CANEDA V. CA GARCIA V.

LACUESTA

FACTS: Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children and already in the
twilight years of his life, executed a last will and testament before three attesting
witnesses, namely, Cipriano Labuca, Gregorio Cabando and Flaviano Toregosa. It
was declared therein, among other things, that the testator was leaving by way of
legacies and devises his real and personal properties to Presentacion Gaviola,
Angel Abatayo, Rogelio Abatayo, Isabelito Abatayo, Benoni G. Cabrera and
Marcosa Alcantara, all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator.
The petitioners contend that the attestation clause, in contravention of the express
requirements of the third paragraph of Article 805 of the Civil Code for attestation
clauses, fails to specifically state the fact that the the testator signed the will and
all its pages in the presence of the witnesses and that they, the witnesses, likewise
signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each
other.
ISSUE: Whether or not the attestation clause contained in the last will and
testament of the late Mateo Caballero complies with the requirements of Article
805, in relation to Article 809, of the Civil Code
HELD: YES. Article 805 provides that the attestation clause should state (1) the
number of the pages used upon which the will is written; (2) that the testator
signed, or expressly caused another to sign, the will and every page thereof in the
presence of the attesting witnesses; and (3) that the attesting 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. Failure to state the said facts shall invalidate the will.
FACTS: Antero Mercado’s made a will which is written in Ilocano dialect wherein it
appears that it was signed by Atty. Florentino Javiwe who wrote the name of
Antero. The testator was alleged to have written a cross immediately after his
name. The Court of First Instance found that the will was valid but the Court of
Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision holding that the attestation clause
failed: 1) to certify that the will was signed on all the left margins of the three
pages and at the end of the will by Atty. Javier at the express request of the
testator in the presence of the testator and each and every one of the witnesses;
2) to certify that after the signing of the name of the testator by Atty. Javier at the
former’s request said testator has written a cross at the end of his name and on the
left margin of the three pages of which the will consists and at the end thereof 3)
to certify that the witnesses signed the will in all the pages thereon in the presence
of the testator and of each other. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the attestation clause is valid.
RULING: No. The will is invalid because, the attestation clause is fatally defective for
failing to state that Antero Mercado caused Atty. Javier to write the testator’s
name under his express direction, as required by section 168 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the usual
signature of Antero Mercado or even one of the ways by which he signed his
name. After mature reflection, the SC is not prepared to liken the mere sign of the
cross to a thumbmark and the reason is obvious. The cross cannot and does not
have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.

In the present case, the attestation clause, while it recites that the testator indeed
signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses
and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does not
expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their
respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.

Under Article 809, the defects and imperfections of a will, with respect to the form
of the attestation or the language employed therein, would not render a will
invalid should it be proved that the will was really executed and attested in
compliance with Article 805.

The foregoing considerations do not apply where the attestation clause totally
omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will
in the presence of the testator and of each other. In such a situation, the defect is
not only in the form or language of the attestation clause but the total absence of
a specific element required by Article 805 to be specifically stated in the
attestation clause of a will.
 CALDE V. CA
FACTS: Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang, the decedent, left behind nine thousand
pesos (P9,000.00) worth of property. She also left a Last Will and Testament, and a
Codicil and named Nicasio Calde the executor or the Will and Codicil. Both
documents contained the thumbmarks of decedent. They were also signed by
three (3) attesting witnesses each, and acknowledged before Tomas A. Tolete,
then the Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mt. Province. The
named executor filed a Petition for its allowance. Unfortunately, he died during the
pendency of the proceedings, and was duly substituted by petitioner. Private
respondents, relatives of decedent, opposed the Petition filed by Calde,
questioning the legality and validity of the said documents under Art. 805 of the
Civil Code.
Two (2) of the six (6) witnesses testified that only one ballpen was used in signing
the two testamentary documents and were subscribed and attested by the
instrumental witnesses during a single occasion. However, on the face of the
document, the signatures of some of the attesting witnesses in the decedent’s will
and its codicil were written in blue ink while the others were in black. In addition,
Judge Tomas A. Tolete testified in narration as to how the documents in question
were subscribed and attested, starting from decedent’s thumbmarking thereof, to
the alleged signing of the instrumental witnesses thereto in consecutive order.
ISSUE: Whether or not, based on the evidence submitted, respondent appellate
court erred in concluding that both decedent’s Last Will and Testament, and its
Codicil were subscribed by the instrumental witnesses on separate occasions.
HELD: Evidence may generally be classified into three (3) kinds, from which a court
or tribunal may properly acquire knowledge for making its decision, namely: real
evidence or autoptic preference, testimonial evidence and circumstantial
evidence.
In the case at bench, the autoptic proference contradicts the testimonial
evidence produced by petitioner. Thus, it was not erroneous nor baseless for
respondent court to disbelieve petitioner’s claim that both testamentary
documents in question were subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of
Art. 805 of the Civil Code. Neither did respondent court err when it did not accord
great weight to the testimony of Judge Tomas A. Tolete since nowhere in Judge
Tolete’s testimony is there any kind of explanation for the different-colored
signatures on the testaments. The petition for review is denied. The Supreme Court
affirmed in toto the Decicion of the Court of Appeals.
ORTEGA V. VALMONTE
FACTS: Placido toiled and lived for a long time in the United States until he finally
reached retirement. In 1980, he finally came home to stay in the Philippines, and
lived in the house and lot which he owned in common with his sister Ciriaca
Valmonte. Two years after his arrival from the United States, and at the age of 80
he wed Josefina who was then 28 years old. But in a little more than two years of
wedded bliss, Placido died on October 8, 1984.
Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in English and consisting
of two (2) pages wherein he left all of his properties to his wife Josefina. But the
allowance to probate of the will was opposed by Leticia Valmonte, one of the
siblings of the deceased. One of the grounds raised in the opposition was the
mental capacity of the testator, alleging that at the time of the execution of the
will the testator was already 83 years old and was no longer of sound mind.
The trial court denied the probate of the will. The Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the court and admitted the will to probate.
ISSUE: Whether or not Placido Valmonte has testamentary capacity at the time he
allegedly executed the subject will
RULING: According to Article 799, the three things that the testator must have the
ability to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the nature of the
estate to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the testator's bounty, and (3)
the character of the testamentary act. Applying this test to the present case, the
Court finds that the appellate court was correct in holding that Placido had
testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of his will.
It must be noted that despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify
accurately the kinds of property he owned, the extent of his shares in them and
even their locations. As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient
that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. As stated earlier, the omission of
some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There being no
showing of fraud in its execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.
Worth reiterating in determining soundness of mind is Alsua-Betts v. CA, which held
thus: "Between the highest degree of soundness of mind and memory which
unquestionably carries with it full testamentary capacity, and that degrees of
mental aberration generally known as insanity or idiocy, there are numberless
degrees of mental capacity or incapacity and while on one hand it has been held
that mere weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from disease of body, or from
age, will not render a person incapable of making a will; a weak or feebleminded
person may make a valid will, provided he has understanding and memory
sufficient to enable him to know what he is about to do and how or to whom he is
disposing of his property. To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not
necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or unshattered by disease or
otherwise. It has been held that testamentary incapacity does not necessarily
require that a person shall actually be insane or of unsound mind."
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the AZUELA V. CA
Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
FACTS: Petitioner 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 pages and it was not signed by the
attesting witnesses at the bottom thereof. The said witnesses affixed their signatures
on the left-hand margin of both pages of the will though. Geralda Castillo
opposed the petition, claiming that the will was a forgery and that the true
purpose of its emergence was so it could be utilized as a defense in several court
cases filed by oppositor against petitioner, particularly for forcible entry and
usurpation of real property, all centering on petitioner’s right to occupy the
properties of the decedent.3 It also asserted that contrary to the representations of
petitioner, the decedent was actually survived by 12 legitimate heirs, namely her
grandchildren, who were then residing abroad. She also argued that the will was
not executed and attested to in accordance with law. She pointed out that the
decedent’s signature did not appear on the second page of the will, and the will
was not properly acknowledged.

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 than mandatory, and thus susceptible to what he termed
as “the substantial compliance rule.”

ISSUE: Whether or not the subject will is valid.

RULING: The court held that 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.

The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on which the will
was written remains a fatal flaw. 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. 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. 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 ALVARADO V. GAVIOLA
forms part of the will.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
FACTS: Seventy nine 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. As
testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary public and by private
respondent who were present at the execution, the testator did not read the final
draft of the will himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the
eight-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of the testator, the
three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The latter four followed the
reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them. Meanwhile,
Brigido's holographic will was subsequently admitted to probate on 9 December
1977.

On the 29th day of the same month, a codicil entitled "Kasulatan ng Pagbabago
sa Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na may Petsa Nobiembre 5,
1977 ni Brigido Alvarado" was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial
will to generate cash for the testator's eye operation. Brigido was then suffering
from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were unchanged.
As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not personally read the final draft
of the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who read it aloud in his presence
and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same as those of the
notarial will) and the notary public who followed the reading using their own
copies.

A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed upon the
testator's death on 3 January 1979 by private respondent as executor. Petitioner, in
turn, filed an Opposition. Subsequently, a Probate Order was issued. Upon appeal,
it was contended that the deceased was blind within the meaning of the law at
the time his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached thereto was executed; that
since the reading required by Art. 808 of the Civil Code was admittedly not
complied with, probate of the deceased's last will and codicil should have been
denied.

The Court of Appeals rendered the decision under review with the following
findings: that Brigido Alvarado was not blind at the time his last will and codicil
were executed; that assuming his blindness, the reading requirement of Art. 808
was substantially complied with when both documents were read aloud to the
testator with each of the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public
following the reading with their respective copies of the instruments. The appellate
court then concluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to the letter, there
was substantial compliance since its purpose of making known to the testator the
contents of the drafted will was served.

ISSUE: Was the double-reading requirement of Article 808 complied with?

RULING: Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will
shall be read twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the
notary public before whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make
known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before signing
and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is contrary to his instructions.
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead of the notary public
and an instrumental witness, it was the lawyer (private respondent) who drafted
the eight-paged will and the five-paged codicil who read the same aloud to the
testator, and read them only once, not twice as Art. 808 requires.
Private respondent however insists that there was substantial compliance and that
the single reading suffices for purposes of the law. The Court sustained private
respondent's stand. The Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial
compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the
reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intended
to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended
to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.
In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud in
the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary
public. Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that
the contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only then did the signing and
acknowledgement take place. There is no evidence, and petitioner does not so
allege, that the contents of the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known
and communicated to the testator. On the contrary, with respect to the "Huling
Habilin," the day of the execution was not the first time that Brigido had affirmed
the truth and authenticity of the contents of the draft. The uncontradicted
testimony of Atty. Rino is that Brigido Alvarado already acknowledged that the will
was drafted in accordance with his expressed wishes even prior to 5 November
1977 when Atty. Rino went to the testator's residence precisely for the purpose of
securing his conformity.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of respondent Court
of Appeals dated 11 April 1986 is AFFIRMED. Considering the length of time that this
case has remained pending, this decision is immediately executory. Costs against
petitioner.
LEE V. TAMBAGO
Facts:
 Complainant Manuel lee charged respondent Atty. Regino Tambago with
violation of the notarial law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarising a
spurious last will and testament.
 Complainant averred that his father, Vicente lee, Sr., never executed the
contested will. The signature of the two witnesses in the will are claimed to be
spurious.
 In the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his
wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to Vicente Lee,
Jr., and Elena Lee, half siblings of the complainant.
 Complainant claimed that while the will was executed and acknowledged on
June 1965, the decedent’s residence certificate noted in the acknowledgement
of the will was dated January 1962.
 Complainant also point out the absence of notation of the residence certificate
of the two witnesses in the will.
 Respondent answered that the complaint contain false allegations. He claimed
that the will and testament was validly executed and actually notarized by him
as per affidavit of Gloria Novato, common law wife of the decedent, and
corroborated by the joint-affidavit of the children of the decedent namely Elena
Lee and Vicente Lee.
 The RTC referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation.
 The IBP investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violation of the old
notarial law. Also, the violation constituted an infringement of legal ethics of the
CPR. The commissioner recommended the suspension of the respondent for a
period of 3 months.
 The IBP Board of Governors, in its resolution, adopted and approved with
modifications the recommendation of the commissioner. Respondent was
suspended from the practice of law for 1 year and his notarial commission was
revoked and disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2 years.
Issue: Whether or not the will is valid?
Ruling:
 The SC ruled that the will is invalid.
 The will was attested by only 2 witnesses and therefore it is considered void.
 A notarial will is required by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by the
testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by 3 or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
 The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on
bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to
guarantee their truth and authenticity.
 The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses.
 An Acknowledgement 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.
An Acknowledgement in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to safeguard
the testator’s wishes long after his demise, and (2) to assure that his estate is
administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.
 The acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this requirement was
neither strictly nor substantially complied with. There was an absence of a
 notation of the residence certificate of the notarial witnesses in the WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED
acknowledgement. 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 the law render the
entire will invalid.
 Respondent was suspended to practice law for a period of 1 year and his
notarial commission is revoked and he is perpetually disqualified from
reappointment as a notary public.
GUERRERO V. BIHIS

FACTS: Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner Bella A. Guerrero and

respondent Resurreccion A. Bihis, died. Guerrero filed for probate in the RTC
Quezon City. Respondent Bihis 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 requirement of the law; the
signature of the testatrix was procured by fraud and petitioner and her children
procure the will through undue and improper pressure and influence.

Petitioner Guerrero was appointed special administratix. Respondent opposed

petitioner’s appointment but subsequently withdrew her opposition. The trial court
denied the probate of the will ruling that Article 806 of the Civil Code was not
complied with because the was acknowledged by the testatrix and the witnesses
at the testatrix’s residence at No. 40 Kanlaon Street, Quezon City before Atty.
Macario O. Directo who was a commissioned notary public for and in Caloocan
City.

ISSUE: Does 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.

HELD: No. 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.

The notarial law provides:

Section 240. Territorial jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province

shall be co-extensive in the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City
of Manila shall be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall possess authority to
do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.

The compulsory language of Article 806 of the Civil Code was not complied with
and the interdiction of Article 240 of the Notarial Law was breached. Ineluctably,
the acts of the testatrix, her witnesses and Atty. Directo were all completely void.
 TABOADA V. ROSAL
Facts: The last will and testament of the late Dorotea Perez, written in the
Cebuano-Visayan dialect consists of two pages. The first page contains the entire
testamentary dispositions and is signed at the end or bottom of the page by the
testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the three (3) instrumental witnesses.
The second page which contains the attestation clause and the acknowledgment
is signed at the end of the attestation clause by the three (3) attesting witnesses
and at the left hand margin by the testatrix.
The petition filed for the probate of said will was denied by the trial court for want
of a formality in its execution.
Issue: For the validity of a formal notarial will, does Article 805 of the Civil Code
require that the testatrix and all the three instrumental and attesting witnesses sign
at the end of the will and in the presence of the testatrix and of one another?
Ruling: Under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will must be subscribed or signed at
its end by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by another person
in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three
or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
Attestation and subscription are two different things. Attestation consists in
witnessing the testator's execution of the will in order to see and take note
mentally that those things are, done which the statute requires for the execution of
a will and that the signature of the testator exists as a fact. On the other hand,
subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names upon the same paper for the
purpose of Identification of such paper as the will which was executed by the
testator. Insofar as the requirement of subscription is concerned, it is our
considered view that the will in this case was subscribed in a manner which fully
satisfies the purpose of Identification.
The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of
the will attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but
also the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby granted. The orders of the respondent
court which denied the probate of tile will, the motion for reconsideration of the
denial of probate, and the motion for appointment of a special administrator are
set aside. The respondent court is ordered to allow the probate of the wig and to
conduct further proceedings in accordance with this decision.
JABONETA V. GUSTILO
FACTS: 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 sign the
will in the presence of Isabelo Jena, another of the witnesses, as required by the
provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The testator, calling Julio Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and Isabelo Jena as
witnesses, executed 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was signed in the presence of all the witnesses
HELD: Yes. The fact that Jena was still in the room when he saw Javellana moving
his hand and pen in the act of affixing his signature to the will, taken together with
the testimony of the remaining witnesses which shows that Javellana did in fact
there and then sign his name to the will, convinces us that the signature was
affixed in the presence of Jena.
The fact that Jena was in the act of leaving, and that his back was turned while a
portion of the name of the witness was being written, is of no importance. He, with
the other witnesses and the testator, had assembled for the purpose of executing
the testament, and were together in the same room for that purpose, and at the
moment when the witness Javellana signed the document he was actually and
physically present and in such position with relation to Javellana that he could see
everything which took place by merely casting his eyes in the proper direction,
and without any physical obstruction to prevent his doing so, therefore we are of
opinion that the document was in fact signed before he finally left the room.
 ABANGAN V. ABANGANN
Facts: The will of Ana Abangan executed on July, 1916 was duly probated. The
opponents appealed. The document consists of two (2) sheets, the first of which
contains all of the disposition of the testatrix, duly signed at the bottom by Martin
Montalban (in the name and under the direction of the testatrix) and by three
witnesses. The following sheet contains only the attestation clause duly signed at
the bottom by the three instrumental witnesses. Neither of these sheets is signed on
the left margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses, nor numbered by letters;
and these omissions, according to appellants’ contention, are defects whereby
the probate of the will should have been denied. Further, appellants alleged
records do not show that the testatrix knew the dialect which the will is written.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was executed in accordance with the formal
requisites prescribed by law
RULING: The Supreme Court held that In requiring that each and every page of the
will should also be signed on the left margin by the testator and three witnesses in
the presence of each other evidently has for its object to avoid the substitution of
any of said sheets, thereby changing the testator’s disposition. But when these
dispositions are wholly written on only one sheet signed at the bottom by the
testator and three witnesses, their signatures on the left margin on the left margin
of said sheet would be completely purposeless. In requiring this signature on the
margin, the statute took into consideration, undoubtedly, the case of a will written
on several sheets and must have referred to the sheets which the testator and the
witnesses do not have to sign at the bottom.
As to the allegation that the testatrix did not know the dialect in which the will is
written, the circumstances appearing in the will itself that the same was executed
in the city of Cebu, and the dialect in the locality where the testatrix was a
neighbor is enough, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, to presume that
she knew this dialect in which the will is written.
The 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.
For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed
with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
ICASIANO V. ICASIANO
FACTS: Petitioner Celso Icasiano filed a petition for the allowance and admission to
probate of the alleged will of Josefa Villacorte, deceased. Petitioner also filed a
motion for the admission of an amended and supplemental petition, alleging that
the decedent left a will executed in duplicate with all the legal requirements, and
that he was, on that date, submitting the signed duplicate which he allegedly
found only after the filing of the petition. Respondent then filed her opposition; and
she petitioned to have herself appointed as a special administrator. The records
show that the original of the will, which was surrendered simultaneously with the
filing of the petition consists of five pages. 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 thereof; but the duplicate copy attached to the
amended and supplemental petition 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 of the original,
admits that he may have lifted two pages instead of one when he signed the
same, but affirmed that page 3was signed in his presence.
Oppositors-appellants in turn introduced expert testimony to the effect that the
signatures of the testatrix in the duplicate are not genuine nor were they written or
affixed on the same occasion as the original, and further aver that granting that
the documents were genuine, they were executed through mistake and with
undue influence and pressure because the testatrix was deceived into adopting
as her last will and testament the wishes of those who will stand to benefit from the
provisions of the will.
ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of one of the instrumental witnessess’ signature
on a page of the original copy of the will is fatal where the duplicate has the
complete signatures of the testator and all witnesses on every page.
RULING: The Court held that the testatrix signed both original and duplicate copies
of the will spontaneously, on the same in the presence of the three attesting
witnesses, the notary public who acknowledged the will; and Atty. Samson, who
actually prepared the documents. Moreover, there is no adequate evidence of
fraud or undue influence. The fact that some heirs are more favored than others is
proof of neither.
The 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 by 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.
 Furthermore, that the failure of witness Natividad to sign page three (3)
was entirely through pure oversight is shown by his own testimony as well as by the
duplicate copy of the will, which bears a complete set of signatures in every page.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs
against appellants.
CRUZ V. VILLASOR
FACTS: 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.
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 Balinon v. De Leon, 50 0. G. 583.) 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 (Report of Code
Commission p. 106-107), would be thwarted.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and
the probate of the last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz is declared not valid
and hereby set aside.

Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto, namely Deogracias T. Jamaloas Jr., Dr.
Francisco Pañares and Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr., one of them, the last named, is at
the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to have been
acknowledged. 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.

On the other hand, private respondent-appellee, Manuel B. Lugay, who is the

supposed executor of the will, following the reasoning of the trial court, maintains
that there is substantial compliance with the legal requirement of having at least
three attesting witnesses even if the notary public acted as one of them.

ISSUE: Whether 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.

RULING: After weighing the merits of the conflicting claims of the parties, the Court
sustained 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 (Javellana v. Ledesma, 97 Phil. 258, 262; Castro v. Castro,
100 Phil. 239, 247); to own as genuine, to assent, to admit; and "before" means in
front or preceding in space or ahead of. (The New Webster Encyclopedic
Dictionary of the English Language, p. 72; Funk & Wagnalls New Standard
Dictionary of the English Language, p. 252; Webster's New International Dictionary
2d. p. 245.) Consequently, if the third witness were the notary public himself, he
 ROXAS V. DE JESUS
FACTS: After the death of spouses Andres and Bibiana de Jesus, her family found a
notebook containing a holographic will. The letter-will was addressed to her
children, entirely written and signed in her handwriting and dated “FEB./61.” . A
special proceeding was instituted by Simeon, brother of Bibiana. Simeon was then
appointed administrator of the estate and consequently, he delivered to the lower
court a document purporting to be the holographic will of Bibiana which was then
set for a hearing. Luz Henson, one of the compulsory heirs filed an opposition to
probate assailing the purported holographic Will of Bibiana was not executed in
accordance with law. However, the lower court issued an order allowing the
probate which was found to have been duly executed in accordance with law. A
motion for reconsideration was then filed by Luz assailing that the alleged
holographic will was not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code and
contending that the law requires that the Will should contain the day, month and
year of its execution and that this should be strictly complied with. The court then
reconsidered its earlier order and disallowed the probate of the holographic will
on the ground that the word “dated” has generally been held to include the
month, day, and year.
ISSUE: Whether or not the date (FEB/61) appearing on the holographic will of the
deceased Bibian Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the
Civil Code.
RULING: Yes the date “FEB./61” appearing on the holographic Will of the
deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus complies with the requirement of Article 810 of
the Civil Code which states:
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.
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.
LABRADOR V. CA
FACTS: On June 10, 1972, Melecio Labrador died leaving behind a parcel of land
designated as Lot No. 1916 under Original Certificate of Title No. P-1652, and the
following heirs, namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina,
Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador, and 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.
Subsequently, on September 30, 1975, Jesus Labrador (now deceased but
substituted by his heirs), and Gaudencio Labrador filed an opposition to the
petition on the ground that the will has been extinguished or revoked by
implication of law, alleging therein that on September 30, 1971, that is, before
Melecio's death, for the consideration of P6,000, testator Melecio executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and conveying in favor of oppositors
Jesus and Gaudencio Lot No. 1916 and that as a matter of fact, O.C.T. No. P-1652
had been cancelled by T.C.T. No. T-21178.
Earlier however, in 1973, Jesus Labrador sold said parcel of land to Navat for only
P5,000. Sagrado thereupon filed, on November 28, 1975, against his brothers,
Gaudencio and Jesus, for the annulment of said purported Deed of Absolute Sale
over a parcel of land which Sagrado allegedly had already acquired by devise
from their father Melecio Labrador under a holographic will executed on March
17, 1968, the complaint for annulment, being premised on the fact that the
aforesaid Deed of Absolute Sale is fictitious.
Thereafter, the trial court rendered a joint decision allowing the probate of the
holographic will and declaring null and void the Deed of Absolute sale. The court
a quo had also directed the respondents to reimburse to the petitioners the sum of
P5,000.00 representing the redemption price for the property paid by the plaintiff-
petitioner Sagrado with legal interest thereon from December 20, 1976, when it
was paid to vendee a retro.
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 petition, which principally alleges that the holographic will is really
dated, although the date is not in its usual place, is impressed with merit. The will
has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with
Article 810.The law does not specify a particular location where the date should
be placed in the will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself
and executed in the hand of the testator. These requirements are present in the
subject will.
Anent the second issue of finding the reimbursement of the P5, 000 representing
the redemption price as erroneous, respondent court's conclusion is incorrect.
When private respondents sold the property (fishpond) with right to repurchase to
Navat for P5, 000, they were actually selling property belonging to another and
which they had no authority to sell , rendering such sale null and void. Petitioners,
thus "redeemed" the property from Navat for P5, 000, to immediately regain
possession of the property for its disposition in accordance with the will. Petitioners
therefore deserve to be reimbursed the P5, 000.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 10, 1988
is hereby REVERSED. The holographic will of Melecio Labrador is APPROVED and
ALLOWED probate. The private respondents are directed to REIMBURSE the
petitioners the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
RODELAS V. ARANZA
FACTS: On January 11, 1977, appellant filed a petition for the probate of the
holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her
favor. The petition was opposed by the appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla, Wilferine
Bonilla Treyes Expedita Bonilla Frias and Ephraim Bonilla on the following grounds:
(1) Appellant was estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will by
failing to produce the will within twenty days of the death of the testator as
required by Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules of Court;
(2) The alleged copy of the alleged holographic will did not contain a
disposition of property after death and was not intended to take effect after
death, and therefore it was not a will
(3) The alleged hollographic will itself,and not an alleged copy thereof,
must be produced, otherwise it would produce no effect, as held in Gam
v. Yap, 104 Phil. 509; and
(4 ) The deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise,
executed and attested as required by law.
ISSUE: Whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be
proved by means of a photostatic copy.
HELD: Yes. A photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be
allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the
testator. Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is
the allowance of the will by the court after its due execution has been proved. 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. 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," Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or
destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the
handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.
WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court dated October 3, 1979, denying
appellant's motion for reconsideration dated August 9, 1979, of the Order dated
July 23, 1979, dismissing her petition to approve the will of the late Ricardo B.
Bonilla, is hereby SET ASIDE.
 CODOY V. CALUGAY
FACTS: On April 6, 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo, Eufemia Patigas,
devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda.
De Ramonal, filed with the Regional Trial Court, a petition for probate of the
holographic will of the deceased, who died on January 16, 1990.
On June 28, 1990, Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an
opposition to the petition for probate, alleging that the holographic will was a
forgery and that the same is illegible. This gives an impression that a “third hand”
of an interested party other than the “true hand” of Matilde Seño Vda. De
Ramonal executed the holographic will.
Respondent presented six (6) witnesses and various documentary evidence.
However, the lower court denied probate of the will for insufficiency of evidence
and lack of merits.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not analyzing the signatures in
the holographic will of Matilde Seño Vda. De Ramonal.
RULING: The article provides, as a requirement for the probate of a contested
holographic will, that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the signature in
the will is the genuine signature of the testator.
The Supreme Court was convinced, based on the language used, that Article 811
of the Civil Code is mandatory. The SC ruled that “shall” in a statue commonly
denotes an imperative obligation and is consistent with the idea of discretion and
the presumption is that the word “shall”, when used in a statue is mandatory.
It will be noted that not all the witnesses presented by the respondents testified
explicitly that they were familiar with the handwriting of the testator. In the case of
Augusto Neri, Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance, Misamis Oriental, he merely
uidentified the record of said case before said court. He was not presented to
declare explicitly that the signature appearing in the holographic was that of the
deceased.
There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the signature and the
handwriting of the deceased with other documents signed and executed by her
during her lifetime. The only chance of comparison was when the lawyer of
petitioners asked Ms. Binanay during the cross-examination to compare the
documents having the signature of the deceased with that of the holographic will
and she is not a handwriting expert. Even the former lawyer of the deceased
expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the signature in the holographic will.
KALAW V. RELOVA
FACTS: On September 1, 1971, private respondent GREGORIO K. KALAW, claiming
to be the sole heir of his deceased sister, Natividad K. Kalaw, filed a petition for the
probate of her holographic Will executed on December 24, 1968.
The holographic Will, as first written, named ROSA K. Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix
as her sole heir. Hence, on November 10, 1971, petitioner ROSA K. Kalaw opposed
probate alleging, in substance, that the holographic Will contained alterations,
corrections, and insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature
of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code.
ROSA's position was that the holographic Will, as first written, should be given effect
and probated so that she could be the sole heir thereunder.
After trial, respondent Judge denied probate.
ISSUE: Whether or not the alterations, insertions, and/or additions in the will affect
its validity
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.
WHEREFORE, this Petition is hereby dismissed and the Decision of respondent
Judge, dated September 3, 1973, is hereby affirmed in toto. No costs.
 AJERO V. CA ASIDE, except with respect to the invalidity of the disposition of the entire house
and lot in

FACTS: On January 20, 1983, petitioners instituted Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, for
allowance of decedent's holographic will. They alleged that at the time of its
execution, she was of sound and disposing mind, not acting under duress, fraud or
undue influence, and was in every respect capacitated to dispose of her estate
by will.
Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 94 in Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, dated November 19, 1988,
admitting to probate the holographic will of decedent Annie Sand, is hereby
REINSTATED, with the above qualification as regards the Cabadbaran property. No
costs.

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. The petition was likewise opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero. He contested the
disposition in the will of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan Del
Norte. He claimed that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its
entirety, as she was not its sole owner.

Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court admitted the decedent's

holographic will to probate. On appeal, said Decision was reversed, and the
petition for probate of decedent's will was dismissed. The Court of Appeals found
that, "the holographic will fails to meet the requirements for its validity." It held that
the decedent did not comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code

ISSUE: Whether or not the will should be admitted for probate

RULING: 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.

In the case of holographic wills, 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.

Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made

on the date of the holographic will or on testator's signature, their presence does
not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in
disallowance of such changes.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, dated March 30, 1992, is REVERSED and SET
 AZAOLA V. SINGSON
FACTS:
Fortunata S. Vda. De Yance died in Quezon City on September 9, 1957. Petitioner
submitted for probate her holographic will, in which Maria Azaola was made the
sole heir as against the nephew, who is the defendant. Only one witness,
Francisoco Azaola, was presented to testify on the handwriting of the testatrix. He
testified that he had seen it one month, more or less, before the death of the
testatrix, as it was given to him and his wife; and that it was in the testatrix’s
handwriting. He presented the mortgage, the special power of the attorney, and
the general power of attorney, and the deeds of sale including an affidavit to
reinforce his statement. Two residence certificates showing the testatrix’s signature
were also exhibited for comparison purposes.
The probate was opposed on the ground that (1) the execution of the will was
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
petitioner and his wife, and (2) that the testatrix did not seriously intend the
instrument to be her last will, and that the same was actually written either on the
5th or 6th day of August 1957 and not on November 20, 1956 as appears on the
will.
“who know the handwriting and signature of the testator” and who can declare
(truthfully, of course, even if the law does not so express) “that the will and the
signature are in the handwriting of the testator”. There may be no available
witness of the testator’s hand; or even if so familiarized, the witnesses may be
unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of
Article 811 may thus become an impossibility.
This is the reason why the 2nd paragraph of Article 811 allows the court to resort to
expert evidence. The law foresees the possibility that no qualified witness may be
found (or what amounts to the same thing, that no competent witness may be
willing to testify to the authenticity of the will), and provides for resort to expert
evidence to supply the deficiency.
What the law deems essential is that the court should be convinced of the will’s
authenticity. Where the prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the court
is convinced by their testimony that the will is genuine, it may consider it
unnecessary to call for expert evidence. On the other hand, if no competent
witness is available, or none of those produced is convincing, the Court may still,
and in fact it should, resort to handwriting experts. The duty of the Court, in fine, is
to exhaust all available lines of inquiry, for the state is as much interested as the
proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried into effect.

The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the Civil Code,
the proponent must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and
the signature are in the writing of the testatrix, the probate being contested; and
because the lone witness presented “did not prove sufficiently that the body of
the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix.”

Petitioner appealed, urging: first, that he was not bound to produce more than
one witness because the will’s authenticity was not questioned; and second, that
Article 811 does not mandatorily require the production of three witnesses to
identify the handwriting and signature of a holographic will, even if its authenticity
should be denied by the adverse party.

ISSUE:

W/N Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory or permissive.

HELD:

Article 811 is merely permissive and not mandatory. Since the authenticity of the
will was not contested, petitioner was not required to produce more than one
witness; but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, Article
811 can not be interpreted to require the compulsory presentation of three
witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the
probate denied. Since no witness may have been present at the execution of a
holographic will, none being required by law (Art. 810, new Civil Code), it
becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing the requisite
qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. For it is not merely a
question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be witnesses