
In the case at bar, while it is true that the will was neither read by the notary public nor the instrumental witnesses,
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.
Hence, the spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there should be strict compliance
with the substantial requirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be
brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the testator's will.
32. CRUZ VS. VILLASOR
Facts/Defect in the will: Whether the last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz was executed in accordance with law,
particularly Articles 805 and 806 of the new Civil Code, the first requiring at least three credible witnesses to attest and subscribe
to the will, and the second requiring the testator and the witnesses to acknowledge the will before a notary public. The problem
lies with the fact that the third witness was the notary public who was also the one who acknowledged the same.
Held: The will was not 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. 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.
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement. That function
would defeated if the notary public were one of the attesting instrumental witnesses. For them he would be interested sustaining
the validity of the will as it directly involves him and the validity of his own act. It would place him in inconsistent position and
the very purpose of acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud, would be thwarted.
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 80 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.
33. RIZALINA GABRIEL GONZALES vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS et. al.
10
FACTS: Rizalina Gonzales and Lutgarda Santiago are the nieces of the deceased Isabel Gabriel who died a widow. A will was
thereafter submitted to probate. Lutgarda was named as the universal heir and executor.
The petitioner opposed the probate. She contends that the will was not executed and attested in accordance with law on the
issue of the competency and credibility of the witnesses. She argues that the requirement in Article 806, Civil Code, that the
witnesses must be credible is an absolute requirement which must be complied with before an alleged last will and testament
may be admitted to probate and that to be a credible witness, there must be evidence on record that the witness has a good
standing in his community, or that he is honest and upright, or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. According to petitioner,
unless the qualifications of the witness are first established, his testimony may not be favorably considered.
ISSUE: Is the credibility of the subscribing witnesses material to the validity of a will?
RULING: No, it is not.
Article 820 of the Civil Code provides the qualifications of a witness to the execution of wills while Article 821 sets forth the
disqualification from being a witness to a win. These Articles state:
Art. 820. Any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf or dumb,
and able to read and write, may be a witness to the execution of a will mentioned in article 806 of this
Code.
Art. 821. The following are disqualified from being witnesses to a will:
(1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines,
(2) Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony.
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.
The Court rejects 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.
34. In the matter of the testate estate of the deceased JUANA JUAN VDA. DE MOLO, et al. v. TANCHUCO, et al.
FACTS: Mariano Molo and Juana Juan was a couple possessed of much worldly wealth, but no children. They took into their
home and custody two baby girls. These two fortunate girls, now grown up women and married, are Emiliana Perez-Molo-
Peckson, a niece of Juana, and Pilar Perez-Nable a half sister of Emiliana. Mariano Molo died in January, 1941, and by will
bequeathed all his estate to his wife. Juana, his widow, died on May 28, 1950, leaving no forced heirs but only collateral, —
children and grandchildren of her sisters. She left considerable property worth around a million pesos or more, and to dispose of
the same, she was supposed to have executed on May 11, 1948, about two years before her death, a document purporting to be
her last will and testament, wherein she bequeathed the bulk of her property to her two foster children, Emiliana and Pilar.
The other relatives, such as Enrique Tanchuco, only son of Juana’s deceased sister Modesta, and others filed
opposition to the probate of the will on the ground that the instrument in question was not the last will and testament of
Juana; that the same was not executed and attested in accordance with law; that the said supposed will was secured through
undue pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries therein; that the signature of the testatrix was secured by fraud and
that she did not intend the instrument to be her last will; and that at the time the instrument was executed, the testatrix Juana was
not of sound and disposing mind.
ISSUE: Is the will valid?
RULING: Yes. The will is valid. From the evidence presented, it was proved to the full satisfaction of the Court that the
deceased freely and voluntarily executed her last will and testament, in the presence of her three attesting witnesses; that at the
time of the execution of the said will, the deceased was of sound mind and in good health and was fully conscious of all her
acts; said will was signed in the presence of the three attesting witnesses, who, likewise, signed in the presence of the testatrix

and in the presence of each other; that after the execution of said will or after the signing of the same, the deceased Juana Juan
Vda. de Molo took it with her and kept it in her possession and after her death, the said will was presented in court for probate.
The liberty to dispose of one’s estate by will when there are no forced heirs is rendered sacred by the Civil Code in
force in the Philippines since 1889. It is so provided in the first paragraph of article 763 in the following terms:
“‘Any person who has no forced heirs may dispose by will of all his property or any part of it in favor of any
person qualified to acquire it.’
Thus, in this case, it was neither unusual nor extraordinary that the testatrix, with no forced heirs, should have made her two
foster daughters, the beneficiaries in her will, to the exclusion of her blood relatives.
As to the credibility of the witnesses, Section 620 of the same Code of Civil Procedure provides that any person of
sound mind, and of the age of eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf, or dumb and able to read and write, may be a witness
to the execution of a will. This same provision is reproduced in the New Civil Code of 1950, under Art. 820. The relation of
employer and employee, or being a relative to the beneficiary in a will, does not disqualify one to be a witness to a will. The
main qualification of a witness in the attestation of wills, if other qualifications as to age, mental capacity and literacy are
present, is that said witness must be credible, that is to say, his testimony may be entitled to credence.
35. LABRADOR v. LABRADOR
FACTS: On June 10, 1972, Melecio Labrador died leaving a holographic will.On July 28, 1975, Sagrado Labrador (now
deceased but 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.
The trial court allowed the probate of the holographic will.The petition, principally alleges that the holographic will is really
dated, although the date is not in its usual place.
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.
RULING: The will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810. It is worthy of note
to quote the first paragraph of the second page of the holographic will, viz:
And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of
the said fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision and or
instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who made this writing is no other than MELECIO
LABRADOR, their father. (emphasis supplied) (p. 46, Rollo)
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.
36. DE JESUS V. DE JESUS
Facts: After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, a probate proceeding was conducted.
On March 26, 1973, petitioner Simeon R. Roxas, brother of Bibiana, was appointed administrator. 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. ...
11
Issue: W/N 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 which reads:
ART. 810. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator
himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.
Held: In particular, 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.
We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there
any substitution of Wins and Testaments. There is no question that the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus
was entirely written, dated, and signed by the testatrix herself and in a language known to her. There is also no question as to its
genuineness and due execution. All the children of the testatrix agree on the genuineness of the holographic Will of their mother
and that she had the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of said Will. The objection interposed by the oppositor-
respondent Luz Henson is that the holographic Will is fatally defective because the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic
Will is not sufficient compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code. This objection is too technical to be entertained.
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.
37. In re Will of Francisco Varela Calderon, deceased.
FRANCISCO CARMELO VARELA,
MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON, ET AL.,
Facts: This is an appeal taken by respondents from the judgment rendered ordering the allowance and probate of the document
marked Exhibit B as the last will and testament of the late Francisco Varela Calderon.
He decided to make his last will and testament (Exhibit B), on April 14, 1930, in Paris, France, with the assistance of attorneys
F. de Roussy de Sales, Gething C. Miller and Henri Gadd. Sometime later, that is on July 15, 1930, he died in the Grand-Hotel
de Leysin Sanatorium in Switzerland. petitioner-appellee, filed a petition praying that said will be admitted to probate. Said
petition was opposed by the deceased's brother . The grounds of the opposition are as follows: (a) That the will sought to be
probate was not holographic in character and did not comply with the requisites prescribed by article 970 of the French Civil
Code; (b) that the witnesses to the will did not possess the qualifications required by article 980 of the French Civil Code; (c)
that for not having complied with the requisites prescribed by the French law, said will is null and void; (d) that neither has it the
character of an open will, not having been executed in accordance with article 1001 of the French Civil Code; and (e) that the
provisions of article 1007 of the same Code relative to the recording of wills were not complied with in connection with the will
in question.
Issue: W/n the last will and testament of the deceased Francisco Varela Calderon, was a valid holographic will made and
executed, in accordance with the laws of the French Republic?
Ruling: The original will was executed in the French language and had been written, dated and signed by the testator with his
own hand, with the exception of the attestation clause which appears at the bottom of the document.
The petition for the allowance and probate of said will is based on the provisions of article 970 of the French Civil Code which
considers as a holographic will that which is made or executed, dated and signed by the testator in his own handwriting without
the necessity of any other formality, and on section 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure in force in this jurisdiction which
provides that a will made out of the Philippine Islands in accordance with the laws in force in the country in which it was made
and which may be allowed and admitted to probate therein, may, also be proved, allowed and recorded in the Philippine Islands
in the same manner and with the same effect as if executed in the latter country. Both provisions of law literally copied from the
English text, read as follows:

(Article 970, French Civil Code)
A holographic will is not valid unless it is entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator. No other formality is
required.
(Article 635, Code of Civil Procedure)
Will made out of the Philippine Islands. — A will made out of the Philippine Islands which might be proved and
allowed by the laws of the state or country in which it was made, may be proved, allowed, and recorded in the
Philippine Islands, and shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of these Islands.
the will was written, dated and signed by the deceased testator, for which reason, there is no doubt that it had been made and
executed in accordance with article 970 of the French Civil Code were it not for the attestation clause which appears at the
bottom of the document. Attestation clause drawn up in such manner is superfluous and does not affect in any way the essential
requisites prescribed for holographic wills by the French law, and, consequently, it has not invalidated the will nor deprived it of
its holographic character. The will in question did not lose its holographic character by the addition of the aforementioned
attestation clause and that it may be allowed to probate in conformity with the French laws under which it had been made and
executed.
In view of the foregoing, we believe it unnecessary to consider and pass upon the other grounds invoked by the opposition
consisting in the incapacity of the three witnesses who signed at the end of the attestation clause and the absence of the requisites
prescribed by the French Civil Code for the execution of open wills, inasmuch as the attorney for the appellee has conclusively
proved that the will in question is holographic, and we have so held and decided.
38. ROSA KALAW V. HONORABLE JUDGE BENJAMIN RELOVA
Facts: Private respondent Gregorio Kalaw, claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased sister, Natividad K. Kalaw, filed
a petition for the probate of her holographic will.
The holographic will, as first written, named Rosa K. Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix as her sole heir. Hence, 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.
Art. 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will the testator must
authenticate the same by his full signature.
Rosa Kalaw'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.
Issue:Do alterations, insertions, and/or additions in the will affect the validity of the will?
Ruling: 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.
12
39.SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND
DEFECT OF THE WILL: Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament's body nor the
signature therein was in decedent's handwriting; it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent;
and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence.
In the case at bench, respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne Sand was not executed in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by law. It held that Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code, ante, were not complied with, hence, it
disallowed the probate of said will. This is erroneous.
SC RULING: For purposes of probating non-holographic wills, these formal solemnities include the subscription, attestation,
and acknowledgment requirements under Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code.
In the case of holographic wills, on the other hand, what assures authenticity is the requirement that they be totally autographic
or handwritten by the testator himself, as provided under Article 810 of the New Civil Code, thus:
A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of
the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need
not be witnessed.
Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is
unquestionably handwritten by the testator.
A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in
the holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these
dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole testament void.
Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814.
Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on
testator's signature, 9 their presence does not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance
of such changes.
It is also proper to note that the requirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in
provisions (Articles 813 and 814) separate from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the validity of the
holographic will (Article 810). This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the requirements of
Article 810 of the New Civil Code — and not those found in Articles 813 and 814 of the same Code — are essential to the
probate of a holographic will.
40. EUGENIA CODOY VS. EVANGELINE CALUGAY
Facts: The decedent in this case is Matilde Ramonal, who left a will now under contest in favor of devisees and legatees
including herein respondent Evangeline Calugay, who claims to be the adopted daughter of the decedent. The will is presented
for probate and it was determined as a holographic will. The petitioners herein, relatives of the decedent contested the will on the
ground that it was crafted in a manner out of the ordinary: the signature of the testator appears every after item in the disposition
instead of one signature appearing after all the dispositions. The petitioners also alleged that the document was forged and they
presented various documentary evidences for comparing the signatures of the testator. The regional trial court ruled to deny the
probate of the will, there being no witnesses to testify on the authenticity of the holographic will as to the handwriting, buttressed
by the fact that there a grounded belief that the will was written by a hand not the testator’s.
The Court of Appeals ruled to reverse the RTC, holding that the provision of Article 805 on the requiring of
witnesses to testify for the validity of the will is merely permissive and not mandatory, for there are situations where no one may
be familiar with the handwriting of the testator, or if one is known to be familiar with such, he or she may not testify for the
same.
 13

Issue: Is the allegation of forgery sufficient to warrant the presentation of witnesses for the validity of a holographic will?
Ruling: Yes. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the tenor of Article 805 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The petitioners for
probate must present witnesses to testify as to the authenticity of the handwriting of the testator in the will. In addition, upon the
review of the records of the case, there exists evidence that casts doubt in the authenticity of the holographic will.
It was found in the testimony depositions that respondent Evangeline Calugay already had possession of the will 5
years prior to the Matilde’s death. It was likewise found that she concealed the existence of the will from the blood-relatives of
the testator until the latter’s death. In addition, the court analyzed the signatures appearing on the will and other documents
evidencing past transactions and it found that the strokes of the pen and the continuity of the flow of the signatures appearing in
the holographic will are awkward and apparently different from the documentary evidence presented. The Supreme Court
remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court of origin for presentation of witnesses and other necessary evidence.
41. JOSE RIVERA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
notary. The loss of the holographic will entails the loss of the only medium of proof; if the ordinary will is lost, the subscribing
witnesses are available to authenticate.
In fine, even if oral testimony were admissible to establish and probate a lost holographic will, the court thinks the
evidence submitted by herein petitioner is so tainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to that
"clear and distinct" proof required by Rule 77, sec. 6.
43. RODELAS V. ARANZA
FACTS:Appellant Marcela Rodelas filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla presenting to
the court a photostatic copy of said will as the original of the will was lost. But appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla, et al. opposed
the petition asserting that it should be the holographic will itself that must be produced in court and not an alleged copy thereof.
They anchored their opposition in the case of Gam v. Yap which declared that an alleged copy of the holographic will, produces
no legal effect.

Contention:
1. In the probate of a holographic will, Art. 811 of the NCC should have been applied. Such article states that if the will
is contested, at least three witnesses must explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of
the testator.
Court Ruling:
1. Jose Rivera, who contested the will, is not the son of the deceased Venancio Rivera whose estate is in question.
Hence, being a mere stranger, he had no personality to contest the wills and his opposition thereto did not have the
legal effect of requiring the three witnesses.
42. TESTATE ESTATE OF FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALTO-YAP DECEASED. FAUSTO E. GAN VS. ILDEFONSO
YAP
Facts: On 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of heart failure leaving properties in Pulilan, Bulacan, and in the City of
Manila. On 1952, Fausto E. Gan initiated them proceedings in the Manila court of first instance with a petition for the probate of
a holographic will allegedly executed by the deceased. 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 Hon. Ramon R. San Jose, Judge, refused to probate the alleged will.
ISSUE: Can a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found be proven by means of a photostatic copy?
RULING: YES.If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will cannot be probated
because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary that there be a comparison
between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will. But,a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the
holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made by the probate court with the standard writings of the testator.
The probate court would be able to determine the authenticity of the handwriting of the testator.
In the case of Gam vs. Yap,he Court ruled that the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be
proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented; otherwise, it
shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity.But, in Footnote 8 of said decision,
it says that “Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other
similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate
court”.

The will itself was not presented. Petitioner tried to establish its contents and due execution by the statements in open
court of Felina Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes, Socorro Olarte and Rosario Gan Jimenez. The trial judge refused to credit the
petitioner's evidence on account of the discrepancies arising from the facts. For one thing, it is strange that Felicidad made her
will known to so many of her relatives when she wanted to keep it a secret and she would not have carried it in her purse in the
hospital, knowing that her husband may have access to it. There was also no evidence presented that her niece was her confidant.
In the face of these improbabilities, the trial judge had to accept the oppositor's evidence that Felicidad did not and could not
have executed such holographic will.

Issue:May a holographic will be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it
was in the handwriting of the testator?

Held:No. The courts will not distribute the property of the deceased in accordance with his holographic will, unless they are
shown his handwriting and signature. It was further ruled that the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic
will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will.

In the probate of a holographic will, the document itself must be produced. Therefore, a lost holographic will cannot
be probated. When the will itself is not submitted, the means of opposition and of assessing the evidence, are not available. And
then, the only guaranty of authenticity—the testator’s handwriting—has disappeared.

In Ordinary and holographic wills, the difference lies in the nature of wills. In holographic wills, the only guarantee
of authenticity is the handwriting itself; in ordinary wills, the testimony of the subscribing or instrumental witnesses and of the