MY PART

ENRIQUE M. PASNO, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
FORTUNATA RAVINA and PONCIANA RAVINA, oppositors-appellants.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
FACTS:
An appeal has been taken by the oppositors to the legalization of the will of
Gabina Labitoria, and concerns the validity of that will. Gabina Labitoria during
her lifetime mortgaged three parcels of land to the Philippine National Bank to
secure an indebtedness of P1,600. It was stipulated in the mortgage, among
other things, that the mortgagee "may remove, sell or dispose of the mortgaged
property or any buildings, improvements or other property in, on or attached to
it and belonging to the mortgagor in accordance with the provisions of Act No.
3135 or take other legal action that it may deem necessary." The mortgagor
died, and a petition was presented in court for the probate of her last will and
testament. The single question to be decided is whether the admitted fact that
the will was executed on July 27, 1928, although stating that it was executed on
February 6, 1926, invalidates the will. As said by the trial judge, the reason for the
error was on account of the will being in great part a reproduction of another
will of February 6, 1926, and inadvertently retaining this date.
ISSUE:
WON the will is valid
RULING:
Section 618, as amended, of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the
requisites necessary to the execution of a valid will. The law does not require that
the will shall be dated. Accordingly, a will without a date is valid. So likewise an
erroneous date will not defeat a will.
It results that the trial judge was right in admitting the will of Gabina Labitoria to
probate.

MANUEL
GONZALES,
petitioner-appellant,
vs.
MANOLITA
GONZALES
DE
CARUNGCONG,
petitioner-appellee;
ALEJANDRO GONZALES, JR., and JUAN GONZALES, oppositors-appellants.
FACTS:
On November 27, 1948, Manuel Ibarra Vda. de Gonzales died leaving five
children, namely, Alejandro Gonzales, Leopoldo Gonzales, Manolita Gonzales
de Carungcong, and Juan Gonzales. On December 22, 1948, Manuel Gonzales
filed a petition for the probate of an alleged will executed by the testatrix,
devising to Manuel Gonzales the greater portion of the estate, without impairing
the legitimes of the other children. On December 31, 1948, Manolita G. de
Carungcong filed in the same court a petition for the probate of another
alleged will executed by the testatrix leaving to Manolita G. de Carungcong the
greater bulk of the estate, without impairing the legitimes of the other children.
It is contended for the appellants that this will does not contain any attestation
clause; that, assuming the concluding paragraph to be the attestation clause, it
is not valid because it is the act of the testatrix and not of the witnesses, and
because it does not state the number of sheets or pages of the will.
ISSUE:
WON the will is valid
RULING:
Instrumental witnesses, as defined is one who takes part in the execution of an
instrument or writing. An instrumental witness, therefore, does not merely attest
to the signature of the testator but also to the proper execution of the will. The
fact that the three instrumental witnesses have signed the will immediately
under the signature of the testator shows that they have in fact attested not only
to the genuineness of his signature but also to the due execution of the will as
embodied in the attestation clause.
The attestation clause contained in the body of the will being thus valid, the
statement in the penultimate paragraph of the will hereinabove quoted as to
the number of sheets or pages used, is sufficient attestation which may be
considered in conjunction with the last paragraph. It is significant that the law
does not require the attestation to be contained in a single clause. While

perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure

from the usual forms should be ignored, especially when the authenticity of the
will is not assailed, as in this case.
G.R. No. L-32213 November 26, 1973
AGAPITA N. CRUZ, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUDGE GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, Presiding Judge of Branch I, Court of First
Instance of Cebu, and MANUEL B. LUGAY, respondents.
FACTS:
The surviving spouse of the deceased Valenti Cruz, opposed for the allowance
of the latters will alleging that the will was not executed in accordance with
law. One of the witnesses, Angel Tevel Jr. was also the notary before whom the
will was acknowledged. Despite the objection, the lower court admitted the will
to probate on the ground that there is substantial compliance with the legal
requirements of having at least 3 witnesses even if the notary public was one of
them.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE WILL WAS VALIDLY EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ARTICLES 805 AND 806 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE?
HELD:
NO. 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, or to own as genuine, to assent, admit, and 'before' means in front of or
preceding in space or ahead of. The notary cannot split his personality into two
so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his participation into
the making of the will. To permit such situation would be absurd.
In the matter of the testate estate of the deceased JUANA JUAN VDA. DE MOLO.
EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON and PILAR PEREZ-NABLE, Petitioners-Appellees, vs.
ENRIQUE TANCHUCO, FAUSTINO GOMEZ, ET AL., Oppositors-Appellants.
FACTS:
In 1950, Juana Juan Vda. De Molo died, leaving no forced heirs, but only
collateral children and the grandchildren of her sisters. She executed a last will

and testament bequeathing all her properties to her two foster children, the
petitioners herein. Thereafter, the said will was submitted for probate, but was
opposed by herein oppositors on the ground among others, that it was not
attested and executed in accordance with law. The trial court admitted the will
for probate. Oppositors appealed. They contend that under Section 618 of Act
190, the Old Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that a will should be
attested or subscribed by three or more credible witnesses, two of the attesting
witnesses to the will in question, namely, Miss Navarro and Miss Canicosa, who
were employed as pharmacist and salesgirl, respectively, in the drugstore of Pilar
Perez-Nable, one of beneficiaries in the will, may not be considered credible
witnesses for the reason that as such employees, they would naturally testify in
favor of their employer.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE RELATION OF AN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE,
DISQUALIFIES ONE TO BE A WITNESS IN A WILL?
HELD:
NO. Section 620 of the same Code of Civil Procedure provides that any person
of sound mind, and of the age of eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf,
or dumb and able to read and write, may be a witness to the execution of a
will. This same provision is reproduced in our New Civil Code of 1950, under Art.
820. The relation of employer and employee, or being a relative to the
beneficiary in a will, does not disqualify one to be a witness to a will. The main
qualification of a witness in the attestation of wills, if other qualifications as to
age, mental capacity and literacy are present, is that said witness must be
credible, that is to say, his testimony may be entitled to credence.
Javellana vs. Ledesma
G.R.No. L-7179
FACTS:
The CFI of Iloilo admitted to probate a will and codicil executed by the
deceased Apolinaria Ledesma in July 1953. This testament was deemed
executed on May 1950 and May 1952. The contestant was the sister and nearest
surviving relative of the deceased. She appealed from this decision alleging
that the will were not executed in accordance with law. The testament was
executed at the house of the testatrix. One the other hand, the codicil was
executed after the enactment of the New Civil Code (NCC), and therefore had

to be acknowledged before a notary public. Now, the contestant, who

happens to be one of the instrumental witnesses, asserted that after the codicil
was signed and attested at the San Pablo hospital, that Gimotea (the notary)
signed and sealed it on the same occasion. Gimotea, however, said that he did
not do so, and that the act of signing and sealing was done afterwards. One of
the allegations was that the certificate of acknowledgement to the codicil was
signed somewhere else or in the office of the notary. The testatrix and the
witnesses at the hospital, was signed and sealed by the notary only when he
brought it in his office.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the signing and sealing of the will or codicil in the absence of the
testator and witnesses affects the validity of the will.
RULING:
NO. Unlike in the Old Civil Code of 1899, the NCC does not require that the
signing of the testator, the witnesses and the notary be accomplished in one
single act. All that is required is that every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and witnesses. The subsequent signing and sealing
is not part of the acknowledgement itself nor of the testamentary act. Their
separate execution out of the presence of the testator and the witnesses
cannot be a violation of the rule that testaments should be completed without
interruption.
G.R. No. 74695 September 14, 1993
In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of the Deceased
Brigido
Alvarado,
CESAR
ALVARADO,
petitioner,
vs.
HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., Presiding Justice, HON. MA. ROSARIO QUETULIO
LOSA and HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Associate Justices, Intermediate
Appellate Court, First Division (Civil Cases), and BAYANI MA. RINO, respondents.
FACTS:
Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will wherein he disinherited an illegitimate
son (petitioner) and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will 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
the 29th day of the same month, a codicil 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 private respondent as executor Petitioner, in turn, filed an Opposition
on the ground that the will sought to be probated was not executed and
attested as required by law.
ISSUE:
Was Brigido Alvarado blind for purpose of Art, 808 at the time his "Huling Habilin"
and its codicil were executed? If so, was the double-reading requirement of
said article complied with?
RULING:
We agree with petitioner in this respect.
Regardless of respondent's staunch contention that the testator was still
capable of reading at the time his will and codicil were prepared, the fact
remains and this was testified to by his witnesses, that Brigido did not do so
because of his "poor," 10 "defective," 11 or "blurred" vision making it necessary for
private respondent to do the actual reading for him.
Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to those who, for one reason
or another, are "incapable of reading their will(s)." Since Brigido Alvarado was
incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on the separate
occasions of their execution due to his "poor," "defective," or "blurred" vision,

there can be no other course for us but to conclude that Brigido Alvarado
comes within the scope of the term "blind" as it is used in Art. 808. Unless the
contents were read to him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the
lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so comfortably with his instructions.
Hence, to consider his will as validly executed and entitled to probate, it is
essential that we ascertain whether Art. 808 had been complied with.
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 who drafted the eightpaged will and the five-paged codicil who read the same aloud to the testator,
and read them only once, not twice as Art. 808 require.
G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993
TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, JUAN CABALLERO,
AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, HELEN CABALLERO, SANTOS CABALLERO,
PABLO CABALLERO, VICTOR RAGA, MAURICIA RAGA, QUIRICA RAGA, RUPERTO
ABAPO, represented herein by his Attorney-in-Fact, ARMSTICIA * ABAPO
VELANO, and CONSESO CANEDA, represented herein by his heirs, JESUS
CANEDA,
NATIVIDAD
CANEDA
and
ARTURO
CANEDA,
petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM CABRERA, as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Mateo Caballero, respondents.
FACTS:
Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children executed a last will and
testament before three attesting witnesses. The said testator was duly assisted by
his lawyer and a notary public in the preparation of that last will. 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 et.al, all of
whom do not appear to be related to the testator. The testator passed away
before his petition could finally be heard by the probate court herein petitioners

appeared as oppositors and objected to the allowance of the testator's will on

the ground that on the alleged date of its execution, the testator was already in
the poor state of health such that he could not have possibly executed the
same. Petitioners likewise reiterated the issue as to the genuineness of the
signature of the testator therein. However, the probate court rendered a
decision declaring the will in question as the last will and testament of the late
Mateo Caballero. Petitioners elevated the case in the Court of Appeals. They
asserted therein that the will in question is null and void for the reason that its
attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the
instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their
presence and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the
presence of the testator and of one another.
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.
RULING:
An ordinary will must be acknowledged before a notary public by a testator
and the attesting witness. Hence it is likewise known as notarial will. Where the
testator is deaf or deaf-mute, Article 807 requires that he must personally read
the will, if able to do so. Otherwise, he should designate two persons who would
read the will and communicate its contents to him in a practicable manner. On
the other hand, if the testator is blind, the will should be read to him twice; once,
by anyone of the witnesses thereto, and then again, by the notary public before
whom it is acknowledged.
An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting
witnesses certify that the instrument has been executed before them and to the
manner of the execution the same. It is a separate memorandum or record of
the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the
witnesses; it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential
formalities required by law has been observed. It is made for the purpose of
preserving in a permanent form a record of the facts that attended the
execution of a particular will, so that in case of failure of the memory of the
attesting witnesses, or other casualty, such facts may still be proved.

While it may be true that the attestation clause is indeed subscribed at the end
thereof and at the left margin of each page by the three attesting witnesses, it
certainly cannot be conclusively inferred therefrom that the said witness affixed
their respective signatures in the presence of the testator and of each other
since, as petitioners correctly observed, the presence of said signatures only
establishes the fact that it was indeed signed, but it does not prove that the
attesting witnesses did subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of
each other. The execution of a will is supposed to be one act so that where the
testator and the witnesses sign on various days or occasions and in various
combinations, the will cannot be stamped with the imprimatur of effectivity.