Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Case # 19

Rev. Father Lucio V. Garcia vs. Conrado M. Vasquez

Decided on: April 30, 1970

Two wills executed:

1. June 9, 1956 – consist of 12 pages and written in Spanish; acknowledged before Notary Public
2. December 29, 1960 – consist of 1 page and written in Tagalog; acknowledged before Notary Public

Gliceria Avelino del Rosario – testatrix, unmarried, no heir

September 2, 1965 - death of testatrix (City of Manila)

September 17, 1965 – Consuelo Gonzales vda. De Precilla (niece) filed a petition for probate of the will and her appointment as
administratrix (opposed on the ground that she possesses interest adverse to the estate) ; Alfonso Precilla (husband of Consuelo)

Estate valued at P100,000.00

On 25 August 1966 – court issued order admitting to probate the 1960 will.

The petition was opposed separately by several groups of alleged heirs, one of them is the petitioner in this case Rev. Fr. Lucio V.
Garcia, a legatee named in an earlier will executed by Gliceria A. del Rosario on 9 June 1956.

The oppositions invariably charged that the instrument executed in 1960 was not intended by the deceased to be her true will; that
the signature of the deceased appearing in the will was procured through undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of
the beneficiaries and/or other persons; that the testatrix did not know the object of her bounty; that the instrument itself reveals
irregularities in its execution, and that the formalities required by law for such execution have not been complied with.

Foremost of the questions to be determined here concerns the correctness of the order allowing the probate of the 1960 will.

Oppositors maintain that on 29 December 1960 the eyesight of Gliceria del Rosario was so poor and defective that she could not have
read the provisions of the will.

Dr. Jesus V. Tamesis – ophthalmologist has firsthand knowledge of the actual condition of testatrix’ eyesight from August, 1960 up to
1963. He fully establish the fact that notwithstanding the operation and removal of the cataract in testatrix’ left eye and her being
fitted with aphakic lens (used by cataract patients), her vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading print =
the signatures in the checks are written far above the printed base lines, and the names of the payees as well as the amounts written
do not appear to be in the handwriting of the alleged testatrix, being in a much firmer arid more fluid hand than hers. The record is
thus convincing that the supposed testatrix could not have physically read or understood the alleged testament and that its admission
to probate was erroneous and should be reversed.

ISSUE: WON the will dated December 29, 1960 should be admitted for probate.

RULING:

NO. For all intents and purposes of the rules on probate, the deceased Gliceria del Rosario was, as appellant oppositors contend, not
unlike a blind testator, and the due execution of her will would have required observance of the provisions of Article 808 of the Civil
Code. The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as
when he is illiterate),[18] is to make the provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance
with his wishes. That the aim of the law is to insure that the dispositions of the will are properly communicated to and understood by
the handicapped testator, thus making them truly reflective of his desire, is evidenced by the requirement that the will should be read
to the latter, not only once but twice, by two different persons, and that the witnesses have to act within the range of his (the
testator's) other senses. There is nothing in the records to show that the requisites under Art 808 have been complied with.

The order of the court allowing to probate the alleged 1960 will of Gliceria A. del Rosario is hereby reversed and set aside.
Case #20

In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of the Deceased Brigido Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADO

Vs. HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA

Decided on: September 14, 1993

Brigido Alvarado – testator

Cesar Alvarado – illegitimate son of the testator who as disinherited under the executed will (November 5, 1977)

November 5, 1977 – execution of a notarial will “Huling Habilin”

December 9, 1977 – holographic will of the testator was admitted to probate; the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were
unchanged.

January 3, 1979 - petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed upon the testator's death by the respondent.

An opposition was filed on the grounds : that the will sought to be probated was not executed and attested as required by law; that
the testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapacitated to make a will at the time of its execution due to senility and old age; that
the will was executed under duress, or influence of fear and threats; that it was procured by undue and improper pressure and
influence on the part of the beneficiary who stands to get the lion's share of the testator's estate; and lastly, that the signature of the
testator was procured by fraud or trick.

Brigido Alvarado was not totally blind at the time the will and codicil were executed. However, his vision on both eyes was only of
"counting fingers at three (3) feet" by reason of the glaucoma which he had been suffering from for several years.

Petitioner contends that although his father was not totally blind when the will and codicil were executed, he can be so considered
within the scope of the term as it is used in Art. 808 (he could no longer read either printed or handwritten matters.)

The main thrust of the appeal was 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.

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:

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. 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.

Art. 808 was not followed because instead of 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.

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.

The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial
requirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they
do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the testator's will.

Brigido Alvarado had expressed his last wishes in clear and unmistakable terms in his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached thereto.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED


Case #21

The matter of the probate of the last will and testament of Jose Venzon. Valentina Cuevas vs. Pilar Achacoso

Decided on: May 18, 1951

Two wills:

October 10, 1945 – 2nd will; executed in accordance with law

Jose Venzon – testator

January 19, 1946 – death of testator (Iba, Zambales)

Valentina Cuevas – widow (heir; executrix)

Rosario Venzon – daughter (heir)

February 1, 1946 – Valentine filed petition for probate of will.

May 10, 1946 - Pilar Achacoso (beneficiary in a previous will) filed an alternative petition for the probate of a previous will executed
by the deceased praying therein that, if the will submitted by the widow be rejected, the other will be admitted to probate in lieu
thereof.

The main error assigned refers to the alleged lack of attestation clause in the will, and that the same has not been signed by the
instrumental witnesses but by the testator himself.

ISSUE: WON the will is valid despite the error in the attestation clause.

RULING: Yes, the attestation clause substantially complies with the requirements of the law. The only apparent anomaly is that it
appears to be an attestation made by the testator himself more than by the instrumental witnesses however under the signature of
the testator, there appear the signatures of the three instrumental witnesses. In the case of Aldaba vs. Roque, the court said “In reality
it appears that it is the testratrix who makes the declaration about the points in the last paragraph of the will; however as the witnesses
together with the testratrix, have signed the said declaration, we are of the opinion and so hold that the words above quoted of the
testament constitute a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Act No. 2645”. Also of relevance is the provision under Art. 788:
If a testamentary disposition admits of different interpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation by which the disposition is to be
operative shall be preferred.

Case #22

Estate of the deceased Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza. CONSORCIA DICHOSO DE TICSON vs. Marino De Gorostiza

Decided on: October 31, 1932

Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza – testatrix

The will was denied probate in the trial court, for the reason that the attestation clause failed to state that the testatrix signed
every page of the will as required by section 618. "We the undersigned attesting witnesses, whose residences are stated opposite our
respective names, do hereby certify that the testatrix, whose name is signed hereinabove, has publish unto us the foregoing will
consisting of two pages as her Last Will and Testament and has signed the same in our presence, and in witness whereof we have each
signed the same and each page thereof in the presence of said testatrix and in the presence of each other."

ISSUE: WON the attestation clause is sufficient.


RULING: Yes.
We must reject as untenable the interpretation of the appellant relative to the word "hereinabove", for this simply has
reference to the signature of the testatrix at the end of the will. We must reject also as untenable the interpretation of the appellant
that the word "same" refers back to "pages" and not to "will", for such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the language used
further on in the attestation clause where mention is made of the signing by the witnesses of "the same and each page thereof",
meaning the will and each page thereof.
The legalistic formalities should not be permitted to obscure the use of good sound common sense in the consideration of
wills and to frustrate the wishes of deceased persons solemnly expressed in testaments, regarding the execution of which there is not
even a hint of bad faith or fraud. We find the attestation clause legally sufficient, and order that the will of the deceased Caridad
Alcantara de Gorostiza be admitted to probate.

Case #23

Jose Merza vs. Pedro Porras

Decided on: May 25, 1953

Pilar Montealegre – testatrix; survived by husband and collateral relatives

The opposition to Exhibit A was predicated on alleged defects of the attestation clause, that the clause did not state that the tetratrix
and the witnesses had signed each and every page of the will or that she had signed the instrument in the presence of the witnesses.

ISSUE: Won the attestation clause is sufficient.

RULING: Yes, It must be admitted that the attestation clause was very poor drawn, its language exceedingly ungrammatical to the
point of being difficult to understand; but from a close examination of the whole context in relation to its purpose the implication
seems clear that the testatrix signed in the presence of the witnesses. Considering that the witnesses' only business at hand was to
sign and attest to the testatrix's signing of the document, and that the only actors of the proceeding were the maker and the witnesses
acting and speaking collectively and in the first person, the phrase "in our presence," used as it was in connection with the process of
signing, can not imply anything but the testatrix signed before them. No other inference is possible. The prepositional phrase "in our
presence" denotes an active verb and the verb a subject. The verb could not be other than signed and the subject no other than the
testatrix.
The use of the word "also" is no less enlightening. It denotes that, as each of the witnesses sign in the presence of the testatrix and of
one another, so the testatrix sign in similar or like manner — in their presence.

Case #24

Testate estate of Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap deceased. Fausto E. Gan vs. Ildefonso Yap

Decided on: August 30, 1958

Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap – testatrix

Ildefonso Yap – husband of the testatrix

Properties: Pulilan, Bulacan, City of Manila

November 5, 1951 – execution of the holographic will

November 20, 1951 – death of testatrix

March 17, 1952 - Fausto E. Gan initiated probate of the will.

Opposing the petition, husband of the testatrix (Ildefonso Yap) asserted that the deceased had not left any will, nor executed any
testament during her lifetime. According to the petitioner, the will as entrusted contained in a purse, to Felina Esguerra (niece) a day
before the testatrix died. But a few hours later, Ildefonso Yap, her husband, asked Felina for the purse: and being afraid of him by
reason of his well-known violent temper, she delivered it to him. Thereafter, in the same day, Ildefonso Yap returned the purse to
Felina, only to demand it the next day shortly before the death of Felicidad. Again, Felina handed it to him but not before she had
taken the purse to the toilet, opened it and read the will for the last time

The will itself was not presented. Petitioner tried to establish its contents and due execution by the statements in open court of Felina
Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes, Socorro Olarte and Rosario Gan Jimenez.

Hon. Ramon R. San Jose, Judge, refused to probate the alleged will. A seventy-page motion for reconsideration failed. Hence
this appeal.
ISSUE: May a holographic will be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in
the handwriting of the testator?

RULING: NO. The experts can not testify, because there is no way to compare the alleged testament with other documents admittedly,
or proven to be, in the testator's hand. The oppositor will, therefore, be caught between the upper millstone of his lack of knowledge
of the will or the form thereof, and the nether millstone of his inability to prove its falsity. Again the proponent's witnesses may be
honest and truthful; but they may have been shown a faked document, and having no interest to check the authenticity thereof have
taken no pains to examine and compare. Or they may be perjurers boldly testifying, in the knowledge that none could convict them
of perjury, because no one could prove that they have not "been shown" a document which they believed was in the handwriting of
the deceased. Of course, the competency of such perjured witnesses to testify as to the handwriting could be tested by exhibiting to
them other writings sufficiently similar to those written by the deceased; but what witness or lawyer would not foresee such a move
and prepare for it? His knowledge of the handwriting established, the witness (or witnesses) could simply stick to his statement: he
has seen and read a document which he believed was in the deceased's handwriting. And the court and the oppositor would practically
be at the mercy of such witness (or witnesses) not only as to the execution, but also as to the contents of the will.

Whereas in the case of a lost holographic will, the witnesses would testify as to their opinion of the handwriting which they allegedly
saw, an opinion which cannot be tested in court, nor directly contradicted by the oppositors, because the handwriting itself is not at
hand.

Case #25

Federico Azaola vs. Cesario Singson

Decided on: August 5, 1960

Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance – testatrix

Maria Azoala – sole heir

Cesario Singson – oppositor; nephew of the testatrix

September 9, 1957 – death of testatrix

Witness Francisco Azaola testified that he saw the holographic will one month, more or less, before the death of the testatrix, as the
same was handed to him and his wife; the witness testified also that he recognized all the signatures appearing in the holographic will
as the handwriting of the testatrix. (witness presented and compared it with SPA; mortgage; deed of sale)

However, on page 16 on the same transcript of the stenographic notes, when the same witness was asked by counsel if he was familiar
with the penmanship and handwriting of the deceased Fortunata Vda. de Yance, he answered positively in the affirmative and when
he was asked again whether the penmanship referred to in the previous answer as appearing in the holographic will (Exh. C) was hers
(testatrix'), he answered, "I would definitely say it is hers.

The opposition to the probate was 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 by the proponent "did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix."

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

The rule of the first paragraph of Article 811 of the Civil Code is merely directory and is 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 cannot 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.

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".

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.

Case #26

In the matter of the petition to approve the will of Ricardo B. Bonilla deceased, Marcela Rodelas vs. Amparo Aranza, et al

Decided on: December 7, 1982

Ricardo B. Bonilla – testator

January 25, 1962 – execution of the holographic will

May 13, 1976 – death of the testator

January 11, 1977 - Marcela Rodelas filed petition for probate of a holographic will and the issuance of letters testamentary in her
favor.

Opposition was filed on the following ground:

a. 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.
b. The alleged holographic will itself, and not an alleged copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it would produce no
effect.

CA: It is our considered opinion that once the original copy of the holographic will is lost, a copy thereof cannot stand in lieu of the
original.

ISSUE: Whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy.

RULING: Yes.

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. But, 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. 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.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai