Vitug v. CA HELD: No.
The Court ruled that a Survivorship Agreement in the nature of an
G.R. No. 82027, March 29, 1990
DOCTRINE: 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. The
bequest or device must pertain to the testator
FACTS: Spouses Dolores and Romarico Vitug entered into a survivorship
agreement with the Bank of American National Trust and Savings Association.
The said agreement contained the following stipulations:
(1) All money deposited and to be deposited with the Bank in their joint
savings current account shall be both their property and shall be payable to
and collectible or withdrawable by either or any of them during their lifetime;
and
(2) After the death of one of them, the same shall belong to and be the sole
property of the surviving spouse and payable to and collectible or
withdrawable by such survivor
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were personal funds withdrawn from their savings account.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on the ground that the same funds withdrawn from the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. The trial court upheld the validity of the agreement and granted
the motion to sell some of the property. The Court of Appeals however held
that the survivorship agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which
did not comply with the formalities of a valid will under Article 805 of the Civil
Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Survivorship Agreement constitutes a conveyance
mortis causa, hence must comply with the formalities of a will
aleatory contract whereby one or both of the parties reciprocally bind
themselves to give or to do something in consideration of what the other shall
give or do upon the happening of an event which is to occur at an
indeterminate time or is uncertain, such as death. 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. The bequest or device must pertain to the testator. In this
case, the monies subject of the savings account were in the nature of conjugal
funds, therefore not only belonging to one party. Moreover, they did not
dispose of the property in favor of the other, which would have been a form of
prohibited donation. The spouses merely put what rightfully belonged to them
in a money-making venture.
A survivorship agreement is per se not contrary to law and thus is valid unless
its operation or effect may be violative of a law such as in the
following instances: (1) it is used as a mere cloak to hide an inofficious
donation; (2) it is used to transfer property in fraud of creditors; or (3) it is used
to defeat the legitime of a compulsory heir. In the instant case, none of the
foregoing instances were present. Consequently, the Court upheld the validity
of the survivorship agreement entered into by the spouses Vitug. As such,
Romarico, being the surviving spouse, acquired a vested right over the
amounts under the savings account, which became his exclusive property
upon the death of his wife pursuant to the survivorship agreement. Thus, the
funds of the savings account are not conjugal partnership properties and not
part of the estate of the deceased Dolores.
Balatazar v. Laxa
669 SCRA 249
TOPIC: Testamentary Capacity & Intent
FACTS:
Paciencia Regala was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will and testament
in the Pampango dialect on September 13, 1981. Childless and without any siblings, she
bequeathed all her properties to her nephew, respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa, with whom
she had an undisputed filial relationship, and to his family. As ruled by the Court, the
Will was executed in faithful compliance with the formalities laid down by law. Six
days after the execution of the Will, Paciencia left for the USA where she resided with
Lorenzo and his family until her death on January 4, 1996.
Lorenzo filed a petition with the RTC for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and the
issuance of Letters of Administration in his favor. Petitioners Antonio Baltazar et al.
filed an opposition, ultimately asking the RTC to deny probation on certain grounds,
among others being that Paciencia was mentally incapable to make a Will at the time of
its execution; and that she was forced to execute the Will under duress or influence of
fear or threats, undue and improper pressure and influence, and fraud and trickery by
Lorenzo or by some other persons for his benefit. Meanwhile, Lorenzo testified in the
probation proceedings that, among others, at the time of Paciencia’s death, she did not
suffer from any mental disorder and was of sound mind, was not blind, deaf, or mute.
He belied and denied having used force, intimidation, violence, coercion, or trickery
upon Paciencia to execute the Will as he was not in the Philippines when the same was
executed.
The RTC disallowed the notarial will of Paciencia, giving considerable weight to the
testimony of one of the petitioners and concluded that at the time Paciencia signed the
Will, she was no longer possessed of sufficient reason or strength of mind to have
testamentary capacity. However, the CA reversed the RTC Decision and granted the
probate of Paciencia’s Will.
ISSUES: Whether Paciencia was of sound mind at the time the will was allegedly
executed.
RULING: Yes, Paciencia was of sound mind.
The Court agrees with the position of the CA that the state of being magulayan or
forgetful does not necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as to render him
unfit to execute a Will. Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind.
Besides, Article 799 of the New Civil Code states:
Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession
of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or
unshattered by disease, injury or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to
know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and
the character of the testamentary act.
Aside from the petitioners’ testimony 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. More credence is accorded to the testimony of
Dra. Limpin, one of the instrumental witnesses, as to the soundness of mind of Paciencia
when the latter went to the judge’s house and voluntarily executed the Will. The
testimony of subscribing witnesses to a Will concerning the testator’s mental condition
is entitled to great weight where they are truthful and intelligent. More importantly a
testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the time of the execution of the Will and
the burden to prove otherwise lies on the oppositor. Under Art. 800 of the NCC, the
presumption will not apply if the testator was publicly known to be insane one month
or less before the making of the Will. Since this was not shown in the case of Paciencia,
the burden to prove that she was of unsound mind lies upon the shoulders of
petitioners. However, as earlier mentioned, no substantial evidence was presented by
them.
Furthermore, Paciencia’s special request that the customs of her faith be observed upon
her death, her statement on how she acquired the properties from her parents, and how
the same would be bequeathed in particular to respondent and his family, have
convinced the Court that she was aware of the nature of her estate to be disposed of,
the proper objects of her bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
Bare allegations of duress or influence of fear or threats, undue and improper influence and
pressure, fraud and trickery cannot be used as basis to deny the probate of will.
Another essential element of the validity of the Will is the willingness of the
testator/testatrix to execute the document that will distribute his/her earthly possessions
upon his/her death.
In determining the same, the Court took into consideration the unrebutted fact that
Paciencia loved and treated Lorenzo as her own son and that such love extended to his
family. Paciencia cared for and raised Lorenzo and lived with him both here and abroad
even after the latter was already married and already has children. The unquestioned
relationship between Paciencia and the devisees tends to support the authenticity of the
said document as against petitioners’ bare allegations which are not supported by
concrete, substantial, and credible evidence on record. Bare arguments, no matter how
forceful, if not based on concrete and substantial evidence cannot suffice to move the
Court to uphold said allegations. Furthermore, a purported will is not to be denied
legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary
succession will be shaken to its foundation, for even if a will has been duly executed in
fact, whether it will be probated would have to depend largely on the attitude of those
interested in the estate of the decedent.
It bears stressing that irrespective of the posture of any of the parties as regards the
authenticity and due execution of the will in question, it is the mandate of the law that
it is the evidence before the court and/or evidence that ought to be before it that is
controlling. The very existence of the Will is in itself a prima facie proof that the supposed
testatrix had willed that her estate be distributed in the manner therein provided, and
it is incumbent upon the State that, if legally tenable, such desire be given full effect
independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby. This coupled with Lorenzo’s
established relationship with Paciencia, the evidence and the testimonies of
disinterested witnesses, as opposed to the total lack of evidence presented by petitioners
apart from their self-serving testimonies, constrain the Court to tilt the balance in favor
of the authenticity of the Will and its allowance for probate.
The Court DENIES the petition for the reversal of CA’s decision. CA’s Decision
granting the petition for probate of the notarial will of Paciencia Regala
SUROZA VS. HONRADO (2012)
FACTS:
 Marcelina Suroza supposedly executed a notarial will bequeathing her house
and lot to certain Marilyn Suroza. Marcelina died in 1974.
 Marina Paje was named as executrix in the said will and she petitioned before
CFI Rizal that the will be admitted to probate.
 Judge Honrado admitted the will to probate and assigned to Paje as the
administratix. Honrado also issued an ejectment order against the occupants
of the house and lot subject of the will.
 Nenita Suroza, daughter in law of Marcelina, learned of the probate
proceeding when she received the ejectment order (as she was residing in the
house and lot).
 Nenita opposed the probate proceeding. She alleged that the notarial will is
void because of the following grounds:
a. The instituted heir therein Marilyn Suroza is actually Marilyn Sy and she
is a stranger to Marcelina;
b. The only son of Marcellina, Agapito, is still alive and is compulsory heir;
c. The notarial will is written in English, a language not know to Marcelina
because the latter was illiterate so much that she merely thumbarked the
will; and
d. The notary public who notarized will admitted that Marcelina never
appeared before him and that he notarized the said will merely to
accommodate the request of a lawyer friend but with the understanding
that Marcelina should later appear before him but that never happened.
 Honrado still continued with the probate despite the opposition until
testamentary proceeding closed and the property transferred to Marilyn Sy.
 Nenita then filed this administrative case against Honrado on the ground of
misconduct.
ISSUE:
WON the will is valid.
HELD:
NO. The will is void. The mandatory provision of Article 804 of the Civil Code provides
that every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. In the
case at bar, the will is written in English and was thumb marked by an obviously
illiterate Marcelina. This could have readily been perceived by Honrado that that the
will is void. 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.”
That could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate
testatrix
NOTE:
A judge may be criminally liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Administrative
action may be taken against a judge of court of first instance for serious misconduct or
inefficiency.
The Supreme Court said in the case at bar that had Honrado been careful and observant,
he could have noted not only the anomaly as to the language of the will but also that
there was something wrong in instituting to Marilyn Sy as sole heiress and giving
nothing at all to Agapito who was still alive. Despite the valid claim raised by Nenita,
he still continued with the testamentary proceeding, this showed his wrongful intent.
He may even be criminally liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or
interlocutory order or rendering a manifestly unjust judgment or interlocutory order by
reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
 In re Will of the deceased Leoncia Tolentino.
VICTORIO PAYAD, petitioner and appellant, vs. AQUILINA TOLENTINO,
oppositor and appellant.
GR No. 42258 January 15, 1936
Doctrine: "A statute requiring a will to be 'signed' is satisfied if the signature is made
by the testator's mark."
Facts: Trial court denied the probate of the alleged will of deceased Leoncia Tolentino,
on the ground that the attestation clause was not in conformity with the requirements
of law. It was not stated therein that the testatrix caused Attorney Almario to write her
name at her express direction. The court also found that the will was executed on the
date appearing thereon, September 1, 1933, which was a day before the death of the
testatrix, contrary to the contention of the oppositor that it was executed after her death.
Issue: Whether it was necessary that the attestation clause state that the testatrix
caused Atty. Almario to write her name at her express direction? NO.
Ruling: The evidence of record establishes the fact that 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."
It is clear, therefore, that it was not necessary that the attestation clause in question
should state that the testatrix requested Attorney Almario to sign her name inasmuch
as the testarix signed will in question in accordance with law.
The appealed order of the trial court is reversed and the questioned will of Leoncia
Tolentino, deceased, is hereby admitted to probate with the costs of this appeal against
the oppositor-appellant.
IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF ANTERO MERCADO, DECEASED.
ROSARIO GARCIA v. JULIANA LACUESTA
G.R. No. L-4067
NOVEMBER 29, 1951
FACTS: 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 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: WON 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.
G.R. No. L-6285 February 15, 1912
PEDRO BARUT vs.
FAUSTINO CABACUNGAN, ET AL.
FACTS: Pedro Barut alleges in his petition to probate the last will and testament of
Maria Salomon that Maria Salomon died on the 7th day of November, 1908, in the
pueblo of Sinait, Ilocos Sur, leaving a last will and testament bearing date March 2, 1907.
Severo Agayan, Timotea Inoselda, Catalino Ragasa, and A. M. Jimenez are alleged to
have been witnesses to the execution thereof. By the terms of said will Pedro Barut
received the larger part of decedent's property.
The probate court found that the will was not entitled to probate upon the sole ground
that 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 Testate estate of the late VICENTE CAGRO. JESUSA CAGRO, petitioner-appellee,
witnesses to the will than that of the person whose handwriting it was alleged to be. vs. PELAGIO CAGRO, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.

However, all the witnesses to the will attest that the signature of the testatrix was G.R. No. L-5826 | April 29, 1953
written by Severo Agayan at her (Salomon’s) request and in her presence and in the
DOCTRINE: The attestation clause must be signed at the bottom by the attesting
presence of all the witnesses to the will.
witnesses.
ISSUE: Is a will, signed not by the testator, but by a witness at the testator’s request,
FACTS: The Court of First Instance of Samar admitted to probate the will allegedly
valid?
executed by Vicente Cagro who died in Laoangan, Pambujan, Samar, on February 14,
HELD: Yes. with respect to the validity of the will, it is unimportant whether the person 1949.
who writes the name of the testatrix signs his own or not. The important thing is that it
The appellant’s main objection is that the will is fatally defective, because its attestation
clearly appears that the name of the testatrix was signed at her express direction in the
clause was not signed by the attesting witnesses. There is no question that the signatures
presence of three witnesses and that they attested and subscribed it in her presence and
of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause,
in the presence of each other. That is all the statute requires. It may be wise as a practical
although the page containing the same is signed by the witnesses on the left-hand
matter that the one who signs the testator's name signs also his own; but that it is not
margin.
essential to the validity of the will. Whether one parson or another signed the name of
the testatrix in this case is absolutely unimportant so far as the validity of her will is ISSUE: Whether or not the will is fatally defective because the signatures of the
concerned. The plain wording of the statute shows that the requirement laid down by witnesses did not appear at the bottom of the page, despite the fact that the same page
the trial court, if it did lay down, is absolutely unnecessary under the law; and the was signed by the witnesses on the left-hand margin.
reasons underlying the provisions of the statute relating to the execution of wills do not
in any sense require such a provision. From the standpoint of language it is an HELD: Yes, the will is fatally defective,
impossibility to draw from the words of the law the inference that the persons who
The attestation clause is 'a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will'
signs the name of the testator must sign his own name also. The law requires only three
required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear their
witnesses to a will, not four.
signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the
The name of a person who is unable to write may be signed by another by express witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their
direction to any instrument known to the law. There is no necessity whatever, so far as participation.
the validity of the instrument is concerned, for the person who writes the name of the
The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three witnesses on the left-
principal in the document to sign his own name also. As a matter of policy it may be
hand margin conform substantially to the law and may be deemed as their signatures
wise that he do so inasmuch as it would give such intimation as would enable a person
to the attestation clause. This is untenable, because said signatures are in compliance
proving the document to demonstrate more readily the execution by the principal. But
with the legal mandate that the will be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages.
as a matter of essential validity of the document, it is unnecessary.
If an attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at the bottom thereof, be
The main thing to be established in the execution of the will is the signature of the admitted as sufficient, it would be easy to add such clause to a will on a subsequent
testator. If that signature is proved, whether it be written by himself or by another at occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses.
his request, it is nonetheless valid, and the fact of such signature can be proved as
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
perfectly and as completely when the person signing for the principal omits to sign his
own name as it can when he actually signs. DISSENTING OPINION OF J. ANGELO BAUTISTA

Justice Angelo Bautista said that:

1. The will in question has substantially complied with the formalities of the law and,
therefore, should be admitted to probate.
2. The will was signed by the testator and was attested by three instrumental witnesses,
not only at the bottom, but also on the left-hand margin.
3. The witnesses testified not only that the will was signed by the testator in their
presence and in the presence of each other but also that when they did so, the attestation
clause was already written thereon.
4. The objection is too technical. In the case of Abangan vs. Abangan, (40 Phil., 476), this
court said that when the testamentary dispositions "are wholly written on only one
sheet signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses (as the instant case),their
signatures on the left margin of said sheet would be completely purposeless."
5. The New Civil Code adopts a liberal trend in the matter of interpretation of wills, the
purpose of which, in case of doubt, is to give such interpretation that would have the
effect of preventing intestacy.
DISSENTING OPINION OF J. TUASON:
The law on wills does not provide that the attesting witness should sign the clause at
the bottom. In the absence of such provision, there is no reason why signatures on the
margin are not good.
Icasiano vs Icasiano
11 SCRA 422
Author: Al-khatib
Petitioner: IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE Jo SEFA
VILLACORTE. CELSO ICASIANO,
Respondent: NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO
Topic: Articles 805, 809 (Liberal interpretation of the Law)
DOCTRINE: The inadvertent failure of an attesting 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.
FACTS :
 The true last will and testament of Josefa Villacorte, deceased, and appointing
as executor Celso Icasiano.
 Natividad Icasiano, a daughter of the testatrix, filed her opposition, she
petitioned to have herself appointed as a special administrator. Enrique
Icasiano, a son of the testatrix, also filed a manifestation adopting as his own
Natividad's opposition to the probate of the alleged will.
 The evidence presented for the petitioner is to the effect that Josefa Villacorte
died in the City of Manila, she executed a last will and testament in duplicate
at the house of her daughter Mrs. Felisa Icasiano at Pedro Guevara Street,
Manila, published before and attested by three instrumental witnesses,
namely: attorneys Justo P. Torres, Jr. and Jose V. Natividad, and Mr. Vinicio B.
Diy.
 Witness Natividad, who testified on his failure to sign page three (3) of the
original, admits that he may have lifted two pages instead of one when he
signed the same, but affirmed that page three (3) was signed in his presence.
 Filed a case that the will cannot be probated because page three of the original
will was not signed by one of the witnesses, making it defective.
PETITIONERS CONTENTION
The inadvertent 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of witness Natividad to sign page three of the will
makes the will invalid?
RULING + RATIO: NO
 The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the
testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct
she had no control, where the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of
the testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained, no intentional
or deliberate deviation existed, and the evidence on record attests to the full
observance of the statutory requisites.
 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. The text of the attestation clause and the acknowledgment before the
Notary Public likewise evidence that no one was aware of the defect at the
time.
 This would not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict and literal
application of the statutory requirements, where the purposes of the law are
otherwise satisfied, Thus, despite the literal tenor of the law, this Court has
held that a testament, with the only page signed at its foot by testator and
witnesses, but not in the left margin, could nevertheless be probated and that
despite the requirement for the correlative lettering of the pages of a will, the
failure to make the first page either by letters or numbers is not a fatal defect.
G.R. No. L-13431 November 12, 1919
In re will of Ana Abangan.
GERTRUDIS ABANGAN, executrix-appellee,
vs.
ANASTACIA ABANGAN, ET AL., opponents-appellants.
FACTS:
- On September 19, 1917, the CFI of Cebu admitted to probate Ana Abangan's will
executed July, 1916. From this decision the opponent's appealed.
- Said document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's will, consists of two 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.
ISSUE: 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.
HELD: We are of the opinion that the will was duly admitted to probate.
- In requiring that each and every sheet of the will should also be signed on the left
margin by the testator and three witnesses in the presence of each other, Act No.
2645 (which is the one applicable in the case) evidently has for its object (referring
to the body of the will itself) to avoid the substitution of any of said sheets, thereby
changing the testator's dispositions. But when these dispositions are wholly
written on only one sheet signed at the bottom by the testator and three
witnesses (as the instant case), their signatures 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.
A different interpretation would assume that the statute requires that this sheet,
already signed at the bottom, be signed twice. We cannot attribute to the statute
such an intention. As these signatures must be written by the testator and the
witnesses in the presence of each other, it appears that, if the signatures at the
bottom of the sheet guaranties its authenticity, another signature on its left
margin would be unneccessary; and if they do not guaranty, same signatures,
affixed on another part of same sheet, would add nothing.
- 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 clear that the object of
Act No. 2645 is to know whether any sheet of the will has been removed. Exception:
when all the dispositive parts of a will are written on one sheet only.
- What has been said is also applicable to the attestation clause.
- Synthesizing our opinion, we hold that 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.
For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with
costs against the appellants. So ordered
Avera vs. Garcia
G.R. No. 15566 (1921)
Digest Author: Lucion
Signatures were written on the right margin of each page of the will instead of the left margin.
Facts: Eutiquia Avera filed a petition for the probate of the will of one Esteban Garcia.
The petition was contested by Marino Garcia and Juan Rodriguez, the latter in the
capacity of guardian for minors Jose and Cesar Garcia. The proponent of the will
presented one of the three attesting witnesses who testified that the will was executed
with all necessary external formalities, and that the executor was at the time in full
possession of disposing faculties. The witness was corroborated by the person who
wrote the will at the request of the testator.
The opposition introduced a single witness who testified that at the time the will was
made, the testator was so debilitated as to unable to comprehend what he was about.
The trial court admitted the will to probate.
Issues: 1.Whether a will can be admitted to probate, where opposition is made, upon
the proof of a single attesting witness?
2. Whether the will in question is rendered invalid 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?
Held: 1. No. However, the probable reason why only one witness was produced is
found in the fact that, although the petition for the probate of this will had been pending
from December 21, 1917, until the date set for the hearing, which was April 5, 1919, no
formal contest was entered until the very day set for the hearing; and it is probable that
the attorney for the proponent, believing in good faith the probate would not be
contested, repaired to the court with only one of the three attesting witnesses at hand,
and upon finding that the will was contested, incautiously permitted the case to go to
proof without asking for a postponement of the trial in order that he might produce all
the attesting witnesses. Although this circumstance may explain why the three
witnesses were not produced, it does not in itself supply any basis for changing the rule;
and were it not for a fact now to be mentioned, this court would probably be compelled
to reverse this case on the ground that the execution of the will had not been proved by
a sufficient number of attesting witnesses.
It appears, however, that this point was not raised by the appellant in the lower
court either upon the submission of the cause for determination in that court or upon
the occasion of the filing of the motion for a new trial. Accordingly it is insisted for the
appellee that this question cannot now be raised for the first time in this court. We
believe this point is well taken, and the first assignment of error must be declared not
be well taken.
In the present case, if the appellant had raised this question in the lower court, either at
the hearing or upon a motion for a new trial, that court would have had the power, and
it would have been is duty, considering the tardy institution of the contest, to have
granted a new trial in order that all the witnesses to the will might be brought into court.
But instead of thus calling the error to the attention of the court and his adversary, the
point is first raised by the appellant in this court. We hold that this is too late.
2. No. It is true that the statute says that the testator and the instrumental witnesses
shall sign their names on the left margin of each and every page; and it is undeniable
that the general doctrine is to the effect that all statutory requirements as to the
execution of wills must be fully complied with. The same doctrine is also deducible
from cases heretofore decided by this court. Still some details at times creep into
legislative enactments which are so trivial it would be absurd to suppose that the
Legislature could have attached any decisive importance to them. The provision to the
effect that the signatures of the testator and witnesses shall be written on the left margin
of each page - rather than on the right margin - seems to be this character. 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 instrument now before us 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 mode of signing adopted 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.
The controlling consideration: The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution
of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid the substitution of will
and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on this
subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. So when
an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever,
that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and
frustrative of the testator's last will, must be disregarded.
Nera vs. Rimando
Facts: At the time the will was executed, in a large room connecting with a smaller room
by a doorway where a curtain hangs across, one of the witnesses was in the outside
room when the other witnesses were attaching their signatures to the instrument.
Issue: Whether or not the testator and the subscribing witnesses to an alleged will shall
sign the instrument in the presence of each other does not depend upon proof of the
fact that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper at the moment of its subscription
by each of them?
Ruling: No. The court held that "the true test of presence of the testator and the
witnesses in the execution of a will is not whether they actually saw each other sign, but
whether they might have seen each other sign, had they chosen to do so, considering
their mental and physical condition and position with relation to each other at the
moment of inscription of each signature." It is suffiecient that at that moment existing
conditions and the position of the parties, with relation to each other, were such that by
merely casting their eyes in the proper direction they could have seen each other sign.
If one subscribing witness to a will is shown to have been in an outer room at the time
when the testator and the other witnesses attach their signatures to the instrument in
an inner room, the will would be held invalid—the attaching of the said signatures,
under such circumstances, not being done "in the presence" of the witness in the outer
room. Hence, The position of testator and of the witnesses to a will, at the moment of
the subscription by each, must be such that they may see each other sign if they choose
to do so. Here, all the parties were in the same small room when each other signed.
FELIX AZUELA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA
CASTILLO substituted by ERNESTO G. CASTILLO, respondents.
Doctrine: The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on which the will
was written remains a fatal flaw, despite Article 809; The purpose of the law in requiring the
clause to state the number of pages on which the will is written is to safeguard against possible
interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in
the pages; There is substantial compliance with this requirement if the will states elsewhere in it
how many pages it is comprised of.
Article 805 particularly segregates the requirement that the instrumental witnesses sign each
page of the will, from the requisite that the will be “attested and subscribed by [the instrumental
witnesses]”—the respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct from each
other; Even if instrumental witnesses signed the lefthand margin of the page containing the
unsigned clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses’ undertakings in the
clause, since the signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different
avowal.
Facts: The petition filed by petitioner Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the
notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo, which was notarized. Petitioner is the son of the
cousin of the decedent.
The petition was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo (Geralda Castillo), who represented
herself as the attorney-in-fact of “the 12 legitimate heirs” of the decedent. Oppositor
Geralda Castillo argued that the will was not executed and attested to in accordance
with law. She pointed out that decedent’s signature did not appear on the second page
of the will, and the will was not properly acknowledged. These twin arguments are
among the central matters to this petition.
RTC- admitted the probate
CA- reversed
It noted that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in the will,
thus rendering the will void and undeserving of probate.
Petitioner argues that the requirement under Article 805 of the Civil Code that “the
number of pages used in a notarial will be stated in the attestation clause” is merely
directory, rather than mandatory, and thus susceptible to what he termed as “the
substantial compliance rule.”
Issue: Whether the will in question is void? Yes.
Held: A failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can
be liberally construed, since that fact can be checked by a visual examination, while a
failure by the attestation clause to state that the witnesses signed in one another’s
presence should be considered a fatal flaw since the attestation is the only textual
guarantee of compliance.
The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on which the will was
written remains a fatal flaw, despite Article 809. The purpose of the law in requiring the
clause to state the number of pages on which the will is written is to safeguard against
possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent any
increase or decrease in the pages. The failure to state the number of pages equates with
the absence of an averment on the part of the instrumental witnesses as to how many
pages consisted the will, the execution of which they had ostensibly just witnessed and
subscribed to. Following Caneda, there is substantial compliance with this requirement
if the will states elsewhere in it how many pages it is comprised of, as was the situation
in Singson and Taboada. However, in this case, there could have been no substantial
compliance with the requirements under Article 805 since there is no statement in the
attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the number of pages which
comprise the will.
The Court today reiterates the continued efficacy of Cagro. Article 805 particularly
segregates the requirement that the instrumental witnesses sign each page of the will,
from the requisite that the will be “attested and subscribed by [the instrumental
witnesses].” The respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct
from each other. The signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify, among
others, that the witnesses are aware that the page they are signing forms part of the will.
On the other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause establish that the witnesses
are referring to the statements contained in the attestation clause itself. Indeed, the
attestation clause is separate and apart from the disposition of the will. An unsigned
attestation clause results in an unattested will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed
the left-hand margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause, such
signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses’ undertakings in the clause, since the
signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal.
There are two other requirements under Article 805 which were not fully satisfied by
the will in question. The provision requires that the testator and the instrumental
witnesses sign each and every page of the will on the left margin, except the last; and ISSUE: Whether or not the attestation clause contained in the last will and testament of
that all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of the late Mateo Caballero complies with the requirements of Article 805, in relation to
each page. In this case, the decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign both pages of Article 809, of the Civil Code
the will on the left margin, her only signature appearing at the so-called “logical end”
RULING: The Supreme Court granted and reversed the decision of CA.
of the will on its first page. Also, the will itself is not numbered correlatively in letters
on each page, but instead numbered with Arabic numerals. There is a line of thought An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting
that has disabused the notion that these two requirements be construed as mandatory. witnesses certify that the instrument has been executed before them and to the manner
Taken in isolation, these omissions, by themselves, may not be sufficient to deny of the execution the same. It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts
probate to a will. Yet even as these omissions are not decisive to the adjudication of this surrounding the conduct of the execution and once signed by the witnesses, it gives
case, they need not be dwelt on, though indicative as they may be of a general lack of affirmation to the fact that the compliance with the essential formalities required by law
due regard for the requirements under Article 805 by whoever executed the will. has been observed. It is made for the purpose of preserving in a permanent form a
record of facts that the attended the execution of a particular will, so that in case of
CANEDA v CA
failure of the memory of the attesting witnesses, or other casualty, such facts may still
FACTS: Mateo Caballero, widower without any children, executed a last will and be proved.
testament before 3 attesting witnesses namely Cipriano Labuca, Gregorio Cabando, and
Under the third paragraph of Article 805, such a clause, the complete lack of which
Flaviano Toregosa. The said testator was duly assisted by his lawyer and a notary public
would result in the invalidity of the will, should state:
m in preparation of that last will. It was declared among other things that the testator
was leaving his real and personal properties by way of legacies and devises to 1. The number of pages used upon which the will is written;
Presentation Gaviola, Angel Abatayo, Rogelio Abatayo, Isabelito Abatayo, and Benoni
2. That the testator signed, or expressly caused another to sign, the will and
Cabrera, and Marcosa Alcantara - all not related to the testator.
every page thereof in the presence of attesting witnesses; and
Four months later, the testator himself filed a petition seeking to probate of his last will.
3. That the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will
The petition was heard after the testator died. Thereafter, the petitioners, claiming to be
and all its pages, and that the said witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof
nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a second petition for intestate
in the presence of the testator and of one another.
proceedings. They also opposed the probate of the testator’s will and the appointment
of a special administrator for his estate. The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which
the will is written is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or
In the probate proceedings, the herein petitioners opposed the allowance of the will
some of its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages; whereas the
alleging that the testator was already in poor health at the time and he could have not
subscription of the signature of the testator and the attesting witnesses is made for the
executed it. They also questioned the genuineness of the signature of the testator
purpose of authentication and identification, and thus indicates that the will is the very
therein. The probate court rendered its decision declaring that the will in question as
same instrument executed by the testator and its witnesses.
the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero.
Further, by attesting and subscribing to the will, the witnesses thereby declare the due
The petitioners elevated it's the case to CA in which they asserted that the will is void
execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause. The attestation clause,
on the ground that its attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically
therefore, provide strong legal guaranties for the due execution of a will and to insure
state that the witnesses witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that
the authenticity thereof. As it appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator, it
they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and one
need to be signed only by them. Where it is left unsigned, it would result in the
another. The CA affirmed the decision of the probate court and also denied the
invalidation of the will as it would be possible and easy to add the clause on the
reconsideration by the petitioners. Hence, this case.
subsequent occasion in the absence of the testator and its witnesses.
An examination of the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero shoes that it is It is our considered view that the absence of that statement required by law is a fatal
comprised of 3 sheets all of which have been numbered correlatively, with the left defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that
margin of each page thereof bearing the respective signatures of the testator and the 3 is here sought to be admitted to probate.
attesting witnesses.
*NOTE: The Court also discussed the comments of JBL Reyes on defective will – saying
It should be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest and that such defect does not invalidate a will. However, such was not applied in this case
subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and one of another. "Attestation" and because the will is not defective but it was rather lacking of the elements of the
"subscription" differ in meaning. Attestation is the act of senses, while subscription is attestation clause.
the act of the hand. The former is mental, the latter mechanical, and to attest a will is to
know that it was published as such, and to certify the facts required to constitute an Lopez vs. Lopez
actual and legal publication; but to subscribe a paper published as a will is only to write
G.R. No. 189984, November 12, 2012
on the same paper the names of the witnesses, for the sole purpose of identification.
By: Nitro, Dustin P
In Taboada vs. Rizal, we clarified that attestation consists in witnessing the testator's
execution of the will in order to see and take note mentally that those things are done
which the statute requires for the execution of a will and that the signature of the
DOCTRINE: The rule (in Art. 809) must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be
testator exists as a fact. On the other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses'
supplied by an examination of the will itself: whether all the pages are consecutively numbered;
names upon the same paper for the purpose of identification of such paper as the will
whether the signatures appear in each and every page; whether the subscribing witnesses are
which was executed by the testator. As it involves a mental act, there would be no
three or the will was notarized. All these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or
means, therefore, of ascertaining by a physical examination of the will whether the
even omissions concerning them in the attestation clause can be safely disregarded. But the total
witnesses had indeed signed in the presence of the testator and of each other unless this
number of pages, and whether all persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other
is substantially expressed in the attestation.
must substantially appear in the attestation clause, being the only check against perjury in the
What is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation clause herein assailed probate proceedings.
is the fact that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in
FACTS: Enrique S. Lopez (Enrique) died leaving his wife, Wendy, and their 4 legitimate
the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that
children, namely, petitioner Richard and the respondents Diana, Marybeth and Victoria
were used, the same does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said
as compulsory heirs. Richard filed a petition for the probate of his father's Last Will and
witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the
Testament before the RTC of Manila. Marybeth opposed the petition contending that
testator and of each other.
the purported last will and testament was not executed and attested as required by law,
The phrase "and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided and that it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of
for his signature and on the left hand margin," obviously refers to the testator and not Richard.
the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the words "as his Last Will
RTC disallowed the probate of the will for failure to comply with Article 805 of the Civil
and Testament." On the other hand, although the words "in the presence of the testator
Code which requires a statement in the attestation clause of the number of pages used
and in the presence of each and all of us" may, at first blush, appear to likewise signify
upon which the will is written. It held that while Article 809 of the same Code requires
and refer to the witnesses, it must, however, be interpreted as referring only to the
mere substantial compliance of the form laid down in Article 805 thereof, the rule only
testator signing in the presence of the witnesses since said phrase immediately follows
applies if the number of pages is reflected somewhere else in the will with no evidence
the words "he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for
aliunde or extrinsic evidence required. While the acknowledgment portion stated that
his signature and on the left hand margin." What is then clearly lacking, in the final
the will consists of 7 pages including the page on which the ratification and
logical analysis, is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page
acknowledgment are written, the RTC observed that it has 8 pages including the
thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
acknowledgment portion. The CA adopted the said findings of the RTC.

ISSUE: WON the will of Enrique Lopez should be admitted to probate.
HELD: No, the will should not be admitted to probate. The Civil Code provides:
ART. 805. xxx The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will
is written xxx
ART. 809. 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 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 aliunde.
On this score is the comment of Justice J.B.L. Reyes regarding the application of Article
809, to wit:
x x x 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 attestation
clause, being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings.
ROSARIO FELICIANO VDA. DE RAMOS ET AL VS COURT OF APPEALS
81 SCRA 393 - G.R. No. L-40804 January 31, 1978
FACTS: The late Eugenia Danila left a will wherein she instituted among others
Adelaida Nista as one of the instituted heirs. Nista petitioned before the court to admit
the will to probate. The petition was opposed by Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina
Guerra. The two oppositors claimed that they were the legally adopted children of
Danila; that the said will sought to be probated by Nista was obtained through fraud.
The two parties talked and they came up with a compromise agreement which
essentially stated that Nista is admitting the invalidity of the will. The compromise
agreement was approved by the trial court BUT Rosario de Ramos et al – the other
instituted heirs and devisees – intervened. The trial court allowed the intervention and
set aside the compromise agreement. Rosario de Ramos et al alleged that the Guerras
repudiated their shares when they abandoned Danila and committed acts of ingratitude
against her.
Eventually, the probate court admitted the will to probate. The decision was appealed
by the Guerras. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the probate court. The
CA ruled that there was a failure to prove that Danila was in the presence of the
instrumental witnesses when she signed the will – this was because two of the
instrumental witnesses (Sarmiento and Paz) testified in court that the will was already
signed by Danila when they affixed their signatures.
HOWEVER, Atty. Ricardo Barcenas, the Notary Public before whom the will was
executed and who assisted in the execution, vehemently assailed the testimony of the
two witnesses. He affirmed Danila and the three instrumental witnesses were in each
other’s presence when the will was signed by them. Another lawyer, who was also
present during the execution of the will, corroborated the testimony of Atty. Barcenas.
ISSUE: Whether or not the last testament and its accompanying codicil were executed
in accordance with the formalities of the law
HELD: There is ample and satisfactory evidence to convince Us that the will and codicil
were executed in accordance with the formalities required by law. It appears positively
and convincingly that documents were prepared by a lawyer, Atty. Manuel Alvero. The
execution of the same was evidently supervised by his associate, Atty. Ricardo Barcenas
and before whom the deeds were also acknowledged. The solemnity surrounding the
execution of a will is attended by some intricacies not usually within the comprehension
of an ordinary layman. The object is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to
avoid substitution of the will and testament, and to guarantee their truth and
authenticity. If there should be any stress on the participation of lawyers in the By signing the will, the witnesses impliedly certified to the truth of the facts which
execution of a will, other than an interested party, it cannot be less than the exercise of admit to probate, including the sufficiency of execution, the capacity of the testatrix, the
their primary duty as members of the Bar to uphold the lofty purpose of the law. There absence of undue influence, and the like.
is no showing that the above-named lawyers had been remiss in their sworn duty.
In this jurisdiction, all the attesting witnesses to a will, if available, must be called to
Consequently, respondent court failed to consider the presumption of regularity in the
prove the will. Under this circumstance, they become “forced witnesses” and their
execution of the questioned documents. There were no incidents brought to the
declaration derogatory to the probate of the will need not bind the proponent, hence,
attention of the trial court to arouse suspicion of anomaly. While the opposition alleged
the latter may present other proof of due execution even if contrary to the testimony of
fraud and undue influence, no evidence was presented to prove their occurrence. There
some or all of the attesting witnesses. As a rule, if any or all of the subscribing witnesses
is no question that each and every page of the will and codicil carry the authentic
testify against the due execution of the will, or do not remember having attested to it,
signatures of Eugenia Danila and the three (3) attesting witnesses. Similarly, the
or are otherwise of doubtful credibility, the will may, nevertheless, be allowed if the
attestation clauses, far from being deficient, were properly signed by the attesting
court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses and from all the evidence
witnesses. Neither is it disputed that these witnesses took turns in signing the will and
presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner required by law.
codicil in the presence of each other and the testatrix. Both instruments were duly
Accordingly, although the subscribing witnesses to a contested will are the best
acknowledged before a Notary Public who was all the time present during the
witnesses in connection with its due execution, to deserve full credit, their testimony
execution.
must be reasonable, and unbiased; if otherwise, it may be overcome by any competent
The presumption of regularity can of course be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, direct or circumstantial.
evidence to the contrary, but not easily by the mere expediency of the negative
In the case at bar, the records bear a disparity in the quality of the testimonies of Odon
testimony of Odon Sarmiento and Rosendo Paz that they did not see the testatrix sigh
Sarmiento and Rosendo Paz on one hand, and the Notary Public, Atty. Ricardo A.
the will. A negative testimony does not enjoy equal standing with a positive assertion,
Barcenas, on the other. The testimony of Odon Sarmiento was contradicted by his own
and faced with the convincing appearance of the will, such negative statement must be
admission. Though his admission to the effect that “when Eugenia Danila signed the
examined with extra care. For in this regard —
testament (he) and the two other attesting witnesses Rosendo Paz and Calixto Azusada
“It has also been held that the condition and physical appearance of a questioned were present” (t.s.n., Feb. 12, 1970, p. 115) was made extrajudicially, it was not squarely
document constitute a valuable factor which, if correctly evaluated in the light of refuted when inquired upon during the trial.
surrounding circumstances, may help in determining whether it is genuine or forged.
With respect to the testimony of Rosendo Paz, it had been refuted by the declaration of
Subscribing witnesses may forget or exaggerate what they really know, saw, heard or
Atty. Ricardo A. Barcenas. The records show that this attesting witness was fetched by
did; they may be biased and, therefore, tell only half-truths to mislead the court or favor
Felix Danila from his place of work in order to act as witness to a will. Rosendo Paz did
one party to the prejudice of the others. This cannot be said of the condition and physical
not know what the document he signed was all about. Although he performed his
appearance of the questioned document. Both, albeit silent, will reveal the naked truth,
function as an attesting witness, his participation was rather passive. We do not expect,
hiding nothing, forgetting nothing, and exaggerating nothing.” 3
therefore, that his testimony, “half-hearted” as that of Odon Sarmiento, be as candid
Unlike other deeds, ordinary wills by necessity of law must contain an attestation and complete as one proceeding from a keen mind fully attentive to the details of the
clause which, significantly, is a separate memorandum or record of the facts execution of the deeds. Quite differently, Atty. Ricardo A. Barcenas, more than a direct
surrounding the conduct of execution. Once signed by the attesting witnesses, it witness himself, was purposely there to oversee the accomplishment of the will and
affirms that compliance with the indispensable legal formalities had been observed. codicil. His testimony is an account of what he actually heard and saw during the
This Court had previously held that the attestation clause basically contradicts the conduct of his profession. There is no evidence to show that this lawyer was motivated
pretense of undue execution which later on may be made by the attesting witnesses. In by any material interest to take sides or that his statement is truth perverted.
the attestation clause, the witnesses do not merely attest to the signature of the testatrix
It has been regarded that the function of the Notary Public is, among others, to guard
but also to the proper execution of the will, and their signatures following that of the
against any illegal or immoral arrangements in the execution of a will. 10 In the absence
testatrix show that they have in fact attested not only to the genuineness of the testatrix’s
of any showing of self-interest that might possibly have warped his judgment and
signature but also to the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause.
twisted his declaration, the intervention of a Notary Public, in his professional capacity,
in the execution of a will deserves grave consideration. 11 An appraisal of a lawyer’s
participation has been succinctly stated by the Court in Fernandez v. Tantoco, supra,
this wise:

“In weighing the testimony of the attesting witnesses to a will, the statements of a
competent attorney, who has been charged with the responsibility of seeing to the
proper execution of the instrument, is entitled to greater weight than the testimony of a
person casually called to participate in the act, supposing of course that no motive is
revealed that should induce the attorney to prevaricate. The reason is that the mind of
the attorney being conversant of the instrument, is more likely to become fixed on
details, and he is more likely than other persons to retain those incidents in his
memory.”

One final point, the absence of a photograph of the testatrix, Eugenia Danila in the act
of signing her will. The fact that the only pictures available are those which show the
witnesses signing the will in the presence of the testatrix and of each other does not
belie the probability that the testatrix also signed the will before the presence of the
witnesses. We must stress that the pictures are worthy only of what they show and
prove and not of what they did not speak of including the events they failed to capture.
The probate of a will is a special proceeding not imbued with adversary character,
wherein courts should relax the rules on evidence “to the end that nothing less than the
best evidence of which the matter is susceptible” should be presented to the court before
a purported will may be probated or denied probate. 12

We find here that the failure to imprint in photographs all the stages in the execution of
the will does not serve any persuasive effect nor have any evidentiary value to prove
that one vital and indispensable requisite has not been acted on. Much less can it defeat,
by any ordinary or special reason, the presentation of other competent evidence
intended to confirm a fact otherwise existent but not confirmed by the photographic
evidence. The probate court having satisfied itself that the will and codicil were
executed in accordance with the formalities required by law, and there being no
indication of abuse of discretion on its part, We find no error committed or any
exceptional circumstance warranting the subsequent reversal of its decision allowing
the probate of the deeds in question.