CHARACTERSTIC AND CONSTRUCTION OF WILLS
Vitug v. CA obvious reasons, because it was to take effect after the death of one
FACTS:
 Spouses Dolores and Romarico Vitug entered into a
survivorship agreement with the Bank of American
National Trust and Savings Association.
 Dolores died naming Rowena Corona in her wills as executrix.
 Romarico later filed a motion asking authority to sell certain
shares of stock and real property belonging to the estate to
cover his advances to the estate which he claimed were
personal funds withdrawn from their savings account.
 Rowena opposed on the ground that the same funds
withdrawn from the savings account were conjugal partnership
properties and part of the estate. Hence, there should be no
reimbursement.
 On the other hand, Romarico insists that the same are his
exclusive property acquired through the survivorship
agreement.
ISSUE: W/N the savings account forms part of the estate of Dolores.
RULING: NO.
LB - The survivorship agreement is not one of mortis causa,
which should be embodied in a will.
A will has been defined as “a personal, solemn, revocable and free act
by which a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and
declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death.”
AP - In this case, the savings account was in the nature of conjugal
funds.
There is no showing that the funds exclusively belonged to one party,
and hence it must be presumed to be conjugal, having been
acquired during the existence of the marital relations.
Neither is the survivorship agreement a donation inter vivos, for
party. Secondly, it is not a donation between the spouses because it
involved no conveyance of a spouse’s own properties to the other.
Certainly, the spouses are not prohibited by law to invest conjugal
property, say, by way of a joint and several bank account, more
commonly denominated in banking parlance as an “and/or” account.
In the case at bar, when the spouses Vitug opened savings
account, they merely put what rightfully belonged to them in a money-
making venture. They did not dispose of it in favor of the other, which
would have arguably been sanctionable as a prohibited donation. And
since the funds were conjugal, it can not be said that one spouse could
have pressured the other in placing his or her deposits in the money
pool.
Under the 2010, the fulfillment of an aleatory contract depends on
either the happening of an event which is
(1) “uncertain,”
(2) “which is to occur at an indeterminate time.
In the case at bar, the risk was the death of one party and survivorship
of the other.
There is no demonstration here that the survivorship agreement had
been executed for unlawful purposes or in order to frustrate our laws
on wills, donations, and conjugal partnership.
Therefore, Being the separate property of petitioner, it forms
no more part of the estate of the deceased.
 TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND INTENT
BALTAZAR v. LAXA
FACTS:
Paciencia was a 78 y/o spinster and made her last will and
testament in the Pampango dialect, executed in the house of retired
Judge Limpin, was read to Paciencia twice.
Paciencia expressed in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses that the document is her last will and testament. She then
affixed her signature at the end of the said document on page 3 and
then on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4.
Paciencia leave all her properties to respondent Laxa and his
wife and their children. Laxa is Paciencia’s nephew whom she treated
as her own son.
Six days after the execution of the Will .Paciencia left for USA
and resided with Laxa and his family until her death.
More than 4 years after the death of Paciencia, Laxa filed a
petition with the RTC for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and for
the issuance of Letters of Administration in his favor.
Petitioner Baltazar opposed and averred that the subject
properties belong to Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest; hence,
Paciencia had no right to bequeath them to Lorenzo. Also,
one of the petitioners, Mateo testified that Paciencia is in the
state of being forgetful making her unfit for executing a will
and that the execution of the will had been procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence.
ISSUE: Whether the authenticity and due execution of the notarial
Will was sufficiently established to warrant its allowance for probate.
RULING: YES.
Formalities are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806 of the
New Civil Code.
In this case, the Will shows faithful compliance with the formalities
laid down by law. The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her
instrumental witnesses and the notary public, are all present
and evident on the Will. Further, the attestation clause explicitly
states the critical requirement that the testatrix and her
instrumental witnesses signed the Will in the presence of
one another and that the witnesses attested and subscribed to
the Will in the presence of the testator and of one another.
ART 799 –In this case, apart from the testimony of Rosie pertaining
to Paciencia’s forgetfulness, there is no substantial evidence, medical
or otherwise, that would show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at
the time of the execution of the Will
Art. 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound
mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
there was no showing that Paciencia was publicly known to be insane
one month or less before the making of the Will.
Clearly, thus, the burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind
lies upon the shoulders of petitioners.
However no substantial evidence was presented by them.
 ORDINARY WILLS- GENERAL FORMALITIES – 804 Thus, a will written in English, which was not known to the Igorot
SUROZA v. HONRADO testator, is void and must be disallowed.
FACTS:
The hasty preparation of the will is shown in the attestation clause and
 Mauro Suroza and Marcelina Salvador reared a boy named notarial acknowledgment where Marcelina Salvador Suroza is
Agapito who used the surname Suroza. repeatedly referred to as the “testator” instead of “testatrix”.

 Mauro died and Marcelina became the beneficiary of Mauro’s

pension. Years after, Agapito married Nenita.

 Marcelina executed a notarial will. That will which is in

English was thumbmarked by her. Marcelina was
illiterate.

 In that will, Marcelina bequeathed all her estate to her

supposed granddaughter Marilyn.

 In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that

English was a language “understood and known” to
the testatrix. But in its concluding paragraph, it was stated
that the will was read to the testatrix “and translated
into Filipino language”.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a will written in another language known to the

testator is void.

RULING

YES.

That could only mean that the will was written in a language not
known to the illiterate testatrix and, therefore, it is void because of the
mandatory provision of article 804 of the Civil Code that every will
must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.
 GENERAL FORMALITIES 805, 809 It is clear, therefore, that it was not necessary that the
PAYAD v. TOLENTINO attestation clause in question should state that the testatrix
FACTS – requested Attorney Almario to sign her name inasmuch as the
testatrix signed the will in question in accordance with law.
 Victorio Payad filed a petition for the probate of the will of the
decedent Leoncia Tolentino.

 This was opposed by Aquilina Tolentino, averring that said

Will was made only after the death of the testatrix.

 The lower court denied the probate of the will on the ground
that the attestation clause was not in conformity with the
requirements of the law since it was not stated therein that the
testatrix caused Atty. Almario to write her name at her express
direction.

 Hence, this petition.

ISSUE –

W/N it necessary that the attestation clause state that the

testatrix caused Atty. Almario to write her name at her express
direction?

HELD –

The evidence of record establishes the fact the Leoncia Tolentino,

assisted by Attorney Almario, placed her thumb mark on each and
every page of the questioned will and that said attorney merely wrote
her name to indicate the place where she placed said thumb mark.

In other words Attorney Almario did not sign for the testatrix.

She signed by placing her thumb mark on each and every page
thereof. "A statute requiring a will to be 'signed' is satisfied if the
signature is made by the testator's mark."
 GENERAL FORMALITIES 805, 809
GARCIA v. LACUESTA
FACTS:
Antero Mercado left a will dated. The will appears to have
been signed by Atty. Javier as he wrote the name of Antero
Mercado and his name for the testator on the will. HOWEVER,
immediately after Antero Mercado’s 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 Mercado’s 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
testator’s 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, Javier’s signature is merely a surplusage? That the placing
of the “X” mark is the same as placing Antero’s thumb mark.
No. It’s not the same as placing the testator’s thumb mark. It would
have been different had it been proven that the “X” mark was
Antero’s 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.
BARUT v. CABACUNGAN
FACTS:
 Barut applied for the probate of the will of deceased, Maria Salomon. The
testatrix stated in the will that being unable to read or write, the will was
read to her by Concepcion and Inoselda and that she had instructed Agayan
to sign her name to it as testatrix.
 The probate was contested by a number of the relatives of the deceased on
various grounds.
 The probate court found that the will was not entitled to probate because :
“The handwriting of the person who it is alleged signed the name of
the testatrix to the will for and on her behalf looked more like the
handwriting of one of the other witnesses to the will than to the person
whose handwriting it was alleged to be.”
ISSUE: Was the dissimilarity in handwriting sufficient to deny probate of the will?
HELD: NO.
The SC found that the mere dissimilarity in writing is sufficient
to overcome the uncontradicted testimony of all the witnesses that
the signature of the testatrix was written by Severo Agayan.
It is also immaterial who writes the name of the testatrix provided it is written at her
request and in her presence and in the presence of all the witnesses to the execution of
the will.
Based on Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that
with respect to the validity of the will, it is unimportant whether the
person who writes the name of the testatrix signs his own or not.
The important thing is that it clearly appears that the name of the testatrix
was signed at her express direction in the presence of 3 witnesses and that they
attested and subscribed it in her presence and in the presence of each other.
It may be wise that the one who signs the testator’s name signs also his own; but that
is not essential to the validity of the will.
The court also held that the 3 cases cited by the lower court was not applicable. In
those cases, the person who signed the will for the testator wrote his own name
instead of the testator’s, so that the testator’s name nowhere appeared in the will, and
were thus wills not duly executed.
 CAGRO v. CAGRO
FACTS:
 The case is an appeal interposed by the oppositors from a decision of the CFI
of Samar which admitted to probate a will allegedly executed by Vicente
Cagro who died in Pambujan, Samar.
 The appellants insisted that the will is defective because the attestation was
not signed by the witnesses at the bottom although the page containing the
same was signed by the witnesses on the left hand margin.
 Petitioner contended that the signatures of the 3 witnesses on the left hand
margin conform substantially to law and may be deemed as their signatures
to the attestation clause.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will is valid
RULING:
Will is not valid.
The attestation clause is a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the
will. It is required by law to be made by the attesting 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 signatures at the bottom negatives their participation.
Moreover, the signatures affixed on the let hand margin is not substantial
conformance to the law. The said signatures were merely in conformance with the
requirement that the will must be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages. If
the attestation clause is unsigned by the 3 witnesses at the bottom, it would be easier
to add clauses to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator
and any or all of the witnesses.
The probate of the will is denied.
Icasiano vs. Icasiano
FACTS:
 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. She
executed a will in Tagalog, and through the help of her lawyer,
it was prepared in duplicates, an original and a carbon copy.
 On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only
brought the original copy of the will while the carbon duplicate
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.
 Abangan v. Abangan,
FACTS:
 CFI admitted to probate Abangan’s will executed. From this decision
the opponents appealed.
 The will consists of 2 sheets. The first contains all the disposition of
the testatrix, duly signed at the bottom by Montalban (in the name
and under the direction of the testatrix) and by three witnesses.
clear that the object of Act No. 2645 is to know whether any sheet of the will
has been removed. But, when all the dispositive parts of a will are written on
one sheet only, the object of the statute disappears because the removal of
this single sheet, although unnumbered, cannot be hidden.
In a 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.

 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.
 These omissions, according to appellants’ contention, are defects
whereby the probate of the will should have been denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was duly admitted to probate.
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.

RULING: So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other
interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites
entirely unnecessary, useless and frustative of the testator’s last will, must be
YES. disregarded.

In requiring that each and every sheet of the will be signed on the left margin
by the testator and three witnesses in the presence of each other, Act No.
2645 evidently has for its object the avoidance of substitution of any of said
sheets which may change the dispositin of the testatrix.

But when these dispositions are wholly written on only one sheet (as in the
instant case) signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses, their
signatures on the left margin of said sheet are not anymore necessary as such
will be purposeless.

In requiring that each and every page of a will must be numbered

correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of the sheet, it is likewise