VITUG VS CA

SARMIENTO

FACTS

Romarico filed a motion from the probate court to sell shares of stock
and real properties belonging to the estate of his late wife to cover allegedly his
advances to the estate in the sum of P667,731. Rowena, the executrix, opposed
on the ground that the same funds withdrawn from their savings account were
conjugal partnership properties and part of the estate, and hence, there was
allegedly no ground for reimbursement.
Romarico insisted they are his exclusive property acquired through a
survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank that after the
death of either of them, the funds shall be the sole property of the surviving
spouse. The trial court upheld its validity but on appeal, the CA held that it is a
conveyance mortis causa which did not comply with the formalities of a valid
will
ISSUE
WON the survivorship agreement between spouses Vitug constitute donation?
HELD
NO. Mortis causa should be embodied in a will whereby a capacitated
person disposes his property and rights and declares or complies with duties to
take effect after his death.
In this case the money subject of savings account were in the nature of
conjugal funds in the case relied on.

SENGIO VS REYES
AZUNA J

FACTS
Private respondent filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate
estate of the late Segundo Sengio. It was opposed by the petitioners for the
main reasons that in the event that decedent is found to have a will instestate
proceedings are to be automatically replace by probate proceedings. Private
respondent moved for the dismissal of probate because the said holographic
will does not contained disposition of property of Segundo it only shows alleged
act of disinheritance. It also resulted into intestacy because all other
compulsory heir were not named nor instituted hence there is preterition.
RTC- dismissed the petition for probate, there is preterition only heirs
mentioned are alfredo and Virginia.
ISSUE
WON the holographic will executed by Segundo should be declared void?
 HELD
No. Segundo’s documents although it may appear as a mere
disinheritance instrument it conforms with the formalities of a holographic will
specified in art.810 NCC.
In this case it is clear that the intent of dispose mortis causa can be
clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument even if it does not made an
affirmative disposition of property, the inheritance of alfredo is an act of
disposition itself.

DIZON RIVERA VS DIZON

TEEHANKEE J.

FACTS
Testatrix Agripina Valdez was survived by 7 compulsory heirs, she left a
last will and testament. Upon probated the petitioner was appointed as
executrix of the decedent’s estate. In her will she commanded that her
properties be divided among her compulsory heirs.She also devised and
bequeathed specific real properties regarding her entire estate among her heirs.
Under that will the petitioner where able to received as much more than the
other heirs would received. The respondent heirs opposed the partition and
wanted the executrix to receive less than what was stated in the will.
ISSUE
WON the provision in the last will and testament should be upheld?
HELD
Yes. The testator’s wishes and intention constitute the first and principal
law in the matter of testament.
In this case, the testamentary disposition of the decedent was in the
nature of a partition. In her will the decedent commanding that upon her death
all her obligation in accordance with law shall be paid. This was valid partition
of the estate in accordance with first p.of art.1080 of ncc.

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE REV. FR. PASCUAL RIGOR VS

BELINDA RIGOR
APRIL 30,’79 AQUINO

FACTS
Fr. Rigor , the parish priest died in 1935, leaving a will in 1933 which
was probated by the court. Named devisees in the will were the testator’s
nearest relatives, his 3 sisters and 1 cousin. The will also contained a bequest
to be given to the nearest male relative who shall pursue an ecclesiastical
career until his ordination as a priest. In as much as no nephew of the testator
claimed the devise and as the administratrix and the legal heirs believed that
the parish priest of Victoriano had no right to administer the lands, the same
were not delivered to the ecclesiastic.
Thereafter the ecclesiastica filed in the pending testate proceeding as
petition for the appointment of a new administrator and praying for the delivery
of ricelands to the church as a trustee. The instestate heirs countered that the
bequest be rendered inoperative and that they be adjudged as the person
entitled to the said ricelands since an admitted by the ecclesiastic no nearest
male relative of the testator has ever studied for the priesthood.
LC- declared the bequest inoperative and award the ricelands to the heirs.
MR- the administrator was directed to deliver the ricelands to the ecclesiastic
because the testator had a nephew who was a seminarian.
CA- It ruled that Fr. Rigor created a testamentary trust for his neares male
relative who would take the holy orders but the same could only exist for 20yrs.
ISSUE
WON the after the testator’s death falls within the intention of the testator in
providing to whom the bequest is given?
HELD
NO. The court held that the said bequest refers to the testator’s nearest
male relative living at time of his death and not to any indefinite time.
In this case when the testator died, his nearest heirs were his 3 sisters.
When the testator specified his nearest male relative, he must have in his mind
his nephew or a son of his sister or possibly a grandnephew. But since he
could not known the exact date of his death, he could not specify that his
nearest male relative would be his nephew or grandnephew.

BELLIS VS BELLIS
BENGZON JP

FACTS
Amos executed a will in the Philippines directing that $240,000 of his
distributable estate shall go to his first wife; P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate
children, Amos Jr., Maria, Miriam; and the remainder shall go to his seven
surviving children by his first and second wives.
Maria and Miriam filed opposed the project of partition on the ground that
they were deprived of their legitimes as compulsory heirs. Applying the national
law of the decedent under Article 16, the lower court ruled that Texas law did
not provide for legitimes. Maria and Miriam countered that Article 17 prevails
over Article 16 which states prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or
property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and
good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign
country. They also pointed out that Amos executed two wills; one to govern his
Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate, arguing that he intended
Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate.

ISSUE
Whether Texas law or Philippine law will govern the will?
HELD
 Texas law. According to Article 16 of the Civil Code, second paragraph a
specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and instestate
succession. Congress added a new provision art 1039 which decrees that
capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the decedent.
In the instant case Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the state of texas USA
and that under the law of Texas there are no force heirs or legitimes.
Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the
amount of successional rights are to be determine under Texas Law, the Ph.
Law on legitime cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.

VDA. VILLAFLOR VS JUICO

JBL REYES

FACTS
Don Nicolas Villaflor made a will in Spanish, bequeathing in favor of his
wife Dona fauta. Don Nicolas died childess. Dona fausta was appointed as
administrator and subsequently entitled for the possession and enjoyment of
the estate mentioned in clause 7th of the will. The 8th clause provides that
Dona fausta is entitled to the possession and enjoyment of all properties which
she still alive and does not remarried otherwise it will go to the decedent
grandniece.
Plaintiff filed for special proceedings against juico and claimed that
she was the grandniece in the will. She averred that upon Dona Fausta’s death
she became vested with the ownership of the properties. Defendant argued that
the title to the properties became vested in fausta upon death because she
never remarried.
ISSUE
WON the plaintiff cannot get the properties mentioned on the ground
that Dona fausta did not remarried?
HELD
NO. The court held that the lower court in holding that Leonor villaflor as
a revesionary legatee could only succeed to the properties on the event that the
widow remarried, in doing so the said court violated Art 791 and sec 59 of ROC
“ the words of a will which are to received an interpretation which will give to
every expression some effect rather than to render any expression inoperative.
In this case the intent of the testator was to invest his widow only a
usufruct of life tenure in the properties with the condition that if she remarried
her rights would cease. Hence. even if she did not remarry the properties will
succeed by the plaintiff.

BAGTAS VS PAGUIO
TRENT J

FACTS
Paguio who was the testator suffered a paralysis of the left side of his
body and year prior to his death he suffered impairment in hearing and loss in
speech. However it was not shown that he lacks in mental capacity. The widow
of the decedent sought to probate the last will and testament. But the son of
the deceased in his first marriage opposed and said that the testator was no in
full mental condition during the creation of the will.
ISSUE
WON the weakness of mind by reason of age will render the will nugatory?
HELD
NO. The court held that a mere weakness of mind and body due to age or
disease does not render a person incapable of creating a will.
In this case the testator has never been adjudicated as insane by any
court of competent jurisdiction and there were no proper evidence shown by
the son that his father is totally insane.

LOPEZ VS LIBORO
TUAZON J

FACTS
The will subject of the controversy is the last will and testament of Don
Sixto Lopez. The appellant opposed the probate on the grounds that at the time
of the execution of the will, he was wanting in testatamentary as well as mental
capacity due to advanced age and was suffering from partial paralysis.
ISSUE
WON the thumbmark used by the testator is sufficient in lieu of his signature?
HELD
Yes. The court took notice of the fact that the testator was suffering form
partial paralysis. The court added that it was a matter of taste of preference. A
statute requiring a will to be signed is satisfied if the signature is made by the
testator’s

SUROZA VS HONRADO
AQUINO J

FACTS
Spouses Marcelina and Mauro Suroza were childless. The reared a boy
named Agapito. When Mauro Suroza died, Marcelina became pensioner of the
Federal Gov’t. Agapito was also a soldier was took care of his wife Nenita.
Later Spouses SY begot a child name Marilyn who awas later delivered to
Marcelina who brought up as granddaughter of Marilyn, was legally adopted by
Agapito. Marcelina executed a notarial will in English was thumbmark by her
despite the fact that she was illiterate. In that will, Marcelina bequeathed all
her estate to Marilyn and it was approved by Judge Honrado.
ISSUE
 WON Notarial will written in English language should be void?
HELD
Yes, It was disallowed. Civil code provides that Notarial Will should be
written in a language or dialect known to the testator. Art 804 NCC provides
every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.
In this case the respondent judge on perusing the will and noting that
the will was written in English and was thumbmark by illiterate testatrix, could
have readily perceived that the will is void.

REYES VS. VDA DE VIDAL

BAUTISTA ANGELO

FACTS
Maria Zuniga Vda. De Pando created a will before she died, as such a
petition for probate of the will was filed. Her sister Dolores filed an opposition
based on several grounds: a) That the signature of the deceased are not
genuine; b) The language used was not known by the Testatrix(Spanish); c) The
testatrix was not in sound mind when signing the will. Several witnesses
attested to the execution of the will, but the lower court disallow the probate
because of an expert opinion that the said signatures are not genuine due to its
inconsistency.
ISSUE
WON the will be probated notwithstanding the allegations raised by the
respondent?
HELD
Yes, The court gives weight to another expert opinion that the signature
made in 1941 may involve characteristic different from 1945 due to its passing
of time and increase in age, may have affect the characteristic of a person. As
regards to Spanish language, since the deceased was a meztiza espanola
married to a Spaniard and made several trip to Spain. Such facts give rise to
the presumption that the testatrix knew the language in which the testament
was written.

ABANGAN VS ABANGAN
AVANCENA

FACTS
The trial court admitted Ana Abangan’s probate. The will is described in
the following manner: The Ist Sheet contains all the disposition of the testatrix
signed at the bottom by Martin Montalban ( in the name and under the
direction of Ana Abangan) and signed by 3 witness; the 2nd sheet – contains
only the attestation clause, duly signed by the testatrix herself.
 The respondent appealed from the decision and averted that the probate
should have been denied on the ground that it was written in a dialect that the
testatrix did not understand.
ISSUE
WON the probate should have been admitted?
HELD
Yes, the circumstance appearing in the will itself that the same was
executed in the City of Cebu and in the dialect of this locality where the
testatrix was a neighbor is enough, in the absence of any proof to the contrary,
to presume that she knew this dialect in which the will is written.

LEE VS TAMBAGO
CORONA J

FACTS
In his will executed before Atty. Regino, Vicente Sr. bequeathed his entire
estate to his wife Lim, desvised a parcel of land to Vicente Jr. and Elena Lee,
half-siblings of Manuel. Manuel averred that will is spurious and contained the
forged signatures of Cayetano and Loreto, the purported witnesses to its
execution. Atty. Regino countered that Manuel was not a legitimate son of
Vicente Sr. and the last will and testament was validly executed per joint
affidavit of the former’s wife and children.

ISSUE
WON the will is spurious?
HELD
Yes, Tambago violated the Notarial Law and the ethics of legal profession.
A Notarial Will is required by law to be subscribed a t the end thereof by the
testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or
more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
In this case the in question was attested by only two witnesses. On this
circumstances alone, the will must be considered void.

TESTATE ESTATE OF ABADA VS ABAJA

CARPIO J

FACTS
Abada and his wife Toray died without legitimate children. Abaja filed a
petition for probate of will of Abada. The latter named as his testamentary heirs
his natural children Eulogio Abaja and Rosario Cardona. ( Eulogio father of the
respondent. Capanong opposed the petition on the ground that the deceased
abada left no will when he died and there if there was it should be disallowed:a)
it was not executed and attested as required by law; b) it was not intended as
the laws will of the testator; c) It was procured by undue influence and an
improper pressure. Respondent filed another petition for the probate of a will of
toray. It was opposed again by Capanong and filed for the issuance of his name
of letter of administration of intestate and testate of abada and toray.
RTC- admitted to probate the will of abada.CA-affirmed.
ISSUE
a)WON laws apply to the probate of the last will of abada;
b)WON the will of abada requires acknowledgement before a notary
public;
c)WON the will must expressly state that it is written in a language
or dialect known to the testator;
d) WON the will of Abada has an attestation clause, and if so,
whether the attestation clause complies with the requirement of the
applicable laws;

HELD
a) Abada executed his will on june 4 1932. The laws that enforce
at that time are the civil code of 1889 or old civil code.
. b) NO. the respondent capanong-noble cited article 806 of NCC
that every will must acknowledged before notary public by the testator and the
witnesses. However the code of civil procedure repealed article 685 of the old
civil code under that civil procedure the intervention of a notary public is not
necessary in the execution of any will. Therefore abada’s will does not require
acknowledgement before notary public.
c)NO, because no statutory requirement to state in the will itself
that the testator knew the language or dialect used in the will. Abada used to
gather Spanish-speaking people in their place.
d) No. The pages are numbered correlatively with the letters ONE
and TWO as can be gleaned from the phrases UNO y DOS. Also upon
examination of the will it shows that three witnesses signed it. Attestation
clause clearly states that Abada signed the will and its every page in the
presence of the witness

PAYAD VS TOLENTINO
DIAZ J

FACTS
Petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the will of the decedent
Leoncia Tolentino and was later opposed by Aquilina Tolentino on the grounds
that the said will was made only after the death of the deceased. RTC denied
the probate on the ground that attestation clause was not conformed with the
requirements of the law since it was not shown that the deceased testatrix
cause the one who write her name Atty. Almario at her express direction. And
the said lawyer merely wrote her name to indicate the place where she placed
her thumbmark.
ISSUE
WON the said will should be invalid?
HELD
NO. Jurisprudence dicatates that a statute requiring a will to be signed
is satisfied if the signature is made by the testator’s mark. It is clear therefore
that it is not necessary that the attestation clause should state that the
testatrix requested to sign her name.

DE GALA VS GONZALES
OSTRAND J

FACTS
In 1920 Severina Gonzales executed a will in which Serapia, a niece of Severina
was designated as executrix. The testatrix died in 1926 leaving no heirs.
Serapia through her counsel, presented the will for probate. Apolinario
Gonzales, a nephew of the deceased, filed an opposition on the ground that it
had not been executed in conformity with the provisions of the law. Serapia
was appointed as special administratrix of the estate of the deceased but was
later on replace by Sinfroso Ona the surviving husband of the deceased.
Later the court declared the will valid and admitted it to probate.
Apolinario and Sinfroso appealed from the order probating the will. The
principal points raised by the appeal are: That the person requested to sign the
name of the testatrix had signed only the latter’s name and not her own; that
the attestation clause does not mention the placing of the thumbmark of the
testatrix in the will; the fact that the will had been signed in the presence of the
witnesses was no stated in the attestation clause but only in the last paragraph
of the body of the will.

ISSUE
WON the principal points raised in the appeal invalidates the will?
a) That the person requested to sign the name of the testatrix signed only
the latter’s name and her own?
b) That the attestation clause does not mentioned the placing of the
thumbmark.
c) The fact the will was signed in the presence of the witnesses was not
stated in the attestation clause but only on the last paragraph.
HELD
No. with regard to the 1st point, theSC said that the will shall be signed
by the person requested to write the name of the testatrix, However the law
that governed in this case is the law prior to the amendment which provides
that it is unimportant so far as the validity of a will is concerned whether the
person requested sign his own or not.
As to the 2nd and 3rd. It may be conceded that the attestation clause is
not artistically drawn and that, standing alone ,it does not quited meet the
requirements of the statute, but taken in connection with last clause of the
body of the will, it is fairly and sufficiently carries out the legislative intent it
leaves no possible doubt as to the authenticity of the document.

GARCIA VS LACUESTA
PARAS

FACTS
The will was signed by Atty. Florentino by writing the name of the
decedent Antero. Antero wrote a cross after his name. The CA reversed the
decision of the CFI and held that the attestation clause failed 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. Florentino at the express request of the testator in the presence of
the testator and each and every one of the witnesses; To certify that the signing
of the name of the testator by atty. Javier at the former’s request and that the
testator written a cross at the end of his name at the end on the left margin of
the 3pages will; To certify that the 3 witnesses signed the will in all pages
thereon in the presence of the testator and of each other.

ISSUE
WON the cross signed of Antero was a sufficient signature?
HELD
No. The cross appearing on the will is not the usual signature of Antero
nor even one of the ways by which he signed his name. The cross cannot and
does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.

BALONAN VS ABELLANA
LABRADOR

FACTS
Anacleta left a will. In said will, she let a certain Juan bello signed the
will for her. The will consists of 2 pages, the first page was signed by juan bello
and under his name appears typewritten “Por la testadora Anacleta Abellan”.
On the 2nd pages appears the signature of juan bello under whose name
appears the phrase “Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana this time the the
phrase was handwritten.
ISSUE
WON the signature of bello appearing above the typewritten phrase “Por la
testadora Anacleta Abellana” comply with the requirements of the law?
 HELD
NO. SC held that the name of testator should have written at the bottom
of the will. As provide in article 618 that will not sufficient that the one of the
attesting witnesses signs the will at the testator’s request but it is necessary
that the testator’s name be written by the person signing in the place where he
could have signed in the presence of the testator and by the latter’s direction
In this case the name of the of the testatrix Anacleta Abellan does not
appear written under the will by said Abellana herself or by Juan Abello.
Therefore it does not comply with the requirements of the law.

BARUT VS CABACUNGAN
MORELAND J.

FACTS
Maria Solomon who is unable to read and write made a last will and
testament commanding a guy named Severo Agayan to sign her name to it as
testatrix and was red to her by other two witnesses. The relatives contested the
will on several grounds. LC disallowed the will because there was a discrepancy
between handwriting and signature of a person that was alleged to be and
other witnesses.
ISSUE
WON the discrepancy or dissimilarity is a ground to disallowed the probate?
HELD
NO. said dissimilarity was not given more weight against the
uncontradicted testimony of all the witnesses. Moreover it is immaterial that
another person wrote the name of the testatrix so long as there is consent of
request made by the testatrix and in the presence of all credible witnesses
during the creation of the will.

NERA VS RIMANDO
CARSON

FACTS
This proceeding is to probate the last will and testament of Pedro
Rimando. The opponent in this case questioned the due execution of the
instrument as to whether one of the subscribing witnesses was present in the
small room where the will was executed at the time when the testator and the
other subscribing witnesses attached their signatures; or whether at that time
he was outside, some 8 or 10 away, in a large room connecting with smaller
room by a doorway, across which was hung a curtain which made it impossible
for one in the outside to see the testator and the other subscribing witnesses in
the act of attaching their signatures to the instrument.
ISSUE
WON testator and the subscribing witness signed the will in the presence of
each other?
HELD
Yes. Jurisprudence dictates that the position of the parties with relation
to each other at the moment of the subscription of each signature, must be
such that they may see each other sign if they choose to do so. This, of course
does not mean that the testator and the subscribing witnesses may be held to
have executed the instrument in the presence of each other if it appears that
they would not have able to see each other sign at the moment, without
changing their relative position or existing conditions and without any physical
obstruction to prevent him doing so.
In the instant case, majority of the number of the court is of opinion that
this subscribing witness was in the small room with the testator and the other
subscribing witness at the when they attached their signature to the
instrument.

TABOADA VS ROSAL
GUTIERREZ JR.

FACTS
The first page of the subject will containing the entirety of the
dispositions was signed by the testatrix at the bottom while the instrumental
witnesses signed at the left margin. The Judge ruled that for a notarial will to
be valid, it is not enough that only the testatrix signs at the end but the three
subscribing witnesses must also sign at the same place because the attesting
witnesses attest not merely the will itself but also the signature of the testator.
Apolonio maintained that the law does not require that the signatures of the
subscribing witnesses should be specifically located at the end of the will after
the signature of the testatrix.
ISSUE
WON the testatrix and the three instrumental witness must specifically sign at
the end of the will?
HELD
No. the court held that the attestation and subscription were fully met
and satisfied in the present case in accordance with the article 805 NCC. The
Court found also the art 805 does not make it a condition precedent or a
matter of absolute necessity for the extrinsic validity of a will that the signature
of the subscribing witness should be specifically located at the end of the will
upon the signature of the testatrix because it would be absurd that the
legislature intended to place so heavy an import on the space or particular
location wherein the signature are found in consistent with good faith and the
honest frailties of human nature.
 ICASIANO VS ICASIANO
JBL REYES

FACTS
Celson Icasiano filed a petitioner for probate of the will of Josefa Villafuerte
and for his appointment as executor. Before the testatrix died she executed a will
in tagalog, it was prepared in duplicates, an original and carbon copy.
When it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only brought the original
copy while the carbon duplicate copy was left in bulacan unsigned. One of the
witness failed to sign because she had lifted 2 pages simultaneously.
Nevertheless she affirmed that she signed the will and by the testator and other
witnesses in his presence.
ISSUE
WON failure of the witness to affix his signature to page is sufficient to deny
probate of the will?
HELD
No. The court held that, the law should not be so strictly and literally
interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on the account of the inadvertence of a
single witness over whose conduct she had no control.
In this case the failure of witness Natividad to sign page 3 was entirely
through pure oversight is shown by his own testimony as well as as by the
duplicate copy of a will. Due to simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course
of signing is not per se sufficient to justify denial of probate.

FERNANDEZ VS DE DIOS
ROMUALDEZ J

FACTS
Petitioner Ramon Fernandez filed a petition to probate the will of the
deceased Antonio Vergel De Dios. However his brother the respondent herein
constested the probate regarding its attestation clause, and the signing of the
testator. The petitioner on the other hand contends that although the testator
did not signed the page containing the attestation clause, that while he did not
personally called the witnesses, yet the latter were invited by a lawyer named
Lopez Lizo to act such in his presence. The law only requires that the testator
signed the will in the presence of three witness vice versa.
ISSUE
WON the attestation clause complied with the requirements of
sufficiency, notwithstanding the testator’s absence of signature in the
attestation clause?
HELD
Yes, this point was already decided in the case of Abangan vs Abangan
whereby it ruled that “ testator’s signature is no necessary in the attestation
clause because this, as its implies appertains only to the witness and no the
testator.
In this case the fact that in said clause the signature does not appear
does not affect its validity, the law does not require that it be signed by the
testator.

CAGRO VS CAGRO
PARAS J

FACTS
This is an appeal opposed by the oppositors from the decision of eh CFI
of Samar, admitting to probate the will allegedly executed by Vicente Cagro who
died in 1949. The main objection instead upon by the oppositors is that the will
is fatally defective because its attestation clause is not signed by the attesting
witnesses.
ISSUE
WON the lack of signature of attesting witnesses at bottom of attestation clause
is a fatal defect?
HELD
Yes. The attestation clause is a memorandum of the facts attending the
execution of the will required by law to be made by the attending witnesses ,
and it must necessarily bear their signatures. An unsigned attestation clause
cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses, since the omission of their
signature at the bottom thereof negates their participation.

VILLAFLOR VS TOBIAS
OSTRAND J

FACTS
Gregoria died and left a will. Jose, one of the testamentary, submitted
the will for probate. The oppositors contested the will based on some
allegations. The lower court denied the probate on the ground that the
attestation clause was written on a separate sheet when it could not have been
written totally or partially on page eight since one-half of this latter page is
blank.
ISSUE
Whether or not the will is valid?
 HELD
Yes. That the attestation clause is written on a separate page and not on
the last page of the body of the document is explained by the fact that if the
clause had been written on the eight page in continuation of the body thereof,
there would have been sufficient space on that page for the signatures of the
witnesses to the clause.
All of the pages, including that upon which the attestation clause is
written, bear the signatures of all the witnesses and there is no question as to
the genuineness of said signatures.

AZUELA VS CA
TINGA J

FACTS
Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate court the notarial will of Eugenia
Igsolo. Felix Azuela is the son of cousin of the decedent. The will was written in
Filipino and have 2 pages. The 3 witnesses affixed their signature only on the
left margin but not on the bottom of the attestation clause. The probate petition
adverted to only 2 heirs the petitioner himself and one Irene Igsolo who alleged
resided abroad.
The petition was opposed by the atty in fact of the 12 legitimate heirs of
the decedent. The oppositor claimed that the will was not executed and
attested to in accordance with the law. RTC= admitted to probate the will
CA= reversed the trial court decision. Hence this petition.
ISSUE
WON the will can be probated?
HELD
No the SC ruled that failure of the attestation clause to state the number
of pages on which the will was written remain fatally flaw. The purpose of it is
to have safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of pages to prevent
the increase or decrease in the pages. The failure to state the number of pages
equates with the absence of an avernment on the part of the witnesses on how
many pages consisted in the will and that they witnessed and subscribed to it.

JAVELLANA VS LEDESMA
REYES JBL

FACTS
A last will and testament was created in Visayan dialect by the deceased
Apolinaria Ledesma Vda. De Javellana during her stay in San Pablo hospital
with 3 witnesses. Her sister, the respondent in this case questioned the validity
of the codicil and said that such codicil was not signed or notarized in the
presence of witnesses or notarized in the presence of witnesses and that
testator. Hence it was not in conformity with the law.
ISSUE
 WON the codicil may validly executed?
HELD
Yes, while the witnesses said that it was notarized and signed on the
same occasion and the lawyer said that he did not dos o but eventually brought
to his office and signed it afterwards “ The variance does not necessarily imply
conscious perversion of truth on the part of the witnesses”
The NCC does not require that the signing of the testator, witnesses and
notary should be accomplish in one single act, “ all it requires is that every will
must be acknowledged before a notary public by a testator and the witnesses”

CRUZ VS VILLASOR
ESGUERRA

FACTS
Cfi allowed the probate of the last will and testament of the late Valentine
Cruz. However the petitioner opposed the allowance of the will alleging that it
was executed through fraud, deceit,misrepresentation and undue influence. He
further alleged that the instrument was executed without the testator having
been informed of its contents and finally, that it was executed in accordance
with law.
One of the witness, Angel Teves jr was also the notary before whom the
will was acknowledged. Despite the objection , the lower court admitted the will
to probate on the ground that there is substantial compliance with the legal
requirements of having at least 3 witnesses even if the notary public was one
of them.
ISSUE
WON the will is valid in accordance with art 805 of NCC?
HELD
NO. The will is not valid. The notary public cannot be considered as the
third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his
having signed the said will. An acknowledging office cannot serve as witness at
the same time.
To allow the notary public to act as third witnesses, would have the effect
of having only two attesting witnesses to the will which would be contravention
of the provision of art. 805 requiring atleast 3 credible witnesses and 806 that
the testator and the required number of witnesses must appear before the
notary public to acknowledge the will.

GARCIA VS VASQUEZ
ENBANC

FACTS
 After Gilceria died, Consuelo filed a petition for the probate of her last
will and testament and for her appointment as special administratrix. Later,
the CFI admitted the will to probate and appointed Consuelo as the regular
administratrix. The oppositor maintained that in the execution of the will, the
eyesight of the Gilceria was defective that she could not have read the
provisions of the will. They called her ophthalmologist to prove this fact who
testified that notwithstanding the removal of the cataract in her left eye and her
being fitted with aphakic lens, her vision remained mainly for viewing distant
objects and not for reading print. Moreover, the words in the will were
crammed into a single sheet of paper not prepared with any regard for the
defective vision of Gliceria.
ISSUE

Whether or not the will should be admitted to probate?

HELD
No. Article 808 the Civil Code requires 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.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if
he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself 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 this case, Gilceria’s vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects
and not for reading. There was no evidence that her vision improved at the time
of the execution of the will. Hence, she was incapable of reading her own will.

ALVARADO VS GAVIOLA JR.

BELLOSILLO J

FACTS
The testator did not read the final draft of the will himself. Instead
private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the 8 paged document, read the
same aloud in the presence of the testator, the 3 instrumental witnesses and
the notary public, the latter 4 followed the reading with their own respective
copies previously furnished them.
Said will was admitted to probate. Later on, a codicil was executed, and
by the time, the testator was already 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 dracft 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.
ISSUE
WON was there substantial compliance to the reading of the will?
HELD
 Yes. Art. 808 not only applicable to blind testators, but also who, are
incapable of reading their wills. Hence the will should have been read by the
notary public and an instrumental witnesses.
IN this case there was substantial compliance, the purpose of the law
had been satisfied. Private respondent read the testator’s will and codicil aloud
in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the
notary public.

GIL VS MURCIANO
JUGO J

FACTS
A will executed by the deceased Carlos Gil, it was first destroyed and
eventually reconstituted, the parties however agreed to the reconstitution, in
the reconstituted will the attestation clause does not have the signature of the
testator and only includes the signature of the witnesses. The sisters of the
decedent assailed the validity of the will since, it did not comply with the
requirements under the law which provides that “the number of pages shall be
included in the attestation clause and that the signature must be included in
every page of the will.
ISSUE
WON the will is valid notwithstanding the defect in the attestation
clause?
HELD
Yes the will is still valid, it was found out that the deficiency in the
attestation clause is cured by the last paragraph of the body of the alleged will,
it was in this case obvious that the missing phrase was left out from the copy.
The court may and should correct the error by supplying the omitted
word or words, the mechanical system of construction has operated more to
defeat honest wills.

CANEDO VS CA
REGALADO J

FACTS
Mateo Caballero the widower without children in the twiglight years of
his life, executed a last will and testament at his residence before 3 witnesses
and was assisted by his lawyer. The testator said to be that he was leaving by
way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to person not
related to him. Later Caballero himself filed a case seeking the probate of his
last will and testament but unfortunately there was a numerous of
postponements.
Upon the death of the testator William Cabrera replaced the former
administrator to give order that the testate proceedings fo the probate of the
will. Petitioners opposed to the allowance of the testator’s will on the ground
that on the alleged date of its execution, the testator was already in poor state
of health such that he could not have possible executed the same. Also the
genuineness of the signature of the testator is in doubt.
Probate court- admitted the last will and testament; CA-affirmed, art 805
ISSUE
WON the attestation clause in the will of the testator is fatally defective or can
be cured under the art. 809?
HELD
NO. It does not comply with provisions of the law. Under the law the will
must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the attesting
witnesses. The attestation clause need not be written in a language known to
the testator or even to the attesting witnesses.
In this case, clearly lacking it the statement that the witnesses signed the
will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
That the absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or
imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that
is here sought to be probated.

ROXAS VS DE JESUS
GUTIERREZ J

FACTS
Simeon, brother of the decedent Bibiana, found a notebook belonging to
the latter dated "FEB./61" which states among others that: "This is my Will
which I want to be respected although it is not written by a lawyer. xxx."
Simeon submitted the will for probate and its fact was corroborated by their
relatives, identifying her handwriting and signature. The probate was opposed
by Luz, a compulsory heir, claiming that it was executed in accordance with
law because Bibiana could not have intended it to be her last will and
testament. The lower court allowed the probate. Luz contended that the law
requires that a will must contain day, month and year of its execution
ISSUE
Whether or not the holographic will is valid?
HELD
Yes. 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, probate of the holographic will
should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance

LABRADOR VS CA
PARAS J

FACTS
 Deceased Melecio Labrado, left behind a parcel of land which was
partitioned among his heir through a holographic will. One of the heirs of
Melecio filed a petition for probate of the alleged holographic will of the late
deceased filed an opposition that the said will was already revoked by
implication of law. That the said parcel of land already conveyed in favor of the
2 oppositors by virtue of sale.
RTC- allowed to probate the holographic will. Deed declared null and
void; CA- reversed the decision of TC. Denied the allowance of probate for being
undated. Aggrieved party claimed that the CA committed an error because the
holographic will was dated in Ilocano dialect. Hence this petition.
ISSUE
WON the CA erred in not allowing the probate?
HELD
Yes. The will has been dated in the hands of the testator in perfect
compliance of Art. 810 NCC which provides that the law does not specify a
particular location where date must be place in the will. It only requires that
the date be in the will itself and should be executed in the hands of the
testator.
In the instant case the requirements are all complied with in the will. CA
committed an error hence probate should be allowed.

AZAOLA VS SINGSON
JBL REYES

FACTS
Decedent Fortuna S. Vda. De Yance assigned the herein petitioner as the
sole heir of her estate, the respondent nephew of the decedent opposed the said
will on the ground that it was procured with undue influence and pressure and
that the testatrix did not seriously intend to create a last will. During the
proceedings one witness testitfied that it was really created by the deceased.
The lower court denied the probate saying that at least three of the witnesses
shall be required. Under art 811

ISSUE
WON the lower court erred in disallowing the probate?
HELD
 Yes, Art. 811 NCC is merely permissive and not mandatory, the
attendance of at least 3 witnesses may only be invoked if there be any question
regarding the authenticity of the will in this case is absent. Moreover since no
witness may have been present at the execution of the will it becomes obvious
that the existence of the witnesses possessing the requisite qualifications is a
matter beyond the control of the proponent.

CADOY VS CALUGAY
PARDO J

FACTS

Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees and

legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal,
filed a petition for probate of the holographic will of the deceased, who died on
January 16, 1990. They claimed that the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de
Ramonal, was of sound and disposing mind when she executed the will on
August 30, 1978, that there was no fraud, undue influence, and duress
employed in the person of the testator, and will was written voluntarily.

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 even 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. They argued that the repeated dates incorporated
or appearing on will after every disposition is out of the ordinary. If the deceased
was the one who executed the will, and was not forced, the dates and the
signature should appear at the bottom after the dispositions, as regularly done
and not after every disposition. And assuming that the holographic will is in the
handwriting of the deceased, it was procured by undue and improper pressure
and influence on the part of the beneficiaries, or through fraud and trickery.

CA= appeal was meritorious, Civil Code cannot be interpreted as to require the
compulsory presentation of 3 witnesses to identify the handwriting of the
testator.
ISSUE
WON the requirement for the probate of a contested holographic will,
that at least three witnesses explicitly declares that the signature in the will is
the genuine signature of the testator is mandatory?
HELD
Yes the SC is convinced, based on the language used, that art 811 of the
Civil Code is mandatory. The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order. It ruled
that “shall” in a statute commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is
inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the
word “shall” when used in as statute is mandatory. Law are enacted to achieve
the goal intended to guide against an evil or mischief that aims to prevent.
In this case the goal to achieve is to give effect to the witness of the
deceased and the evil to be prevented is the possibility that unscrupulous
individuals who for their benefit will employ means to defeat the wishes of the
testator.

CAPANONG-NOBLE VS ABADA
CARPIO J

FACTS
Abada died in 1940. Abaja filed a petition for the probate of the last will
and testament of his late grandfather Abaja. Caponong-Noble maintained that
the will is not acknowledged before a notary public. She pointed out that nowhere
in the will could one discern that Abada knew the Spanish language. She alleged
that such defect is fatal. She further alleged that the attestation clause failed to
state that the testator signed the will and its every page in the presence of three
witnesses because it did not indicate the number of witnesses.

ISSUE
(1) Whether or not acknowledgement of the will before a notary public was
necessary in this case
(2) Whether or not the language used in a will must be included in the
instrument
(3) Whether or not it is necessary that the number of witnesses be
specifically written in the will

HELD
(1) Yes. The Code of Civil Procedure repealed Article 685 of the Old Civil.
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the intervention of a notary is not necessary
in the execution of any will. Hence, Abada’s will does not require
acknowledgment before a notary public. (However, it was reinstated in the New
Civil Code.)
(2) 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.
Alipio testified that Abada used to gather Spanish-speaking people in their
place. Abada and his companions would talk in the Spanish language. This
sufficiently proved that Abada spoke the Spanish language.
(3) No. 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.
Abada’s 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.
However, the rule on liberal construction does 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.
 GAN VS YAP
BENZON J

FACTS
Felicidad Yap died of a heart failure leaving properties. Fausto Gan her
nephew initiated the proceedings in the Manila for probate a holographic will.
The decedent surviving husband opposed the petition and asserted that the
deceased had not left any will. During probate proceedings the petitioner
presented witnesses who testified the decedent’s intention to make a will and
how she wanted it to be secret to her husband.
Judge refuse to probate due to the discrepancies of the facts. Because it
was strange that there were so many of the decedents relative know that she
made a will despite the fact that she waste it secret with her husband.
ISSUE
Won may the holographic will be probated upon the testimony of witnesses
who have allegedly seen it and that it was in the handwriting of the testator?
HELD
No. The SC stated that the execution of the contents of a lost os
destroyed holographic will may no be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses
who have seen or read the such will. The witnessed need not have seen the
execution of the of the will but they must be familiar with the decedents
writing. when the will was not submitted these means the opposition and of
assessing the evidence are not available and the guarantee of authenticity, the
testator’s handwriting has disappeared.
In the instant case the SC think that the evidence submitted by the
petitioner is so tainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies. It fails ot
measure up to that clear proof required by law.

RODELA VS ARANZA
RELOVA J

FACTS
Petitioner filed a petition for the probate of a holographic will of the
decedent Ricardo Bonilla. It was later opposed by the respondent saying that
the original will was lost and that only a Xerox photography was only presented
during the probate. Hence, the deceased did not actually leave a will. LC
dismissed the petition for probate and ruled that a photography cannot stand
in the place of the original.
ISSUE
WON the will should be admitted despite the absence of its original copy?
HELD
 Yes, Only the authenticity of the handwriting is in question to determine
the validity of the will in this case and that handwriting may be determined by
the probate court even if it is photocopy.

KALAW VS RELOVA
MELENCIO-HERRERA

FACTS
Private respondent Kalaw claimed to be the sole heirs of his deceased
sister. Natividad Kalaw, filed a petition of her holographic will executed on Dec.
24 1968. The holographic will, as first written, named Rosa Kalaw, a sister of
the testatrix as her sole heir. Hence, petitioner Rosa Kalaw opposed the probate
alleging that the holographic will contained alterations, corrections, insertions
without the proper authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as
required by article 814 of NCC.
Rosa position was that that holographic will, as first written should be
given effect and probated so that she could be the sole heir.Trial court denied
the probate based on the NBI report that the handwriting , the signature, the
insertion and additions and the initial were made by one and the same person.
It was the handwriting of the decedent. However, since the alterations and
insertions or additions were not authenticated by thte full signature of the
testatrix based on art.814 NCC the court denied the will to be probated.
MR-was denied. Hence this petitioner of certiorari.
ISSUE
WON the original unaltered test after subsequent alterations and
insertions were voided by the Trial court for lack of authentication by the full
signature of the testatrix should be probated or not, with her soled heir.?
HELD
NO. the ordinarily, when the number of erasures, correction made by the
testator in a holographic will have 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 nothing remains in the will after that which
could remain valid. To state the will as first written should be given efficacy is
to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix.l 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. Petition dismissed.

ORTEGA VS VALMONTE
PANGANIBAN J

FACTS
Placido instructed Atty. Floro on the terms he wanted on the will, particularly
that his wife Josefina should be the sole beneficiary thereof. Atty. Floro told
Placido and the witnesses to come back on June 15, 1983 to give him time to
prepare it. Atty. Floro hid the completed document in his drawer. Upon their
return, they were told to come back on August 9, 1983 because he was out of
town. The will was dated June 15, 1993 but it was executed on August 9, 1993.
After Placido’s death, Josefina submitted the will for probate.
Leticia contested that there are other children from the siblings of Placido
entitled to inherit from him. She also attacked the mental capacity of Placido
declaring that at the time of the execution he was already 83 years old and was
no longer of sound mind, and that in 1983 Placido asked Leticia’s family to live
with him and they took care of him. The lower court disallowed the probate but
it was reversed on appeal.
ISSUE
(1) Whether or not Placido was of sound mind during the execution of the will
(2) Whether or not non-inclusion of Placido’s relatives in the will
invalidated the same
(3) Whether or not the conflict in the dates invalidated the will
HELD
(1) Yes. Article 799 of the Civil Code provides that to be of sound mind, it
is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning
faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or shattered by
disease, injury or other cause. "It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at
the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of,
the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
Despite his advanced age, Placido was still able to identify accurately the
kinds of property he owned and their locations. As regards the proper objects of
his bounty, it was sufficient that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary.
(2) No. It is a settled doctrine that the omission of some relatives does not
affect the due execution or formal validity of a will.
(3) No. The conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not
invalidate the document because the law does not require that a notarial will be
executed and acknowledged on the same occasion.

DELA CERNA VS POTOT

JBL REYES

FACTS
Bernabe de la Sera and Gervasia Rebaca executed a joint last will and
testatment in the local dialect, the will consisted of 2 parcels of land acquired
by them during marriage shall be given to a niece, Manuel. Bernabe dela Serna
died in 1939. Genvasia and Manuela Submitted the will to probate before CFI
which said court admitted it. Upon the death of Gervasia, another petition for
probate of the same will insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed on 1952,
for failure of Manuela and her atty in fact to appear, case was dismissed.
CFI-declare the testament null and void for being executed contrary to the
prohibition of joint wills. CA-reversed on the grounds that the decree of probate
in 1939 was issued by a court of probate jurisdiction on the due execution of
the testament.
ISSUE
WON the will may be probated?
HELD
NO. Art 1818 provides 2 or more persons cannot make a joint will or in
the same instrument either for reciprocal benefits or for benefits of a third
persons.
In this case the probate decree in 1939 could only affect the share of the
deceased husband Bernabe. It could not include the conjugal share of his wife
who was still alive and whose interest in the probate court acquired no
jurisdiction.
GONZALES VS CA
GUERRERO J

FACTS
Isabel Gabriel died testate designating Latarga Santiago her niece as her
principal beneficiary and executrix. The herein petitioner also a niece of the
decedent opposed the probate assailing the validity of the will as wll as the
competency and credibility of the witnesses. LC- denied the petition for probate
on the ground that the will was not executed and attested in accordance with
law.
ISSUE
WON it is necessary or material to determine the credibility of the witnesses?
HELD
No. the law does not require that the witness in a will should be of good
standing or reputation in the community for it to be valid. The real
requirements is worthiness, honesty and uprightness of the witness for the
validity of the will. The provision under art. 820 talks about the competency of
the witness and not merely its credibility.

VDA. De RAMOS VS CA
GUERRERO J

FACTS
Adelaide Nista who claimed to be one of the instituted heirs, filed a petition fo
the probate of the alleged will and testament and codicil of the late Eugenia
Danila who died in 1966. However it was opposed by Buenaventure and
Marcelina Guerra alleging that they are the legally adopted son and daughter of
the late florentino and Eugenia Danila and that the formalities required by law
for the execution of the will and codicil have not been complied with as the
same were not properly attested to or executed and not expressing the free will
and deed of the purported estatrix. Thereafter the 2parties came up with
compromise agreement which essentially stated that Nista is admitting the
invalidity of the will. The agreement was approved by the trial court. However it
was oppose by Rosario Ramos and 6 others intervene. TC allowed the
intervention and set aside the agreement. The movants alleged that the Guerra
repudiated their shares when they abandoned Danila and committed acts of
ingratitude against her.
Probate court admitted the will for probate. However it was appealed by
Guerras. CA- reversed the decision of the probate court and ruled that there
was a failure to prove that Danila was in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses when she signed the wiil. This was because 2 of the instrumental
witnesses ( sarmiento and paz) testitfied that that will was already signed by
Danila when they affixed their signature. Hence this petition.
ISSUE
WON the last will and testament and its accompanying codicil were valid,
considering the complicated circumstances that two of the attesting witness
testitfied against their due execution while the non- subscribing witnesses
testified to the contrary?
HELD
Yes. There is a ample and satisfactory evidence to convice us that the will
and codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities required by law. It
appears positively and convincingly that the document were prepared by a
lawyer, atty.Alvero the execution of the same was evidentlty supervised by his
associate atty Barcenas.