NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art.

805-809

YAP TUA, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
YAP CA KUAN and YAP CA KUAN, objectors-appellants.
G.R. No. 6845, September 1, 1914
JOHNSON, J.:
FACTS: Perfecto Gabriel, representing the petitioner, Yap Tua, presented a petition for the
probate of the will of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong. Accompanying said petition and attached
thereto was the alleged will of the deceased. It appears that the will was signed by the deceased,
as well as Anselmo Zacarias, Severo Tabora, and Timoteo Paez.
When called to testify, Severo Tabora testified among others, that he was not sure that he had
seen Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong sign the will because there were many people and there was a
screen at the door and he could not see; that he was called a witness to sign the second will and
was told by the people there that it was the same as the first; that the will was on a table, far
from the patient, in the house but outside the room where the patient was; that the will was
signed by Paez and himself; that Anselmo Zacarias was there; that he was not sure whether
Anselmo Zacarias signed the will or not; that he was not sure whether Tomasa Elizaga Yap
Caong could see the table on which the will was written at the time it was signed or not; that
there were many people in the house; that he remembered the names of Pedro and Lorenzo; that
he could not remember the names of any others; that the will remained on the table after he
signed it; that after he signed the will he went to the room where Tomasa was lying; that the will
was left on the table outside; that Tomasa was very ill; that he heard the people asking Tomasa to
sign the will after he had signed it; that he saw Paez sign the will, that he could not remember
whether Anselmo Zacarias had signed the will, because immediately after he and Paez signed it,
he left because he was hungry; that the place where the table was located was in the same house,
on the floor, about two steps down from the floor on which Tomasa was.
During the trial, the protestants made a strong effort to show that Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong did
not sign her name in the presence of the witnesses and that they did not sign their names in their
presence nor in the presence of each other.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was signed by the testator and the witnesses in the presence of
one another
HELD: YES. A plan of the room or rooms in which the will was signed was presented as proof
and it was shown that there was but one room; that one part of the room was one or two steps
below the floor of the other; that the table on which the witnesses signed the will was located
upon the lower floor of the room. It was also shown that from the bed in which Tomasa was
lying, it was possible for her to see the table on which the witnesses signed the will. While the
rule is absolute that one who makes a will must sign the same in the presence of the witnesses

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

and that the witnesses must sign in the presence of each other, as well as in the presence of the
one making the will, yet, nevertheless, the actual seeing of the signatures made is not necessary.
It is sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possible for each of the necessary parties, if
they desire to see, may see the signatures placed upon the will.
During the trial of the cause the protestants made a strong effort to show that Tomasa Elizaga
Yap Caong did not sign her name in the presence of the witnesses and that they did not sign their
names in their presence nor in the presence of each other. Upon that question there is
considerable conflict of proof. An effort was made to show that the will was signed by the
witnesses in one room and by Tomasa in another. A plan of the room or rooms in which the will
was signed was presented as proof and it was shown that there was but one room; that one part of
the room was one or two steps below the floor of the other; that the table on which the witnesses
signed the will was located upon the lower floor of the room. It was also shown that from the bed
in which Tomasa was lying, it was possible for her to see the table on which the witnesses signed
the will. While the rule is absolute that one who makes a will must sign the same in the presence
of the witnesses and that the witnesses must sign in the presence of each other, as well as in the
presence of the one making the will, yet, nevertheless, the actual seeing of the signatures made is
not necessary. It is sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possible for each of the
necessary parties, if they desire to see, may see the signatures placed upon the will.
In cases like the present where there is so much conflict in the proof, it is very difficult for the
courts to reach conclusions that are absolutely free from doubt. Great weight must be given by
appellate courts who do not see or hear the witnesses, to the conclusions of the trial courts who
had that opportunity.
Upon a full consideration of the record, we find that a preponderance of the proof shows that
Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong did execute, freely and voluntarily, while she was in the right use of
all her faculties, the will dated August 11, 1909.

SERAPIA DE GALA, petitioner-appellant,

versus.
APOLINARIO GONZALES and SINFOROSO ONA, opponents-appellants.
G.R. No. L-30289, March 26, 1929
OSTRAND, J.:
FACTS: Severina Gonzales executed a will in which Serapia de Gala, her niece was designated
executrix. When Serapia presented the will for probate, Apolinario Gonzales, a nephew of the
deceased, filed an opposition to the will on the ground that it had not been executed in

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

conformity with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Serapia was
appointed special administratrix of the estate of the deceased. Sinforoso filed a motion asking
the appointment of Serapia de Gala as special administratrix be cancelled and that he, Sinforoso,
be appointed in her stead.
The motion was opposed by both Apolinario Gonzales and by Serapia de Gala, but it was
nevertheless granted, Serapia was removed, and Sinforoso was appointed special administrator in
her place, principally on the ground that he had possession of the property in question and that
his appointment would simplify the proceedings.
The appellants Sinforoso Ona and Apolinario Gonzales argue that the will in question was not
executed in the form prescribed by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by
Act No. 2645. The appeal raised the following: (1) that the person requested to sign the name of
the testatrix signed only the latter's name and not her own; (2) that the attestation clause does not
mention the placing of the thumb-mark of the testatrix in the will; and (3) that the fact that the
will had been signed in the presence of the witnesses was not stated in the attestation clause but
only in the last paragraph of the body of the will.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was executed in accordance with the form required by law
HELD: YES. When the law says that the will shall be 'signed' by the testator, the law is fulfilled
not only by the customary written signature but by the testators thumb-mark. The construction
put upon the word 'signed' by most courts is the original meaning of a signum or sign, rather than
the derivative meaning of a sign manual or handwriting. A statute requiring a will to be 'signed' is
satisfied if the signature is made by the testator's mark.
In this case, the testatrixs thumb-mark appears in the center of her name as written by Serapia de
Gala on all of the pages of the will. It is not mentioned in the attestation clause that the testatrix
signed by thumb-mark, but it does there appear that the signature was affixed in the presence of
the witnesses, and the form of the signature is sufficiently described and explained in the last
clause of the body of the will.
The contention of the appellants Sinforoso Ona and Apolinario Gonzales that the fact that the
will had been signed in the presence of the witnesses was not stated in the attestation clause is
without merit; the fact is expressly stated in that clause.

TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, JUAN CABALLERO,

AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, HELEN CABALLERO, SANTOS

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

CABALLERO, PABLO CABALLERO, VICTOR RAGA, MAURICIA RAGA, QUIRICA

RAGA, RUPERTO ABAPO, represented herein by his Attorney-in-Fact, ARMSTICIA *
ABAPO VELANO, and CONSESO CANEDA, represented herein by his heirs, JESUS
CANEDA, NATIVIDAD CANEDA and ARTURO CANEDA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM CABRERA, as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Mateo Caballero, respondents.
G.R. No. 103554, May 28, 1993
REGALADO, J.:
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. , Mateo Caballero
himself filed a petition docketed as Special Proceeding No. 3899-R before Branch II of the then
Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking the probate of his last will and testament.
The petitioners appeared as oppositors and objected to the allowance of the testator's will on the
ground 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 complies
with the requirements of Article 805, in relation to Article 809, of the Civil Code.
RULING: 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.
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 as 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.

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

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.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the impugned decision of respondent
court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The court a quo is accordingly directed to
forthwith DISMISS its Special Proceeding No. 3899-R (Petition for the Probate of the Last Will
and Testament of Mateo Caballero) and to REVIVE Special Proceeding No. 3965-R (In the
matter of the Intestate Estate of Mateo Caballero) as an active case and thereafter duly proceed
with the settlement of the estate of the said decedent.

In re the state of the deceased SOTERA BARRIENTOS. SAMUEL PERRY,

petitioner, respondent-appellant,
vs.
VICENTE ELIO, petitioner, respondent-appellee.
G.R. No. L-9089, January 5, 1915
ARAULLO, J.:
FACTS: When Sotera Barrientos, the wife of Samuel Perry died, two documents were presented,
each of which, according to those who respectively presented them, was the last will and
testament of the said deceased.
The first document was filed by Vicente Elio, son of Soteras first husband, and her brother-inlaw; and the second was filed by Samuel Perry, her surviving husband. The court held that the
said two wills were true and authentic, but that the one executed on September 21, 1910, had
been revoked by the one subsequently executed on August 26, 1912. He therefore denied the
probate of the first, the one executed in favor of Samuel Perry, and ordered that the second will,
in favor of the other petitioner, Vicente Elio, be probated as the last will and testament of the said
Sotera Barrientos.

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

ISSUE: Whether or not the second will contains the real intent of the testator
HELD: NO. It is very doubtful whether the sick woman, in the condition in which she was,
understood what Matayabas read to her, nor can the fact of having said "yes" be accepted as an
absolute proof that she understood what was read, for, as the same witnesses testified, she made
this same reply to all the questions that were then put to her, an answer which could be
interpreted as being either approval and agreement in regard to those questions or indifference to
all that was happening about her
On the other hand it was Elio who, in his own house, in his presence and under his direction,
after having shown to the testatrix the rough draft prepared by him, had Santos Matayabas make
a clean copy of it and immediately after the document had been written invited the four witnesses
and with them and Matayabas went to Sotera Barrientos' house. There Elio took a large if not a
principal part in all that was done and in all that happened in the immediate vicinity of the
patient. Account must also be taken of the fact that Elio was the only person to be benefited by
the execution of the presented will, for, besides his appearing in that document as the sole
devisee of all the property of the testatrix, the statement appears in one of its clauses, as being
made by the testatrix, that her husband, Samuel Perry, had abandoned her in serious sickness
a fact that was not proved and that she revoked and annulled the testamentary provisions
previously made by her, which were no others than those contained in the document presented by
this same Perry for probate as the will of the said deceased and in which she instituted him as her
sole heir. There are, therefore, more than sufficient reasons for holding that the document
presented by Vicente Elio for probate as the will of Sotera Barrientos does not express her true
and spontaneous desires.

GERMAN JABONETA, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
G.R. No. 1641, January 19, 1906
CARSON, J.:
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

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

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.

TRINIDAD NEYRA, plaintiff-appellant,

versus.
ENCARNACION NEYRA, defendant-appellee.
C.A. No. 8075, March 25, 1946
DE JOYA, J.:
FACTS: Severo Neyra died intestate leaving certain properties and two children, by his first
marriage, named Encarnacion Neyra and Trinidad Neyra, and other children by his second
marriage. After the death of Severo Neyra, the two sisters, Encarnacion Neyra and Trinidad
Neyra, had serious misunderstandings, in connection with the properties left by their deceased
father. Encarnacion Neyra, who had remained single, and who had no longer any ascendants,
executed a will disposing of her properties in favor of the "Congregacion de Religiosas de la
Virgen Maria" and her other relatives, making no provision in favor of her only sister of the
whole blood, Trinidad Neyra.

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

The two sisters got reconciled and executed a compromise agreement with respect to the
properties left by their father. Furthermore, in her new will and testament, Encarnacion named
Trinidad Neyra and Eustaquio Mendoza beneficiaries.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was signed by the testator in the presence of the attesting
witnesses
RULING: The court held that the said witnesses were present, at the time of the signing and
execution of the agreement and will in question, in the sala, where the testatrix was lying on her
bed. The true test is not whether they actually saw each other at the time of the signing of the
documents, but whether they might have seen each other sign, had they chosen to do so; and the
attesting witnesses actually saw it all in this case.
Teodora and her principal witnesses are all interested parties, as they are children of legatees
named in the first will but eliminated from the second will. Their testimony that there could have
been no reconciliation between the two sisters, and that the thumb mark of testator was affixed to
the documents embodying the agreement, while she was sleeping in their presence; and that her
thumb mark was affixed to the will in question, when she was already dead within their view, is
absolutely devoid of any semblance of truth. Said testimony is contrary to common sense. It
violates all sense of proportion.
It having been shown that the said compromise or agreement had been legally signed and
executed by Encarnacion Neyra on November 3, 1942, in the presence of credible and
trustworthy witnesses, and that she was compos mentis and possessed the necessary testamentary
and mental capacity of the time; the petition for the reconsideration filed by Atty. Lucio
Javillonar, on November 23, 1942, on behalf of a client, Encarnacion Neyra, who had been dead
since November 4, 1942, and some of her relatives, who have appeared, in accordance with the
provisions of section 17 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, is hereby denied; and the decision of the
Court of Appeals for Manila, dated November 10, 1942, dismissing the appeal, is hereby reaffirmed, without costs.

In re will of Ana Abangan.

GERTRUDIS ABANGAN, executrix-appellee,
vs.
ANASTACIA ABANGAN, ET AL., opponents-appellants.
GR. No. 13431, 12 November 1919
AVANCEA, J.:

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

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
testators 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.
EUTIQUIA AVERA, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
MARINO GARCIA, and JUAN RODRIGUEZ, as guardian of the minors Cesar Garcia
and Jose Garcia, objectors-appellants.
G.R. No. 15566, September 14, 1921

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

STREET, J.:
FACTS: When the probate of the will of Esteban Garcia was allowed by the court, an appeal
was instituted contest was made by Marino Garcia and Juan Rodriguez, the latter in the capacity
of guardian for the minors Jose Garcia and Cesar Garcia contesting the validity of the will by
reason of the fact that the signature of the testator and of the three attesting witnesses are written
on the right margin of each page of the will instead of the left margin.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a need for the marginal signature of the testator and the
witnesses to be on the left margin in order for the will to be valid
RULING: While the statute says that the testator and the instrumental witnesses shall sign their
names on the left margin of each and every page, so far as concerns the authentication of the
will, and of every part thereof, it can make no possible difference whether the names appear on
the left or on the right margin, provided they are on one or the other.
The will in herein case contains the necessary signatures on every page, and the only point of
deviation from the requirement of the statute is that these signatures appear in the right margin
instead of the left. By the signing of every page of the will, every page and provision of the will
is authenticated and guarded from possible alteration in exactly the same degree that it would
have been protected by being signed in the left margin; and the resources of casuistry could be
exhausted without discovering the slightest difference between the consequences of affixing the
signatures in one margin or the other.
It results that the legal errors assigned are not sustainable, and the judgment appealed from will
be affirmed. It is so ordered, with costs against the appellants.
VILLACORTE. CELSO ICASIANO, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO, oppositors-appellants.
G.R. No. L-18979, 11 S 422, June 30, 1964
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
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

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

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.

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

In re will of Antonio Vergel de Dios, deceased.

RAMON J. FERNANDEZ, petitioner-appellant,
HERMELO VERGEL DE DIOS and SEVERINA JAVIER, legatees-appellants,
vs.
FERNANDO VERGEL DE DIOS, ET AL., opponents-appellees.
G.R. No. L-21151, 46 P 922, February 25, 1924
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
FACTS: In this case, the validity of the testators will is questioned by the opponents of the will
on the following matters: (a) It was not sufficiently proven that the testator knew the contents of
the will. (b) The testator did not sign all the pages of the will. (c) He did not request anybody to
attest the document as his last will. (d) He did not sign it in the presence of any witness.(e) The
witnesses did not sign it in the presence of the testator, or of each other, nor with knowledge on
the part of the testator that they were signing his will. (f) The witnesses did not sign the
attestation clause before the death of the testator. (g) This clause was written after the execution
of the dispositive part of the will and was attached to the will after the death of the testator. (h)
The signatures of the testator on page 3 of the will are not authentic.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was executed in accordance with the requirements of law
RULING: The evidence sufficiently shows that when Attorney Lopez Lizo read the will to the
testator, the latter's mind was perfectly sane and he understood it: that he signed all the pages of
the will proper, although he did not sign the page containing the attestation clause; that while he
did not personally call the witnesses, yet the latter were invited by Attorney Lopez Lizo to act as
such in his presence. The law does not require that the testator precisely be the person to request
the witnesses to attest his will.
It was also sufficiently established in the record that the testator signed the will in the presence
of the three witnesses and that the latter, in turn, signed it in the presence of the testator and of
each other; that the witnesses signed the attestation clause before the death of the testator; that
this clause, with the names of the witnesses in blank, was prepared before the testator signed the
will, and that the sheet containing said clause, just as those of the will proper, and that all the
four sheets of which the will was actually composed were kept together and are the very ones
presented in this case; and finally, that the signatures of the testator on page 3 of said will are
authentic.
As to the numbering of the sheet containing the attestation clause, it is true that it does not appeal
on the upper part of the sheet, but it does appear in its text. It is provided in the clause that the
will is of three sheet actually used, correlatively enumerated, besides this sheet . . . . It is clear
that such a sheet of the attestation clause is the fourth and that the will, including said sheet, has

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

four sheets. This description contained in the clause constitutes substantial compliance with the
requirements prescribed by the law regarding the paging. The law does not require that the sheet
containing the attestation clause only, wholly or in part, be numbered or paged. Consequently
this lack of paging on the attestation sheet does not take anything from the validity of the will.
The judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is ordered that the lower court proceed with the
probate of the will Exhibit A in accordance with law, without express pronouncement as to costs.

Testacy of Sixto Lopez. JOSE S. LOPEZ, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
AGUSTIN LIBORO, oppositor-appellant.
G.R. No. L-1787, 81 P 429, August 27, 1948
TUASON, J.:
FACTS: The will of Don Sixto Lopez was submitted for probate but was opposed by the
appellant alleging the following grounds to wit: (1) that the deceased never executed the alleged
will; (2) that his signature appearing in said will was a forgery; (3) that at the time of the
execution of the will, he was wanting in testamentary as well as mental capacity due to advanced
age; (4) that, if he did ever execute said will, it was not executed and attested as required by law,
and one of the alleged instrumental witnesses was incapacitated to act as such; and it was
procured by duress, influence of fear and threats and undue and improper pressure and influence
on the part of the beneficiaries instituted therein, principally the testator's sister, Clemencia
Lopez, and the herein proponent, Jose S. Lopez; and (5) that the signature of the testator was
procured by fraud or trick.
The appellant also alleges that the trial court has committed an abuse of discretion when it
allowed the appellant to offer evidence to prove knowledge of Spanish by the testator, the
language in which the will is drawn, after the petitioner had rested his case and after the
opponent had moved for dismissal of the petition on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
The will in question comprises two pages, each of which is written on one side of a separate
sheet. The first sheet is not paged either in letters or in Arabic numerals. This, the appellant
believes, is a fatal defect.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lack of pagination in a 2-page will is fatal

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

RULINGL: The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the law in prescribing the paging of
wills is guard against fraud, and to afford means of preventing the substitution or the loss of any
of its pages. The omission to put a page number on the first sheet is supplied by other forms of
identification more trustworthy than the conventional numerical words or characters. The
unnumbered page is clearly identified as the first page by the internal sense of its contents
considered in relation to the contents of the second page. By their meaning and coherence, the
first and second lines on the second page are undeniably a continuation of the last sentence of the
testament, before the attestation clause, which starts at the bottom of the preceding page. By their
meaning and coherence, the first and second lines on the second page are undeniably a
continuation of the last sentence of the testament, before the attestation clause, which starts at the
bottom of the preceding page. Furthermore, the unnumbered page contains the caption
"TESTAMENTO," the invocation of the Almighty, and a recital that the testator was in full use
of his testamentary faculty, all of which, in the logical order of sequence, precede the
direction for the disposition of the marker's property.
The order of the lower court ordering the probate of the last will and testament of Don Sixto
Lopez is affirmed, with costs.

In re will of Ana Abangan.

GERTRUDIS ABANGAN, executrix-appellee,
vs.
ANASTACIA ABANGAN, ET AL., opponents-appellants.
GR. No. 13431, 12 November 1919
AVANCEA, J.:
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

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

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
testators 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.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF THE LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT OF ENRIQUE S. LOPEZ RICHARD B. LOPEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
DIANA JEANNE LOPEZ, MARYBETH DE LEON and VICTORIA L. TUAZON,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 189984

November 12, 2012

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS: On June 21, 1999, Enrique S. Lopez (Enrique) died leaving his wife, Wendy B. Lopez,
and their four legitimate children, namely, petitioner Richard B. Lopez (Richard) and the
respondents Diana Jeanne Lopez (Diana), Marybeth de Leon (Marybeth) and Victoria L. Tuazon
(Victoria) as compulsory heirs. Before Enriques death, he executed a Last Will and Testament 4
on August 10, 1996 and constituted Richard as his executor and administrator. On September 27,
1999, Richard filed a petition for the probate of his father's Last Will and Testament before the

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

RTC of Manila with prayer for the issuance of letters testamentary in his favour; this, however
was opposed by Marybeth alleging that the will was not executed and attested in accordance with
law. In the course of the trial, the Attesting witnesses testified that upon signing of the testator of
the will, they also signed the same with the presence of each other (the instrumental witnesses
and testator); another witness in the guise of Atty. Nolasco also testified that he drafted the will
in accordance with the wishes of the testator and stated that the testator was of good and sound
mind. The oppositors, however, presented its lone witness, Gregorio B. Paraon (Paraon),
Officer-in-Charge of the Notarial Section, Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Manila. His
testimony centered mainly on their findings that Atty. Nolasco was not a notary public for the
City of Manila in 1996, which on cross examination was clarified after Paraon discovered that
Atty. Nolasco was commissioned as such for the years 1994 to 1997. In its decision, the RTC
disallowed the probate of the will for failure to comply with Article 805 of the Civil Code which
requires a statement in the attestation clause of the number of pages used upon which the will is
written. It held that while Article 809 of the same Code requires mere substantial compliance of
the form laid down in Article 805 thereof, the rule only applies if the number of pages is
reflected somewhere else in the will with no evidence aliunde or extrinsic evidence required.
While the acknowledgment portion stated that the will consists of 7 pages including the page on
which the ratification and acknowledgment are written, the RTC observed that it has 8 pages
including the acknowledgment portion.

ISSUE: Whether or not the will was executed and attested in accordance with law
RULING: The law is clear that the attestation must state the number of pages used upon which
the will is written. The purpose of the law is to safeguard against possible interpolation or
omission of one or some of its pages and prevent any increase or decrease in the pages.
While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the form of the attestation clause,
Richard likewise failed in this respect. The statement in the Acknowledgment portion of the
subject last will and testament that it "consists of 7 pages including the page on which the
ratification and acknowledgment are written"cannot be deemed substantial compliance. The will
actually consists of 8 pages including its acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be
explained by mere examination of the will itself but through the presentation of evidence aliund.
The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by an examination of
the will itself: whether all the pages are consecutively numbered; whether the signatures appear
in each and every page; whether the subscribing witnesses are three or the will was notarized. All
these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even omissions concerning them in
the attestation clause can be safely disregarded. But the total number of pages, and whether all
persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other must substantially appear in the

NOTARIAL WILLS (ORDINARY WILLS) Art. 805-809

attestation clause, being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings. Hence, the
CA properly sustained the disallowance of the will.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.