WILLS DOCTRINES FORM OF WILLS

ALVARADO VS GRAVIOLA
F: testator not completely blind, but could not read the will. The will was read by his lawyer ONLY ONCE. Will was affirmed several
times.
- ART. 808 does not only apply to blind testators but also to those who for one reason or another
are incapable of reading their wills
- Doctrine of Substantial compliance: In this case, even though the will was only read once, the
testator had already acknowledged and affirmed that the contents of the will are in accordance
with his intentions in several other instances. Will is valid.

ALUAD VS ALUAD
F: Deed of Donation was executed with the term that it shall only be effective upon death of the Donor. Deed was only witnessed
by two persons.
- Deed of Donation is a Donation Mortis Causa. Since it is a donation mortis causa, it should comply
with the requirements of a will under Article 805
- Requirements under 805 were not complied with because a will requires 3 witnesses for it to be
valid. Donation mortis causa is void.

IN RE: PROBATE OF THE WILL OF PEREZ VS ROSAL

F: Will was signed by the testator at the bottom alone. The witnesses only signed on the left margin.
- Formalities must be interpreted liberally
- It would be absurd that the legislature intended to place so heavy an import on the space or
particular location where the signatures are to be found as long as this space or particular location
wherein the signatures are found is consistent with good faith

DY YIENG SEANGIO VS REYES

F: Testator merely disinherited a person. The will did not contain a provision for disposition of the estate.
- An intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and
while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter’s property, the disinheritance of a
person, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself.

CONDE VS ABAYA
F: the mother of a natural child of the deceased sought the acknowledgement of her child after the latter’s death.
- Right of a natural child to be acknowledged is not transmissible to the mother upon death of the
child.

PAMPLONA VS CA
F: Heirs sought the annulment of a sale allegedly executed without consent of the wife of the deceased
- Equity provides that the heirs are not allowed to impugn the sale from which their family
benefitted. Heirs are duty-bound to comply with Art. 1458 and 1495 of the Civil Code (the
obligation of the vender to deliver and transfer ownership of the property sold). This obligation
was transmitted in testator’s death to his heirs. Art. 776 of the Civil Code provides , the inheritance
which the heirs received from their deceased parents and/or predecessors-in-interest included all
the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death.

GUERRERO VS BIHIS
F: Will was acknowledged in Quezon City by a notary public authorized to notarize in Caloocan City. Will is invalid.
 - A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
instrumental witness is void and cannot be accepted for probate.

DOLOR VS DIANCIN
F: Will was signed by a thumbmark
- The requirement of the statute that the will shall be “signed” is satisfied not only the customary
written signature but also by the testator’s thumbmark.

YAP TUA VS YAP KA KUAN

F: The witnesses saw the testator sign with her name. However, the signature was not made using her full name. Will was valid.
- If writing a mark simply upon a will is sufficient indication of the intention of the person to make
and execute a will , then certainly the writing of a portion or all of her name ought to be accepted
as a clear indication of her intention to execute the will.

AVERS VS GARCIA
F: The signatures of the witnesses of the will are written on the right margin instead of the left. Will was held to be valid.
- Where ingenuity could not suggest any possible prejudice to any person, as attendant upon the
actual deviation from the letter of the law, such deviation must be considered too trivial to
invalidate the instrument.

NAYVE VS MOJAL
F: The will was not signed by the testator on the left margin, it was only signed in the center at the bottom of the page. The
attestation clause did not state the number of pages that the will was written on. The pages were not numbered in letters. Will is
held to be valid.
- as each and every page used of the will bears the signatures of the testator and the witnesses,
the fact that said signatures do not all appear on the left margin of each page does not detract
from the validity of the will

- paging with Arabic numerals and not with letters, as in the instant case, is within the spirit of the
law and is just as valid as paging with letters

- the number of sheets of which the will is composed be shown by the document itself, to prevent
the number of the sheets of the will from being unduly increased or decreased

- The fact that the testator and the witnesses signed each and every page of the will is proven by
the mere examination of the signatures in the will, the omission to expressly state such evident
fact does not invalidate the will nor prevent its probate

TESTATE ESTATE OF PILAPIL VS CA

F: Alterations were made on the will but the alterations were correct and consistent with the circumstances upon which the will
was enacted. The pages were not numbered in letters but contained instructions to proceed to the next page at the bottom of
each page. Will was held to be valid.
- The purpose of the law in establishing the formalities is to:
a. undoubtedly ensure its authenticity against bad faith and fraud and;
b. to prevent those who have no right to succeed the testator from benefitting from it.

- Will is held to be valid if the facts evidently exclude any fear, suspicion, or hint of doubt that one
of their pages has been replaced with another.
TESTATE ESTATE OF ABADA VS ABAJA
F: Will is not notarized. There was no notarization requirement at the time the will was executed. At the time of the probate of
the will, the law requiring notarization of wills is already implemented. The will was written in Spanish. The attestation clause did
not state that the testator understood Spanish. Will is held to be valid.
- The validity of the will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law at force AT THE
TIME IT IS MADE.

- There is no statutory requirement to state in the will itself that the testator knew the language or
dialect used in the will.This is a matter that a party may establish by proof aliunde (From a source
of Extrinsic Matter, docs or instrument).

CANEDA VS CA
F: The attestation clause lacked the statement that “the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the
testator and of one another.” Will was disallowed for probate.
- Under article 809, the defects and imperfections must only be with respect to the form of the
attestation or the language employed therein. Such defects or imperfections would not render a
will invalid should it be proved that the will was really executed and attested in compliance with
Article 805. In this regard, however, the manner of proving the due execution and attestation has
been held to be limited to merely an examination of the will itself without resorting to evidence
aliunde, whether oral or written.

- Defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself.

LABRADOR VS CA
F: Will was not dated in the usual manner. The date was written in a paragraph contained in the will.
- The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The
only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator.
These requirements are present in the subject will.

RODELAS VS ARANZA
F: The will presented for probate was a photocopy of the original will.
- Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted
because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the
probate court.

CODOY VS CALUGAY
F: Petitioners allege that the rule requiring 3 witnesses to a will is merely permissive as stated in Azaola vs Singson and Ajero vs
CA. In Ajero vs CA, there was no danger of Fraud. In this case, there was a possibility of fraud as the will was in the possession of
one of the beneficiaries of the will. There was no other document to compare the handwriting of the testator.
- In the case of Ajero vs. Court of Appeals, SC 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.

- If the holographic will is contested, that law requires three witnesses to declare that the will was
in the handwriting of the deceased.
AJERO VS CA
F: The will contained alterations and dispositions that are not signed and dated. The court denied the probate of the will.
- 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.

- Only the requirements of Article 810 of the New Civil Code — and not those found in Articles 813
and 814 of the same Code — are essential to the probate of a holographic will.

AZAOLA VS CA
F: Will is not contested. Will was denied for probate because 3 witnesses could not be presented.

- Since the authenticity of the will was not contested, Francisco was not required to produce more
than one witness. The rule of the first paragraph of Article 811 of the Civil Code is merely directory
and is not mandatory.

- Even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, 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.

- Under Art. 810, since no witness may have been present at the execution of a holographic will,
none being required by law, it becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing the
requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent for probate of the
holographic will.

NAZARENO VS CA
F: Simulated sale of a parcel of land was executed between the deceased and one of her 5 children. There was no consideration
given for the lot sold. The SC held that the said lot is a proper subject of collation for purposes of intestate proceedings.
- Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of
the estate any property or right which he may have received from the decedent, during the
lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be
computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.

RIVERA VS CA
F: Wealthy and prominent person dies. A person claiming to be his son appears in court and contested the validity of the will for
not being witnessed by 3 persons. The person claiming to be his son turned out to be the son of a person with the same name as
the deceased. The SC upheld the validity of the will holding that the the person contesting the validity of the will had no legal
standing because he was not, in fact, the son of the deceased.
- If the authenticity of the will is not questioned, there was no necessity of presenting the three
witnesses required under Article 811

- 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

CAPITLE VS ELBAMBUENA
F: Respondents contested that the estranged wife of the deceased should not be a compulsary heir because they had already been
separated in fact and she had already remarried.
 - Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir
of the deceased spouse

PAZ SAMANIEGO-CELADA VS ABENCE

F: Pages of the will was lettered in “A” “B” “C” instead of numbered in letters.
- 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.