19 Sept. 1, 1975 Conditional Donation in 1,130 P 3,000 ditto favor of Mariano Locsin
1-MVRJ Dec. 29, 1972 Deed of Reconveyance 1,5110.66 P
1,000 Delfina Anson
in favor of Manuel V. del (Lot 2155) Antonio Illegible
Rosario whose maternal
grandfather was Getulio
Locsin
2-MVRJ June 30, 1973 Deed of Reconveyance 319.34 P 500
Antonio Illegible
in favor of Manuel V. del (Lot 2155) Salvador Nical
Rosario but the rentals
from bigger portion of
Lot 2155 leased to Filoil
Refinery were assigned to
Maria Jaucian Lorayes
Cornelio..
Of her own properties, Doa Catalina conveyed the
following to her own nephews and nieces and others:
EXHIBIT DATE PARTICULARS AREA/SQ.M. PRICE
2-JJL July 16, 1964 Deed of Sale in favor 5,000 P 1,000
Vicente Jaucian (lot 2020)
(6,825 sqm. when
resurveyed)
24 Feb. 12, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale 100 P 1,000
in favor of Francisco M.
Maquiniana
26 July 15, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 130 P 1,300
favor of Francisco
Maquiniana
27 May 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 100 P 1,000
favor of Ireneo Mamia
28 May 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 75 P 750
favor of Zenaida Buiza
29 May 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 150 P 1,500
favor of Felisa Morjella
30 Apr. 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 31 P 1,000
favor of Inocentes Motocinos
31 Feb. 12, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 150 P 1,500
favor of Casimiro Mondevil
32 Mar. 1, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 112 P 1,200
favor of Juan Saballa
25 Dec. 28, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 250 P 2,500
of Rogelio Marticio..
All told, it is the finding of this Court that Exhibit "C" is the
Last Will and Testament of Mateo Caballero and that it was
executed in accordance with all the requisites of the law.
10
with the legal formalities and had even said that the
provisions of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
amended regarding the contents of the attestation clause
were mandatory, and non-compliance therewith
invalidated the will (Uy Coque vs. Sioca, 43 Phil. 405).
These decisions necessarily restrained the freedom of the
testator in disposing of his property...
DECISION
PARAS, C.J. :
11
12
to sign the page, where the end of the will is found, at the
left hand margin of that page...
13
14
SYLLABUS
15
16
17
DECISION
AVANCEA, J. :
18
Appellants.
Jose W. Diokno for Petitioner-Appellee.
Rosendo J. Tansinsin for oppositor-appellant Natividad Ino.
Jaime R. Nuevas for oppositor-appellant Enriquez Ino.
SYLLABUS
DECISION
19
disposal.
We have examined the record and are satisfied, as the
trial court was, that the testatrix signed both original and
duplicate copies (Exhibits "A" and "A-1", respectively) of
the will spontaneously, on the same occasion, in the
presence of the three attesting witnesses, the notary
public who acknowledged the will, and Atty. Samson, who
actually prepared the documents; that the will and its
duplicate were executed in Tagalog, a language known to
and spoken by both the testator and the witnesses, and
read to and by the testatrix and Atty. Fermin Samson
together before they were actually signed; that the
attestation clause is also in a language known to and
spoken by the testatrix and the witnesses. The opinion of
expert for oppositors, Mr. Felipe Logan, that the signatures
of the testatrix appealing in the duplicate original were not
written by the same hand, which wrote the signatures in
the original will leaves us unconvinced, not merely
because it is directly contradicted by expert Martin Ramos
for the proponents, but principally because of the paucity
of the standards used by him to support the conclusion
that the differences between the standard and questioned
signatures are beyond the writers range of normal
scriptural variation. The expert has, in fact, used as
standards only three other signatures of the testatrix
besides those affixed to the original of the testament (Exh.
A); and we feel that with so few standards the experts
opinion that the signatures in the duplicate could not be
those of the testatrix becomes extremely hazardous. This
is particularly so since the comparison charts Nos. 3 and 4
fail to show convincingly that there are radical differences
that would justify the charge of forgery, taking into
account the advanced age of the testatrix, the evident
variability of her signatures, and the effect of writing
fatigue, the duplicate being signed right after the original.
These factors were not discussed by the expert.
Similarly, the alleged slight variance in blueness of the ink
in the admitted and questioned signatures does not
appear reliable, considering that standard and challenged
writings were affixed to different kinds of paper, with
different surfaces and reflecting power. On the whole,
therefore, we do not find the testimony of the oppositors
expert sufficient to overcome that of the notary and the
two instrumental witnesses, Torres and Natividad (Dr. Diy,
being in the United States during the trial, did not testify).
Nor do we find adequate evidence of fraud or undue
influence. The fact that some heirs are more favored than
others is proof of neither (see In re Butalid, 10 Phil. 27;
Bugnao v. Ubag, 14 Phil. 163; Pecson v. Coronel, 45 Phil.
216). Diversity of apportionment is the usual reason for
making a testament; otherwise, the decedent might as
well die intestate. The testamentary disposition that the
heirs should not inquire into other property and that they
should respect the distribution made in the will, under
penalty of forfeiture of their shares in the free part, do not
suffice to prove fraud or undue influence. They appear
motivated by the desire to prevent prolonged litigation
which, as shown by ordinary experience, often results in a
sizeable portion of the estate being diverted into the
hands of non- heirs and speculators. Whether these
clauses are valid or not is a matter to be litigated on
another occasion. It is also well to note that, as remarked
by the Court of Appeals in Sideco v. Sideco, 45 Off. Gaz.
168, fraud and undue influence are mutually repugnant
and exclude each other; their joining as grounds for
opposing probate shows absence of definite evidence
against the validity of the will.
20
21
EUGENIA E. IGSOLO
address: 500 San Diego St.
Sampaloc, Manila Res. Cert. No. A-7717-37
Issued at Manila on March 10, 1981.
QUIRINO AGRAVA
address: 1228-Int. 3, Kahilum
Pandacan, Manila Res. Cert. No. A-458365
Issued at Manila on Jan. 21, 1981
LAMBERTO C. LEAO
address: Avenue 2, Blcok 7,
Lot 61, San Gabriel, G.MA., Cavite Res.
Cert. No. A-768277 issued at Carmona, Cavite on Feb. 7,
1981
JUANITO ESTRERA
address: City Court Compound,
City of Manila Res. Cert. No. A574829
Issued at Manila on March 2, 1981.
Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10,
1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila.
(Sgd.)
PETRONIO Y. BAUTISTA
Doc. No. 1232 ; NOTARIO PUBLIKO
Page No. 86 ; Until Dec. 31, 1981
Book No. 43 ; PTR-152041-1/2/81-Manila
Series of 1981 TAN # 1437-977-81
The three named witnesses to the will affixed their
signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of the
will, but not at the bottom of the attestation clause.
The probate petition adverted to only two (2) heirs,
legatees and devisees of the decedent, namely: petitioner
himself, and one Irene Lynn Igsolo, who was alleged to
have resided abroad. Petitioner prayed that the will be
allowed, and that letters testamentary be issued to the
designated executor, Vart Prague.
The petition was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo
(Geralda Castillo), who represented herself as the
attorney-in-fact of "the 12 legitimate heirs" of the
decedent.2 Geralda Castillo claimed that the will is 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. Per records, it was
subsequently alleged that decedent was the widow of
22
23
"x x x
The law referred to is article 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645, which requires
that the attestation clause shall state the number of pages
or sheets upon which the will is written, which requirement
has been held to be mandatory as an effective safeguard
against the possibility of interpolation or omission of some
of the pages of the will to the prejudice of the heirs to
whom the property is intended to be bequeathed (In re
Will of Andrada, 42 Phil. 180; Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca,
43 Phil., 405; Gumban v. Gorcho, 50 Phil. 30; Quinto v.
Morata, 54 Phil. 481; Echevarria v. Sarmiento, 66 Phil.
611). The ratio decidendi of these cases seems to be that
the attestation clause must contain a statement of the
number of sheets or pages composing the will and that if
this is missing or is omitted, it will have the effect of
invalidating the will if the deficiency cannot be supplied,
not by evidence aliunde, but by a consideration or
examination of the will itself. But here the situation is
different. While the attestation clause does not state the
number of sheets or pages upon which the will is
written, however, the last part of the body of the will
contains a statement that it is composed of eight pages,
which circumstance in our opinion takes this case out of
the rigid rule of construction and places it within the realm
of similar cases where a broad and more liberal view has
been adopted to prevent the will of the testator from
being defeated by purely technical considerations." (page
165-165, supra) (Underscoring supplied)
In "Apolonio Tabaoda v. Hon. Avelino Rosal, et al." supra,
the notarial acknowledgement in the Will states the
number of pages used in the:
24
"x x x
We have examined the will in question and noticed that
the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages
used in writing the will. This would have been a fatal
defect were it not for the fact that, in this case, it is
discernible from the entire will that it is really and actually
composed of only two pages duly signed by the testatrix
and her instrumental witnesses. As earlier stated, the first
page which contains the entirety of the testamentary
dispositions is signed by the testatrix at the end or at the
bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed at the left
margin. The other page which is marked as "Pagina dos"
comprises the attestation clause and the
acknowledgment. The acknowledgment itself states that
"this Last Will and Testament consists of two pages
including this page" (pages 200-201, supra) (Underscoring
supplied).
However, in the appeal at bench, the number of pages
used in the will is not stated in any part of the Will. The
will does not even contain any notarial acknowledgment
wherein the number of pages of the will should be
stated.21
Both Uy Coque and Andrada were decided prior to the
enactment of the Civil Code in 1950, at a time when the
statutory provision governing the formal requirement of
wills was Section
618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 22 Reliance on these
cases remains apropos, considering that the requirement
that the attestation state the number of pages of the will
is extant from Section 618.23 However, the enactment of
the Civil Code in 1950 did put in force a rule of
interpretation of the requirements of wills, at least insofar
as the attestation clause is concerned, that may vary from
the philosophy that governed these two cases. Article 809
of the Civil Code states: "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."
In the same vein, petitioner cites the report of the Civil
Code Commission, which stated that "the underlying and
fundamental objective permeating the provisions on the
[law] on [wills] in this project consists in the [liberalization]
of the manner of their execution with the end in view of
giving the testator more [freedom] in [expressing] his last
wishes. This objective is in accord with the [modern
tendency] in respect to the formalities in the execution of
wills."24 However, petitioner conveniently omits the
qualification offered by the Code Commission in the very
same paragraph he cites from their report, that such
liberalization be "but with sufficient safeguards and
restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the
exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence
upon the testator."25
25
26
27
28
29
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
30
31
32
33
Q What about the date when the testator and the three
witnesses affixed their respective signature on the first
and second pages of exhibit C?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
34
Q When you did not find Atty. Sarmiento on June 15, 1983,
did you again go back?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Josie Collado:
35
36
37
38
Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808 applies not only
to blind testators but also to those who, for one reason or
another, are "incapable of reading the(ir) 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
confortably 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...
39
40
41
42
43
44
SYNOPSIS
DECISION
The probate court ordered the dismissal of appellants
petition for the allowance of the holographic will of
deceased Ricardo B. Bonilla on the ground that the alleged
photostatic copy of the will which was presented for
probate, cannot stand in lieu of the lost original, for the
law regards the document itself as the material proof of
the authenticity of the said will, citing the case of Gan v.
Yap, 104 Phil. 509, 522. On appeal, the only question is
whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be
found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy.
The Supreme Court, in setting aside the lower courts
order of dismissal, held that a photostatic or xerox copy of
a lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted
because the authenticity of the handwriting of the
deceased can he determined by the probate court, as
comparison can be made with the standard writings of the
testator.
Assailed order of dismissal, set aside.
SYLLABUS
RELOVA, J.:
"(1) The alleged holographic was not a last will but merely
an instruction as to the management and improvement of
the schools and colleges founded by decedent Ricardo B.
Bonilla; and
45
PARDO, J.:
46
47
Pinikitan Street.
"(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
"August 30, 1978
"3. My jewelrys shall be divided
among:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. Eufemia Patigas
"2. Josefina Salcedo
"3. Evangeline Calugay
"(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
"It may be true that the rule of this article (requiring that
three witnesses be presented if the will is contested and
only one if no contest is had) was derived from the rule
established for ordinary testaments (CF Cabang v.
Delfinado, 45 PHIL 291; Tolentino v. Francisco, 57 PHIL
742). But it can not be ignored that the requirement can
be considered mandatory only in case of ordinary
testaments, precisely because the presence of at least
three witnesses at the execution of ordinary wills is made
by law essential to their validity (Art. 805). Where the will
is holographic, no witness need be present (Art. 10), and
the rule requiring production of three witnesses must be
deemed merely permissive if absurd results are to be
avoided.
48
testator herself.
A. Collecting rentals.
Q. From where?
A. In handwritten. 14
x
49
A. Posting records.
Q. Letters of whom?
A. Matilde
Q. To whom?
A. To her creditors. 15
Q. Advice of what?
A. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, sir.
A. I.
50
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You will also notice Mrs. Binanay that it is not only with
the questioned signature appearing in the alleged
holographic will marked as Exhibit X but in the handwriting
themselves, here you will notice the hesitancy and
tremors, do you notice that?
A. Yes, sir. 21
A. Yes, sir.
51
A. That is true. 30
From the testimonies of these witnesses, the Court of
Appeals allowed the will to probate and disregard the
requirement of three witnesses in case of contested
52
53
Separate Opinions
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring: ..
I concur. Rosa, having appealed to this Court on a sole
question of law, is bound by the trial court's factual finding
that the peculiar alterations in the holographic will
crossing out Rosa's name and instead inserting her
brother Gregorio's name as sole heir and "sole executrix"
were made by the testatrix in her own handwriting. (I find
it peculiar that the testatrix who was obviously an
educated person would unthinkingly make such crude
alterations instead of consulting her lawyer and writing an
entirely new holographic wig in order to avoid any doubts
as to her change of heir. It should be noted that the first
alteration crossing out "sister Rosa K. Kalaw" and inserting
"brother Gregorio Kalaw" as sole heir is not even initialed
by the testatrix. Only the second alteration crossing out
"sister Rosa K. Kalaw" and inserting "brother Gregorio
Kalaw" as "sole executrix" is initialed.) Probate of the
radically altered will replacing Gregorio for Rosa as sole
heir is properly denied, since the same was not duly
authenticated by the full signature of the executrix as
mandatorily required by Article 814 of the Civil Code. The
original unaltered will naming Rosa as sole heir cannot,
however, be given effect in view of the trial court's factual
finding that the testatrix had by her own handwriting
substituted Gregorio for Rosa, so that there is no longer
any will naming Rosa as sole heir. The net result is that the
testatrix left no valid will and both Rosa and Gregorio as
her next of kill succeed to her intestate
estate.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary ..
Separate Opinions
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:
I concur. Rosa, having appealed to this Court on a sole
question of law, is bound by the trial court's factual finding
that the peculiar alterations in the holographic will
crossing out Rosa's name and instead inserting her
brother Gregorio's name as sole heir and "sole executrix"
were made by the testatrix in her own handwriting. (I find
it peculiar that the testatrix who was obviously an
educated person would unthinkingly make such crude
alterations instead of consulting her lawyer and writing an
54
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
55
act.
"In this wise, the question of identity of the will, its due
execution and the testamentary capacity of the testatrix
has to be resolved in favor of the allowance of probate of
the will submitted herein.
"Likewise, no evidence was presented to show sufficient
reason for the disallowance of herein holographic will.
While it was alleged that the said will was procured by
undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of
the beneficiary or of some other person, the evidence
adduced have not shown any instance where improper
pressure or influence was exerted on the testatrix. (Private
respondent) Clemente Sand has testified that the testatrix
was still alert at the time of the execution of the will, i.e.,
at or around the time of her birth anniversary celebration
in 1981. It was also established that she is a very
intelligent person and has a mind of her own. Her
independence of character and to some extent, her sense
of superiority, which has been testified to in Court, all
show the unlikelihood of her being unduly influenced or
improperly pressured to make the aforesaid will. It must
be noted that the undue influence or improper pressure in
question herein only refer to the making of a will and not
as to the specific testamentary provisions therein which is
the proper subject of another proceeding. Hence, under
the circumstances, this Court cannot find convincing
reason for the disallowance of the will herein.
"Considering then that it is a well-established doctrine in
the law on succession that in case of doubt, testate
succession should be preferred over intestate succession,
and the fact that no convincing grounds were presented
and proven for the disallowance of the holographic will of
the late Annie Sand, the aforesaid will submitted herein
must be admitted to probate." 3 (Emphasis omitted.)
On appeal, said Decision was reversed, and the petition
for probate of decedents will was dismissed. The Court of
Appeals found that, "the holographic will fails to meet the
requirements for its validity." 4 It held that the decedent
did not comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil
Code, which read, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Article 813: When a number of dispositions appearing in a
holographic will are signed without being dated, and the
last disposition has a signature and date, such date
validates the dispositions preceding it, whatever be the
time of prior dispositions."..
"Article 814: In case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or
alteration in a holographic will, the testator must
authenticate the same by his full signature."..
It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were
either unsigned and undated, or signed but not dated. It
also found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations
made thereon had not been authenticated by
decedent.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
Thus, this appeal which is impressed with merit.
Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court provides that wills
shall be disallowed in any of the following
cases:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(a) If not executed and attested as required by law;
(b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally
incapable to make a will, at the time of its execution;
56
57