Nera v Rimando

G.R. No. L- 5971

February 27, 1911
Facts:
When the will was executed, one of the subscribing witness went outside, some 8 or 10
feet away, in the large room connecting with the smaller room by a doorway, across which
was hung a curtain which made it impossible for one in the outside room to see the
testator and the other subscribing witnesses in the act of attaching their signatures to
the instrument. The trial judge held that the alleged fact that one of the subscribing
witnesses was in the outer room when the testator and the other describing witnesses
signed the instrument in the inner room, had it been proven, would not sufficient in itself
to invalidate the execution of the will.
Issue:
W/N the circumstance during the execution of the will can invalidate it.
Held:
No. The true test of presence of the testator and the witness in the execution of a will is
not whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they might have been 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.

Icasiano v Icasiano
G.R. No. L- 18979
June 30, 1964
Facts:
Petitioner petitioned for the allowance and admission to probate the alleged original will of
deceased and his appointment as the executor. The respondents, daughter and son of the
testator, filed their opposition and petitioned to have herself appointed as a special
administrator. The court issued an order appointing the Philippine Trust Company as
special administrator.
The deceased executed a will in duplicate. In the evidence presented:
Original consists of five pages, and while signed at the end and in every page, it does not
contain the signature of one of the attesting witnesses on the 3 rd page.
Duplicate signed by the testatrix and her 3 attesting witnesses in each and every page.
Both subscribed at the end and on the left margin of each and every page by the
testatrix herself and attested and subscribed by the 3 witnesses in the testatrixs
presence and in that of one another as witness (except for the missing signature stated
above).
- Pages of the original and duplicate of said will were duly numbered.
- Attestation clause contains all the facts required by law to be recited and signed
by the aforesaid attesting witnesses.
- The will is written in the language known to and spoken by the witnesses.
- Both were duly acknowledged before Notary Public.
Issue:
W/N the failure of one witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament will
render the will invalid.
Held:
No. The Court held that 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. Impossibility of substitution

of this page is assured not only 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 3 witnesses.
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 has 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.
Otherwise, witnesses may sabotage the will by muddling or bungling it or the attestation
clause.

Cruz v Judge Villasor

G.R. No. L-32213
November 26, 1973
Facts:
The petitioner, surviving spouse of the deceased, opposed the allowance of the will and
alleging the will was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and undue
influence; that the said instrument was not executed in accordance with law. Of the 3
instrumental witnesses, one of them is the Notary Public before whom the will was
supposed to have been acknowledged.
Issue:
W/N the will was executed in accordance with law, particularly Article 805 and 806 of
NCC, 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 the notary public.
Held:
No. The last will and testament in question was not executed in accordance with law. The
notary public before whom the will was acknowledge cannot be considered as the third
instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having singed the will.
To acknowledge before means to avow; to own as genuine, to assent, to admit; and before
means in front or preceding in space or ahead of. Consequently, if the third witness were
the notary public himself, he would have to avow assent, or admit his having signed the will
in front of himself. This cannot be done because he cannot split hid 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 situation to obtain would be sanctioning a sheer absurdity.
Furthermore, the function of a notary public is to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangement. That function would defeated if the notary public were one of the attesting
instrumental witnesses. For them he would be interested sustaining the validity of the will
as directly involves him and the validity of his own act. It would place him in inconsistent
position and the very purpose of acknowledgment, which to minimize fraud, would be
thwarted.

Javellana v Ledesma
G.R. No. L- 7179
June 30, 1955
Facts:
The CFI admitted to probate the documents in the Visayan dialect, as the testament and
codicil duly executed by the deceased in the presence of 3 witnesses. The contestant,
sister and nearest surviving relative of the deceased, appealed from the decision, insisting
that the will and codicil were not executed in conformity with law.
Issue:
1. W/N the testament was executed by the testatrix in the presence of the
instrumental witnesses.
2. W/N the acknowledgment clause was signed and the notarial seal affixed by the
notary without the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses.
3. If so, W/N the codicil was thereby invalid and ineffective.
Held:
1. Yes. When the will was executed by testatrix, the 3 witness rule has been complied
with. The story provided by the witnesses presented by the contestant was
improbable.
2. Not certain. The variance in testimony does not necessarily imply conscious
perversion of truth on the part of the witnesses, but appears rather due to a wellestablished phenomenon, the tendency of the mind, in recalling past events, to
substitute the usual and habitual for what differs slightly from it.
3. It does not affect the validity of the codicil. The law does not require that the
signing of the testator, witnesses and notary should be accomplished in one single
act. A comparison of Article 805 and 806 of NCC reveals that while testator and
witnesses sign in the presence of each other, all that us thereafter required is that
every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses (Art. 806); i.e., that the latter should avow to the certifying officer the
authenticity of their signatures and voluntariness of their actions in executing the
testamentary disposition.

Caneda v CA
G.R. No. 103554
May 28, 1993
Facts:
Ajero v CA
G.R. No. 106720
September 15, 1994
Facts:

Garcia v Vasquez
G.R. No. L- 26808
March 28, 1969
Facts:
The testatrix executed 2 wills, one in June 1956, written in Spanish, a language she
spoken. The other will was executed in December 196 consisting of only one page, and
written in Tagalog. The witnesses to the 1960 will declared that the will was first read
silently by the testatrix before signing it. The probate court admitted the will.
The oppositors alleged that as of December 1960, the eyesight of the deceased was so
poor and defective that she could not have read the provisions contrary to the testimony
of the witnesses.
Issue:
W/N the will is valid.
Held:
No. Article 808 of the NCC will apply. If the testator is blind or incapable of reading, he
must be apprised of the contents of the will for him to be able to have the opportunity to
object if the provisions therein are not in accordance with his wishes.

The testimony of her ophthalmologist established that notwithstanding an operation to

remove her cataract and being fitted with the lenses, it did not improve her vision. Her
vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading. There was no
evidence that her vision improved at the time of the execution of the 2 nd will. Hence, she
was incapable of reading her own will. The admission of the will to probate is therefor
erroneous.