CANEDA V.

CA

FACTS: Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children and already in the
twilight years of his life, executed a last will and testament before three
attesting witnesses, namely, Cipriano Labuca, Gregorio Cabando and Flaviano
Toregosa. It was declared therein, among other things, that the testator was
leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to
Presentacion Gaviola, Angel Abatayo, Rogelio Abatayo, Isabelito Abatayo,
Benoni G. Cabrera and Marcosa Alcantara, all of whom do not appear to be
related to the testator.

The petitioners contend that the attestation clause, in contravention of the

express requirements of the third paragraph of Article 805 of the Civil Code for
attestation clauses, fails to specifically state the fact that the the testator
signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the witnesses and that they,
the witnesses, likewise signed the will and every page thereof in the presence
of the testator and of each other.

ISSUE: Whether or not the attestation clause contained in the last will and
testament of the late Mateo Caballero complies with the requirements of Article
805, in relation to Article 809, of the Civil Code

HELD: YES. Article 805 provides that the attestation clause should state (1) the
number of the pages used upon which the will is written; (2) that the testator
signed, or expressly caused another to sign, the will and every page thereof in
the presence of the attesting witnesses; and (3) that the attesting witnesses
witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages, and that said
witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the
testator and of one another. Failure to state the said facts shall invalidate the
will.

In the present case, the attestation clause, while it recites that the testator
indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting
witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same
does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses
subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator
and of each other.

Under Article 809, the defects and imperfections of a will, with respect to the
form of the attestation or the language employed therein, would not render a
will invalid should it be proved that the will was really executed and attested in
compliance with Article 805.

The foregoing considerations do not apply where the attestation clause totally
omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the
will in the presence of the testator and of each other. In such a situation, the
defect is not only in the form or language of the attestation clause but the total
absence of a specific element required by Article 805 to be specifically stated
in the attestation clause of a will.
 GARCIA V. LACUESTA
FACTS: Antero Mercado’s made a will which is written in Ilocano dialect
wherein it appears that it was signed by Atty. Florentino Javiwe who wrote the
name of Antero. The testator was alleged to have written a cross immediately
after his name. The Court of First Instance found that the will was valid but the
Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision holding that the
attestation clause failed: 1) to certify that the will was signed on all the left
margins of the three pages and at the end of the will by Atty. Javier at the
express request of the testator in the presence of the testator and each and
every one of the witnesses; 2) to certify that after the signing of the name of
the testator by Atty. Javier at the former’s request said testator has written a
cross at the end of his name and on the left margin of the three pages of which
the will consists and at the end thereof 3) to certify that the witnesses signed
the will in all the pages thereon in the presence of the testator and of each
other. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the attestation clause is valid.
RULING: No. The will is invalid because, the attestation clause is fatally
defective for failing to state that Antero Mercado caused Atty. Javier to write
the testator’s name under his express direction, as required by section 168 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not here pretended that the cross appearing
on the will is the usual signature of Antero Mercado or even one of the ways by
which he signed his name. After mature reflection, the SC is not prepared to
liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark and the reason is obvious. The
cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.
CALDE V. CA
FACTS: Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang, the decedent, left behind nine thousand
pesos (P9,000.00) worth of property. She also left a Last Will and Testament,
and a Codicil and named Nicasio Calde the executor or the Will and Codicil.
Both documents contained the thumbmarks of decedent. They were also
signed by three (3) attesting witnesses each, and acknowledged before Tomas
A. Tolete, then the Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mt.
Province. The named executor filed a Petition for its allowance. Unfortunately,
he died during the pendency of the proceedings, and was duly substituted by
petitioner. Private respondents, relatives of decedent, opposed the Petition filed
by Calde, questioning the legality and validity of the said documents under Art.
805 of the Civil Code.
Two (2) of the six (6) witnesses testified that only one ballpen was used in
signing the two testamentary documents and were subscribed and attested by
the instrumental witnesses during a single occasion. However, on the face of
the document, the signatures of some of the attesting witnesses in the
decedent’s will and its codicil were written in blue ink while the others were in
black. In addition, Judge Tomas A. Tolete testified in narration as to how the
documents in question were subscribed and attested, starting from decedent’s
thumbmarking thereof, to the alleged signing of the instrumental witnesses
thereto in consecutive order.
ISSUE: Whether or not, based on the evidence submitted, respondent
appellate court erred in concluding that both decedent’s Last Will and
Testament, and its Codicil were subscribed by the instrumental witnesses on
separate occasions.
HELD: Evidence may generally be classified into three (3) kinds, from which a
court or tribunal may properly acquire knowledge for making its decision,
namely: real evidence or autoptic preference, testimonial evidence and
circumstantial evidence.
In the case at bench, the autoptic proference contradicts the testimonial
evidence produced by petitioner. Thus, it was not erroneous nor baseless for
respondent court to disbelieve petitioner’s claim that both testamentary
documents in question were subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of
Art. 805 of the Civil Code. Neither did respondent court err when it did not
accord great weight to the testimony of Judge Tomas A. Tolete since nowhere in
Judge Tolete’s testimony is there any kind of explanation for the different-
colored signatures on the testaments. The petition for review is denied. The
Supreme Court affirmed in toto the Decicion of the Court of Appeals.
 ORTEGA V. VALMONTE incapacity does not necessarily require that a person shall actually be insane or
of unsound mind."

FACTS: Placido toiled and lived for a long time in the United States until he
finally reached retirement. In 1980, he finally came home to stay in the WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution
Philippines, and lived in the house and lot which he owned in common with his of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
sister Ciriaca Valmonte. Two years after his arrival from the United States, and
at the age of 80 he wed Josefina who was then 28 years old. But in a little more
than two years of wedded bliss, Placido died on October 8, 1984.

Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in English and
consisting of two (2) pages wherein he left all of his properties to his wife
Josefina. But the allowance to probate of the will was opposed by Leticia
Valmonte, one of the siblings of the deceased. One of the grounds raised in the
opposition was the mental capacity of the testator, alleging that at the time of
the execution of the will the testator was already 83 years old and was no
longer of sound mind.

The trial court denied the probate of the will. The Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the court and admitted the will to probate.

ISSUE: Whether or not Placido Valmonte has testamentary capacity at the time
he allegedly executed the subject will

RULING: According to Article 799, the three things that the testator must have
the ability to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the
nature of the estate to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the testator's
bounty, and (3) the character of the testamentary act. Applying this test to the
present case, the Court finds that the appellate court was correct in holding
that Placido had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of his will.

It must be noted that despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify
accurately the kinds of property he owned, the extent of his shares in them and
even their locations. As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was
sufficient that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. As stated earlier, the
omission of some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There
being no showing of fraud in its execution, intent in its disposition becomes
irrelevant.

Worth reiterating in determining soundness of mind is Alsua-Betts v. CA, which

held thus: "Between the highest degree of soundness of mind and memory
which unquestionably carries with it full testamentary capacity, and that
degrees of mental aberration generally known as insanity or idiocy, there are
numberless degrees of mental capacity or incapacity and while on one hand it
has been held that mere weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from disease of
body, or from age, will not render a person incapable of making a will; a weak
or feebleminded person may make a valid will, provided he has understanding
and memory sufficient to enable him to know what he is about to do and how
or to whom he is disposing of his property. To constitute a sound and disposing
mind, it is not necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or
unshattered by disease or otherwise. It has been held that testamentary
 AZUELA V. CA
FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition with the trial court for the probate of a
notarial will purportedly executed by Eugenia E. Igsolo on June 10, 1981 and
notarized on the same day. The will consisted of two (2) pages and was written
in Filipino. The attestation clause did not state the number of pages and it was
not signed by the attesting witnesses at the bottom thereof. The said witnesses
affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of the will
though. Geralda Castillo opposed the petition, claiming that the will was a
forgery and that the true purpose of its emergence was so it could be utilized
as a defense in several court cases filed by oppositor against petitioner,
particularly for forcible entry and usurpation of real property, all centering on
petitioner’s right to occupy the properties of the decedent. 3 It also asserted
that contrary to the representations of petitioner, the decedent was actually
survived by 12 legitimate heirs, namely her grandchildren, who were then
residing abroad. She also argued that the will was not executed and attested
to in accordance with law. She pointed out that the decedent’s signature did
not appear on the second page of the will, and the will was not properly
acknowledged.
Azuela 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 or not the subject will is valid.
RULING: The court held that a will whose attestation clause does not contain
the number of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will
whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally
defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain an
acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of these
defects is sufficient to deny probate.
The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on which the
will was written remains a fatal flaw. This requirement aims at safeguarding the
will against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and
thus preventing any increase or decrease in the pages. In this case, however,
there could have been no substantial compliance with the requirements under
Art. 805 of the Civil Code 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 subject will cannot be considered to have been validly attested to by
the instrumental witnesses. While the signatures of the instrumental witnesses
appear on the left-hand margin of the will, they do not appear at the bottom of
the attestation clause. Art. 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 them. 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.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
ALVARADO V. GAVIOLA
FACTS: Seventy nine year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled
"Huling Habilin" wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner) and
expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting
probate. As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary public
and by private respondent who were present at the execution, the testator did
not read the final draft of the will himself. Instead, private respondent, as the
lawyer who drafted the eight-paged document, read the same aloud in the
presence of the testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary
public. The latter four followed the reading with their own respective copies
previously furnished them. Meanwhile, Brigido's holographic will was
subsequently admitted to probate on 9 December 1977.
On the 29th day of the same month, a codicil entitled "Kasulatan ng Pagbabago
sa Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na may Petsa Nobiembre
5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado" was executed changing some dispositions in the
notarial will to generate cash for the testator's eye operation. Brigido was then
suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were
unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not personally
read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who read it
aloud in his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses
(same as those of the notarial will) and the notary public who followed the
reading using their own copies.
A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed upon the
testator's death on 3 January 1979 by private respondent as executor.
Petitioner, in turn, filed an Opposition. Subsequently, a Probate Order was
issued. Upon appeal, it was contended that the deceased was blind within the
meaning of the law at the time his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached
thereto was executed; that since the reading required by Art. 808 of the Civil
Code was admittedly not complied with, probate of the deceased's last will and
codicil should have been denied.
The Court of Appeals rendered the decision under review with the following
findings: that Brigido Alvarado was not blind at the time his last will and codicil
were executed; that assuming his blindness, the reading requirement of Art.
808 was substantially complied with when both documents were read aloud to
the testator with each of the three instrumental witnesses and the notary
public following the reading with their respective copies of the instruments. The
appellate court then concluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to the
letter, there was substantial compliance since its purpose of making known to
the testator the contents of the drafted will was served.
ISSUE: Was the double-reading requirement of Article 808 complied with?
RULING: Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the
will shall be read twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again,
by the notary public before whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to
make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before
signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is contrary to his
instructions.
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead of the notary
public and an instrumental witness, it was the lawyer (private respondent) who
drafted the eight-paged will and the five-paged codicil who read the same
aloud to the testator, and read them only once, not twice as Art. 808 requires.
Private respondent however insists that there was substantial compliance and
that the single reading suffices for purposes of the law. The Court sustained
private respondent's stand. The Court has held in a number of occasions that
substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been
satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of
wills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but
are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary
privilege.
In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud
in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the
notary public. Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being
asked, that the contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only then did
the signing and acknowledgement take place. There is no evidence, and
petitioner does not so allege, that the contents of the will and codicil were not
sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator. On the contrary,
with respect to the "Huling Habilin," the day of the execution was not the first
time that Brigido had affirmed the truth and authenticity of the contents of the
draft. The uncontradicted testimony of Atty. Rino is that Brigido Alvarado
already acknowledged that the will was drafted in accordance with his
expressed wishes even prior to 5 November 1977 when Atty. Rino went to the
testator's residence precisely for the purpose of securing his conformity.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of respondent
Court of Appeals dated 11 April 1986 is AFFIRMED. Considering the length of
time that this case has remained pending, this decision is immediately
executory. Costs against petitioner.
LEE V. TAMBAGO
Facts:
 Complainant Manuel lee charged respondent Atty. Regino Tambago with
violation of the notarial law and the ethics of the legal profession for
notarising a spurious last will and testament.
 Complainant averred that his father, Vicente lee, Sr., never executed the
contested will. The signature of the two witnesses in the will are claimed to
be spurious.
 In the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his
wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to Vicente Lee,
Jr., and Elena Lee, half siblings of the complainant.
 Complainant claimed that while the will was executed and acknowledged on
June 1965, the decedent’s residence certificate noted in the
acknowledgement of the will was dated January 1962.
 Complainant also point out the absence of notation of the residence
certificate of the two witnesses in the will.
 Respondent answered that the complaint contain false allegations. He
claimed that the will and testament was validly executed and actually
notarized by him as per affidavit of Gloria Novato, common law wife of the
decedent, and corroborated by the joint-affidavit of the children of the
decedent namely Elena Lee and Vicente Lee.
 The RTC referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation.
 The IBP investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violation of
the old notarial law. Also, the violation constituted an infringement of legal
ethics of the CPR. The commissioner recommended the suspension of the
respondent for a period of 3 months.
 The IBP Board of Governors, in its resolution, adopted and approved with
modifications the recommendation of the commissioner. Respondent was
suspended from the practice of law for 1 year and his notarial commission
was revoked and disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2
years.
Issue: Whether or not the will is valid?
Ruling:
 The SC ruled that the will is invalid.
 The will was attested by only 2 witnesses and therefore it is considered void.
 A notarial will is required by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by the
testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by 3 or
more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
 The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the indispensable requisites for the validity of a will. In other words, a notarial will
door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
to guarantee their truth and authenticity. instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for probate.

 The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a
The notarial law provides:
notary public by the testator and the witnesses.

 An Acknowledgement is the act of one who has executed a deed in going
before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed.
An Acknowledgement in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to
safeguard the testator’s wishes long after his demise, and (2) to assure that
his estate is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.
 The acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this requirement was
neither strictly nor substantially complied with. There was an absence of a
notation of the residence certificate of the notarial witnesses in the
acknowledgement. Similarly, the notation of the testator’s old residence
certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These
omissions by respondent invalidated the will.
Section 240. Territorial jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a notary public in a
province shall be co-extensive in the province. The jurisdiction of a notary
public in the City of Manila shall be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall
possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.
The compulsory language of Article 806 of the Civil Code was not complied
with and the interdiction of Article 240 of the Notarial Law was breached.
Ineluctably, the acts of the testatrix, her witnesses and Atty. Directo were all
completely void.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED

 Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by the law render the
entire will invalid.

 Respondent was suspended to practice law for a period of 1 year and his
notarial commission is revoked and he is perpetually disqualified from
reappointment as a notary public.

GUERRERO V. BIHIS

FACTS: Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner Bella A. Guerrero

and respondent Resurreccion A. Bihis, died. Guerrero filed for probate in the
RTC Quezon City. Respondent Bihis opposed her elder sister’s petition on the
following grounds: the will was not executed and attested as required by law;
its attestation clause and acknowledgment did not comply with the
requirement of the law; the signature of the testatrix was procured by fraud
and petitioner and her children procure the will through undue and improper
pressure and influence.

Petitioner Guerrero was appointed special administratix. Respondent opposed

petitioner’s appointment but subsequently withdrew her opposition. The trial
court denied the probate of the will ruling that Article 806 of the Civil Code was
not complied with because the was acknowledged by the testatrix and the
witnesses at the testatrix’s residence at No. 40 Kanlaon Street, Quezon City
before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a commissioned notary public for and
in Caloocan City.

ISSUE: Does the will acknowledged by the testatrix and the instrumental
witnesses before a notary public acting outside the place of his commission
satisfy the requirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code.

HELD: No. one of the formalities required by law in connection with the
execution of a notarial will is that it must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witnesses. This formal requirement is one of the
 TABOADA V. ROSAL
Facts: The last will and testament of the late Dorotea Perez, written in the
Cebuano-Visayan dialect consists of two pages. The first page contains the
entire testamentary dispositions and is signed at the end or bottom of the page
by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the three (3) instrumental
witnesses. The second page which contains the attestation clause and the
acknowledgment is signed at the end of the attestation clause by the three (3)
attesting witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix.
The petition filed for the probate of said will was denied by the trial court for
want of a formality in its execution.
Issue: For the validity of a formal notarial will, does Article 805 of the Civil
Code require that the testatrix and all the three instrumental and attesting
witnesses sign at the end of the will and in the presence of the testatrix and of
one another?
Ruling: Under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will must be subscribed or
signed at its end by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by
another person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator
and of one another.
Attestation and subscription are two different things. 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 testator exists as a fact. On the
other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names upon the same
paper for the purpose of Identification of such paper as the will which was
executed by the testator. Insofar as the requirement of subscription is
concerned, it is our considered view that the will in this case was subscribed in
a manner which fully satisfies the purpose of Identification.
The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first
page of the will attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the
testatrix but also the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation
clause.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby granted. The orders of the
respondent court which denied the probate of tile will, the motion for
reconsideration of the denial of probate, and the motion for appointment of a
special administrator are set aside. The respondent court is ordered to allow
the probate of the wig and to conduct further proceedings in accordance with
this decision.
JABONETA V. GUSTILO
FACTS: Probate was denied the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta,
deceased, because the lower court was of the opinion from the evidence
adduced at the hearing that Julio Javellana, one of the witnesses, did not sign
the will in the presence of Isabelo Jena, another of the witnesses, as required
by the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The testator, calling Julio Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and Isabelo Jena as
witnesses, executed his will. They were all together, and were in the room
where Jaboneta was, and were present when he signed the document, Isabelo
Jena signing afterwards as a witness, at his request, and in his presence and in
the presence of the other two witnesses. Aniceto Jalbuena then signed as a
witness in the presence of the testator, and in the presence of the other two
persons who signed as witnesses. At that moment Isabelo Jena, being in a
hurry to leave, took his hat and left the room. As he was leaving the house Julio
Javellana took the pen in his hand and put himself in position to sign the will as
a witness.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was signed in the presence of all the witnesses
HELD: Yes. The fact that Jena was still in the room when he saw Javellana
moving his hand and pen in the act of affixing his signature to the will, taken
together with the testimony of the remaining witnesses which shows that
Javellana did in fact there and then sign his name to the will, convinces us that
the signature was affixed in the presence of Jena.
The fact that Jena was in the act of leaving, and that his back was turned while
a portion of the name of the witness was being written, is of no importance.
He, with the other witnesses and the testator, had assembled for the purpose
of executing the testament, and were together in the same room for that
purpose, and at the moment when the witness Javellana signed the document
he was actually and physically present and in such position with relation to
Javellana that he could see everything which took place by merely casting his
eyes in the proper direction, and without any physical obstruction to prevent
his doing so, therefore we are of opinion that the document was in fact signed
before he finally left the room.
 ABANGAN V. ABANGANN
Facts: The will of Ana Abangan executed on July, 1916 was duly probated. The
opponents appealed. The document consists of two (2) 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. 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. Further,
appellants alleged records do not show that the testatrix knew the dialect
which the will is written.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was executed in accordance with the formal
requisites prescribed by law
RULING: The Supreme Court held that In requiring that each and every page
of the will should also be signed on the left margin by the testator and three
witnesses in the presence of each other evidently has for its object to avoid the
substitution of any of said sheets, thereby changing the testator’s disposition.
But when these dispositions are wholly written on only one sheet signed at the
bottom by the testator and three witnesses, their signatures on the left margin
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.
As to the allegation that the testatrix did not know the dialect in which the will
is written, the circumstances appearing in the will itself that the same was
executed in the city of Cebu, and the dialect in the locality where the testatrix
was a neighbor is enough, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, to
presume that she knew this dialect in which the will is written.
The 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.
ICASIANO V. ICASIANO
FACTS: Petitioner Celso Icasiano filed a petition for the allowance and
admission to probate of the alleged will of Josefa Villacorte, deceased.
Petitioner also filed a motion for the admission of an amended and
supplemental petition, alleging that the decedent left a will executed in
duplicate with all the legal requirements, and that he was, on that date,
submitting the signed duplicate which he allegedly found only after the filing of
the petition. Respondent then filed her opposition; and she petitioned to have
herself appointed as a special administrator. The records show that the original
of the will, which was surrendered simultaneously with the filing of the petition
consists of five pages. While signed at the end and in every page, it does not
contain the signature of one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose V. Natividad,
on page three thereof; but the duplicate copy attached to the amended and
supplemental petition is signed by the testatrix and her three attesting
witnesses in each and every page.
Witness Natividad who testified on his failure to sign page three of the original,
admits that he may have lifted two pages instead of one when he signed the
same, but affirmed that page 3was signed in his presence.
Oppositors-appellants in turn introduced expert testimony to the effect that the
signatures of the testatrix in the duplicate are not genuine nor were they
written or affixed on the same occasion as the original, and further aver that
granting that the documents were genuine, they were executed through
mistake and with undue influence and pressure because the testatrix was
deceived into adopting as her last will and testament the wishes of those who
will stand to benefit from the provisions of the will.
ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of one of the instrumental witnessess’
signature on a page of the original copy of the will is fatal where the duplicate
has the complete signatures of the testator and all witnesses on every page.
RULING: The Court held that the testatrix signed both original and duplicate
copies of the will spontaneously, on the same in the presence of the three
attesting witnesses, the notary public who acknowledged the will; and Atty.
Samson, who actually prepared the documents. Moreover, there is no adequate
evidence of fraud or undue influence. The fact that some heirs are more
favored than others is proof of neither.
The 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. Impossibility of substitution of this page is
assured not only by the fact that the testatrix and two other witnesses did sign
the defective page, but also by its bearing the coincident imprint of the seal of
the notary public before whom the testament was ratified by testatrix and all
three witnesses.
Furthermore, 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 his having signed the will in front of himself. This cannot be done because he
every page. cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to
acknowledge his participation in the making of the will. To permit such a
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs situation to obtain would be sanctioning a sheer absurdity.
against appellants.
Furthermore, the function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against
any illegal or immoral arrangement Balinon v. De Leon, 50 0. G. 583.) That
function would defeated if the notary public were one of the attesting
CRUZ V. VILLASOR instrumental witnesses. For them he

FACTS: Petitioner-appellant Agapita N. Cruz, the surviving spouse of the said
decease opposed the allowance of the will alleging the will was executed
through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and undue influence; that the said
instrument was execute without the testator having been fully informed of the
content thereof, particularly as to what properties he was disposing and that
the supposed last will and testament was not executed in accordance with law.
Notwithstanding her objection, the Court allowed the probate of the said last
will and testament. Hence this appeal by certiorari which was given due
course.
would be interested sustaining the validity of the will as it directly involves him
and the validity of his own act. It would place him in inconsistent position and
the very purpose of acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud (Report of
Code Commission p. 106-107), would be thwarted.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and
the probate of the last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz is declared not
valid and hereby set aside.

Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto, namely Deogracias T. Jamaloas Jr.,

Dr. Francisco Pañares and Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr., one of them, the last named,
is at the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to
have been acknowledged. Reduced to simpler terms, the question was attested
and subscribed by at least three credible witnesses in the presence of the
testator and of each other, considering that the three attesting witnesses must
appear before the notary public to acknowledge the same. As the third witness
is the notary public himself, petitioner argues that the result is that only two
witnesses appeared before the notary public to acknowledge the will.

On the other hand, private respondent-appellee, Manuel B. Lugay, who is the

supposed executor of the will, following the reasoning of the trial court,
maintains that there is substantial compliance with the legal requirement of
having at least three attesting witnesses even if the notary public acted as one
of them.

ISSUE: Whether the supposed last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz was
executed in accordance with law, particularly Articles 805 and 806 of the new
Civil Code, the first requiring at least three credible witnesses to attest and
subscribe to the will, and the second requiring the testator and the witnesses
to acknowledge the will before a notary public.

RULING: After weighing the merits of the conflicting claims of the parties, the
Court sustained that of the appellant that the last will and testament in
question was not executed in accordance with law. The notary public before
whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third
instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having
signed the will. To acknowledge before means to avow (Javellana v. Ledesma,
97 Phil. 258, 262; Castro v. Castro, 100 Phil. 239, 247); to own as genuine, to
assent, to admit; and "before" means in front or preceding in space or ahead
of. (The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, p. 72;
Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, p. 252;
Webster's New International Dictionary 2d. p. 245.) Consequently, if the third
witness were the notary public himself, he would have to avow assent, or admit
 ROXAS V. DE JESUS
FACTS: After the death of spouses Andres and Bibiana de Jesus, her family
found a notebook containing a holographic will. The letter-will was addressed
to her children, entirely written and signed in her handwriting and dated
“FEB./61.” . A special proceeding was instituted by Simeon, brother of Bibiana.
Simeon was then appointed administrator of the estate and consequently, he
delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic will of
Bibiana which was then set for a hearing. Luz Henson, one of the compulsory
heirs filed an opposition to probate assailing the purported holographic Will of
Bibiana was not executed in accordance with law. However, the lower court
issued an order allowing the probate which was found to have been duly
executed in accordance with law. A motion for reconsideration was then filed
by Luz assailing that the alleged holographic will was not dated as required by
Article 810 of the Civil Code and contending that the law requires that the Will
should contain the day, month and year of its execution and that this should be
strictly complied with. The court then reconsidered its earlier order and
disallowed the probate of the holographic will on the ground that the word
“dated” has generally been held to include the month, day, and year.
ISSUE: Whether or not the date (FEB/61) appearing on the holographic will of
the deceased Bibian Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article 810
of the Civil Code.
RULING: Yes the date “FEB./61” appearing on the holographic Will of the
deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus complies with the requirement of Article 810
of the Civil Code which states:
ART. 810. A person may execute a holographic
will which must be entirely written, dated, and
signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is
subject to no other form, and may be made in
or out of the Philippines, and need not be
witnessed.
As a general rule, the “date” in a holographic will should include the day,
month and year of its execution. However, when as in the case at bar, there is
no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the
authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether or not the
date “FEB/61” appearing on the holographic will is a valid compliance with
Article 810 of the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed
under the principle of substantial compliance.
LABRADOR V. CA
FACTS: On June 10, 1972, Melecio Labrador died leaving behind a parcel of
land designated as Lot No. 1916 under Original Certificate of Title No. P-1652,
and the following heirs, namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio,
Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador, and a holographic
will. On July 28, 1975, Sagrado Labrador (now deceased but substituted by his
heirs), Enrica Labrador and Cristobal Labrador, filed in the court a quo a
petition for the probate of the alleged holographic will of the late Melecio
Labrador. Subsequently, on September 30, 1975, Jesus Labrador (now
deceased but substituted by his heirs), and Gaudencio Labrador filed an
opposition to the petition on the ground that the will has been extinguished or
revoked by implication of law, alleging therein that on September 30, 1971,
that is, before Melecio's death, for the consideration of P6,000, testator Melecio
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and conveying in favor
of oppositors Jesus and Gaudencio Lot No. 1916 and that as a matter of fact,
O.C.T. No. P-1652 had been cancelled by T.C.T. No. T-21178.
Earlier however, in 1973, Jesus Labrador sold said parcel of land to Navat for
only P5,000. Sagrado thereupon filed, on November 28, 1975, against his
brothers, Gaudencio and Jesus, for the annulment of said purported Deed of
Absolute Sale over a parcel of land which Sagrado allegedly had already
acquired by devise from their father Melecio Labrador under a holographic will
executed on March 17, 1968, the complaint for annulment, being premised on
the fact that the aforesaid Deed of Absolute Sale is fictitious.
Thereafter, the trial court rendered a joint decision allowing the probate of the
holographic will and declaring null and void the Deed of Absolute sale. The
court a quo had also directed the respondents to reimburse to the petitioners
the sum of P5,000.00 representing the redemption price for the property paid
by the plaintiff-petitioner Sagrado with legal interest thereon from December
20, 1976, when it was paid to vendee a retro.
ISSUE: Whether or not the alleged holographic will of one Melecio Labrador is
dated, as provided for in Article 810 of the New Civil Code
RULING: The petition, which principally alleges that the holographic will is
really dated, although the date is not in its usual place, is impressed with merit.
The will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect
compliance with Article 810.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.
Anent the second issue of finding the reimbursement of the P5, 000
representing the redemption price as erroneous, respondent court's conclusion
is incorrect. When private respondents sold the property (fishpond) with right
to repurchase to Navat for P5, 000, they were actually selling property
belonging to another and which they had no authority to sell , rendering such
sale null and void. Petitioners, thus "redeemed" the property from Navat for P5,
000, to immediately regain possession of the property for its disposition in
accordance with the will. Petitioners therefore deserve to be reimbursed the P5,
000.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 10,
1988 is hereby REVERSED. The holographic will of Melecio Labrador is
APPROVED and ALLOWED probate. The private respondents are directed to
REIMBURSE the petitioners the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
RODELAS V. ARANZA
FACTS: On January 11, 1977, appellant filed a petition for the probate of the
holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary
in her favor. The petition was opposed by the appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla,
Wilferine Bonilla Treyes Expedita Bonilla Frias and Ephraim Bonilla on the
following grounds:
(1) Appellant was estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will
by failing to produce the will within twenty days of the death of the testator
as required by Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules of Court;
(2) The alleged copy of the alleged holographic will did not contain a
disposition of property after death and was not intended to take effect after
death, and therefore it was not a will
(3) The alleged hollographic will itself,and not an alleged copy thereof,
must be produced, otherwise it would produce no effect, as held in Gam
v. Yap, 104 Phil. 509; and
(4 ) The deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise,
executed and attested as required by law.
ISSUE: Whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be
proved by means of a photostatic copy.
HELD: Yes. A photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be
allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the
testator. Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills
is the allowance of the will by the court after its due execution has been
proved. If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is
available, the will cannot be probated because the best and only evidence is
the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary that there be a
comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the
handwritten will. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar
means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased
may be exhibited and tested before the probate court," 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.
WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court dated October 3, 1979, denying
appellant's motion for reconsideration dated August 9, 1979, of the Order
dated July 23, 1979, dismissing her petition to approve the will of the late
Ricardo B. Bonilla, is hereby SET ASIDE.
 CODOY V. CALUGAY KALAW V. RELOVA

FACTS: On April 6, 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo, Eufemia

Patigas, devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde
Seño Vda. De Ramonal, filed with the Regional Trial Court, a petition for probate
of the holographic will of the deceased, who died on January 16, 1990.
On June 28, 1990, Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an
opposition to the petition for probate, alleging that the holographic will was a
forgery and that the same is illegible. This gives an impression that a “third
hand” of an interested party other than the “true hand” of Matilde Seño Vda.
De Ramonal executed the holographic will.
Respondent presented six (6) witnesses and various documentary evidence.
However, the lower court denied probate of the will for insufficiency of
evidence and lack of merits.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not analyzing the
signatures in the holographic will of Matilde Seño Vda. De Ramonal.
RULING: The article provides, as a requirement for the probate of a contested
holographic will, that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the
signature in the will is the genuine signature of the testator.
FACTS: On September 1, 1971, private respondent GREGORIO K. KALAW,
claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased sister, Natividad K. Kalaw, filed a
petition for the probate of her holographic Will executed on December 24,
1968.
The holographic Will, as first written, named ROSA K. Kalaw, a sister of the
testatrix as her sole heir. Hence, on November 10, 1971, petitioner ROSA K.
Kalaw opposed probate alleging, in substance, that the holographic Will
contained alterations, corrections, and insertions without the proper
authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of
the Civil Code.
ROSA's position was that the holographic Will, as first written, should be given
effect and probated so that she could be the sole heir thereunder.
After trial, respondent Judge denied probate.
ISSUE: Whether or not the alterations, insertions, and/or additions in the will
affect its validity

The Supreme Court was convinced, based on the language used, that Article RULING: Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and
811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The SC ruled that “shall” in a statue interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will litem not been noted
commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is consistent with the idea of under his signature, ... the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at
discretion and the presumption is that the word “shall”, when used in a statue most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined.
is mandatory.
However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one
It will be noted that not all the witnesses presented by the respondents
substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the original heir with
testified explicitly that they were familiar with the handwriting of the testator.
another, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication
In the case of Augusto Neri, Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance, Misamis
by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that the entire Will is
Oriental, he merely uidentified the record of said case before said court. He
voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after
was not presented to declare explicitly that the signature appearing in the
that which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first written should be
holographic was that of the deceased.
given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. But
that change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to
There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the signature and the authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature.
handwriting of the deceased with other documents signed and executed by her
during her lifetime. The only chance of comparison was when the lawyer of
petitioners asked Ms. Binanay during the cross-examination to compare the WHEREFORE, this Petition is hereby dismissed and the Decision of respondent
documents having the signature of the deceased with that of the holographic Judge, dated September 3, 1973, is hereby affirmed in toto. No costs.
will and she is not a handwriting expert. Even the former lawyer of the
deceased expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the signature in the
holographic will.
 AJERO V. CA SET ASIDE, except with respect to the invalidity of the disposition of the entire
house and lot in

FACTS: On January 20, 1983, petitioners instituted Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, for
allowance of decedent's holographic will. They alleged that at the time of its
execution, she was of sound and disposing mind, not acting under duress,
fraud or undue influence, and was in every respect capacitated to dispose of
her estate by will.
Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 94 in Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, dated November 19, 1988,
admitting to probate the holographic will of decedent Annie Sand, is hereby
REINSTATED, with the above qualification as regards the Cabadbaran property.
No costs.

Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the
testament's body nor the signature therein was in decedent's handwriting; it
contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent;
and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue
influence. The petition was likewise opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero. He contested
the disposition in the will of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan Del
Norte. He claimed that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its
entirety, as she was not its sole owner.

Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court admitted the decedent's

holographic will to probate. On appeal, said Decision was reversed, and the
petition for probate of decedent's will was dismissed. The Court of Appeals
found that, "the holographic will fails to meet the requirements for its validity."
It held that the decedent did not comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New
Civil Code

ISSUE: Whether or not the will should be admitted for probate

RULING: Respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne Sand was not
executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. It held that
Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code, ante, were not complied with,
hence, it disallowed the probate of said will. This is erroneous.

In the case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity is the requirement

that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself, as
provided under Article 810 of the New Civil Code, thus:

A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated,
and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form,
and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of
a holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator.

Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were

made on the date of the holographic will or on testator's signature, their
presence does not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only
result in disallowance of such changes.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, dated March 30, 1992, is REVERSED and
 AZAOLA V. SINGSON
FACTS:
Fortunata S. Vda. De Yance died in Quezon City on September 9, 1957.
Petitioner submitted for probate her holographic will, in which Maria Azaola was
made the sole heir as against the nephew, who is the defendant. Only one
witness, Francisoco Azaola, was presented to testify on the handwriting of the
testatrix. He testified that he had seen it one month, more or less, before the
death of the testatrix, as it was given to him and his wife; and that it was in the
testatrix’s handwriting. He presented the mortgage, the special power of the
attorney, and the general power of attorney, and the deeds of sale including an
affidavit to reinforce his statement. Two residence certificates showing the
testatrix’s signature were also exhibited for comparison purposes.
The probate was opposed on the ground that (1) the execution of the will was
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
petitioner and his wife, and (2) that the testatrix did not seriously intend the
instrument to be her last will, and that the same was actually written either on
the 5th or 6th day of August 1957 and not on November 20, 1956 as appears
on the will.
not so express) “that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the
testator”. There may be no available witness of the testator’s hand; or even if
so familiarized, the witnesses may be unwilling to give a positive opinion.
Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811 may thus become an
impossibility.
This is the reason why the 2nd paragraph of Article 811 allows the court to
resort to expert evidence. The law foresees the possibility that no qualified
witness may be found (or what amounts to the same thing, that no competent
witness may be willing to testify to the authenticity of the will), and provides
for resort to expert evidence to supply the deficiency.
What the law deems essential is that the court should be convinced of the will’s
authenticity. Where the prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the
court is convinced by their testimony that the will is genuine, it may consider it
unnecessary to call for expert evidence. On the other hand, if no competent
witness is available, or none of those produced is convincing, the Court may
still, and in fact it should, resort to handwriting experts. The duty of the Court,
in fine, is to exhaust all available lines of inquiry, for the state is as much
interested as the proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried
into effect.

The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the Civil Code,
the proponent must present three witnesses who could declare that the will
and the signature are in the writing of the testatrix, the probate being
contested; and because the lone witness presented “did not prove sufficiently
that the body of the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix.”

Petitioner appealed, urging: first, that he was not bound to produce more than
one witness because the will’s authenticity was not questioned; and second,
that Article 811 does not mandatorily require the production of three witnesses
to identify the handwriting and signature of a holographic will, even if its
authenticity should be denied by the adverse party.

ISSUE:

W/N Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory or permissive.

HELD:

Article 811 is merely permissive and not mandatory. Since the authenticity of
the will was not contested, petitioner was not required to produce more than
one witness; but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were
contested, Article 811 can not be interpreted to require the compulsory
presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator,
under penalty of having the probate denied. Since no witness may have been
present at the execution of a holographic will, none being required by law (Art.
810, new Civil Code), it becomes obvious that the existence of witness
possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the
proponent. For it is not merely a question of finding and producing any three
witnesses; they must be witnesses “who know the handwriting and signature of
the testator” and who can declare (truthfully, of course, even if the law does