MATIAS VS.

GONZALES
FACTS:
Aurea Matias, being the universal heiress and named executrix in the purported will
of her Aunt Gabina Raquel who died single, instituted probate proceeding.
However, Basilia, cousin of the deceased and was over 80 y/o, totally blind opposed
its probate and pray for the appointment of her niece Victorina, a pharmacist, as
special administrator. Opposition was sustained by the lower court. So Matias
appealed, and while pending appeal, it was Horacio Rodriguez, a practicing lawyer,
former prosecutor and Mayor of Cavite was appointed special administrator. Basilia
the cousin again opposed and insist his removal and pray that special
administration be issued to Ramon Plata. The Lower court under the respondent
judge granted the opposition and appoint Basilia, Victorina, and Ramon Plata as
special administrator and remove Horacio. Matias questioned the order and inisist
that PNB or BPI be appointed should the court refused her qualification, but was
denied. Later on, due to inability to perform duties, Basilia withrew. Hence this
petition by Matias against the judge, Victorina and Plata.

ISSUE: w/n judge committed grave abuse of discretion for not appointing the named
executrix and the
propriety of appointing more than 1 special administratrix.

HELD: SC found the actions of respondent judge cannot be supported with

1. While the probate of the will was denied, the order to this effect is not yet final
and executory. Matias
being universal heiress and executrix still has special interest to protect.
2. While generally, there should only be 1 special administrator maybe appointed,
probate court in its
discretion, when it deems best, and whenever there are at least two factions among
heirs, may appoint
more than 1 special administrator or a special co-adminstrator but to administer the
whole single estate
exercising jointly powers of administration temporaily and not independently.
3. On technical side, there was late notice of hearing for the removal of Rodriguez
as special administrator, and lack of notice that Basilia and Victorina be appointed
as special administrator while in their motion, it only seek removal of Rodriguez and
appointment of Plata.

Rosario Garcia vs Juliana

Lacuesta
90 Phil 189 Succession Signing Using an X Mark
Antero Mercado left a will dated January 3, 1943. The will appears to have been signed by
Atty. Florentino Javier as he wrote the name of Antero Mercado and his name for the
testatior on the will. HOWEVER, immediately after Antero Mercados will, Mercado himself
placed an X mark.
The attestation clause was signed by three instrumental witnesses. Said attestation clause
states that all pages of the will were signed in the presence of the testator and witnesses,
and the witnesses in the presence of the testator and all and each and every one of us
witnesses. The attestation clause however did not indicate that Javier wrote Antero
Mercados name.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will is valid.
HELD: No. The attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero Mercado
caused Atty. Florentino Javier to write the testators name under his express direction, as
required by Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
But is there really a need for such to be included in the attestation clause considering that
even though Javier signed for Antero, Antero himself placed his signature by virtue of the
X mark, and by that, Javiers signature is merely a surplusage? That the placing of the X
mark is the same as placing Anteros thumb mark.
No. Its not the same as placing the testators thumb mark. It would have been different had
it been proven that the X mark was Anteros usual signature or was even one of the ways
by which he signs his name. If this were so, failure to state the writing by somebody else
would have been immaterial, since he would be considered to have signed the will himself.

Lucio Balonan vs Eusebia

Abellana
109 Phil 369 Succession Signature of Testator
Anacleta Abellana left a will. In said will, she let a certain Juan Bello sign the will for her. The
will consists of two pages. The first page is signed by Juan Abello and under his name
appears typewritten Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana. On the second page, appears the
signature of Juan Bello under whose name appears the phrase, Por la Testadora Anacleta
Abellana this time, the phrase is handwritten.
ISSUE: Whether or not the signature of Bello appearing above the typewritten phrase Por
la testadora Anacleta Abellana comply with the requirements of the law prescribing the
manner in which a will shall be executed.
HELD: No. Article 805 of the Civil Code provides that:
Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the
testator himself or by the testators name written by some other person in his
presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
In the case at bar the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written
under the will by said Abellana herself, or by Juan Abello. There is, therefore, a failure to
comply with the express requirement in the law that the testator must himself sign the will,
or that his name be affixed thereto by some other person in his presence and by his
express direction.
Note that the phrase Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana was typewritten and above it was
the signature of Abello so in effect, when Abello only signed his name without writing that

he is doing so for Anacleta, he actually omitted the name of the testatrix. This is a
substantial violation of the law and would render the will invalid.

Icasiano v. Icasiano Digest

Icasiano vs. Icasiano
G.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964

Facts:
1. Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of Josefa
Villacorte and for his appointment as executor thereof. It appears from the
evidence that the testatrix died on September 12, 1958. She executed a
will in Tagalog, and through the help of her lawyer, it was prepared in
duplicates, an original and a carbon copy.
2. On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only
brought the original copy of the will while the carbon duplicate (unsigned)
was left in Bulacan. One of the witnesses failed to sign one of the pages in
the original copy but admitted he may have lifted 2 pages simultaneously
instead when he signed the will. Nevertheless, he affirmed that the will
was signed by the testator and other witnesses in his presence.
Issue: Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing
witnesses to affix his signature to a page is sufficient to deny
probate of the will

RULING: No, the failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or
mere inadvertence. Since the duplicated bore the required signatures, this
proves that the omission was not intentional. Even if the original is in
existence, a duplicate may still be admitted to probate since the original
is deemed to be defective, then in law, there is no other will bu the duly
signed carbon duplicate and the same can be probated.
The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the
testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose
conduct she has no control of. Where the purpose of the law is to
guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages, and
there is no intentional or deliberate deviation existed.
Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the rules
that the will should be signed by the witnesses on every page. The carbon
copy duplicate was regular in all respects.

Tedoro CANEDA, et al.petitioners vs. Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and William CABRERA, as
Special Administrator of the Estate of Mateo Caballero, respondents.
On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children, already in the twilight years of his life
executed a last will and testament before three attesting witnesses and he was duly assisted by his lawyer and a
notary public. It was declared therein that, among other things that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and
devises his real and personal properties to specific persons, all of whom do not appear to be related to Mateo. Not
long after, he himself filed a petition before the CFI seeking the probate of his last will and testament but the
scheduled hearings were postponed, until the testator passed away before his petition could finally be heard by the
probate court. Benoni Cabrera, one of the legatees named in the will, sought his appointment as special administrator
of the testators estate but due to his death, he was succeeded by William Cabrera, who was appointed by RTC which
is already the probate court.
PETITIONERS: The petitioners assail to the allowance of the testators will on the ground that it was not executed in
accordance with all the requisites of law since the testator was already in a poor state of health such that he could not
have possibly executed the same. Petitioners likewise contend that the will is null and void because its attestation
clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the
testator signing the will in their presence and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of
the testator and of one another.

RESPONDENTS: The respondent, on the other hand, argue that Mateo was of sound and disposing mind and in
good health when he executed his will. Further, they also contend that the witnesses attested and signed the will in
the presence of the testator and of each other.
Whether or not the attestation clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero is fatally defective such that whether or not it
affects the validity of the will.
Whether or not the attestation clause complies with the substantial compliance pursuant to Article 809 of the Civil
Code.
An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses certify that the instrument
has been executed before them and to the manner of the execution of the same. It is a separate memorandum or
record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the witnesses; it gives affirmation to the
fact that compliance with the essential formalities required by law has been observed. Under the 3rd paragraph of
Article 805, such a clause, the complete lack of which would result in the invalidity of the will, should state:

1. The number of pages used upon which the will is written;

2. That the testator signed, or expressly cause 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 the said witnesses also signed the will and every
page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
It will be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest and subscribe to the will in the presence of
the testator and of one another. Attestation and subscription differ in meaning. Attestation is the act of sense, while
subscription is the act of the hand. The attestation clause herein assailed is that while it recites that the testator
indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number
of pages that were used, the same does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed
their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. What is then clearly lacking is
the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
another.
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 admitted to probate. Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the
defect in the attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the form of the will or the

language used therein which would warrant the application of the substantial compliance rule, as contemplated in
Article 809 of the Civil Code:
In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfection
in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is not proved that the will
was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805.
The defects and imperfection must only be with respect to the form of the attestation or the language employed
therein. Such defects or imperfection would not render a will invalid should it be proved that the will was really
executed and attested in compliance with Article 805. These 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.
That is precisely the defect complained of in the present case since there is no plausible way by which it can be read
into the questioned attestation clause statement, or an implication thereof, that the attesting witness did actually bear
witness to the signing by the testator of the will and all of its pages and that said instrumental witnesses also signed
the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.