CANEDA V. CA GARCIA V.

LACUESTA

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.
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 contained in the last will and testament of the late ISSUE: Whether or not the attestation clause is valid.
Mateo Caballero complies with the requirements of Article 805, in relation to Article 809, of the
RULING: No. The will is invalid because, the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state
Civil Code
that Antero Mercado caused Atty. Javier to write the testator’s name under his express direction,
HELD: YES. Article 805 provides that the attestation clause should state (1) the number of the pages as required by section 168 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not here pretended that the cross
used upon which the will is written; (2) that the testator signed, or expressly caused another to sign, 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
the will and every page thereof in the presence of the attesting witnesses; and (3) that the attesting
to a thumbmark and the reason is obvious. The cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness
witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages, and that said witnesses
of a thumbmark.
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.
 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
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 Philippines, and lived in the house and lot
which he owned in common with his 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 incapacity does not necessarily require that a person shall
actually be insane or of unsound mind."
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
 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 door on bad faith and
fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.
 The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a 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.
 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 indispensable requisites for the validity of a will. In other words, a notarial
will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the instrumental witnesses
is void and cannot be accepted for probate.
The notarial law provides:
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
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 every page.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
appellants.
CRUZ V. VILLASOR
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.
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 his having signed the will in front of himself. This cannot be done
because he 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 situation to obtain would
be sanctioning a sheer absurdity.
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 instrumental witnesses. For them he
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.
 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
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.
The Supreme Court was convinced, based on the language used, that Article 811 of the Civil Code is
mandatory. The SC ruled that “shall” in a statue commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is
consistent with the idea of discretion and the presumption is that the word “shall”, when used in a
statue is mandatory.
It will be noted that not all the witnesses presented by the respondents testified explicitly that they
were familiar with the handwriting of the testator. In the case of Augusto Neri, Clerk of Court, Court
of First Instance, Misamis Oriental, he merely uidentified the record of said case before said court.
He was not presented to declare explicitly that the signature appearing in the holographic was that
of the deceased.
There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the signature and the 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 documents having the signature of the deceased with that of the holographic 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.
 KALAW V. RELOVA
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
RULING: Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the
testator in a holographic Will litem not been noted under his signature, ... the Will is not thereby
invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or
interlined.
However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial provision,
which was altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry
the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that the
entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after that
which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first written should be 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 authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full
signature.
WHEREFORE, this Petition is hereby dismissed and the Decision of respondent Judge, dated
September 3, 1973, is hereby affirmed in toto. No costs.
AJERO V. CA
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.
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 SET ASIDE, except with respect to the
invalidity of the disposition of the entire house and lot in
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.
 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.
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 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.

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 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