G.R. No.

103554 May 28, 1993 allowance of the testator's will on the ground that on the alleged
date of its execution, the testator was already in the poor
TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, state of health such that he could not have possibly
JUAN CABALLERO, AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, executed the same. Petitioners likewise reiterated the issue as to
HELEN CABALLERO, SANTOS CABALLERO, PABLO the genuineness of the signature of the testator therein.7
CABALLERO, VICTOR RAGA, MAURICIA RAGA, QUIRICA
RAGA, RUPERTO ABAPO, represented herein by his On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses, Cipriano Labuca,
Attorney-in-Fact, ARMSTICIA * ABAPO VELANO, and and the notary public Atty. Filoteo Manigos, testified that the
CONSESO CANEDA, represented herein by his heirs, JESUS testator executed the will in question in their presence while he was
CANEDA, NATIVIDAD CANEDA and ARTURO of sound and disposing mind and that, contrary to the assertions
CANEDA, petitioners, of the oppositors, Mateo Caballero was in good health and
vs. was not unduly influenced in any way in the execution of his will.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM CABRERA, as Labuca also testified that he and the other witnesses attested and
Special Administrator of the Estate of Mateo signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.
Caballero, respondents. The other two attesting witnesses were not presented in the
probate hearing as the had died by then.8
REGALADO, J.:
On April 5, 1988, the probate court rendered a decision declaring
Presented for resolution by this Court in the present petition for the will in question as the last will and testament of the late
review on certiorari is the issue of whether or not the attestation Mateo Caballero, on the ratiocination that:
clause contained in the last will and testament of the late Mateo
Caballero complies with the requirements of Article 805, in relation . . . The self-serving testimony of the two witnesses of the
to Article 809, of the Civil Code. oppositors cannot overcome the positive testimonies of Atty.
Filoteo Manigos and Cipriano Labuca who clearly told the Court that
The records show that on December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a indeed Mateo Caballero executed the Last Will and Testament now
widower without any children and already in the twilight years of marked Exhibit "C" on December 5, 1978. Moreover, the fact that
his life, executed a last will and testament at his residence in it was Mateo Caballero who initiated the probate of his Will during
Talisay, Cebu before three attesting witnesses, namely, Cipriano his lifetime when he caused the filing of the original petition now
Labuca, Gregorio Cabando and Flaviano Toregosa. The said testator marked Exhibit "D" clearly underscores the fact that this was indeed
was duly assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Emilio Lumontad, and a his Last Will. At the start, counsel for the oppositors manifested
notary public, Atty. Filoteo Manigos, in the preparation of that last that he would want the signature of Mateo Caballero in Exhibit "C"
will.1 It was declared therein, among other things, that the testator examined by a handwriting expert of the NBI but it would seem
was leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal that despite their avowal and intention for the examination of this
properties to Presentacion Gaviola, Angel Abatayo, Rogelio signature of Mateo Caballero in Exhibit "C", nothing came out of it
Abatayo, Isabelito Abatayo, Benoni G. Cabrera and Marcosa because they abandoned the idea and instead presented Aurea
Alcantara, all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator.2 Caballero and Helen Caballero Campo as witnesses for the
oppositors.
Four months later, or on April 4, 1979, Mateo Caballero himself filed
a petition docketed as Special Proceeding No. 3899-R before All told, it is the finding of this Court that Exhibit "C" is the Last Will
Branch II of the then Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking the and Testament of Mateo Caballero and that it was executed in
probate of his last will and testament. The probate court set the accordance with all the requisites of the law.9
petition for hearing on August 20, 1979 but the same and
subsequent scheduled hearings were postponed for one reason to Undaunted by the said judgment of the probate court, petitioners
another. On May 29, 1980, the testator passed away before his elevated the case in the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
petition could finally be heard by the probate court.3 On February 19669. They asserted therein that the will in question is null
25, 1981, Benoni Cabrera, one of the legatees named in the will, and void for the reason that its attestation clause is fatally
sough his appointment as special administrator of the testator's defective since it fails to specifically state that the
estate, the estimated value of which was P24,000.00, and he was instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator
so appointed by the probate court in its order of March 6, 1981.4 signing the will in their presence and that they also signed
the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the
Thereafter, herein petitioners, claiming to be nephews and testator and of one another.
nieces of the testator, instituted a second petition, entitled "In
the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Mateo Caballero" and On October 15, 1991, respondent court promulgated its
docketed as Special Proceeding No. 3965-R, before Branch IX of decision 10 affirming that of the trial court, and ruling that the
the aforesaid Court of First Instance of Cebu. On October 18, 1982, attestation clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero
herein petitioners had their said petition intestate proceeding substantially complies with Article 805 of the Civil Code, thus:
consolidated with Special Proceeding No. 3899-R in Branch II of the
Court of First Instance of Cebu and opposed thereat the probate of The question therefore is whether the attestation clause in
the Testator's will and the appointment of a special administrator question may be considered as having substantialy complied
for his estate.5 with the requirements of Art. 805 of the Civil Code. What
appears in the attestation clause which the oppositors claim to be
Benoni Cabrera died on February 8, 1982 hence the probate court, defective is "we do certify that the testament was read by him and
now known as Branch XV of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, the attestator, Mateo Caballero, has published unto us the
appointed William Cabrera as special administrator on June 21, foregoing will consisting of THREE PAGES, including the
1983. Thereafter, on July 20, 1983, it issued an order for the return acknowledgment, each page numbered correlatively in letters of
of the records of Special Proceeding No. 3965-R to the archives the upper part of each page, as his Last Will and Testament, and
since the testate proceeding for the probate of the will had to be he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces
heard and resolved first. On March 26, 1984 the case was reraffled provided for his signature and on the left hand margin in the
and eventually assigned to Branch XII of the Regional Trial Court presence of the said testator and in the presence of each and all of
of Cebu where it remained until the conclusion of the probate us (emphasis supplied).
proceedings.6
To our thinking, Or as the language of the law would have it that
In the course of the hearing in Special Proceeding No. 3899-R, the testator signed the will "in the presence of the instrumental
herein petitioners appeared as oppositors and objected to the witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 1 Juco
the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one clause likewise need not even be known to the attesting
another." If not completely or ideally perfect in accordance with the witnesses. 18 The last paragraph of Article 805 merely requires
wordings of Art. 805 but (sic) the phrase as formulated is in that, in such a case, the attestation clause shall be interpreted
substantial compliance with the requirement of the law." 11 to said witnesses.

Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the said ruling of An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby
respondent court, but the same was denied in the latter's resolution the attesting witnesses certify that the instrument has been
of January 14, 1992, 12 hence this appeal now before us. Petitioners executed before them and to the manner of the execution the
assert that respondent court has ruled upon said issue in a manner same. 19 It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts
not in accord with the law and settled jurisprudence on the matter surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the
and are now questioning once more, on the same ground as that witnesses, it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the
raised before respondent court, the validity of the attestation essential formalities required by law has been observed. 20 It is
clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero. made for the purpose of preserving in a permanent form a
record of the facts that attended the execution of a
We find the present petition to be meritorious, as we shall particular will, so that in case of failure of the memory of the
shortly hereafter, after some prefatory observations which we feel attesting witnesses, or other casualty, such facts may still
should be made in aid of the rationale for our resolution of the be proved. 21
controversy.
Under the third paragraph of Article 805, such a clause, the
1. A will has been defined as a species of conveyance whereby a complete lack of which would result in the invalidity of the
person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to will, 22 should state (1) the number of the pages used upon
control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate after his which the will is written; (2) that the testator signed, or
death. 13 Under the Civil Code, there are two kinds of wills which a expressly caused another to sign, the will and every page
testator may execute.14 the first kind is the ordinary or attested thereof in the presence of the attesting witnesses; and (3)
will, the execution of which is governed by Articles 804 to 809 of that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the
the Code. Article 805 requires that: testator of the will and all its pages, and that said witnesses
also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence
Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be of the testator and of one another.
subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the
testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the number
by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or of pages on which the will is written is to safeguard against possible
more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent
another. any increase or decrease in the pages;23 whereas the subscription
of the signature of the testator and the attesting witnesses is made
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and for the purpose of authentication and identification, and thus
the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, indicates that the will is the very same instrument executed by the
each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, testator and attested to by the witnesses.24
and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed
on the upper part of each page. Further, by attesting and subscribing to the will, the witnesses
thereby declare the due execution of the will as embodied in the
The attestation should state the number of pages used upon which attestation clause.25 The attestation clause, therefore, provide
the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and strong legal guaranties for the due execution of a will and
every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, to insure the authenticity thereof.26 As it appertains only to the
under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses and not to the testator, it need be signed only by
witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all them.27 Where it is left unsigned, it would result in the invalidation
the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one of the will as it would be possible and easy to add the clause on a
another. subsequent occasion in the absence of the testator and its
witnesses.28
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witness,
it shall be interpreted to them. In its report, the Code Commission commented on the reasons of
the law for requiring the formalities to be followed in the execution
In addition, the ordinary will must be acknowledged before a notary
of wills, in the following manner:
public by a testator and the attesting witness. 15hence it is likewise
known as notarial will. Where the attestator is deaf or deaf-mute, The underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the
Article 807 requires that he must personally read the will, if able to provisions on the law on wills in this Project consists in the
do so. Otherwise, he should designate two persons who would read liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end
the will and communicate its contents to him in a practicable in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing
manner. On the other hand, if the testator is blind, the will should his last wishes, but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to
be read to him twice; once, by anyone of the witnesses thereto, prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue
and then again, by the notary public before whom it is and improper pressure and influence upon the testator.
acknowledged. 16
This objective is in accord with the modern tendency with respect
The other kind of will is the holographic will, which Article 810 to the formalities in the execution of wills. . . .29
defines as one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the
testator himself. This kind of will, unlike the ordinary type, requires 2. An examination of the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero
no attestation by witnesses. A common requirement in both shows that it is comprised of three sheets all of which have been
kinds of will is that they should be in writing and must have numbered correlatively, with the left margin of each page thereof
been executed in a language or dialect known to the bearing the respective signatures of the testator and the three
testator. 17 attesting witnesses. The part of the will containing the
testamentary dispositions is expressed in the Cebuano-Visayan
However, in the case of an ordinary or attested will, its attestation dialect and is signed at the foot thereof by the testator. The
clause need not be written in a language or dialect known to attestation clause in question, on the other hand, is recited in the
the testator since it does not form part of the testamentary English language and is likewise signed at the end thereof by the
disposition. Furthermore, the language used in the attestation

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 2 Juco
three attesting witnesses hereto.30 Since it is the proverbial bone necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here
of contention, we reproduce it again for facility of reference: sought to be admitted to probate. Petitioners are correct in
pointing out that the aforestated defect in the attestation clause
We, the undersigned attesting Witnesses, whose Residences and obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the form of
postal addresses appear on the Opposite of our respective names, the will or the language used therein which would warrant the
we do hereby certify that the Testament was read by him and the application of the substantial compliance rule, as contemplated in
testator, MATEO CABALLERO; has published unto us the foregoing the pertinent provision thereon in the Civil Code, to wit:
Will consisting of THREE PAGES, including the Acknowledgment,
each page numbered correlatively in the letters on the upper part Art. 809. In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue
of each page, as his Last Will and Testament and he has the same and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in
and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not
and on the left hand margin, in the presence of the said testator render the will invalid if it is not proved that the will was in fact
and in the presence of each and all of us. executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of article 805" (Emphasis supplied.)
It will be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness should
both attest and subscribe to the will in the presence of the While it may be true that the attestation clause is indeed subscribed
testator and of one another. "Attestation" and "subscription" differ at the end thereof and at the left margin of each page by the three
in meaning. Attestation is the act of senses, while attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot be conclusively
subscription is the act of the hand. The former is mental, the inferred therefrom that the said witness affixed their
latter mechanical, and to attest a will is to know that it was respective signatures in the presence of the testator and of
published as such, and to certify the facts required to constitute an each other since, as petitioners correctly observed, the presence
actual and legal publication; but to subscribe a paper published as of said signatures only establishes the fact that it was indeed
a will is only to write on the same paper the names of the witnesses, signed, but it does not prove that the attesting witnesses did
for the sole purpose of identification.31 subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of
each other. The execution of a will is supposed to be one act so
In Taboada vs. Rizal,32 we clarified that attestation consists in that where the testator and the witnesses sign on various days or
witnessing the testator's execution of the will in order to see and occasions and in various combinations, the will cannot be stamped
take note mentally that those things are done which the statute with the imprimatur of effectivity.33
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 We believe that the further comment of former Justice J.B.L.
signing of the witnesses' names upon the same paper for the Reyes34 regarding Article 809, wherein he urged caution in the
purpose of identification of such paper as the will which was application of the substantial compliance rule therein, is correct and
executed by the testator. As it involves a mental act, there should be applied in the case under consideration, as well as to
would be no means, therefore, of ascertaining by a physical future cases with similar questions:
examination of the will whether the witnesses had indeed
signed in the presence of the testator and of each other . . . The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects
unless this is substantially expressed in the attestation. that can be supplied by an examination of the will itself:
whether all the pages are consecutively numbered; whether the
It is contended by petitioners that the aforequoted attestation signatures appear in each and every page; whether the subscribing
clause, in contravention of the express requirements of the third witnesses are three or the will was notarized. All these are facts
paragraph of Article 805 of the Civil Code for attestation clauses, that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even omissions
fails to specifically state the fact that the attesting concerning them in the attestation clause can be safely
witnesses the testator sign the will and all its pages in their disregarded. But the total number of pages, and whether all
presence and that they, the witnesses, likewise signed the persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other
will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator must substantially appear in the attestation clause, being
and of each other. We agree. the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings.
(Emphasis ours.)
What is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation
clause herein assailed is the fact that while it recites that the 3. We stress once more that under Article 809, the defects and
testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of imperfections must only be with respect to the form of the
the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of attestation or the language employed therein. Such defects or
pages that were used, the same does not expressly state imperfections would not render a will invalid should it be proved
therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed that the will was really executed and attested in compliance with
their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the Article 805. In this regard, however, the manner of proving the due
testator and of each other. execution and attestation has been held to be limited to merely an
examination of the will itself without resorting to evidence aliunde,
The phrase "and he has signed the same and every page thereof, whether oral or written.
on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand
margin," obviously refers to the testator and not the instrumental The foregoing considerations do not apply where the
witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the words "as his Last attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting
Will and Testament." On the other hand, although the words "in the witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the
presence of the testator and in the presence of each and all of us" presence of the testator and of each other.35 In such a
may, at first blush, appear to likewise signify and refer to the situation, the defect is not only in the form or language of
witnesses, it must, however, be interpreted as referring only to the the attestation clause but the total absence of a specific
testator signing in the presence of the witnesses since said phrase element required by Article 805 to be specifically stated in
immediately follows the words "he has signed the same and every the attestation clause of a will. That is precisely the defect
page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the complained of in the present case since there is no plausible way
left hand margin." What is then clearly lacking, in the final by which we can read into the questioned attestation clause
logical analysis, is the statement that the witnesses signed statement, or an implication thereof, that the attesting witness did
the will and every page thereof in the presence of the actually bear witness to the signing by the testator of the will and
testator and of one another. all of its pages and that said instrumental witnesses also signed the
will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of
It is our considered view that the absence of that statement one another.
required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 3 Juco
Furthermore, the rule on substantial compliance in Article 809 Abangan ([1919], 40 Phil., 476), continuing through Aldaba vs.
cannot be revoked or relied on by respondents since it presupposes Roque ([1922], 43 Phil., 378), and Fernandez vs. Vergel de
that the defects in the attestation clause can be cured or supplied Dios ([1924], 46 Phil., 922), and culminating in Nayve vs. Mojal
by the text of the will or a consideration of matters apparent and Aguilar ([1924], 47 Phil., 152). In its last analysis, our task is
therefrom which would provide the data not expressed in the to contrast and, if possible, conciliate the last two decisions cited
attestation clause or from which it may necessarily be gleaned or by opposing counsel, namely, those of Sano vs. Quintana, supra,
clearly inferred that the acts not stated in the omitted textual and Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar, supra.
requirements were actually complied within the execution of the
will. In other words, defects must be remedied by intrinsic In the case of Sano vs. Quintana, supra, it was decided that an
evidence supplied by the will itself. attestation clause which does not recite that the witnesses signed
the will and each and every page thereof on the left margin in the
In the case at bar, contrarily, proof of the acts required to have presence of the testator is defective, and such a defect annuls the
been performed by the attesting witnesses can be supplied by will. The case of Uy Coque vs. Sioca, supra, was cited, but the case
only extrinsic evidence thereof, since an overall appreciation of of Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar, supra, was not mentioned. In
the contents of the will yields no basis whatsoever from with such contrast, is the decision in Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar, supra,
facts may be plausibly deduced. What private respondent insists on wherein it was held that the attestation clause must estate the fact
are the testimonies of his witnesses alleging that they saw the that the testator and the witnesses reciprocally saw the signing of
compliance with such requirements by the instrumental witnesses, the will, for such an act cannot be proved by the mere exhibition of
oblivious of the fact that he is thereby resorting to extrinsic the will, if it is not stated therein. It was also held that the fact that
evidence to prove the same and would accordingly be doing by the the testator and the witnesses signed each and every page of the
indirection what in law he cannot do directly. will can be proved also by the mere examination of the signatures
appearing on the document itself, and the omission to state such
4. Prior to the advent of the Civil Code on August 30, 1950, there evident facts does not invalidate the will.
was a divergence of views as to which manner of interpretation
should be followed in resolving issues centering on compliance with It is a habit of courts to reaffirm or distinguish previous cases;
the legal formalities required in the execution of wills. The formal seldom do they admit inconsistency in doctrine. Yet here, unless
requirements were at that time embodied primarily in Section 618 aided impossible to reconcile the Mojal and Quintana decisions.
of Act No. 190, the Code of Civil Procedure. Said section was later They are fundamentally at variance. If we rely on one, we affirm.
amended by Act No. 2645, but the provisions respecting said If we rely on the other, we reverse.
formalities found in Act. No. 190 and the amendment thereto were
practically reproduced and adopted in the Civil Code. In resolving this puzzling question of authority, three outstanding
points may be mentioned. In the first place, the Mojal, decision was
One view advance the liberal or substantial compliance rule. concurred in by only four members of the court, less than a
This was first laid down in the case of Abangan vs. majority, with two strong dissenting opinions; the Quintana
Abangan,36 where it was held that the object of the solemnities decision was concurred in by seven members of the court, a clear
surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad majority, with one formal dissent. In the second place, the Mojal
faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to decision was promulgated in December, 1924, while the Quintana
guarantee their truth and authenticity. Therefore, the laws on decision was promulgated in December, 1925; the Quintana
this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain decision was thus subsequent in point of time. And in the third
these primordial ends. Nonetheless, it was also emphasized that place, the Quintana decision is believed more nearly to conform to
one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the the applicable provisions of the law.
law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will,
hence when an interpretation already given assures such The right to dispose of property by will is governed entirely by
ends, any other interpretation whatsoever that adds nothing statute. The law of the case is here found in section 61 of the Code
but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645, and in section 634
and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be of the same Code, as unamended. It is in part provided in section
disregarded. The subsequent cases of Avera vs. Garcia,37 Aldaba 61, as amended that "No will . . . shall be valid . . . unless . . .." It
vs. Roque,38 Unson vs. Abella,39 Pecson vs. Coronel,40 Fernandez is further provided in the same section that "The
vs. Vergel de Dios, et al.,41and Nayve vs. Mojal, et al.42 all adhered attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon
to this position. which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the
will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write
The other view which advocated the rule that statutes which his name, under his express direction, in the presence of three
prescribe the formalities that should be observed in the execution witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all
of wills are mandatory in nature and are to be strictly construed pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other."
was followed in the subsequent cases of In the Matter of the Estate Codal section 634 provides that "The will shall be disallowed
of Saguinsin,43 In re Will of Andrada,44 Uy Coque vs. Sioca,45 In re in either of the following case: 1. If not executed
Estate of Neumark, 46and Sano vs. Quintana.47 and attested as in this Act provided." The law not alone
carefully makes use of the imperative, but cautiously goes further
Gumban vs. Gorecho, et al.,48 provided the Court with the occasion and makes use of the negative, to enforce legislative intention. It
to clarify the seemingly conflicting decisions in the aforementioned is not within the province of the courts to disregard the legislative
cases. In said case of Gumban, the attestation clause had failed to purpose so emphatically and clearly expressed.
state that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page
thereof on the left margin in the presence of the testator. The will We adopt and reaffirm the decision in the case of Sano vs.
in question was disallowed, with these reasons therefor: Quintana, supra, and, to the extent necessary, modify the decision
in the case of Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar, supra. (Emphases in the
In support of their argument on the assignment of error above- original text).
mentioned, appellants rely on a series of cases of this court
beginning with (I)n the Matter of the (E)state of Saguinsin ([1920], But after the Gumban clarificatory pronouncement, there were
41 Phil., 875), continuing with In re Will of Andrada [1921], 42 decisions of the Court that once more appeared to revive the
Phil., 180), Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca [1922], 43 Phil., 405), seeming diversity of views that was earlier threshed out therein.
and In re Estate of Neumark ([1923], 46 Phil., 841), and ending The cases of Quinto vs. Morata,49Rodriguez vs.
with Sano vs. Quintana ([1925], 48 Phil., 506). Appellee counters Alcala,50 Enchevarria vs. Sarmiento,51 and Testate Estate of
with the citation of a series of cases beginning with Abangan vs. Toray52 went the way of the ruling as restated in Gumban. But De

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 4 Juco
Gala vs. Gonzales, et al.,53 Rey vs. Cartagena,54 De Ticson vs. De Special Proceeding No. 3899-R (Petition for the Probate of the Last
Gorostiza,55Sebastian vs. Panganiban,56 Rodriguez vs. Yap,57 Grey Will and Testament of Mateo Caballero) and to REVIVE Special
vs. Fabia,58 Leynez vs. Leynez,59 Martir vs. Martir,60 Alcala vs. De Proceeding No. 3965-R (In the matter of the Intestate
Villa,61 Sabado vs. Estate of Mateo Caballero) as an active case and thereafter duly
Fernandez,62 Mendoza vs. Pilapil, 63 and Lopez vs. Liboro,64 veered proceed with the settlement of the estate of the said decedent.
away from the strict interpretation rule and established a trend
toward an application of the liberal view. SO ORDERED.

The Code Commission, cognizant of such a conflicting welter of

views and of the undeniable inclination towards a liberal
construction, recommended the codification of the
substantial compliance rule, as it believed this rule to be in
accord with the modern tendency to give a liberal approach to the
interpretation of wills. Said rule thus became what is now Article
809 of the Civil Code, with this explanation of the Code
Commission:

The present law provides for only one form of executing a will, and
that is, in accordance with the formalities prescribed by Section 618
of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645. The
Supreme Court of the Philippines had previously upheld the strict
compliance 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.

However, in recent years the Supreme Court changed its attitude

and has become more liberal in the interpretation of the formalities
in the execution of wills. This liberal view is enunciated in the cases
of Rodriguez vs. Yap, G.R. No. 45924, May 18, 1939; Leynez vs.
Leynez, G.R. No. 46097, October 18, 1939; Martir vs. Martir, G.R.
No. 46995, June 21, 1940; and Alcala vs. Villa, G.R. No. 47351,
April 18, 1941.

In the above mentioned decisions of our Supreme Court, it has

practically gone back to the original provisions of Section 618 of
the Code of Civil Procedure before its amendment by Act No. 2645
in the year 1916. To turn this attitude into a legislative declaration
and to attain the main objective of the proposed Code in the
liberalization of the manner of executing wills, article 829 of the
Project is recommended, which reads:

"Art. 829. 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 829."65

The so-called liberal rule, the Court said in Gil vs. Murciano,66 "does
not offer any puzzle or difficulty, nor does it open the door to
serious consequences. The later decisions do tell us when and
where to stop; they draw the dividing line with precision. They do
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. They
only permit a probe into the will, an exploration into its confines,
to ascertain its meaning or to determine the existence or absence
of the requisite formalities of law. This clear, sharp limitation
eliminates uncertainty and ought to banish any fear of dire results."

It may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that

omissions which can be supplied by an examination of the
will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic
evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not
obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed.
However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except
by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the
attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself.67

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the impugned

decision of respondent court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The court a quo is accordingly directed to forthwith DISMISS its

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 5 Juco
G.R. No. L-4067 November 29, 1951 the will by the testator in the presence of the witnesses, and by the
latter in the presence of the testator and of each other.
In the Matter of the will of ANTERO MERCADO, deceased.
ROSARIO GARCIA, petitioner, vs. Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with against
JULIANA LACUESTA, ET AL., respondents. the petitioner. So ordered.

PARAS, C.J.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals disallowing

the will of Antero Mercado dated January 3, 1943. The will is written
in the Ilocano dialect and contains the following attestation clause:

We, the undersigned, by these presents to declare that the

foregoing testament of Antero Mercado was signed by himself and
also by us below his name and of this attestation clause and that
of the left margin of the three pages thereof. Page three the
continuation of this attestation clause; this will is written in Ilocano
dialect which is spoken and understood by the testator, and it bears
the corresponding number in letter which compose of three pages
and all them were signed in the presence of the testator and
witnesses, and the witnesses in the presence of the testator and all
and each and every one of us witnesses.

In testimony, whereof, we sign this statement, this the third day of

January, one thousand nine hundred forty three, (1943) A.D.

(Sgd.) NUMERIANO EVANGELISTA (Sgd.) "ROSENDA

CORTES

(Sgd.) BIBIANA ILLEGIBLE

The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who
wrote the name of Antero Mercado, followed below by "A reugo del
testator" and the name of Florentino Javier. Antero Mercado is
alleged to have written a cross immediately after his name. The
Court of Appeals, reversing the judgement of the Court of First
Instance of Ilocos Norte, ruled 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. Florentino 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 three witnesses signed
the will in all the pages thereon in the presence of the testator and
of each other.

In our opinion, the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing

to state that Antero Mercado caused Atty. Florentino Javier to write
the testator's name under his express direction, as required by
section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The herein petitioner
(who is appealing by way of certiorari from the decision of the Court
of Appeals) argues, however, that there is no need for such recital
because the cross written by the testator after his name is a
sufficient signature and the signature of Atty. Florentino Javier is a
surplusage. Petitioner's theory is that the cross is as much a
signature as a thumbmark, the latter having been held sufficient by
this Court in the cases of De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil.,
104; Dolar vs. Diancin, 55 Phil., 479; Payad vs. Tolentino, 62 Phil.,
848; Neyra vs. Neyra, 76 Phil., 296 and Lopez vs. Liboro, 81 Phil.,
429.

It is not here pretended that the cross 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, we are not prepared
to liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark, and the reason
is obvious. The cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness
of a thumbmark.

What has been said makes it unnecessary for us to determine there

is a sufficient recital in the attestation clause as to the signing of

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 6 Juco
 G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982 attesting witnesses sign at the end of the will and in the presence
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF of the testatrix and of one another?
THE WILL OF DOROTEA PEREZ, (deceased): APOLONIO
TABOADA, petitioner, Article 805 of the Civil Code provides:
vs.
HON. AVELINO S. ROSAL, as Judge of Court of First Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the
Instance of Southern Leyte, (Branch III, end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name
Maasin), respondent. written by some other 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.
GUTIERREZ, JR. J.:
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and
This is a petition for review of the orders issued by the Court of the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid,
First Instance of Southern Leyte, Branch III, in Special Proceedings each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin,
No. R-1713, entitled "In the Matter of the Petition for Probate of and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed
the Will of Dorotea Perez, Deceased; Apolonio Taboada, Petitioner", on the upper part of each page.
which denied the probate of the will, the motion for reconsideration
and the motion for appointment of a special administrator. The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which
the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and
In the petition for probate filed with the respondent court, the every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name,
petitioner attached the alleged last will and testament of the late under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental
Dorotea Perez. Written in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect, the will witnesses, and that the lacier witnesses and signed the will and the
consists of two pages. The first page contains the entire pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
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 If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the
(3) instrumental witnesses. The second page which contains the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to the witnesses, it shall be
attestation clause and the acknowledgment is signed at the end of interpreted to them.
the attestation clause by the three (3) attesting witnesses and at
The respondent Judge interprets the above-quoted provision of law
the left hand margin by the testatrix.
to require that, for a notarial will to be valid, it is not enough that
Since no opposition was filed after the petitioner's compliance with only the testatrix signs at the "end" but an the three subscribing
the requirement of publication, the trial court commissioned the witnesses must also sign at the same place or at the end, in the
branch clerk of court to receive the petitioner's evidence. presence of the testatrix and of one another because the attesting
Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his evidence and presented witnesses to a will attest not merely the will itself but also the
Vicente Timkang, one of the subscribing witnesses to the will, who signature of the testator. It is not sufficient compliance to sign the
testified on its genuineness and due execution. page, where the end of the will is found, at the left hand margin of
that page.
The trial court, thru then Presiding Judge Ramon C. Pamatian
issued the questioned order denying the probate of the will of On the other hand, the petitioner maintains that Article 805 of the
Dorotea Perez for want of a formality in its execution. In the same Civil Code does not make it a condition precedent or a matter of
order, the petitioner was also required to submit the names of the absolute necessity for the extrinsic validity of the wig that the
intestate heirs with their corresponding addresses so that they signatures of the subscribing witnesses should be specifically
could be properly notified and could intervene in the summary located at the end of the wig after the signature of the testatrix. He
settlement of the estate. contends that it would be absurd that the legislature intended to
place so heavy an import on the space or particular location where
Instead of complying with the order of the trial court, the petitioner the signatures are to be found as long as this space or particular
filed a manifestation and/or motion, ex partepraying for a thirty- location wherein the signatures are found is consistent with good
day period within which to deliberate on any step to be taken as a faith and the honest frailties of human nature.
result of the disallowance of the will. He also asked that the ten-
day period required by the court to submit the names of intestate We find the petition meritorious.
heirs with their addresses be held in abeyance.
Undoubtedly, under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will must be
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order subscribed or signed at its end by the testator himself or by the
denying the probate of the will. However, the motion together with testator's name written by another person in his presence, and by
the previous manifestation and/or motion could not be acted upon his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more
by the Honorable Ramon C. Pamatian due to his transfer to his new credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one
station at Pasig, Rizal. The said motions or incidents were still another.
pending resolution when respondent Judge Avelino S. Rosal
It must be noted that the law uses the
assumed the position of presiding judge of the respondent court.
terms attested and subscribed Attestation consists in witnessing
Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of the testator's execution of the will in order to see and take note
special administrator. mentally that those things are, done which the statute requires for
the execution of a will and that the signature of the testator exists
Subsequently, the new Judge denied the motion for reconsideration as a fact. On the other hand, subscription is the signing of the
as well as the manifestation and/or motion filed ex parte. In the witnesses' names upon the same paper for the purpose of
same order of denial, the motion for the appointment of special Identification of such paper as the will which was executed by the
administrator was likewise denied because of the petitioner's failure testator. (Ragsdale v. Hill, 269 SW 2d 911).
to comply with the order requiring him to submit the names of' the
intestate heirs and their addresses. Insofar as the requirement of subscription is concerned, it is our
considered view that the will in this case was subscribed in a
The petitioner decided to file the present petition. manner which fully satisfies the purpose of Identification.

For the validity of a formal notarial will, does Article 805 of the Civil The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of
Code require that the testatrix and all the three instrumental and the first page of the will attested not only to the genuineness of the

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 7 Juco
signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of the will as prevent the will of the testator from being defeated by purely
embodied in the attestation clause. technical considerations.

While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, Icasiano v. Icasiano (11 SCRA 422, 429) has the following ruling
unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be ignored, which applies a similar liberal approach:
especially where the authenticity of the will is not assailed.
(Gonzales v. Gonzales, 90 Phil. 444, 449). ... Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured not only (sic)
the fact that the testatrix and two other witnesses did sign the
The law is to be liberally construed, "the underlying and defective page, but also by its bearing the coincident imprint of the
fundamental objective permeating the provisions on the law on seal of the notary public before whom the testament was ratified
wills in this project consists in the liberalization of the manner of by testatrix and all three witnesses. The law should not be so
their execution with the end in view of giving the testator more strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on
freedom in expressing his last wishes but with sufficient safeguards account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct
and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the she had no control where the purpose of the law to guarantee the
exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the Identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently
testator. This objective is in accord with the modern tendency in attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation existed, and the
respect to the formalities in the execution of a will" (Report of the evidence on record attests to the fun observance of the statutory
Code commission, p. 103). requisites. Otherwise, as stated in Vda. de Gil. Vs. Murciano, 49
Off. Gaz. 1459, at 1479 (decision on reconsideration) 'witnesses
Parenthetically, Judge Ramon C. Pamatian stated in his questioned may sabotage the will by muddling or bungling it or the attestation
order that were not for the defect in the place of signatures of the clause.
witnesses, he would have found the testimony sufficient to
establish the validity of the will. WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby granted. The orders of
the respondent court which denied the probate of tile will, the
The objects of attestation and of subscription were fully met and motion for reconsideration of the denial of probate, and the motion
satisfied in the present case when the instrumental witnesses for appointment of a special administrator are set aside. The
signed at the left margin of the sole page which contains all the respondent court is ordered to allow the probate of the wig and to
testamentary dispositions, especially so when the will was properly conduct further proceedings in accordance with this decision. No
Identified by subscribing witness Vicente Timkang to be the same pronouncement on costs.
will executed by the testatrix. There was no question of fraud or
substitution behind the questioned order. SO ORDERED.

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 wig 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".

In Singson v. Florentino, et al. (92 Phil. 161, 164), this Court made
the following observations with respect to the purpose of the
requirement that the attestation clause must state the number of
pages used:

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
win 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 vs. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil.
405; Gumban vs. Gorecho, 50 Phil. 30; Quinto vs. Morata, 54 Phil.
481; Echevarria vs. 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

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 8 Juco
G.R. No. 93980 June 27, 1994 A Ballpen.

CLEMENTE CALDE, petitioner, Q And after Jose Becyagen signed his name with the ballpen, who
vs. was the next to sign?
THE COURT OF APPEALS, PRIMO AGAWIN and DOMYAAN
APED, respondents. A Me, sir.

PUNO, J.: Q And Jose Becyagen passed you the paper and the ballpen, Exhibit
"B" and "B-1" plus the ballpen which used to sign so that you could
This is a petition for review by certiorari of the Decision, dated sign your name, is that correct?
March 27, 1990, of the Court of appeals 1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 19071,
disallowing probate of the Last Will and Codicil executed by Calibia A Yes, sir.
Lingdan Bulanglang, who died on March 20, 1976.
Q And then after you signed, who was the next to sign the
The records show that decedent left behind nine thousand pesos document, Exhibit "B" and "B-1"?
(P9,000.00) worth of property. She also left a Last Will and
Testament, dated October 30, 1972, and a Codicil thereto, dated A Hilario Coto-ong.
July 24, 1973. Both documents contained the thumbmarks of
Q So you passed also to Hilario Coto-ong the same Exhibit "B" and
decedent. They were also signed by three (3) attesting witnesses
"B-1" and the ballpen so that he could sign his name as witness to
each, and acknowledged before Tomas A. Tolete, then the
the document, is it not?
Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mt.
Province. A Yes, sir.

Nicasio Calde, the executor named in the will, filed a Petition for its Q And that is the truth and you swear that to be the truth before
allowance before the RTC of Bontoc, Mt. Province, Br. 36. 2 He died the Honorable Court?
during the pendency of the proceedings, and was duly substituted
by petitioner. Private respondents, relatives of decedent, opposed ATTY. DALOG:
the Petitioner filed by Calde, on the following grounds: that the will
and codicil were written in Ilocano, a dialect that decedent did not He already testified under oath, Your Honor.
know; that decedent was mentally incapacitated to execute the two
documents because of her advanced age, illness and deafness; that COURT:
decedent’s thumbmarks were procured through fraud and undue
Witness may answer
influence; and that the codicil was not executed in accordance with
law. A Yes, sir.
On June 23, 1988, the trial court rendered judgment on the case, For his part, Obanan Ticangan likewise admitted during cross-
approving and allowing decedent’s will and its codicil. The decision examination in regard to the codicil that:
was appealed to and reversed by the respondent Court of Appeals.
It held: Q When you signed Exhibit "D" and "D-1", did you all sign with the
same ballpen?
. . . (T)he will and codicil could pass the safeguards under Article
805 of the New Civil Code but for one crucial factor of discrepancy A One.
in the color of ink when the instrumental witnesses affixed their
respective signatures. When subjected to cross-examination, Such admissions from instrumental witnesses are indeed significant
Codcodio Nacnas as witness testified as follows: since they point to no other conclusion than that the documents
were not signed by them in their presence but on different
Q And all of you signed on the same table? occasions since the same ballpen used by them supposedly in
succession could not have produced a different color from blue to
A Yes, sir. black and from black to blue. In fact, the attestation clause followed
the same pattern. The absurd sequence was repeated when they
Q And when you were all signing this Exhibit "B" and "B-1", Exhibit
signed the codicil, for which reason, We have no other alternative
"B" and "B-1" which is the testament was passed around all of you
but to disallow the Last Will and Codicil. Verily, if the witnesses and
so that each of you will sign consecutively?
testatrix used the same ballpen, then their signatures would have
A Yes, sir. been in only one color, not in various ones as shown in the
documents. Moreover, the signatures, in different colors as they
Q Who was the first to sign? are, appear to be of different broadness, some being finer than the
others, indicating that, contrary to what the testamentary
A Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang. witnesses declared on the witness stand, not only one ballpen was
used, and, therefore, showing that the documents were not signed
Q After Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang was made to sign — I withdraw by the testatrix and instrumental witnesses in the presence of one
the question. How did Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang sign the last will another. . . " (Rollo, pp. 44-46. Citations omitted.)
and testament?
Petitioner unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration of the
A She asked Judge Tolete the place where she will affix her impugned Decision. His motion was denied by the respondent court
thumbmark so Judge Tolete directed her hand or her thumb to her in its Order, dated May 24, 1990.
name.
Thus, this appeal by petitioner who now puts in issue the
Q After she signed, who was the second to sign allegedly all of you correctness of the respondent court’s conclusion that both
there present? decedent’s will and codicil were not subscribed by the witnesses in
the presence of the testator and of one another, contrary to the
A Jose Becyagen.
requirements of Article 805 of the Civil Code. He contends that:
Q With what did Jose Becyagen sign the testament, Exhibit "B" and
1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED A
"B-1"?
QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 9 Juco
OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT BY inspection by the tribunal of the accused’s arm. This source differs
CONCLUDING BASED ON PURE SPECULATION OR SURMISES AND from the other two in omitting any step of conscious inference or
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE TESTIMONY OF JUDGE TOLETE WHICH reasoning, and in proceeding by direct self-perception, or autopsy.
IS AN EVIDENCE OF SUBSTANCE THAT THE WILL AND THE
CODICIL OF THE LATE CALIBIA LINGDAN BULANGLANG WERE It is unnecessary, for present purposes, to ask whether this is not,
SIGNED BY HER AND BY HER INSTRUMENTAL WITNESSES ON after all, a third source of inference, i.e., an inference from the
DIFFERENT OCCASIONS; impressions or perceptions of the tribunal to the objective existence
of the thing perceived. The law does not need and does not attempt
2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED A to consider theories of psychology as to the subjectivity of
QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW knowledge or the mediateness of perception. It assumes the
OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT objectivity of external nature; and, for the purposes of judicial
BY DISREGARDING THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE ATTESTATION investigation, a thing perceived by the tribunal as existing does
CLAUSES OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT AND THE CODICIL exist.
OF THE LATE CALIBIA LINGDAN BULANGLANG.
There are indeed genuine cases of inference by the tribunal from
The petition must fail. things perceived to other things unperceived — as, for example,
from a person’s size, complexion, and features, to his age; these
The question in the case at bench is one of fact: whether or not, cases of a real use of inference can be later more fully distinguished
based on the evidence submitted, respondent appellate court erred . . . But we are here concerned with nothing more than matters
in concluding that both decedent’s Last Will and Testament, and its directly perceived — for example, that a person is of small height
Codicil were subscribed by the instrumental witnesses on separate or is of dark complexion; as to such matters, the perception by the
occasions. As a general rule, factual findings of the Court of Appeals tribunal that the person is small or large, or that he has a dark or
are considered final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on light complexion, is a mode of acquiring belief which is independent
appeal to this court. In the present instance, however, there is of inference from either testimonial or circumstantial evidence. It
reason to make an exception to that rule, since the finding of the is the tribunal’s self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself.
respondent court is contrary to that of the trial court, viz.:
From the point of view of the litigant party furnishing this source of
. . . (Private respondents) pointed out however, that the assertions belief, it may be termed Autoptic Proference. 3 (Citations omitted.)
of petitioner’s witnesses are rife with contradictions, particularly the
fact that the latter’s signatures on the documents in issue appear In the case at bench, the autoptic proference contradicts the
to have been written in ballpens of different colors contrary to the testimonial evidence produced by petitioner. The will and its codicil,
statements of said witnesses that all of them signed with only one upon inspection by the respondent court, show in black and white
ballpen. The implication is that the subscribing witnesses to the Will — or more accurately, in black and blue — that more than one pen
and Codicil, and the testatrix did not simultaneously sign each of was used by the signatories thereto. Thus, it was not erroneous nor
the documents in one sitting but did it piecemeal — a violation of baseless for respondent court to disbelieve petitioner’s claim that
Art. 805 of the Code. This conclusion of the (private respondents) both testamentary documents in question were subscribed to in
is purely circumstantial. From this particular set of facts, numerous accordance with the provisions of Art. 805 of the Civil Code.
inferences without limits can be drawn depending on which side of
the fence one is on. For instance, considering the time interval that Neither did respondent court err when it did not accord great weight
elapsed between the making of the Will and Codicil, and up to the to the testimony of Judge Tomas A. Tolete. It is true that his
filing of the petition for probate, the possibility is not remote that testimony contains a narration of how the two testamentary
one or two of the attesting witnesses may have forgotten certain documents were subscribed and attested to, starting from
details that transpired when they attested the documents in decedent’s thumbmarking thereof, to the alleged signing of the
question . . . (Rollo, pp. 36-37.) instrumental witnesses thereto in consecutive order. Nonetheless,
nowhere in Judge Tolete’s testimony is there any kind of
A review of the facts and circumstances upon which respondent explanation for the different-colored signatures on the testaments.
Court of Appeals based its impugned finding, however, fails to
convince us that the testamentary documents in question were IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The
subscribed and attested by the instrumental witnesses during a Decision of respondent Court of Appeals, dated March 27, 1988, in
single occasion. CA-G.R. CV No. 19071 disallowing the Last Will and Testament, and
the Codicil thereto, of the decedent Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang is
As sharply noted by respondent appellate court, the signatures of AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against petitioner.
some attesting witnesses in decedent’s will and its codicil were
written in blue ink, while the others were in black. This discrepancy SO ORDERED.
was not explained by petitioner. Nobody of his six (6) witnesses
testified that two pens were used by the signatories on the two
documents. In fact, two (2) of petitioner’s witnesses even testified
that only one (1) ballpen was used in signing the two testamentary
documents.

It is accepted that there are three sources from which a tribunal

may properly acquire knowledge for making its decisions, namely:
circumstantial evidence, testimonial evidence, and real evidence or
autoptic proference. Wigmore explains these sources as follows:

If, for example, it is desired to ascertain whether the accused has

lost his right hand and wears an iron hook in place of it, one source
of belief on the subject would be the testimony of a witness who
had seen the arm; in believing this testimonial evidence, there is
an inference from the human assertion to the fact asserted. A
second source of belief would be the mark left on some substance
grasped or carried by the accused; in believing this circumstantial
evidence, there is an inference from the circumstance to the thing
producing it. A third source of belief remains, namely, the

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 10 Juco
G.R. No. L-13431 November 12, 1919 the second contains only the attestation clause and is signed also
at the bottom by the three witnesses, it is not necessary that both
In re will of Ana Abangan. sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator and the
GERTRUDIS ABANGAN, executrix-appellee, witnesses, or be paged.
vs.
ANASTACIA ABANGAN, ET AL., opponents-appellants. The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is
to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution
AVANCEÑA, J.: of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity.
Therefore the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a
On September 19, 1917, the Court of First Instance of Cebu way as to attain these primordal ends. But, on the other hand, also
admitted to probate Ana Abangan's will executed July, 1916. From one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the
this decision the opponent's appealed. law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will.
So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any
Said document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's will, consists of
other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands
two sheets, the first of which contains all of the disposition of the
more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustative of the
testatrix, duly signed at the bottom by Martin Montalban (in the
testator's last will, must be disregarded. lawphil.net
name and under the direction of the testatrix) and by three
witnesses. The following sheet contains only the attestation clause As another ground for this appeal, it is alleged the records do not
duly signed at the bottom by the three instrumental witnesses. show that the testarix knew the dialect in which the will is written.
Neither of these sheets is signed on the left margin by the testatrix But the circumstance appearing in the will itself that same was
and the three witnesses, nor numbered by letters; and these executed in the city of Cebu and in the dialect of this locality where
omissions, according to appellants' contention, are defects whereby the testatrix was a neighbor is enough, in the absence of any proof
the probate of the will should have been denied. We are of the to the contrary, to presume that she knew this dialect in which this
opinion that the will was duly admitted to probate. will is written.
In requiring that each and every sheet of the will should also be For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is
signed on the left margin by the testator and three witnesses in the hereby affirmed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
presence of each other, Act No. 2645 (which is the one applicable
in the case) evidently has for its object (referring to the body of the
will itself) to avoid the substitution of any of said sheets, thereby
changing the testator's dispositions. But when these dispositions
are wholly written on only one sheet signed at the bottom by the
testator and three witnesses (as the instant case), their signatures
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. A different
interpretation would assume that the statute requires that this
sheet, already signed at the bottom, be signed twice. We cannot
attribute to the statute such an intention. As these signatures must
be written by the testator and the witnesses in the presence of each
other, it appears that, if the signatures at the bottom of the sheet
guaranties its authenticity, another signature on its left margin
would be unneccessary; and if they do not guaranty, same
signatures, affixed on another part of same sheet, would add
nothing. We cannot assume that the statute regards of such
importance the place where the testator and the witnesses must
sign on the sheet that it would consider that their signatures written
on the bottom do not guaranty the authenticity of the sheet but, if
repeated on the margin, give sufficient security.

In requiring that each and every page of a will must be numbered

correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of the sheet, it is
likewise clear that the object of Act No. 2645 is to know whether
any sheet of the will has been removed. But, when all the
dispositive parts of a will are written on one sheet only, the object
of the statute disappears because the removal of this single sheet,
although unnumbered, cannot be hidden.

What has been said is also applicable to the attestation clause.

Wherefore, without considering whether or not this clause is an
essential part of the will, we hold that in the one accompanying the
will in question, the signatures of the testatrix and of the three
witnesses on the margin and the numbering of the pages of the
sheet are formalities not required by the statute. Moreover,
referring specially to the signature of the testatrix, we can add that
same is not necessary in the attestation clause because this, as its
name implies, appertains only to the witnesses and not to the
testator since the latter does not attest, but executes, the will.

Synthesizing our opinion, we hold that in a 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

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 11 Juco
 G.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964 as to the due execution and authenticity of the said will. So did the
Notary Public before whom the will was acknowledged by the
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE testatrix and attesting witnesses, and also attorneys Fermin
JOSEFA VILLACORTE. Samson, who actually prepared the document. The latter also
CELSO ICASIANO, petitioner-appellee, testified upon cross examination that he prepared one original and
vs. two copies of Josefa Villacorte last will and testament at his house
NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO, oppositors- in Baliuag, Bulacan, but he brought only one original and one
appellants. signed copy to Manila, retaining one unsigned copy in Bulacan.

REYES, J.B.L., J.: The records show that the original of the will, which was
surrendered simultaneously with the filing of the petition and
Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila marked as Exhibit "A" consists of five pages, and while signed at
admitting to probate the document and its duplicate, marked as the end and in every page, it does not contain the signature of one
Exhibits "A" and "A-1", as the true last will and testament of Josefa of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose V. Natividad, on page three
Villacorte, deceased, and appointing as executor Celso Icasiano, (3) thereof; but the duplicate copy attached to the amended and
the person named therein as such. supplemental petition and marked as Exhibit "A-1" is signed by the
testatrix and her three attesting witnesses in each and every page.
This special proceeding was begun on October 2, 1958 by a petition
for the allowance and admission to probate of the original, Exhibit The testimony presented by the proponents of the will tends to
"A" as the alleged will of Josefa Villacorte, deceased, and for the show that the original of the will and its duplicate were subscribed
appointment of petitioner Celso Icasiano as executor thereof. at the end and on the left margin of each and every page thereof
by the testatrix herself and attested and subscribed by the three
The court set the proving of the alleged will for November 8, 1958,
mentioned witnesses in the testatrix's presence and in that of one
and caused notice thereof to be published for three (3) successive
another as witnesses (except for the missing signature of attorney
weeks, previous to the time appointed, in the newspaper "Manila
Natividad on page three (3) of the original); that pages of the
chronicle", and also caused personal service of copies thereof upon
original and duplicate of said will were duly numbered; that the
the known heirs.
attestation clause thereof contains all the facts required by law to
On October 31, 1958, Natividad Icasiano, a daughter of the be recited therein and is signed by the aforesaid attesting
testatrix, filed her opposition; and on November 10, 1958, she witnesses; that the will is written in the language known to and
petitioned to have herself appointed as a special administrator, to spoken by the testatrix that the attestation clause is in a language
which proponent objected. Hence, on November 18, 1958, the also known to and spoken by the witnesses; that the will was
court issued an order appointing the Philippine Trust Company as executed on one single occasion in duplicate copies; and that both
special administrator. 1äwphï1.ñët the original and the duplicate copies were duly acknowledged
before Notary Public Jose Oyengco of Manila on the same date June
On February 18, 1959, Enrique Icasiano, a son of the testatrix, also 2, 1956.
filed a manifestation adopting as his own Natividad's opposition to
the probate of the alleged will. Witness Natividad who testified on his failure to sign page three (3)
of the original, admits that he may have lifted two pages instead of
On March 19, 1959, the petitioner proponent commenced the one when he signed the same, but affirmed that page three (3) was
introduction of his evidence; but on June 1, 1959, he filed a motion signed in his presence.
for the admission of an amended and supplemental petition,
alleging that the decedent left a will executed in duplicate with all Oppositors-appellants in turn introduced expert testimony to the
the legal requirements, and that he was, on that date, submitting effect that the signatures of the testatrix in the duplicate (Exhibit
the signed duplicate (Exhibit "A-1"), which he allegedly found only "A-1") are not genuine nor were they written or affixed on the same
on or about May 26, 1959. On June 17, 1959, oppositors Natividad occasion as the original, and further aver that granting that the
Icasiano de Gomez and Enrique Icasiano filed their joint opposition documents were genuine, they were executed through mistake and
to the admission of the amended and supplemental petition, but by with undue influence and pressure because the testatrix was
order of July 20, 1959, the court admitted said petition, and on July deceived into adopting as her last will and testament the wishes of
30, 1959, oppositor Natividad Icasiano filed her amended those who will stand to benefit from the provisions of the will, as
opposition. Thereafter, the parties presented their respective may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the
evidence, and after several hearings the court issued the order execution of the will and the provisions and dispositions thereof,
admitting the will and its duplicate to probate. From this order, the whereby proponents-appellees stand to profit from properties held
oppositors appealed directly to this Court, the amount involved by them as attorneys-in-fact of the deceased and not enumerated
being over P200,000.00, on the ground that the same is contrary or mentioned therein, while oppositors-appellants are enjoined not
to law and the evidence. to look for other properties not mentioned in the will, and not to
oppose the probate of it, on penalty of forfeiting their share in the
The evidence presented for the petitioner is to the effect that Josefa portion of free disposal.
Villacorte died in the City of Manila on September 12, 1958; that
on June 2, 1956, the late Josefa Villacorte executed a last will and We have examined the record and are satisfied, as the trial court
testament in duplicate at the house of her daughter Mrs. Felisa was, that the testatrix signed both original and duplicate copies
Icasiano at Pedro Guevara Street, Manila, published before and (Exhibits "A" and "A-1", respectively) of the will spontaneously, on
attested by three instrumental witnesses, namely: attorneys Justo the same in the presence of the three attesting witnesses, the
P. Torres, Jr. and Jose V. Natividad, and Mr. Vinicio B. Diy; that the notary public who acknowledged the will; and Atty. Samson, who
will was acknowledged by the testatrix and by the said three actually prepared the documents; that the will and its duplicate
instrumental witnesses on the same date before attorney Jose were executed in Tagalog, a language known to and spoken by both
Oyengco Ong, Notary Public in and for the City of Manila; and that the testator and the witnesses, and read to and by the testatrix and
the will was actually prepared by attorney Fermin Samson, who Atty. Fermin Samson, together before they were actually signed;
was also present during the execution and signing of the decedent's that the attestation clause is also in a language known to and
last will and testament, together with former Governor Emilio spoken by the testatrix and the witnesses. The opinion of expert
Rustia of Bulacan, Judge Ramon Icasiano and a little girl. Of the for oppositors, Mr. Felipe Logan, that the signatures of the testatrix
said three instrumental witnesses to the execution of the appearing in the duplicate original were not written by the same
decedent's last will and testament, attorneys Torres and Natividad had which wrote the signatures in the original will leaves us
were in the Philippines at the time of the hearing, and both testified unconvinced, not merely because it is directly contradicted by

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 12 Juco
expert Martin Ramos for the proponents, but principally because of This would not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict
the paucity of the standards used by him to support the conclusion and literal application of the statutory requirements, where the
that the differences between the standard and questioned purposes of the law are otherwise satisfied. Thus, despite the literal
signatures are beyond the writer's range of normal scriptural tenor of the law, this Court has held that a testament, with the only
variation. The expert has, in fact, used as standards only three page signed at its foot by testator and witnesses, but not in the left
other signatures of the testatrix besides those affixed to the original margin, could nevertheless be probated (Abangan vs. Abangan, 41
of the testament (Exh. A); and we feel that with so few standards Phil. 476); and that despite the requirement for the correlative
the expert's opinion and the signatures in the duplicate could not lettering of the pages of a will, the failure to make the first page
be those of the testatrix becomes extremely hazardous. This is either by letters or numbers is not a fatal defect (Lopez vs. Liboro,
particularly so since the comparison charts Nos. 3 and 4 fail to show 81 Phil. 429). These precedents exemplify the Court's policy to
convincingly that the are radical differences that would justify the require satisfaction of the legal requirements in order to guard
charge of forgery, taking into account the advanced age of the against fraud and bid faith but without undue or unnecessary
testatrix, the evident variability of her signatures, and the effect of curtailment of the testamentary privilege.
writing fatigue, the duplicate being signed right the original. These,
factors were not discussed by the expert. The appellants also argue that since the original of the will is in
existence and available, the duplicate (Exh. A-1) is not entitled to
Similarly, the alleged slight variance in blueness of the ink in the probate. Since they opposed probate of original because it lacked
admitted and questioned signatures does not appear reliable, one signature in its third page, it is easily discerned that oppositors-
considering the standard and challenged writings were affixed to appellants run here into a dilemma; if the original is defective and
different kinds of paper, with different surfaces and reflecting invalid, then in law there is no other will but the duly signed carbon
power. On the whole, therefore, we do not find the testimony of duplicate (Exh. A-1), and the same is probatable. If the original is
the oppositor's expert sufficient to overcome that of the notary and valid and can be probated, then the objection to the signed
the two instrumental witnesses, Torres and Natividad (Dr. Diy being duplicate need not be considered, being superfluous and irrelevant.
in the United States during the trial, did not testify). At any rate, said duplicate, Exhibit A-1, serves to prove that the
omission of one signature in the third page of the original testament
Nor do we find adequate evidence of fraud or undue influence. The was inadvertent and not intentional.
fact that some heirs are more favored than others is proof of neither
(see In re Butalid, 10 Phil. 27; Bugnao vs. Ubag, 14 Phil. 163; That the carbon duplicate, Exhibit A-1, was produced and admitted
Pecson vs. Coronal, 45 Phil. 216). Diversity of apportionment is the without a new publication does not affect the jurisdiction of the
usual reason for making a testament; otherwise, the decedent probate court, already conferred by the original publication of the
might as well die intestate. The testamentary dispositions that the petition for probate. The amended petition did not substantially
heirs should not inquire into other property and that they should alter the one first filed, but merely supplemented it by disclosing
respect the distribution made in the will, under penalty of forfeiture the existence of the duplicate, and no showing is made that new
of their shares in the free part do not suffice to prove fraud or undue interests were involved (the contents of Exhibit A and A-1 are
influence. They appear motivated by the desire to prevent admittedly identical); and appellants were duly notified of the
prolonged litigation which, as shown by ordinary experience, often proposed amendment. It is nowhere proved or claimed that the
results in a sizeable portion of the estate being diverted into the amendment deprived the appellants of any substantial right, and
hands of non-heirs and speculators. Whether these clauses are we see no error in admitting the amended petition.
valid or not is a matter to be litigated on another occassion. It is
also well to note that, as remarked by the Court of Appeals IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is
in Sideco vs. Sideco, 45 Off. Gaz. 168, fraud and undue influence affirmed, with costs against appellants.
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.

On the question of law, we hold that the inadvertent failure of one

witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament, due to
the simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is not
per se sufficient to justify denial of probate. Impossibility of
substitution of this page is assured not only the fact that the
testatrix and two other witnesses did sign the defective page, but
also by its bearing the coincident imprint of the seal of the notary
public before whom the testament was ratified by testatrix and all
three witnesses. The law should not be so strictly and literally
interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the
inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she had no
control, where the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of
the testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained, no
intentional or deliberate deviation existed, and the evidence on
record attests to the full observance of the statutory requisites.
Otherwise, as stated in Vda. de Gil. vs. Murciano, 49 Off. Gaz.
1459, at 1479 (decision on reconsideration) "witnesses may
sabotage the will by muddling or bungling it or the attestation
clause".

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. The text of the attestation clause
and the acknowledgment before the Notary Public likewise evidence
that no one was aware of the defect at the time.

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 13 Juco
G.R. No. 122880 April 12, 2006 Pangatlo- Na ninunumbrahan ko si VART PAGUE na siyang
nagpapatupad ng huling habiling ito at kagustuhan ko rin na hindi
FELIX AZUELA, Petitioner, na kailanman siyang mag-lagak ng piyansiya.
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO substituted Aking nilagdaan ang Huling Habilin na ito dito sa Maynila ika 10
by ERNESTO G. CASTILLO, Respondents. ng Hunyo, 1981.

DECISION (Sgd.)
EUGENIA E. IGSOLO
TINGA, J.: (Tagapagmana)

The core of this petition is a highly defective notarial will, PATUNAY NG MGA SAKSI
purportedly executed by Eugenia E. Igsolo (decedent), who died on
16 December 1982 at the age of 80. In refusing to give legal Ang kasulatang ito, na binubuo ng ____ dahon pati ang huling
recognition to the due execution of this document, the Court is dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa amin ni Eugenia E. Igsolo,
provided the opportunity to assert a few important doctrinal rules tagapagmana na siya niyang Huling Habilin, ngayon ika-10 ng
in the execution of notarial wills, all self-evident in view of Articles Hunyo 1981, ay nilagdaan ng nasabing tagapagmana sa ilalim ng
805 and 806 of the Civil Code. kasulatang nabanggit at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawa’t
dahon, sa harap ng lahat at bawa’t sa amin, at kami namang mga
A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number saksi ay lumagda sa harap ng nasabing tagapagmana at sa harap
of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A ng lahat at bawa’t isa sa amin, sa ilalim ng nasabing kasulatan at
will whose attestation clause is not signed by the sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawa’t dahon ng kasulatan ito.
instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps
most importantly, a will which does not contain an EUGENIA E. IGSOLO
acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any address: 500 San Diego St.
one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial Sampaloc, Manila Res. Cert. No. A-7717-37
will with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection. Issued at Manila on March 10, 1981.

There is a distinct and consequential reason the Civil Code provides QUIRINO AGRAVA
a comprehensive catalog of imperatives for the proper execution of address: 1228-Int. 3, Kahilum
a notarial will. Full and faithful compliance with all the detailed Pandacan, Manila Res. Cert. No. A-458365
requisites under Article 805 of the Code leave little room for doubt Issued at Manila on Jan. 21, 1981
as to the validity in the due execution of the notarial will. Article
806 likewise imposes another safeguard to the validity of notarial LAMBERTO C. LEAÑO
wills — that they be acknowledged before a notary public by the address: Avenue 2, Blcok 7,
testator and the witnesses. A notarial will executed with Lot 61, San Gabriel, G.MA., Cavite Res.
indifference to these two codal provisions opens itself to nagging Cert. No. A-768277 issued at Carmona, Cavite on Feb. 7, 1981
questions as to its legitimacy.
JUANITO ESTRERA
The case stems from a petition for probate filed on 10 April 1984 address: City Court Compound,
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The petition filed by City of Manila Res. Cert. No. A574829
petitioner Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the notarial will Issued at Manila on March 2, 1981.
of Eugenia E. Igsolo, which was notarized on 10 June 1981.
Petitioner is the son of the cousin of the decedent. Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10, 1981 dito
sa Lungsod ng Maynila.
The will, consisting of two (2) pages and written in the vernacular
Pilipino, read in full: (Sgd.)
PETRONIO Y. BAUTISTA
HULING HABILIN NI EUGENIA E. IGSOLO
Doc. No. 1232 ; NOTARIO PUBLIKO
SA NGALAN NG MAYKAPAL, AMEN: Page No. 86 ; Until Dec. 31, 1981
Book No. 43 ; PTR-152041-1/2/81-Manila
AKO, si EUGENIA E. IGSOLO, nakatira sa 500 San Diego St., Series of 1981 TAN # 1437-977-81
Sampaloc, Manila, pitongput siyam (79) na gulang, nasa hustong
pagi-isip, pag-unawa at memoria ay nag-hahayag na ito na ang The three named witnesses to the will affixed their signatures on
aking huling habilin at testamento, at binabali wala ko lahat ang the left-hand margin of both pages of the will, but not at the bottom
naunang ginawang habilin o testamento: of the attestation clause.

Una-Hinihiling ko na ako ay mailibing sa Sementerio del Norte, La The probate petition adverted to only two (2) heirs, legatees and
Loma sang-ayong sa kaugalian at patakaran ng simbahang devisees of the decedent, namely: petitioner himself, and one Irene
katoliko at ang taga-pag-ingat (Executor) ng habiling ito ay Lynn Igsolo, who was alleged to have resided abroad. Petitioner
magtatayo ng bantayog upang silbing ala-ala sa akin ng aking prayed that the will be allowed, and that letters testamentary be
pamilya at kaibigan; issued to the designated executor, Vart Prague.

Pangalawa-Aking ipinagkakaloob at isinasalin ang lahat ng The petition was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo (Geralda
karapatan sa aking pamangkin na si Felix Azuela, na siyang nag- Castillo), who represented herself as the attorney-in-fact of "the 12
alaga sa akin sa mahabang panahon, yaong mga bahay na legitimate heirs" of the decedent.2 Geralda Castillo claimed that the
nakatirik sa lote numero 28, Block 24 at nakapangalan sa will is a forgery, and that the true purpose of its emergence was so
Pechaten Korporasyon, ganoon din ibinibigay ko ang lahat ng it could be utilized as a defense in several court cases filed by
karapatan sa bahay na nakatirik sa inoopahan kong lote, numero oppositor against petitioner, particularly for forcible entry and
43, Block 24 na pag-aari ng Pechaten Corporation. Ipinagkakaloob usurpation of real property, all centering on petitioner’s right to
kong buong buo ang lahat ng karapatan sa bahay at lupa na nasa occupy the properties of the decedent.3 It also asserted that
500 San Diego St., Lot 42, Block 24, Sampaloc, Manila kay Felix contrary to the representations of petitioner, the decedent was
Azuela at ang pagkakaloob kong ito ay walang pasubali’t at actually survived by 12 legitimate heirs, namely her grandchildren,
kondiciones; who were then residing abroad. Per records, it was subsequently

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 14 Juco
alleged that decedent was the widow of Bonifacio Igsolo, who died The Order was appealed to the Court of Appeals by Ernesto Castillo,
in 1965,4 and the mother of a legitimate child, Asuncion E. Igsolo, who had substituted his since deceased mother-in-law, Geralda
who predeceased her mother by three (3) months.5 Castillo. In a Decision dated 17 August 1995, the Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court and ordered the dismissal of the petition for
Oppositor Geralda Castillo also argued that the will was not probate.9 The Court of Appeals noted that the attestation clause
executed and attested to in accordance with law. She pointed out failed to state the number of pages used in the will, thus rendering
that decedent’s signature did not appear on the second page of the the will void and undeserving of probate.10
will, and the will was not properly acknowledged. These twin
arguments are among the central matters to this petition. Hence, the present petition.

After due trial, the RTC admitted the will to probate, in an Order Petitioner argues that the requirement under Article 805 of the Civil
dated 10 August 1992.6 The RTC favorably took into account the Code that "the number of pages used in a notarial will be stated in
testimony of the three (3) witnesses to the will, Quirino Agrava, the attestation clause" is merely directory, rather than mandatory,
Lamberto Leano, and Juanito Estrada. The RTC also called to fore and thus susceptible to what he termed as "the substantial
"the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the execution compliance rule."11
of a will x x x with the end in view of giving the testator more
freedom in expressing his last wishes;"7 and from this perspective, The solution to this case calls for the application of Articles 805 and
rebutted oppositor’s arguments that the will was not properly 806 of the Civil Code, which we replicate in full.
executed and attested to in accordance with law.
Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be
After a careful examination of the will and consideration of the subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the
testimonies of the subscribing and attesting witnesses, and having testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and
in mind the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or
execution of a will, i.e., the liberalization of the interpretation of the more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one
law on the formal requirements of a will with the end in view of another.
giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes, this
Court is persuaded to rule that the will in question is authentic and The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and
had been executed by the testatrix in accordance with law. the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid,
each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin,
On the issue of lack of acknowledgement, this Court has noted that and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed
at the end of the will after the signature of the testatrix, the on the upper part of each page.
following statement is made under the sub-title, "Patunay Ng Mga
Saksi": The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which
the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and
"Ang kasulatang ito, na binubuo ng _____ dahon pati ang huling every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name,
dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa amin ni Eugenia N. Igsolo, under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental
tagapagmana na siya niyang Huling Habilin, ngayong ika-10 ng witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all
Hunyo 1981, ay nilagdaan ng nasabing tagapagmana sa ilalim ng the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
kasulatang nabanggit at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawa’t another.
dahon, sa harap ng lahat at bawa’t sa amin, at kami namang mga
saksi ay lumagda sa harap ng nasabing tagapagmana at sa harap If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the
ng lahat at bawa’t isa sa amin, sa ilalim ng nasabing kasulatan at witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them.
sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawa’t dahon ng kasulatan ito."
Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public
The aforequoted declaration comprises the attestation clause and by the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be
the acknowledgement and is considered by this Court as a required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office
substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. of the Clerk of Court.

On the oppositor’s contention that the attestation clause was not The appellate court, in its Decision, considered only one defect, the
signed by the subscribing witnesses at the bottom thereof, this failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages of the
Court is of the view that the signing by the subscribing witnesses will. But an examination of the will itself reveals several more
on the left margin of the second page of the will containing the deficiencies.
attestation clause and acknowledgment, instead of at the bottom
As admitted by petitioner himself, the attestation clause fails to
thereof, substantially satisfies the purpose of identification and
state the number of pages of the will.12 There was an incomplete
attestation of the will.
attempt to comply with this requisite, a space having been allotted
With regard to the oppositor’s argument that the will was not for the insertion of the number of pages in the attestation clause.
numbered correlatively in letters placed on upper part of each page Yet the blank was never filled in; hence, the requisite was left
and that the attestation did not state the number of pages thereof, uncomplied with.
it is worthy to note that the will is composed of only two pages. The
The Court of Appeals pounced on this defect in reversing the trial
first page contains the entire text of the testamentary dispositions,
court, citing in the process Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca13 and In re:
and the second page contains the last portion of the attestation
Will of Andrada.14 In Uy Coque, the Court noted that among the
clause and acknowledgement. Such being so, the defects are not
defects of the will in question was the failure of the attestation
of a serious nature as to invalidate the will. For the same reason,
clause to state the number of pages contained in the will.15 In ruling
the failure of the testatrix to affix her signature on the left margin
that the will could not be admitted to probate, the Court made the
of the second page, which contains only the last portion of the
following consideration which remains highly relevant to this day:
attestation clause and acknowledgment is not a fatal defect.
"The purpose of requiring the number of sheets to be stated in the
As regards the oppositor’s assertion that the signature of the attestation clause is obvious; the document might easily be so
testatrix on the will is a forgery, the testimonies of the three prepared that the removal of a sheet would completely
subscribing witnesses to the will are convincing enough to establish change the testamentary dispositions of the will and in the
the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix and the due absence of a statement of the total number of sheets such
execution of the will.8 removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and
changing the numbers at the top of the following sheets or

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 15 Juco
pages. If, on the other hand, the total number of sheets is stated We have examined the will in question and noticed that the
in the attestation clause the falsification of the document will attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in
involve the inserting of new pages and the forging of the signatures writing the will. This would have been a fatal defect were it not for
of the testator and witnesses in the margin, a matter attended with the fact that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire will that
much greater difficulty."16 it is really and actually composed of only two pages duly signed by
the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses. As earlier stated, the
The case of In re Will of Andrada concerned a will the attestation first page which contains the entirety of the testamentary
clause of which failed to state the number of sheets or pages used. dispositions is signed by the testatrix at the end or at the bottom
This consideration alone was sufficient for the Court to declare while the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin. The
"unanim[ity] upon the point that the defect pointed out in the other page which is marked as "Pagina dos" comprises the
attesting clause is fatal."17 It was further observed that "it cannot attestation clause and the acknowledgment. The acknowledgment
be denied that the x x x requirement affords additional security itself states that "this Last Will and Testament consists of two pages
against the danger that the will may be tampered with; and as the including this page" (pages 200-201, supra) (Underscoring
Legislature has seen fit to prescribe this requirement, it must be supplied).
considered material."18
However, in the appeal at bench, the number of pages used in the
Against these cited cases, petitioner cites Singson v. will is not stated in any part of the Will. The will does not even
Florentino19 and Taboada v. Hon. Rosal,20 wherein the Court contain any notarial acknowledgment wherein the number of pages
allowed probate to the wills concerned therein despite the fact that of the will should be stated.21
the attestation clause did not state the number of pages of the will.
Yet the appellate court itself considered the import of these two Both Uy Coque and Andrada were decided prior to the enactment
cases, and made the following distinction which petitioner is unable of the Civil Code in 1950, at a time when the statutory provision
to rebut, and which we adopt with approval: governing the formal requirement of wills was Section

Even a cursory examination of the Will (Exhibit "D"), will readily 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.22 Reliance on these cases
show that the attestation does not state the number of pages used remains apropos, considering that the requirement that the
upon which the will is written. Hence, the Will is void and attestation state the number of pages of the will is extant from
undeserving of probate. 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,
We are not impervious of the Decisions of the Supreme Court in at least insofar as the attestation clause is concerned, that may
"Manuel Singson versus Emilia Florentino, et al., 92 Phil. 161 and vary from the philosophy that governed these two cases. Article
Apolonio [Taboada] versus Hon. Avelino Rosal, et al., 118 SCRA 809 of the Civil Code states: "In the absence of bad faith, forgery,
195," to the effect that a will may still be valid even if the or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects
attestation does not contain the number of pages used upon which and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used
the Will is written. However, the Decisions of the Supreme Court therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will
are not applicable in the aforementioned appeal at bench. This is was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all
so because, in the case of "Manuel Singson versus Emilia the requirements of article 805."
Florentino, et al., supra," although the attestation in the subject
Will did not state the number of pages used in the will, however, In the same vein, petitioner cites the report of the Civil Code
the same was found in the last part of the body of the Will: Commission, which stated that "the underlying and fundamental
objective permeating the provisions on the [law] on [wills] in this
"x x x project consists in the [liberalization] of the manner of their
execution with the end in view of giving the testator more
The law referred to is article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as [freedom] in [expressing] his last wishes. This objective is in accord
amended by Act No. 2645, which requires that the attestation with the [modern tendency] in respect to the formalities in the
clause shall state the number of pages or sheets upon which the execution of wills."24 However, petitioner conveniently omits the
will is written, which requirement has been held to be mandatory qualification offered by the Code Commission in the very same
as an effective safeguard against the possibility of interpolation or paragraph he cites from their report, that such liberalization be "but
omission of some of the pages of the will to the prejudice of the with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the
heirs to whom the property is intended to be bequeathed (In re Will commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper
of Andrada, 42 Phil. 180; Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil., pressure and influence upon the testator."25
405; Gumban vs. Gorcho, 50 Phil. 30; Quinto vs. Morata, 54 Phil.
481; Echevarria vs. Sarmiento, 66 Phil. 611). The ratio decidendi of Caneda v. Court of Appeals26 features an extensive discussion
these cases seems to be that the attestation clause must contain a made by Justice Regalado, speaking for the Court on the conflicting
statement of the number of sheets or pages composing the will and views on the manner of interpretation of the legal formalities
that if this is missing or is omitted, it will have the effect of required in the execution of the attestation clause in wills.27 Uy
invalidating the will if the deficiency cannot be supplied, not by Coque and Andrada are cited therein, along with several other
evidence aliunde, but by a consideration or examination of the will cases, as examples of the application of the rule of strict
itself. But here the situation is different. While the attestation construction.28 However, the Code Commission opted to
clause does not state the number of sheets or pages upon which recommend a more liberal construction through the "substantial
the will is written, however, the last part of the body of the will compliance rule" under Article 809. A cautionary note was struck
contains a statement that it is composed of eight pages, which though by Justice J.B.L. Reyes as to how Article 809 should be
circumstance in our opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of applied:
construction and places it within the realm of similar cases where
a broad and more liberal view has been adopted to prevent the will x x x The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that
of the testator from being defeated by purely technical can be supplied by an examination of the will itself: whether all the
considerations." (page 165-165, supra) (Underscoring supplied) pages are consecutively numbered; whether the signatures appear
in each and every page; whether the subscribing witnesses are
In "Apolonio Tabaoda versus Hon. Avelino Rosal, et al." supra, the three or the will was notarized. All these are facts that the will itself
notarial acknowledgement in the Will states the number of pages can reveal, and defects or even omissions concerning them in the
used in the: attestation clause can be safely disregarded. But the total
number of pages, and whether all persons required to sign
"x x x did so in the presence of each other must substantially

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 16 Juco
appear in the attestation clause, being the only check Cagro v. Cagro36 is material on this point. As in this case, "the
against perjury in the probate proceedings.29 (Emphasis signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the
supplied.) bottom of the attestation clause, although the page containing the
same is signed by the witnesses on the left-hand margin."37 While
The Court of Appeals did cite these comments by Justice J.B.L. three (3) Justices38 considered the signature requirement had been
Reyes in its assailed decision, considering that the failure to state substantially complied with, a majority of six (6), speaking through
the number of pages of the will in the attestation clause is one of Chief Justice Paras, ruled that the attestation clause had not been
the defects which cannot be simply disregarded. In Caneda itself, duly signed, rendering the will fatally defective.
the Court refused to allow the probate of a will whose attestation
clause failed to state that the witnesses subscribed their respective There is no question that the signatures of the three witnesses to
signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause,
other,30 the other omission cited by Justice J.B.L. Reyes which to although the page containing the same is signed by the witnesses
his estimation cannot be lightly disregarded. on the left-hand margin.

Caneda suggested: "[I]t may thus be stated that the rule, as it now We are of the opinion that the position taken by the appellant is
stands, is that omission which can be supplied by an examination correct. The attestation clause is "a memorandum of the facts
of the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, attending the execution of the will" required by law to be made by
will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the the attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear their
allowance to probate of the will being assailed. However, those signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as
omissions which cannot be supplied except by an act of the witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at
evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation the bottom thereof negatives their participation.
clause and ultimately, of the will itself."31 Thus, a failure by the
attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three
be liberally construed, since that fact can be checked by a visual witnesses on the left-hand margin conform substantially to the law
examination; while a failure by the attestation clause to state that and may be deemed as their signatures to the attestation clause.
the witnesses signed in one another’s presence should be This is untenable, because said signatures are in compliance with
considered a fatal flaw since the attestation is the only textual the legal mandate that the will be signed on the left-hand margin
guarantee of compliance.32 of all its pages. If an attestation clause not signed by the three
witnesses at the bottom thereof, be admitted as sufficient, it would
The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages be easy to add such clause to a will on a subsequent occasion and
on which the will was written remains a fatal flaw, despite Article in the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses.39
809. The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the
number of pages on which the will is written is to safeguard against The Court today reiterates the continued efficacy of Cagro. Article
possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and 805 particularly segregates the requirement that the instrumental
to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages.33 The failure to witnesses sign each page of the will, from the requisite that the will
state the number of pages equates with the absence of an be "attested and subscribed by [the instrumental witnesses]." The
averment on the part of the instrumental witnesses as to how many respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct
pages consisted the will, the execution of which they had ostensibly from each other. The signatures on the left-hand corner of every
just witnessed and subscribed to. Following Caneda, there is page signify, among others, that the witnesses are aware that the
substantial compliance with this requirement if the will states page they are signing forms part of the will. On the other hand, the
elsewhere in it how many pages it is comprised of, as was the signatures to the attestation clause establish that the witnesses are
situation in Singson and Taboada. However, in this case, there referring to the statements contained in the attestation clause
could have been no substantial compliance with the requirements itself. Indeed, the attestation clause is separate and apart from the
under Article 805 since there is no statement in the attestation disposition of the will. An unsigned attestation clause results in an
clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the number of pages which unattested will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-
comprise the will. hand margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation
clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses’
At the same time, Article 809 should not deviate from the need to undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that do appear on
comply with the formal requirements as enumerated under Article the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal.
805. Whatever the inclinations of the members of the Code
Commission in incorporating Article 805, the fact remains that they The Court may be more charitably disposed had the witnesses in
saw fit to prescribe substantially the same formal requisites as this case signed the attestation clause itself, but not the left-hand
enumerated in Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, margin of the page containing such clause. Without diminishing the
convinced that these remained effective safeguards against the value of the instrumental witnesses’ signatures on each and every
forgery or intercalation of notarial wills.34 Compliance with these page, the fact must be noted that it is the attestation clause which
requirements, however picayune in impression, affords the public contains the utterances reduced into writing of the testamentary
a high degree of comfort that the testator himself or herself had witnesses themselves. It is the witnesses, and not the testator, who
decided to convey property post mortem in the manner established are required under Article 805 to state the number of pages used
in the will.35 The transcendent legislative intent, even as upon which the will is written; the fact that the testator had signed
expressed in the cited comments of the Code Commission, the will and every page thereof; and that they witnessed and signed
is for the fruition of the testator’s incontestable desires, and the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator
not for the indulgent admission of wills to probate. and of one another. The only proof in the will that the witnesses
have stated these elemental facts would be their signatures on the
The Court could thus end here and affirm the Court of Appeals. attestation clause.
However, an examination of the will itself reveals a couple of even
more critical defects that should necessarily lead to its rejection. Thus, the subject will cannot be considered to have been validly
attested to by the instrumental witnesses, as they failed to sign the
For one, the attestation clause was not signed by the attestation clause.
instrumental witnesses. While the signatures of the
instrumental witnesses appear on the left-hand margin of the will, Yet, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of
they do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause which this petition should also hinge. The requirement under Article 806
after all consists of their averments before the notary public. that "every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by
the testator and the witnesses" has also not been complied with.
The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 17 Juco
it had been segregated from the other requirements under Article the adjudication of this case, they need not be dwelt on, though
805 and entrusted into a separate provision, Article 806. The non- indicative as they may be of a general lack of due regard for the
observance of Article 806 in this case is equally as critical as the requirements under Article 805 by whoever executed the will.
other cited flaws in compliance with Article 805, and should be
treated as of equivalent import. All told, the string of mortal defects which the will in question
suffers from makes the probate denial inexorable.
In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public, Petronio Y.
Bautista, wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO
10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila."40 By no manner of ORDERED.
contemplation can those words be construed as an
acknowledgment. An acknowledgment 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.41 It involves an extra step
undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that
the executor of a document has attested to the notary that the
same is his/her own free act and deed.

It might be possible to construe the averment as a jurat, even

though it does not hew to the usual language thereof. A jurat is
that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before
him/her, the document was subscribed and sworn to by the
executor.42 Ordinarily, the language of the jurat should avow that
the document was subscribed and sworn before the notary public,
while in this case, the notary public averred that he himself "signed
and notarized" the document. Possibly though, the word "ninotario"
or "notarized" encompasses the signing of and swearing in of the
executors of the document, which in this case would involve the
decedent and the instrumental witnesses.

Yet even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as

a jurat, the will would nonetheless remain invalid, as the express
requirement of Article 806 is that the will be "acknowledged", and
not merely subscribed and sworn to. The will does not present any
textual proof, much less one under oath, that the decedent and the
instrumental witnesses executed or signed the will as their own free
act or deed. The acknowledgment made in a will provides for
another all-important legal safeguard against spurious wills or
those made beyond the free consent of the testator. An
acknowledgement is not an empty meaningless act.43 The
acknowledgment coerces the testator and the instrumental
witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that they had
executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed.
Such declaration is under oath and under pain of perjury, thus
allowing for the criminal prosecution of persons who participate in
the execution of spurious wills, or those executed without the free
consent of the testator. It also provides a further degree of
assurance that the testator is of certain mindset in making the
testamentary dispositions to those persons he/she had designated
in the will.

It may not have been said before, but we can assert the rule, self-
evident as it is under Article 806. A notarial will that is not
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and
sworn to before a notary public.

There are two other requirements under Article 805 which were not
fully satisfied by the will in question. We need not discuss them at
length, as they are no longer material to the

disposition of this case. The provision requires that the testator and
the instrumental witnesses sign each and every page of the will on
the left margin, except the last; and that all the pages shall be
numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each
page. In this case, the decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign
both pages of the will on the left margin, her only signature
appearing at the so-called "logical end"44 of the will on its first page.
Also, the will itself is not numbered correlatively in letters on each
page, but instead numbered with Arabic numerals. There is a line
of thought that has disabused the notion that these two
requirements be construed as mandatory.45Taken in isolation,
these omissions, by themselves, may not be sufficient to deny
probate to a will. Yet even as these omissions are not decisive to

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 18 Juco
 [A.C. NO. 5281 : February 12, 2008] In a resolution dated October 17, 2001, the Court referred the case
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
MANUEL L. LEE, Petitioner, v. ATTY. REGINO B. report and recommendation.10
TAMBAGO, Respondent.
In his report, the investigating commissioner found respondent
RESOLUTION guilty of violation of pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law as
found in the Revised Administrative Code. The violation constituted
CORONA, J.: an infringement of legal ethics, particularly Canon 111 and Rule
1.0112 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).13 Thus, the
In a letter-complaint dated April 10, 2000, complainant Manuel L.
investigating commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation of
recommended the suspension of respondent for a period of three
the Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing
months.
a spurious last will and testament.
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XVII-2006-285
In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the decedent
dated May 26, 2006, resolved:
Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the contested will. Furthermore,
the spurious will contained the forged signatures of Cayetano [T]o ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to its execution. APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case,
In the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his entire
herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the
estate to his wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
devised to Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, half-siblings of
applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent's failure to
complainant.
comply with the laws in the discharge of his function as a notary
The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before public, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby suspended from the
respondent on June 30, 1965.1 Complainant, however, pointed out practice of law for one year and Respondent's notarial commission
that the residence certificate2 of the testator noted in the is Revoked and Disqualified fromreappointment as Notary Public
acknowledgment of the will was dated January 5, for two (2) years.14
1962.3 Furthermore, the signature of the testator was not the same
We affirm with modification.
as his signature as donor in a deed of donation4 (containing his
purported genuine signature). Complainant averred that the A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities
signatures of his deceased father in the will and in the deed of prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of
donation were "in any way (sic) entirely and diametrically opposed his estate, to take effect after his death.15 A will may either be
from (sic) one another in all angle[s]."5 notarial or holographic.
Complainant also questioned the absence of notation of the The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the
residence certificates of the purported witnesses Noynay and Grajo. execution of wills. The object of solemnities surrounding the
He alleged that their signatures had likewise been forged and execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to
merely copied from their respective voters' affidavits. avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their
truth and authenticity.16
Complainant further asserted that no copy of such purported will
was on file in the archives division of the Records Management and A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law
Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts to be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself. In
(NCCA). In this connection, the certification of the chief of the addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or more
archives division dated September 19, 1999 stated: credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one
another.17
Doc. 14, Page No. 4, Book No. 1, Series of 1965 refers to an
AFFIDAVIT executed by BARTOLOME RAMIREZ on June 30, 1965 The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay
and is available in this Office['s] files.6 and Grajo. On this circumstance alone, the will must be considered
void.18 This is in consonance with the rule that acts executed
Respondent in his comment dated July 6, 2001 claimed that the
against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be
complaint against him contained false allegations: (1) that
void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
complainant was a son of the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr. and (2)
that the will in question was fake and spurious. He alleged that The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged
complainant was "not a legitimate son of Vicente Lee, Sr. and the before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.19 The
last will and testament was validly executed and actually notarized importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it was
by respondent per affidavit7of Gloria Nebato, common-law wife of segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and
Vicente Lee, Sr. and corroborated by the joint affidavit8 of the embodied in a distinct and separate provision.20
children of Vicente Lee, Sr., namely Elena N. Lee and Vicente N.
Lee, Jr. xxx."9 An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in
going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be
Respondent further stated that the complaint was filed simply to his act or deed. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the
harass him because the criminal case filed by complainant against signatory actually declares to the notary public that the same is his
him in the Office of the Ombudsman "did not prosper." or her own free act and deed.21 The acknowledgment in a notarial
will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to safeguard the testator's wishes
Respondent did not dispute complainant's contention that no copy
long after his demise and (2) to assure that his estate is
of the will was on file in the archives division of the NCCA. He
administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.
claimed that no copy of the contested will could be found there
because none was filed. A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in
question shows that this particular requirement was neither strictly
Lastly, respondent pointed out that complainant had no valid cause
nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous
of action against him as he (complainant) did not first file an action
absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial
for the declaration of nullity of the will and demand his share in the
witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the acknowledgment. Similarly, the
inheritance.
notation of the testator's old residence certificate in the same

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 19 Juco
acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These omissions by 3. witnesses, if any, to the signature;
respondent invalidated the will.
4. date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument;
As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was
required to faithfully observe the formalities of a will and those of 5. fees collected by him for his services as notary;
notarization. As we held in Santiago v. Rafanan:22
6. give each entry a consecutive number; andcralawlibrary
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries
public. They are required to certify that the party to every 7. if the instrument is a contract, a brief description of the
document acknowledged before him had presented the proper substance of the instrument.27
residence certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to
In an effort to prove that he had complied with the abovementioned
enter its number, place of issue and date as part of such
rule, respondent contended that he had crossed out a prior entry
certification.
and entered instead the will of the decedent. As proof, he presented
These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, a photocopy of his notarial register. To reinforce his claim, he
considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight presented a photocopy of a certification28stating that the archives
attached to notarized documents.23 A notary public, especially a division had no copy of the affidavit of Bartolome Ramirez.
lawyer,24 is bound to strictly observe these elementary
A photocopy is a mere secondary evidence. It is not admissible
requirements.
unless it is shown that the original is unavailable. The proponent
The Notarial Law then in force required the exhibition of the must first prove the existence and cause of the unavailability of the
residence certificate upon notarization of a document or original,29 otherwise, the evidence presented will not be admitted.
instrument: Thus, the photocopy of respondent's notarial register was not
admissible as evidence of the entry of the execution of the will
Section 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of [cedula] because it failed to comply with the requirements for the
residence tax. - Every contract, deed, or other document admissibility of secondary evidence.
acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon
that the parties thereto have presented their proper [cedula] In the same vein, respondent's attempt to controvert the
residence certificate or are exempt from the [cedula] residence tax, certification dated September 21, 199930 must fail. Not only did he
and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such present a mere photocopy of the certification dated March 15,
certificate the number, place of issue, and date of each [cedula] 2000;31 its contents did not squarely prove the fact of entry of the
residence certificate as aforesaid.25 contested will in his notarial register.

The importance of such act was further reiterated by Section 6 of Notaries public must observe with utmost care32 and utmost fidelity
the Residence Tax Act26 which stated: the basic requirements in the performance of their duties,
otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized
When a person liable to the taxes prescribed in this Act deeds will be undermined.33
acknowledges any document before a notary public xxx it shall be
the duty of such person xxx with whom such transaction is had or Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law
business done, to require the exhibition of the residence certificate render the entire will invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken
showing payment of the residence taxes by such person xxx. lightly in view of the importance and delicate nature of a will,
considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are
In the issuance of a residence certificate, the law seeks to establish no longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its
the true and correct identity of the person to whom it is issued, as contents.34 Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for
well as the payment of residence taxes for the current year. By his acts. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a
having allowed decedent to exhibit an expired residence certificate, consequence of his breach of duty.35
respondent failed to comply with the requirements of both the old
Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act. As much could be said of In this connection, Section 249 of the old Notarial Law provided:
his failure to demand the exhibition of the residence certificates of
Grounds for revocation of commission. - The following derelictions
Noynay and Grajo.
of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the
On the issue of whether respondent was under the legal obligation proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground for the
to furnish a copy of the notarized will to the archives division, revocation of his commission:
Article 806 provides:
xxx xxx xxx
Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public
(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in
by the testator and the witness. The notary public shall not be
his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner
required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the
required by law.
office of the Clerk of Court. (emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Respondent's failure, inadvertent or not, to file in the archives
division a copy of the notarized will was therefore not a cause for (f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding
disciplinary action. cedula certificates.36

Nevertheless, respondent should be faulted for having failed to These gross violations of the law also made respondent liable for
make the necessary entries pertaining to the will in his notarial violation of his oath as a lawyer and constituted transgressions of
register. The old Notarial Law required the entry of the following Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court37 and Canon 138 and
matters in the notarial register, in chronological order: Rule 1.0139 of the CPR.

1. nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to
before him; the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey
the laws of the land.40 For a lawyer is the servant of the law and
2. person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the
belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the
instrument;
administration of law and the dispensation of justice.41

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 20 Juco
While the duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the law is an
obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyer assumes
responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of good
citizenship. As a servant of the law, a lawyer should moreover make
himself an example for others to emulate.42 Being a lawyer, he is
supposed to be a model in the community in so far as respect for
the law is concerned.43

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. 44 A

breach of these conditions justifies disciplinary action against the
erring lawyer. A disciplinary sanction is imposed on a lawyer upon
a finding or acknowledgment that he has engaged in professional
misconduct.45 These sanctions meted out to errant lawyers include
disbarment, suspension and reprimand.

Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction.46 We

have held in a number of cases that the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution47 and should not be decreed if any
punishment less severe - such as reprimand, suspension, or fine -
will accomplish the end desired.48 The rule then is that disbarment
is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect
the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.49

Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the performance

of the elementary duties of his office. Contrary to his claims that
he "exercised his duties as Notary Public with due care and with
due regard to the provision of existing law and had complied with
the elementary formalities in the performance of his duties xxx,"
we find that he acted very irresponsibly in notarizing the will in
question. Such recklessness warrants the less severe punishment
of suspension from the practice of law. It is, as well, a sufficient
basis for the revocation of his commission50 and his perpetual
disqualification to be commissioned as a notary public.51

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby

found guilty of professional misconduct. He violated (1) the
Lawyer's Oath; (2) Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; (3) Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (4) Art. 806 of
the Civil Code and (5) the provisions of the old Notarial Law.

Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice

of law for one year and his notarial commission REVOKED.Because
he has not lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a
notary public and as an officer of the court, he
is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a
notary public.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the

land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar
Confidant, as well as made part of the personal records of
respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 21 Juco
 G.R. No. 157451 December 16, 2005 provided my by executrix (wife) to perpetuate my memory in the
minds of my family and friends;
LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA, Petitioner,
vs. 2. I give, devise and bequeath unto my loving wife, JOSEFINA C.
JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE, Respondent. VALMONTE, one half (1/2) portion of the follow-described
properties, which belongs to me as [co-owner]:
DECISION
a. Lot 4-A, Block 13 described on plan Psd-28575, LRC, (GLRO),
PANGANIBAN, J.: situated in Makati, Metro Manila, described and covered by TCT No.
123468 of the Register of Deeds of Pasig, Metro-Manila registered
The law favors the probate of a will. Upon those who oppose it rests jointly as co-owners with my deceased sister (Ciriaca Valmonte),
the burden of showing why it should not be allowed. In the present having share and share alike;
case, petitioner has failed to discharge this burden satisfactorily.
For this reason, the Court cannot attribute any reversible error on b. 2-storey building standing on the above-described property,
the part of the appellate tribunal that allowed the probate of the made of strong and mixed materials used as my residence and my
will. wife and located at No. 9200 Catmon Street, Makati, Metro Manila
also covered by Tax Declaration No. A-025-00482, Makati, Metro-
The Case Manila, jointly in the name of my deceased sister, Ciriaca Valmonte
and myself as co-owners, share and share alike or equal co-owners
Before the Court is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules
thereof;
of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the December 12, 2002
Decision2 and the March 7, 2003 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals 3. All the rest, residue and remainder of my real and personal
(CA) in CA-GR CV No. 44296. The assailed Decision disposed as properties, including my savings account bank book in USA which
follows: is in the possession of my nephew, and all others whatsoever and
wherever found, I give, devise and bequeath to my said wife,
"WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED, and the Decision appealed
Josefina C. Valmonte;
from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In its place judgment is
rendered approving and allowing probate to the said last will and 4. I hereby appoint my wife, Josefina C. Valmonte as sole executrix
testament of Placido Valmonte and ordering the issuance of letters of my last will and testament, and it is my will that said executrix
testamentary to the petitioner Josefina Valmonte. Let this case be be exempt from filing a bond;
remanded to the court a quo for further and concomitant
proceedings."4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day
of June 1983 in Quezon City, Philippines.’
The assailed Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration. "The allowance to probate of this will was opposed by Leticia on the
grounds that:
The Facts
1. Petitioner failed to allege all assets of the testator, especially
The facts were summarized in the assailed Decision of the CA, as those found in the USA;
follows:
2. Petitioner failed to state the names, ages, and residences of the
"x x x: Like so many others before him, Placido toiled and lived for heirs of the testator; or to give them proper notice pursuant to law;
a long time in the United States until he finally reached retirement.
In 1980, Placido finally came home to stay in the Philippines, and 3. Will was not executed and attested as required by law and legal
he lived in the house and lot located at #9200 Catmon St., San solemnities and formalities were not complied with;
Antonio Village, Makati, which he owned in common with his sister
Ciriaca Valmonte and titled in their names in TCT 123468. Two 4. Testator was mentally incapable to make a will at the time of the
years after his arrival from the United States and at the age of 80 alleged execution he being in an advance sate of senility;
he wed Josefina who was then 28 years old, in a ceremony
solemnized by Judge Perfecto Laguio, Jr. on February 5, 1982. But 5. Will was executed under duress, or the influence of fear or
in a little more than two years of wedded bliss, Placido died on threats;
October 8, 1984 of a cause written down as COR PULMONALE.
6. Will was procured by undue and improper influence and pressure
"Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in on the part of the petitioner and/or her agents and/or assistants;
English and consisting of two (2) pages, and dated June 15, 1983 and/or
but acknowledged only on August 9, 1983. The first page contains
the entire testamentary dispositions and a part of the attestation 7. Signature of testator was procured by fraud, or trick, and he did
clause, and was signed at the end or bottom of that page by the not intend that the instrument should be his will at the time of
testator and on the left hand margin by the three instrumental affixing his signature thereto;’
witnesses. The second page contains the continuation of the
and she also opposed the appointment as Executrix of Josefina
attestation clause and the acknowledgment, and was signed by the
alleging her want of understanding and integrity.
witnesses at the end of the attestation clause and again on the left
hand margin. It provides in the body that: "At the hearing, the petitioner Josefina testified and called as
witnesses the notary public Atty. Floro Sarmiento who prepared
‘LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF PLACIDO VALMONTE IN THE NAME
and notarized the will, and the instrumental witnesses spouses
OF THE LORD AMEN:
Eugenio Gomez, Jr. and Feliza Gomez and Josie Collado. For the
‘I, PLACIDO VALMONTE, of legal age, married to Josefina Cabansag opposition, the oppositor Leticia and her daughter Mary Jane
Valmonte, and a resident of 9200 Catmon Street, Makati, Metro Ortega testified.
Manila, 83 years of age and being of sound and disposing mind and
"According to Josefina after her marriage with the testator they
memory, do hereby declare this to be my last will and testament:
lived in her parents house at Salingcob, Bacnotan, La Union but
1. It is my will that I be buried in the Catholic Cemetery, under the they came to Manila every month to get his $366.00 monthly
auspices of the Catholic Church in accordance with the rites and pension and stayed at the said Makati residence. There were times
said Church and that a suitable monument to be erected and though when to shave off on expenses, the testator would travel

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 22 Juco
alone. And it was in one of his travels by his lonesome self when "Sifting through the evidence, the court a quo held that [t]he
the notarial will was made. The will was witnessed by the spouses evidence adduced, reduces the opposition to two grounds, namely:
Eugenio and Feliza Gomez, who were their wedding sponsors, and
by Josie Collado. Josefina said she had no knowledge of the 1. Non-compliance with the legal solemnities and formalities in the
existence of the last will and testament of her husband, but just execution and attestation of the will; and
serendipitously found it in his attache case after his death. It was
only then that she learned that the testator bequeathed to her his 2. Mental incapacity of the testator at the time of the execution of
properties and she was named the executrix in the said will. To her the will as he was then in an advanced state of senility
estimate, the value of property both real and personal left by the
"It then found these grounds extant and proven, and accordingly
testator is worth more or less P100,000.00. Josefina declared too
disallowed probate."5
that the testator never suffered mental infirmity because despite
his old age he went alone to the market which is two to three Ruling of the Court of Appeals
kilometers from their home cooked and cleaned the kitchen and
sometimes if she could not accompany him, even traveled to Manila Reversing the trial court, the appellate court admitted the will of
alone to claim his monthly pension. Josefina also asserts that her Placido Valmonte to probate. The CA upheld the credibility of the
husband was in good health and that he was hospitalized only notary public and the subscribing witnesses who had acknowledged
because of a cold but which eventually resulted in his death. the due execution of the will. Moreover, it held that the testator
had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will.
"Notary Public Floro Sarmiento, the notary public who notarized the It added that his "sexual exhibitionism and unhygienic, crude and
testator’s will, testified that it was in the first week of June 1983 impolite ways"6 did not make him a person of unsound mind.
when the testator together with the three witnesses of the will went
to his house cum law office and requested him to prepare his last Hence, this Petition.7
will and testament. After the testator instructed him on the terms
and dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary public told them Issues
to come back on June 15, 1983 to give him time to prepare it. After
he had prepared the will the notary public kept it safely hidden and Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration:
locked in his drawer. The testator and his witnesses returned on
"I.
the appointed date but the notary public was out of town so they
were instructed by his wife to come back on August 9, 1983, and Whether or not the findings of the probate court are entitled to
which they did. Before the testator and his witnesses signed the great respect.
prepared will, the notary public explained to them each and every
term thereof in Ilocano, a dialect which the testator spoke and "II.
understood. He likewise explained that though it appears that the
will was signed by the testator and his witnesses on June 15, 1983, Whether or not the signature of Placido Valmonte in the subject will
the day when it should have been executed had he not gone out of was procured by fraud or trickery, and that Placido Valmonte never
town, the formal execution was actually on August 9, 1983. He intended that the instrument should be his last will and testament.
reasoned that he no longer changed the typewritten date of June
15, 1983 because he did not like the document to appear dirty. The "III.
notary public also testified that to his observation the testator was
Whether or not Placido Valmonte has testamentary capacity at the
physically and mentally capable at the time he affixed his signature
time he allegedly executed the subject will."8
on the will.
In short, petitioner assails the CA’s allowance of the probate of the
"The attesting witnesses to the will corroborated the testimony of
will of Placido Valmonte.
the notary public, and testified that the testator went alone to the
house of spouses Eugenio and Feliza Gomez at GSIS Village,
This Court’s Ruling
Quezon City and requested them to accompany him to the house
of Atty. Floro Sarmiento purposely for his intended will; that after The Petition has no merit.
giving his instructions to Atty. Floro Sarmiento, they were told to
return on June 15, 1983; that they returned on June 15, 1983 for Main Issue:
the execution of the will but were asked to come back instead on
August 9, 1983 because of the absence of the notary public; that Probate of a Will
the testator executed the will in question in their presence while he
was of sound and disposing mind and that he was strong and in At the outset, we stress that only questions of law may be raised
good health; that the contents of the will was explained by the in a Petition for Review under Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of
notary public in the Ilocano and Tagalog dialect and that all of them Court. As an exception, however, the evidence presented during
as witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the the trial may be examined and the factual matters resolved by this
testator and of each other. And that during the execution, the Court when, as in the instant case, the findings of fact of the
testator’s wife, Josefina was not with them. appellate court differ from those of the trial court.9

"The oppositor Leticia declared that Josefina should not inherit The fact that public policy favors the probate of a will does not
alone because aside from her there are other children from the necessarily mean that every will presented for probate should be
siblings of Placido who are just as entitled to inherit from him. She allowed. The law lays down the procedures and requisites that must
attacked the mental capacity of the testator, declaring that at the be satisfied for the probate of a will.10 Verily, Article 839 of the Civil
time of the execution of the notarial will the testator was already Code states the instances when a will may be disallowed, as
83 years old and was no longer of sound mind. She knew whereof follows:
she spoke because in 1983 Placido lived in the Makati residence
"Article 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following
and asked Leticia’s family to live with him and they took care of
cases:
him. During that time, the testator’s physical and mental condition
showed deterioration, aberrations and senility. This was (1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;
corroborated by her daughter Mary Jane Ortega for whom Placido
took a fancy and wanted to marry. (2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of
making a will, at the time of its execution;

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 23 Juco
(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the The pertinent transcript of stenographic notes taken on June 11,
influence of fear, or threats; 1985, November 25, 1985, October 13, 1986, and October 21,
1987 -- as quoted by the CA -- are reproduced respectively as
(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and follows:
influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person;
"Atty. Floro Sarmiento:
(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;
Q You typed this document exhibit C, specifying the date June 15
(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the when the testator and his witnesses were supposed to be in your
instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his office?
signature thereto."
A Yes sir.
In the present case, petitioner assails the validity of Placido
Valmonte’s will by imputing fraud in its execution and challenging Q On June 15, 1983, did the testator and his witnesses come to
the testator’s state of mind at the time. your house?

Existence of Fraud in the A They did as of agreement but unfortunately, I was out of town.

Execution of a Will xxxxxxxxx

Petitioner does not dispute the due observance of the formalities in Q The document has been acknowledged on August 9, 1983 as per
the execution of the will, but maintains that the circumstances acknowledgement appearing therein. Was this the actual date when
surrounding it are indicative of the existence of fraud. Particularly, the document was acknowledged?
she alleges that respondent, who is the testator’s wife and sole
beneficiary, conspired with the notary public and the three attesting A Yes sir.
witnesses in deceiving Placido to sign it. Deception is allegedly
reflected in the varying dates of the execution and the attestation Q What about the date when the testator and the three witnesses
of the will. affixed their respective signature on the first and second pages of
exhibit C?
Petitioner contends that it was "highly dubious for a woman at the
prime of her young life [to] almost immediately plunge into A On that particular date when it was acknowledged, August 9,
marriage with a man who [was] thrice her age x x x and who 1983.
happened to be [a] Fil-American pensionado,"11 thus casting doubt
Q Why did you not make the necessary correction on the date
on the intention of respondent in seeking the probate of the will.
appearing on the body of the document as well as the attestation
Moreover, it supposedly "defies human reason, logic and common
clause?
experience"12 for an old man with a severe psychological condition
to have willingly signed a last will and testament. A Because I do not like anymore to make some alterations so I put
it in my own handwriting August 9, 1983 on the acknowledgement.
We are not convinced. Fraud "is a trick, secret device, false
(tsn, June 11, 1985, pp. 8-10)
statement, or pretense, by which the subject of it is cheated. It
may be of such character that the testator is misled or deceived as Eugenio Gomez:
to the nature or contents of the document which he executes, or it
may relate to some extrinsic fact, in consequence of the deception Q It appears on the first page Mr. Witness that it is dated June 15,
regarding which the testator is led to make a certain will which, but 1983, whereas in the acknowledgement it is dated August 9, 1983,
for the fraud, he would not have made."13 will you look at this document and tell us this discrepancy in the
date?
We stress that the party challenging the will bears the burden of
proving the existence of fraud at the time of its execution.14 The A We went to Atty. Sarmiento together with Placido Valmonte and
burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will only the two witnesses; that was first week of June and Atty. Sarmiento
upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud.15 Unfortunately in this told us to return on the 15th of June but when we returned, Atty.
case, other than the self-serving allegations of petitioner, no Sarmiento was not there.
evidence of fraud was ever presented.
Q When you did not find Atty. Sarmiento on June 15, 1983, did you
It is a settled doctrine that the omission of some relatives does not again go back?
affect the due execution of a will.16 That the testator was tricked
into signing it was not sufficiently established by the fact that he A We returned on the 9th of August and there we signed.
had instituted his wife, who was more than fifty years his junior, as
the sole beneficiary; and disregarded petitioner and her family, who Q This August 9, 1983 where you said it is there where you signed,
were the ones who had taken "the cudgels of taking care of [the who were your companions?
testator] in his twilight years."17
A The two witnesses, me and Placido Valmonte. (tsn, November
Moreover, as correctly ruled by the appellate court, the conflict 25, 1985, pp. 7-8)
between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the
Felisa Gomez on cross-examination:
document, "because the law does not even require that a [notarial]
will x x x be executed and acknowledged on the same Q Why did you have to go to the office of Atty. Floro Sarmiento,
occasion."18 More important, the will must be subscribed by the three times?
testator, as well as by three or more credible witnesses who must
also attest to it in the presence of the testator and of one xxxxxxxxx
another.19Furthermore, the testator and the witnesses must
acknowledge the will before a notary public.20 In any event, we A The reason why we went there three times is that, the first week
agree with the CA that "the variance in the dates of the will as to of June was out first time. We went there to talk to Atty. Sarmiento
its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily and and Placido Valmonte about the last will and testament. After that
persuasively explained by the notary public and the instrumental what they have talked what will be placed in the testament, what
witnesses."21 Atty. Sarmiento said was that he will go back on the 15th of June.

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 24 Juco
When we returned on June 15, Atty. Sarmiento was not there so relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There being
we were not able to sign it, the will. That is why, for the third time no showing of fraud in its execution, intent in its disposition
we went there on August 9 and that was the time we affixed our becomes irrelevant.
signature. (tsn, October 13, 1986, pp. 4-6)
Worth reiterating in determining soundness of mind is Alsua-Betts
Josie Collado: v. CA,25 which held thus:

Q When you did not find Atty. Sarmiento in his house on June 15, "Between the highest degree of soundness of mind and memory
1983, what transpired? which unquestionably carries with it full testamentary capacity, and
that degrees of mental aberration generally known as insanity or
A The wife of Atty. Sarmiento told us that we will be back on August idiocy, there are numberless degrees of mental capacity or
9, 1983. incapacity and while on one hand it has been held that mere
weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from disease of body, or
Q And on August 9, 1983 did you go back to the house of Atty. from age, will not render a person incapable of making a will; a
Sarmiento? weak or feebleminded person may make a valid will, provided he
has understanding and memory sufficient to enable him to know
A Yes, Sir.
what he is about to do and how or to whom he is disposing of his
Q For what purpose? property. To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not
necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or unshattered
A Our purpose is just to sign the will. by disease or otherwise. It has been held that testamentary
incapacity does not necessarily require that a person shall actually
Q Were you able to sign the will you mentioned? be insane or of unsound mind."26

A Yes sir. (tsn, October 21, 1987, pp. 4-5)"22 WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs
Notably, petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of a "grand against petitioner.
conspiracy" in the commission of a fraud. There was no showing
that the witnesses of the proponent stood to receive any benefit SO ORDERED.
from the allowance of the will. The testimonies of the three
subscribing witnesses and the notary are credible evidence of its
due execution.23 Their testimony favoring it and the finding that it
was executed in accordance with the formalities required by law
should be affirmed, absent any showing of ill motives.24

Capacity to Make a Will

In determining the capacity of the testator to make a will, the Civil

Code gives the following guidelines:

"Article 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator

be of sound mind at the time of its execution.

"Article 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the

testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that
his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or shattered by disease,
injury or other cause.

"It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making
the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the
proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary
act.

"Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind,
in the absence of proof to the contrary.

"The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the
time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the
probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before
making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who
maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made
it during a lucid interval."

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, we find
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 we have stated earlier, the omission of some

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 25 Juco
 [ G.R. NO. 174144, April 17, 2007 ]
SO ORDERED.[3]
BELLA A. GUERRERO, PETITIONER, VS. RESURRECCION A.
BIHIS, RESPONDENT. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but the
appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the resolution of
the trial court.[4]
DECISION
Thus, this petition.[5]
CORONA, J.:
Petitioner admits that the will was acknowledged by the testatrix
The Scriptures tell the story of the brothers Jacob and Esau[1],
and the witnesses at the testatrix's residence in Quezon City before
siblings who fought bitterly over the inheritance of their father
Atty. Directo and that, at that time, Atty. Directo was a
Isaac's estate. Jurisprudence is also replete with cases involving
commissioned notary public for and in Caloocan City. She,
acrimonious conflicts between brothers and sisters over
however, asserts that the fact that the notary public was acting
successional rights. This case is no exception.
outside his territorial jurisdiction did not affect the validity of the
notarial will.
On February 19, 1994, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of
petitioner Bella A. Guerrero and respondent Resurreccion A. Bihis,
Did the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the instrumental
died at the Metropolitan Hospital in Tondo, Manila.
witnesses before a notary public acting outside the place of his
commission satisfy the requirement under Article 806 of the Civil
On May 24, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the
Code? It did not.
last will and testament of the decedent in Branch 95[2] of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where the case was docketed
Article 806 of the Civil Code provides:
as Sp. Proc. No. Q-94-20661.

The petition alleged the following: petitioner was named as ART. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public
executrix in the decedent's will and she was legally qualified to act by the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be
as such; the decedent was a citizen of the Philippines at the time required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office
of her death; at the time of the execution of the will, the testatrix of the Clerk of Court.
was 79 years old, of sound and disposing mind, not acting under
duress, fraud or undue influence and was capacitated to dispose of One of the formalities required by law in connection with the
her estate by will. execution of a notarial will is that it must be acknowledged before
a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.[6] This formal
Respondent opposed her elder sister's petition on the following requirement is one of the indispensable requisites for the validity
grounds: the will was not executed and attested as required by law; of a will.[7] In other words, a notarial will that is not acknowledged
its attestation clause and acknowledgment did not comply with the before a notary public by the testator and the instrumental
requirements of the law; the signature of the testatrix was procured witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for probate.
by fraud and petitioner and her children procured the will through
undue and improper pressure and influence. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in
going before some competent officer and declaring it to be his act
In an order dated November 9, 1994, the trial court appointed or deed.[8] In the case of a notarial will, that competent officer is
petitioner as special administratrix of the decedent's estate. the notary public.
Respondent opposed petitioner's appointment but subsequently
withdrew her opposition. Petitioner took her oath as temporary The acknowledgment of a notarial will coerces the testator and the
special administratrix and letters of special administration were instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law, the
issued to her. notary public, that they executed and subscribed to the will as their
own free act or deed.[9] Such declaration is under oath and under
On January 17, 2000, after petitioner presented her evidence, pain of perjury, thus paving the way for the criminal prosecution of
respondent filed a demurrer thereto alleging that petitioner's persons who participate in the execution of spurious wills, or those
evidence failed to establish that the decedent's will complied with executed without the free consent of the testator.[10] It also
Articles 804 and 805 of the Civil Code. provides a further degree of assurance that the testator is of a
certain mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to the
In a resolution dated July 6, 2001, the trial court denied the probate persons instituted as heirs or designated as devisees or legatees in
of the will ruling that Article 806 of the Civil Code was not complied the will.[11]
with because the will was "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the
witnesses at the testatrix's, residence at No. 40 Kanlaon Street, Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent officer, that
Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public.
commissioned notary public for and in Caloocan City. The
dispositive portion of the resolution read: In this connection, the relevant provisions of the Notarial Law
provide:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds, and so

declares that it cannot admit the last will and testament of the late SECTION 237. Form of commission for notary public. -The
Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura to probate for the reasons appointment of a notary public shall be in writing, signed by the
hereinabove discussed and also in accordance with Article 839 [of judge, and substantially in the following form:
the Civil Code] which provides that if the formalities required by
law have not been complied with, the will shall be disallowed. In
view thereof, the Court shall henceforth proceed with intestate GOVERNMENT OF THE
succession in regard to the estate of the deceased Felisa Tamio de REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Buenaventura in accordance with Article 960 of the [Civil Code], to PROVINCE OF ___________
wit: "Art. 960. Legal or intestate succession takes place: (1) If a
person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one which has
subsequently lost its validity, xxx." This is to certify that ____________, of the municipality of

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 26 Juco
________ in said province, was on the ___ day of __________,
anno Domini nineteen hundred and _______, appointed by me a Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Commission on Bar
notary public, within and for the said province, for the term Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation,
ending on the first day of January, anno Domini nineteen hundred report and recommendation on the possible misconduct of Atty.
and _____. Macario O. Directo.

_________________ SO ORDERED.
Judge of the Court of
irst Instance[12] of said
Province

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 240. Territorial jurisdiction. - The jurisdiction of a notary

public in a province shall be co-extensive with 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. (emphases
supplied)

A notary public's commission is the grant of authority in his favor

to perform notarial acts.[13] It is issued "within and for" a particular
territorial jurisdiction and the notary public's authority is co-
extensive with it. In other words, a notary public is authorized to
perform notarial acts, including the taking of acknowledgments,
within that territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the place of his
commission, he is bereft of power to perform any notarial act; he
is not a notary public. Any notarial act outside the limits of his
jurisdiction has no force and effect. As this Court categorically
pronounced in Tecson v. Tecson:[14]

An acknowledgment taken outside the territorial limits of the

officer's jurisdiction is void as if the person taking it ware wholly
without official character. (emphasis supplied)

Since Atty. Directo was not a commissioned notary public for and
in Quezon City, he lacked the authority to take the acknowledgment
of the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses. In the same vein,
the testatrix and her witnesses could not have validly
acknowledged the will before him. Thus, Felisa Tamio de
Buenaventura's last will and testament was, in effect, not
acknowledged as required by law.

Moreover, Article 5 of the Civil Code provides:

ART. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or

prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes
their validity.

The violation of a mandatory or a prohibitory statute renders the

act illegal and void unless the law itself declares its continuing
validity. Here, mandatory and prohibitory statutes were
transgressed in the execution of the alleged "acknowledgment."
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.

The Court cannot turn a blind eye to Atty. Directo's participation in

the preparation, execution and unlawful "acknowledgment" of
Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura's will. Had he exercised his notarial
commission properly, the intent of the law to effectuate the
decedent's final statements[15] as expressed in her will would not
have come to naught.[16] Hence, Atty. Directo should show cause
why he should not be administratively sanctioned as a member of
the bar and as an officer of the court.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Costs against petitioner.

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 27 Juco
 G.R. No. 74695 September 14, 1993 blind at the time his last will and codicil were executed; that
assuming his blindness, the reading requirement of Art. 808 was
In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament substantially complied with when both documents were read aloud
of the Deceased Brigido Alvarado, CESAR to the testator with each of the three instrumental witnesses and
ALVARADO, Petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., the notary public following the reading with their respective copies
Presiding Justice, HON. MA. ROSARIO QUETULIO LOSA and of the instruments. The appellate court then concluded that
HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Associate Justices, although Art. 808 was not followed to the letter, there was
Intermediate Appellate Court, First Division (Civil Cases), substantial compliance since its purpose of making known to the
and BAYANI MA. RINO, Respondents. testator the contents of the drafted will was served.

BELLOSILLO, J.: The issues now before us can be stated thus: Was Brigido Alvarado
blind for purpose of Art, 808 at the time his "Huling Habilin" and its
Before us is an appeal from the Decision dated 11 April 1986 1 of codicil were executed? If so, was the double-reading requirement
the First Civil Cases Division of the then Intermediate Appellate of said article complied with?
Court, now Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Order dated 27
June 1983 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Regarding the first issue, there is no dispute on the following facts:
admitting to probate the last will and testament 3 with codicil 4 of Brigido Alvarado was not totally blind at the time the will and codicil
the late Brigido Alvarado. were executed. However, his vision on both eyes was only of
"counting fingers at three (3) feet" by reason of the glaucoma which
On 5 November 1977, the 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a he had been suffering from for several years and even prior to his
notarial will entitled "Huling Habilin" wherein he disinherited an first consultation with an eye specialist on
illegitimate son (petitioner) and expressly revoked a previously 14 December 1977.
executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate before
Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of sta. Cruz, Laguna. The point of dispute is whether the foregoing circumstances would
qualify Brigido as a "blind" testator under Art. 808 which reads:
As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary
public and by private respondent who were present at the Art. 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice;
execution, the testator did not read the final draft of the will once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary
himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the public before whom the will is acknowledged.
eight-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of the
testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. Petitioner contends that although his father was not totally blind
The latter four followed the reading with their own respective copies when the will and codicil were executed, he can be so considered
previously furnished them. within the scope of the term as it is used in Art. 808. To support
his stand, petitioner presented before the trial court a medical
Meanwhile, Brigido's holographic will was subsequently admitted to certificate issued by Dr. Salvador R. Salceda, Director of the
probate on 9 December 1977. On the 29th day of the same month, Institute of Opthalmology (Philippine Eye Research Institute), 6 the
a codicil entitled "Kasulatan ng Pagbabago sa Ilang Pagpapasiya na contents of which were interpreted in layman's terms by Dr.
Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na may Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Ruperto Roasa, whose expertise was admitted by private
Brigido Alvarado" was executed changing some dispositions in the respondent. 7 Dr. Roasa explained that although the testator could
notarial will to generate cash for the testator's eye operation. visualize fingers at three (3) feet, he could no longer read either
Brigido was then suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance printed or handwritten matters as of 14 December 1977, the day
and revocatory clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the of his first consultation. 8
notarial will, the testator did not personally read the final draft of
the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who read it aloud in On the other hand, the Court of Appeals, contrary to the medical
his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental testimony, held that the testator could still read on the day the will
witnesses (same as those of the notarial will) and the notary public and the codicil were executed but chose not to do so because of
who followed the reading using their own copies. "poor eyesight." 9 Since the testator was still capable of reading at
that time, the court a quo concluded that Art. 808 need not be
A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed complied with.
upon the testator's death on 3 January 1979 by private respondent
as executor with the Court of First Instance, now Regional Trial We agree with petitioner in this respect.
Court, of Siniloan, Laguna. 5Petitioner, in turn, filed an Opposition
on the following grounds: that the will sought to be probated was Regardless of respondent's staunch contention that the testator
not executed and attested as required by law; that the testator was was still capable of reading at the time his will and codicil were
insane or otherwise mentally incapacitated to make a will at the prepared, the fact remains and this was testified to by his
time of its execution due to senility and old age; that the will was witnesses, that Brigido did not do so because of his
executed under duress, or influence of fear and threats; that it was "poor," 10 "defective," 11 or "blurred" 12vision making it necessary
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part for private respondent to do the actual reading for him.
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 The following pronouncement in Garcia vs.Vasquez 13 provides an
by fraud or trick. insight into the scope of the term "blindness" as used in Art. 808,
to wit:
When the oppositor (petitioner) failed to substantiate the grounds
relied upon in the Opposition, a Probate Order was issued on 27 The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the
June 1983 from which an appeal was made to respondent court. testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as
The main thrust of the appeal was that the deceased was blind when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to
within the meaning of the law at the time his "Huling Habilin" and him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance
the codicil attached thereto was executed; that since the reading with his wishes . . .
required by Art. 808 of the Civil Code was admittedly not complied
Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808 applies not only to blind
with, probate of the deceased's last will and codicil should have
testators but also to those who, for one reason or another, are
been denied.
"incapable of reading the(ir) will(s)." Since Brigido Alvarado was
On 11 April 1986, the Court of Appeals rendered the decision under incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on the
review with the following findings: that Brigido Alvarado was not separate occasions of their execution due to his "poor," "defective,"

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 28 Juco
or "blurred" vision, there can be no other course for us but to The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not.
conclude that Brigido Alvarado comes within the scope of the term Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial
"blind" as it is used in Art. 808. Unless the contents were read to requirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of the
him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the lawyer who will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they
drafted the will and codicil did so confortably with his instructions. do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may
Hence, to consider his will as validly executed and entitled to only defeat the testator's will. 17
probate, it is essential that we ascertain whether Art. 808 had been
complied with. As a final word to convince petitioner of the propriety of the trial
court's Probate Order and its affirmance by the Court of Appeals,
Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, we quote the following pronouncement in Abangan
the will shall be read twice; once, by one of the instrumental v. Abangan, 18 to wit:
witnesses and, again, by the notary public before whom the will
was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known to the The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is
incapacitated testator the contents of the document before signing to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid the
and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is contrary to substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and
his instructions. authenticity. Therefore the laws on the subject should be
interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But,
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead of on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it
the notary public and an instrumental witness, it was the lawyer is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of
(private respondent) who drafted the eight-paged will and the five- the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given
paged codicil who read the same aloud to the testator, and read assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds
them only once, not twice as Art. 808 requires. nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless
and frustrative of the testator's will, must be
Private respondent however insists that there was substantial disregarded (emphasis supplied).
compliance and that the single reading suffices for purposes of the
law. On the other hand, petitioner maintains that the only valid Brigido Alvarado had expressed his last wishes in clear and
compliance or compliance to the letter and since it is admitted that unmistakable terms in his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached
neither the notary public nor an instrumental witness read the thereto. We are unwilling to cast these aside fro the mere reason
contents of the will and codicil to Brigido, probate of the latter's will that a legal requirement intended for his protection was not
and codicil should have been disallowed. followed strictly when such compliance had been rendered
unnecessary by the fact that the purpose of the law, i.e., to make
We sustain private respondent's stand and necessarily, the petition known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the draft of his
must be denied. will, had already been accomplished. To reiterate, substantial
compliance suffices where the purpose has been served.
This Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial
compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of
satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the respondent Court of Appeals dated 11 April 1986 is AFFIRMED.
execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds Considering the length of time that this case has remained pending,
of fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and this decision is immediately executory. Costs against petitioner.
inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege. 14
SO ORDERED.
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 to the draft. 15

Moreover, it was not only Atty. Rino who read the documents on
5 November and 29 December 1977. The notary public and the
three instrumental witnesses likewise read the will and codicil,
albeit silently. Afterwards, Atty. Nonia de la Pena (the notary
public) and Dr. Crescente O. Evidente (one of the three
instrumental witnesses and the testator's physician) asked the
testator whether the contents of the document were of his own free
will. Brigido answered in the affirmative. 16 With four persons
following the reading word for word with their own copies, it can be
safely concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that
what was read to him (those which he affirmed were in accordance
with his instructions), were the terms actually appearing on the
typewritten documents. This is especially true when we consider
the fact that the three instrumental witnesses were persons known
to the testator, one being his physician (Dr. Evidente) and another
(Potenciano C. Ranieses) being known to him since childhood.

Wills and Succession Cases (Art 804-814) SOL AY 2019-2020I Dean Navarro I 29 Juco