11.

Codoy

a handwriting expert. Even the former lawyer of the deceased expressed doubts as to
the authenticity of the signature in the holographic will.

In the case of Ajero vs. Court of Appeals,i[32] we said that the object of the solemnities
surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to
avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity.
Therefore, the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain
these primordial ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact
that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to
make a will.

A visual examination of the holographic will convince us that the strokes are different
when compared with other documents written by the testator. The signature of the
testator in some of the disposition is not readable. There were uneven strokes,
retracing and erasures on the will.

However, we cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document being adjudged as

the will of the testator, which is why if the holographic will is contested, that law
requires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of the
deceased.

Comparing the signature in the holographic will dated August 30, 1978,ii[33] and the
signatures in several documents such as the application letter for pasture permit dated
December 30, 1980,iii[34] and a letter dated June 16, 1978,iv[35] the strokes are
different. In the letters, there are continuous flows of the strokes, evidencing that there
is no hesitation in writing unlike that of the holographic will. We, therefore, cannot be
certain that the holographic will was in the handwriting by the deceased.

The will was found not in the personal belongings of the deceased but with one of the
respondents, who kept it even before the death of the deceased. In the testimony of
Ms. Binanay, she revealed that the will was in her possession as early as 1985, or five
years before the death of the deceased.

rticle 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The word shall connotes a mandatory order.
We have 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 a statute is mandatory

There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the signature and the handwriting
of the deceased with other documents signed and executed by her during her lifetime.
The only chance at comparison was during the cross-examination of Ms. Binanay
when the lawyer of petitioners asked Ms. Binanay to compare the documents which
contained the signature of the deceased with that of the holographic will and she is not

will be noted that not all the witnesses presented by the respondents testified explicitly
that they were familiar with the handwriting of the testator. In the case of Augusto Neri,
clerk of court, Court of First Instance, Misamis Oriental, he merely identified the record
of Special Proceedings No. 427 before said court. He was not presented to declare
explicitly that the signature appearing in the holographic was that of the deceased

i12. ajeroIn the same vein, Article 839 of the New Civil Code reads:
Art. 839: The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases;
(1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;
(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its
execution;
(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary
or of some other person;
(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;
(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will
at the time of affixing his signature thereto.
These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to disallow a will. 5 Thus, in a petition to admit a holographic will to probate, the only
issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last will and testament; (2) whether said will was
executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law; (3) whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time
the will was executed; and, (4) whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts of the decedent. 6
In the case at bench, respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne Sand was not executed in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by law. It held that Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code, ante, were not complied with, hence, it disallowed the probate of
said will. This is erroneous.
A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic
will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be
effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole testament void.
Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814. In the case of
Kalaw vs. Relova 132 SCRA 237 242 (1984), this Court held:
Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations 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. Manresa gave an identical commentary when he said "la omission de la
salvedad no anula el testamento, segun la regla de jurisprudencia establecida en la sentencia de 4 de Abril de 1985."
13 azaola
Article 811 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to the following effect:
ART. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and
signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is
contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required.
In the absence of any competent witnesses referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it necessary, expert
testimony may be resorted to. (691a).
We agree with the appellant that since the authenticity of the will was not contested, he was not required to produce more than one witness;
but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 of our present Civil Code can not be
interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having
the probate denied. Since no witness may have been present at the execution of a holographic will, none being required by law (Art. 810,
new Civil Code), it becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the
proponent. For it is not merely a question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be witnesses "who know the handwriting
and signature of the testator" and who can declare (truthfully, of course, even if the law does not so express) "that the will and the signature
are in the handwriting of the testator". There may be no available witness of the testator's hand; or even if so familiarized, the witnesses may
be unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811 may thus become an impossibility. That is

evidently the reason why the second paragraph of Article 811 prescribes that
in the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it necessary, expert
testimony may be resorted to.
14 nazareno
The same ruling would apply in the instant case. The Court of Appeals categorically declared that the claim of spouses Romeo and Eliza
over the disputed lot has utterly no factual basis. Therefore, they have no reason to remain in possession of the property.
But the same could not be said of the Naic Cinema. The matter of ownership and possession of the Naic Cinema was never put in issue.
Consequently, petitioner cannot ask for a writ of possession to place her in physical occupancy of the Naic Cinema. Being declared owner of
subject lot does not also mean that she is automatically entitled to possession of all the improvements therein. Otherwise, the actual
possessor would be deprived of his property without due process of law.
15 rivera
Now for the holographic wills. The respondent court considered them valid because it found them to have been written, dated and signed by
the testator himself in accordance with Article 810 of the Civil Code. It also held there was no necessity of presenting the three witnesses
required under Article 811 because the authenticity of the wills had not been questioned.
The existence and therefore also the authenticity of the holographic wills were questioned by Jose Rivera. In his own petition in SP No. 1076,
he declared that Venancio Rivera died intestate; and in SP No. 1091, he denied the existence of the holographic wills presented by Adelaido
Rivera for probate. In both proceedings, Jose Rivera opposed the holographic wills submitted by Adelaido Rivera and claimed that they were
spurious. Consequently, it may be argued, the respondent court should have applied Article 811 of the Civil Code, providing as follows:
In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and
signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is
contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required.
The flaw in this argument is that, as we have already determined, Jose Rivera is not the son of the deceased Venancio Rivera whose estate
is in question. Hence, being a mere stranger, he had no personality to contest the wills and his opposition thereto did not have the legal
effect of requiring the three witnesses. The testimony of Zenaida and Venancio Rivera, Jr., who authenticated the wills as having been
written and signed by their father, was sufficient.
16 labrador
Respondents claim that the date 17 March 1968 in the will was when the testator and his beneficiaries entered into an agreement among
themselves about "the partitioning and assigning the respective assignments of the said fishpond," and was not the date of execution of the
holographic will; hence, the will is more of an "agreement" between the testator and the beneficiaries thereof to the prejudice of other
compulsory heirs like the respondents. This was thus a failure to comply with Article 783 which defines a will as "an act whereby a person is
permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death."
Respondents are in error. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of the will is plain from the tenor of the
succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will was not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who
plainly knew that what he was executing was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning as the testator's
instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of the nature of the estate property to be disposed of and
of the character of the testamentary act as a means to control the disposition of his estate.
17 seangio
For disinheritance to be valid, Article 916 of the Civil Code requires that the same must be effected through a will wherein the legal cause
therefor shall be specified. With regard to the reasons for the disinheritance that were stated by Segundo in his document, the Court believes
that the incidents, taken as a whole, can be considered a form of maltreatment of Segundo by his son, Alfredo, and that the matter presents
a sufficient cause for the disinheritance of a child or descendant under Article 919 of the Civil Code:
Article 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate:
(1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants,
or ascendants;
(2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or
more, if the accusation has been found groundless;

(3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
(4) When a child or descendant by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to make a will or to change
one already made;
(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parents or ascendant who disinherit such child or descendant;
(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the child or descendant; 8
(7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life;
(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction.
Segundos document, although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic
will prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa[9] can be clearly
deduced from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latters property, the disinheritance of
Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator
Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.10
Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the testator, expressed in the form and within the limits prescribed by law,
must be recognized as the supreme law in succession. All rules of construction are designed to ascertain and give effect to that intention. It is
only when the intention of the testator is contrary to law, morals, or public policy that it cannot be given effect. 11
Holographic wills, therefore, being usually prepared by one who is not learned in the law, as illustrated in the present case, should be
construed more liberally than the ones drawn by an expert, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the execution of the
instrument and the intention of the testator.12 In this regard, the Court is convinced that the document, even if captioned as Kasulatan ng
Pag-Aalis ng Mana, was intended by Segundo to be his last testamentary act and was executed by him in accordance with law in the form of
a holographic will. Unless the will is probated,13 the disinheritance cannot be given effect

ii18. Capitle
Even assuming arguendo that petitioners were indeed the actual tillers of the lot, their petition for the cancellation of the CLOA issued in favor
of Olar would not bind respondents as they were not impleaded.

Although estranged from Olar, respondent Fortunata remained his wife and legal heir, mere estrangement not being a legal ground
for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse.[16] Rosalinda, on the other hand, is the surviving spouse of
Olars son. The two are thus real parties-in-interest who stand to be injured or benefited by the judgment on the cancellation of the CLOA
issued in Olars name
19 guerrero
No. One of the formalities required by law in connection with the execution of a notarial will is that it must be acknowledged before a notary
public by thetestator and the witnesses. This formal requirement is one of theindispensable requisites for the validity of a will. In other words,
a notarial willthat is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and theinstrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted
for probate.The Notarial law provides: SECTION 240.Territorial jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be co-extensive with theprovince. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila
shall be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarialact beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.Sine Atty.
Directo was not a commissioned notary public for and in QuezonCity, he lacked the authority to take the acknowledgment of the testratix
andthe instrumental witnesses. In the same vain, the testratix and theinstrumental witnesses could not have validly acknowledged the will
beforehim. Thus, Felisa Tamio de Bu
enaventuras last will and testament was, in

effect, not acknowledged as required by law

iii20pazWith [regard] to the contention of the oppositors [Paz Samaniego-Celada, et al.] that the testator
[Margarita Mayores] was not mentally capable of making a will at the time of the execution thereof, the same is without
merit. The oppositors failed to establish, by preponderance of evidence, said allegation and contradict the presumption
that the testator was of sound mind (See Article 800 of the Civil Code). In fact, witness for the oppositors, Dr. Ramon
Lamberte, who, in some occasions, attended to the testator months before her death, testified that Margarita Mayores
could engage in a normal conversation and he even stated that the illness of the testator does not warrant
hospitalization. Not one of the oppositors witnesses has mentioned any instance that they observed act/s of the testator
during her lifetime that could be construed as a manifestation of mental incapacity. The testator may be admitted to be
physically weak but it does not necessarily follow that she was not of sound mind. [The] testimonies of contestant
witnesses are pure aforethought.
Anent the contestants submission that the will is fatally defective for the reason that its attestation clause
states that the will is composed of three (3) pages while in truth and in fact, the will consists of two (2) pages only
because the attestation is not a part of the notarial will, the same is not accurate. While it is true that the attestation
clause is not a part of the will, the court, after examining the totality of the will, is of the considered opinion that error in
the number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will. It must be
noted that the subject instrument is consecutively lettered with pages A, B, and C which is a sufficient safeguard from
the possibility of an omission of some of the pages. The error must have been brought about by the honest belief that
the will is the whole instrument consisting of three (3) pages inclusive of the attestation clause and the
acknowledgement. The position of the court is in consonance with the doctrine of liberal interpretation enunciated in
Article 809 of the Civil Code which reads:
In the absence of bad faith, forgery or fraud, or undue [and] improper pressure and
influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used
therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and
attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805.
The court also rejects the contention of the oppositors that the signatures of the testator were affixed on
different occasions based on their observation that the signature on the first page is allegedly different in size, texture
and appearance as compared with the signatures in the succeeding pages. After examination of the signatures, the
court does not share the same observation as the oppositors. The picture (Exhibit H-3) shows that the testator was
affixing her signature in the presence of the instrumental witnesses and the notary. There is no evidence to show that the
first signature was procured earlier than February 2, 1987.

iv