TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ALIPIO ABADA, BELINDA CAPONONG-

NOBLE
Vs. ALIPION ABAJA et.al.
Jan. 31, 2005- Justice Carpio

FACTS:
Abada died in 1940. Therafter, Abaja filed a petition for the probate of the
last will and testament of his late grandfather Abaja. The probate of the will of
Paula Toray was also filed with the court. The oppositors in the will of Abada and
Toray are their nephews and nieces. The ground for opposition is that the
decedent left no will or if there is a will it was executed not in accordance with
the law. Thereafter, Belinda Noble was assigned as the administratix of the estate
of Abada by the trial court. Subsequently, Abellar was appointed as
administratix of Toray’s properties. Caponong-Noble maintained that the will is
not acknowledged before a notary public. She pointed out that nowhere in the
will could one discern that Abada knew the Spanish language. She alleged that
such defect is fatal. She further alleged that the attestation clause failed to state
that the testator signed the will and its every page in the presence of three
witnesses because it did not indicate the number of witnesses.
The RTC ruled only on, whether the will of Abada has an attestation clasue
as required by law. The RTC further held that the failure of the oppositors to
raise any other matter, forecloses all other issues. Hence, this appeal.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not acknowledgement of the will before a notary public was
necessary in this case
(2) Whether or not the language used in a will must be included in the
instrument
(3) Whether or not it is necessary that the number of witnesses be
specifically written in the will

Held:
(1) Yes. The Code of Civil Procedure repealed Article 685 of the Old Civil.
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the intervention of a notary is not necessary
in the execution of any will. Hence, Abada’s will does not require
acknowledgment before a notary public. (However, it was reinstated in the New
Civil Code.)
(2) No. There is no statutory requirement to state in the will itself that the
testator knew the language or dialect used in the will. This is a matter that a
party may establish by proof aliunde.
Alipio testified that Abada used to gather Spanish-speaking people in their
place. Abada and his companions would talk in the Spanish language. This
sufficiently proved that Abada spoke the Spanish language.
(3) No. An attestation clause is made for the purpose of preserving, in
permanent form, a record of the facts attending the execution of the will, so that
in case of failure of the memory of the subscribing witnesses, or other casualty,
they may still be proved.
Abada’s will clearly shows four signatures: that of Abada and of three other
persons. It is reasonable to conclude that there are three witnesses to the will.
The question on the number of the witnesses is answered by an examination of
the will itself.
However, the rule on liberal construction does not allow evidence aliunde
to fill a void in any part of the document or supply missing details that should
appear in the will itself.
 TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE VICENTE CAGRO. JESUSA CAGRO
Vs. PELAGIO CAGRO et. Al.
April 29, 1953 - Justice Paras

FACTS:
This case is an appeal opposed by the oppositors from the decision of the
CFI of Samar, admitting to probate the allegedly executed by Vicente Cagro who
died in 1949.

The main objection insisted upon by the oppositors is that the will is fatally
defective because its attestation clause is not signed by the attesting witnesses.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lack of signatures of attesting witnesses at the bottom
of the attestation clause is a fatal defect

Held:
Yes. The attestation clause is a memorandum of facts attending the
execution of the will required by law to be made by the attending witnesses,
and it must necessarily bear their signatures.

An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the

witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof negates
their participation.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF MELECIO
LABRADOR. SAGRADO LABRADOR et.al.
Vs. Court of Appeals et. Al.
April 5, 1990- Justice Paras

FACTS:

On June 10, 1972, Melecio Labrador died in the Municipality of Iba,

province of Zambales, where he was residing, leaving behind a parcel of land and
the following heirs, namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio,
Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador, and a holographic
will. Thereafter, Sagrado Labrador (now deceased but substituted by his heirs),
Enrica Labrador and Cristobal Labrador, filed in the court a petition for the
probate of the alleged holographic will of the late Melecio Labrador.

Subsequently, 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, testator
Melecio executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and conveying in
favor of oppositors Jesus and Gaudencio the subject property. Earlier however,
in 1973, Jesus Labrador sold said parcel of land to Navat.

Sagrado thereupon filed 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, being premised
on the fact that the aforesaid Deed of Absolute Sale is fictitious.

After trial, the RTC allowed 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 (the defendants in Civil Case No. 934-I) 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.

However, the Court of Appeals denied the allowance of the probate of the
will for being undated. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the alleged holographic will of Melecio Labrador is dated

and thereafter be approved and allowed to probate as provided for in Art. 810 of
the New Civil Code

HELD:

Yes. The law does not specify a particular location where the date should
be placed in the will. The only requisite is that the date be on the will and
executed in the hand of the Testator.

In this case, the date was indicated in the body of the will as part of the narration.
 ROSARIO VDA. DE RAMOS et.al.
Vs. COURT OF APPEALS et.al
Jan. 31, 1978- Justice Guerrero

FACTS:
In 1966, Adelaida Nista who claimed to be one of the instituted heirs filed
a petition for the probate of the alleged will and testament and codicil of the late
Eugenia Danila who died in 1966. However, it was opposed by Buenaventura
and Marcelina Guerra alleging that they are the legally adopted son and daughter
of the late Florentino and Eugenia and that the formalities required by law for
the execution of the will and codicil have not been complied with as the same
were not properly attested to or executed and not expressing the free will and
deed of the purported estatrix. Thereafter, the 2 parties came up with a
Compromise Agreement which essentially stated that Nista is admitting the
invalidity of the will. The agreement was approved by the trial court. However,
Rosaria De Ramos together with 6 others inntervened. The TC allowed the
intervention and set aside the agreement. The movants alleged that the Guerras
repudiated their shares when they abandoned Danila and committed acts of
ingratitude against her.

Eventually, the probate court admitted the will to probate. However, it was
appealed by Guerras and it was reversed by the CA and ruled that there was a
failure to prove that Danila was in the presence of the instrumental witnesses
when she signed the will, this was because 2 of the instrumental witnesses
(Sarmeinto and Paz) testified in court that the will was already signed by Danila
when they affixed their signatures. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the last testament and its accompanying codicil were valid,
considering the complicated circumstances that the 2 of the attesting witnesses
testified against their due execution while other non-subscribing witnesses
testified to the contrary

HELD:

Yes. There is ample and satisfactory evidence to convince the SC that the
will and codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities required by law.
It appears positively and convincingly that the documents were prepared by a
lawyer, Atty. Alvero. The execution of the same was evidently supervised by his
associate, Atty. Barcenas and before whom the deeds were also acknowledged.
There is no showing that the above lawyers had been remiss in their sworn duty.

There were no incidents brought to the attention of the TC to arouse

suspicion of anomaly. While the opposition alleged fraud and undue influence,
no evidence was presented to prove their occurrence.