Icasiano vs Icasiano

Facts: Josefa Villacorte died and left a notarial will. Celso Icasiano as executor filed for probate of said will at CFI Manila. However in
the original copy of the will page 3 thereof was not signed by one instrumental witness named Atty Jose Natividad. Later on
proponents claimed to have discovered a duplicate of the original with the complete set of signatures present. Opponents consisting
of Natividad Icasiano and Enrique Icasiano, daughter and son respectively filed opposition claiming the will should not be accepted
for probate. They argue that the signature of the testatrix was forged in the duplicate and granting that the duplicate was genuine
they were made with undue and improper pressure and influence.

Issue: WON the law should be strictly applied?

HELD No. The SC accepted the will for probate. 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, 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. 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 oppositions argument that there was fraud was not proven. It is also well to note that, fraud and undue influence are mutually
repugnant and exclude each other; their joining as grounds for opposing probate shows absence of definite evidence against the
validity of the will. Oppositions expert witness failed to overcome the validity of signatures since his statement was based only for
three standard signatures only. The court ruled that deviation in the signature may have been caused by fatigue, age, and evident
variability of testators signatures. Also slight change in shade of blue may have been caused by use of different types of paper.

Taboada vs Rosal

Facts: Apolonio Taboada filed for appointment as Special Administrator for probate of the will of Dorotea Perez in the CFI of
Southern Leyte. There was no opposition however Judge Ramon Pamantian denied the probate of the will because of the placing of
the signatures were wrong. The will consisted of two pages only. On the first page the 3 witnesses signed on the left margin while
the testator signed at the bottom of the page. On the second page contained the attestation and acknowledgement. The three
witnesses signed on the attestation while the testator signed on the left margin. Judge Pamantian said if not for the defect on the
placement of signatures the will would have been accepted for probate.

Issue: WON strict interpretation of the law should be applied.

Held: No. While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be
ignored, especially where the authenticity of the will is not assailed. The law is to be liberally construed, "the underlying and
fundamental objective permeating the provisions on the law on wills in this project consists in the liberalization of the manner of
their execution with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes but with sufficient safeguards
and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the
testator. This objective is in accord with the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the execution of a will"

The objects of attestation and of subscription were fully met and satisfied in the present case when the instrumental witnesses
signed at the left margin of the sole page which contains all the testamentary dispositions, especially so when the will was properly
Identified by subscribing witness Vicente Timkang to be the same will executed by the testatrix. There was no question of fraud or
substitution behind the questioned order.

The attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in writing the will. This would have been a fatal defect were it not for
the fact that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire will that it is really and actually composed of only two pages duly signed by
the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses.

AZUELA v. CA

FACTS: A petition for probate filed on 10 April 1984 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The petition filed by petitioner
Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo, which was notarized on 10 June 1981. Petitioner is the
son of the cousin of the decedent. The will consisted of two pages and was in Filipino. It appears that the attestation clause did not
state the number of pages of the will, the witnesses did not sign at the end of the attestation clause and that the will was not
properly acknowledged. Despite these faults the trial court and court of appeals held the will as valid on the ground of substantial
compliance with the requirements of Art 805 in relation to 809. They said that the signatures of the witnesses at the left margin of
the last page cured the failure to sign the attestation clause and that the declaration or jurat at the end is sufficient
acknowledgement

ISSUE: WON the will is invalid for failure to state in the attestation clause the number of pages, that the attestation clause was
signed by the witnesses and that the will was properly acknowledged?

HELD: . As admitted by petitioner himself, the attestation clause fails to state the number of pages of the will.12 There was an
incomplete attempt to comply with this requisite, a space having been allotted for the insertion of the number of pages in the
attestation clause. Yet the blank was never filled in; hence, the requisite was left uncomplied with.

The purpose of requiring the number of sheets to be stated in the attestation clause is obvious; the document might easily be so
prepared that the removal of a sheet would completely change the testamentary dispositions of the will and in the absence of a
statement of the total number of sheets such removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and changing the numbers at the
top of the following sheets or pages. If, on the other hand, the total number of sheets is stated in the attestation clause the
falsification of the document will involve the inserting of new pages and the forging of the signatures of the testator and witnesses
in the margin, a matter attended with much greater difficulty.

In some cases the Supreme Court has allowed wills were the number of pages was absent from the attestation clause as when such
was found in other parts of the will such as in the acknowledgment or body. It applied the substantial compliance doctrine in those
cases applying Art 809. In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and
imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will
was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of article 805. Following Caneda, there is
substantial compliance with this requirement if the will states elsewhere in it how many pages it is comprised of, as was the
situation in Singson andTaboada. However, in this case, there could have been no substantial compliance with the requirements
under Article 805 since there is no statement in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the number of pages which
comprise the will. It may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that omission 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."

The attestation clause is "a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will" required by law to be made by the
attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear their signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of
the witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their participation. Thus rendering the will
invalid.
The requirement under Article 806 that "every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses"
has also not been complied with. The express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be "acknowledged", and not merely
subscribed and sworn to.

Tedoro CANEDA, et al.petitioners vs. Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and William CABRERA, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Mateo
Caballero, respondents.
On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children, already in the twilight years of his life executed a last will
and testament before three attesting witnesses and he was duly assisted by his lawyer and a notary public. It was declared therein
that, among other things that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to specific
persons, all of whom do not appear to be related to Mateo. Not long after, he himself filed a petition before the CFI seeking the
probate of his last will and testament but the scheduled hearings were postponed, until the testator passed away before his petition
could finally be heard by the probate court. Benoni Cabrera, one of the legatees named in the will, sought his appointment as special
administrator of the testators estate but due to his death, he was succeeded by William Cabrera, who was appointed by RTC which
is already the probate court.
PETITIONERS: The petitioners assail to the allowance of the testators will on the ground that it was not executed in accordance with
all the requisites of law since the testator was already in a poor state of health such that he could not have possibly executed the
same. Petitioners likewise contend that the will is null and void because its attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to
specifically state that the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that they
also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
RESPONDENTS: The respondent, on the other hand, argue that Mateo was of sound and disposing mind and in good health when he
executed his will. Further, they also contend that the witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the testator and of
each other.
Whether or not the attestation clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero is fatally defective such that whether or not it affects the
validity of the will.
Whether or not the attestation clause complies with the substantial compliance pursuant to Article 809 of the Civil Code.
An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses certify that the instrument has been
executed before them and to the manner of the execution of the same. It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts
surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the witnesses; it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the
essential formalities required by law has been observed. Under the 3rd paragraph of Article 805, such a clause, the complete lack of
which would result in the invalidity of the will, should state:
The number of pages used upon which the will is written;
That the testator signed, or expressly cause another to sign, the will and every page thereof in the presence of the attesting
witnesses; and
That the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages, and that the said witnesses also signed
the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
It will be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest and subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator
and of one another. Attestation and subscription differ in meaning. Attestation is the act of sense, while subscription is the act
of the hand. The attestation clause herein assailed is that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in
the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does not expressly
state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator
and of each other. What is then clearly lacking is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the
presence of the testator and of one another.
The absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of
the will that is here sought to be admitted to probate. Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the defect in the attestation clause
obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the form of the will or the language used therein which would warrant the
application of the substantial compliance rule, as contemplated in Article 809 of the Civil Code:
In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfection in the form of
attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is not proved that the will was in fact executed and
attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805.
The defects and imperfection must only be with respect to the form of the attestation or the language employed therein. Such
defects or imperfection would not render a will invalid should it be proved that the will was really executed and attested in
compliance with Article 805. These considerations do not apply where the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting
witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. In such a situation, the defect is
not only in the form or language of the attestation clause but the total absence of a specific element required by Article 805 to be
specifically stated in the attestation clause of a will. That is precisely the defect complained of in the present case since there is no
plausible way by which it can be read into the questioned attestation clause statement, or an implication thereof, that the attesting
witness did actually bear witness to the signing by the testator of the will and 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 one another.
Cruz v. Villasor
G.R. L-32213 November 26, 1973
Ponente: Esguerra, J.:
Facts:
1. The CFI of Cebu allowed the probate of the last will and testament of the late Valenti Cruz. However, the petitioner opposed the
allowance of the will alleging that it was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and undue influence. He further alleged
that the instrument was executed without the testator having been informed of its contents and finally, that it was not executed in
accordance with law.
2. One of the witnesses, Angel Tevel Jr. was also the notary before whom the will was acknowledged. Despite the objection, the
lower court admitted the will to probate on the ground that there is substantial compliance with the legal requirements of having at
least 3 witnesses even if the notary public was one of them.
Issue: Whether or not the will is valid in accordance with Art. 805 and 806 of the NCC
HELD: NO.
The will is not valid. The notary public cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before
himself his having signed the said will. An acknowledging officer cannot serve as witness at the same time.
To acknowledge before means to avow, or to own as genuine, to assent, admit, and 'before' means in front of or preceding in space
or ahead of. The notary cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his
participation int he making of the will. To permit such situation would be absurd.
Finally, the function of a notary among others is to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements, a function defeated if he were
to be one of the attesting or instrumental witnesses. He would be interested in sustaining the validity of the will as it directly
involves himself and the validity of his own act. he would be in an inconsistent position, thwarting the very purpose of the
acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud.
Guerrero vs BihisG.R. No. 174144 April 17, 2007
Facts:
Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner Bella A. Guerrero andrespondent Resurreccion A. Bihis, died. Guerrero filed for
probate in the RTCQC. Respondent Bihis
opposed her elder sisters petition on the following
grounds: the will was not executed and attested as required by law; itsattestation clause and acknowledgment did not comply with
the requirementsof the law; the signature of the testatrix was procured by fraud and petitioner and her children procured the will
through undue and improper pressure andinfluence. The trial court denied the probate of the will ruling that Article 806 of
the Civil Code was not complied with because the will was acknowledged bythe testatrix and the witnesses at the testatrixs
residence at No. 40 Kanlaon
Street, Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a commissionednotary public for and in Caloocan City.
ISSUE:
Did the will acknowledged by the testatrix and the instrumental witnessesbefore a notary public acting outside the place of his
commission satisfy therequirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code?
HELD:
No. One of the formalities required by law in connection with the execution of a notarial will is that it must be acknowledged before
a notary public by thetestator and the witnesses. This formal requirement is one of theindispensable requisites for the validity of a
will. In other words, a notarial willthat is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and theinstrumental witnesses is
void and cannot be accepted for probate.The Notarial law provides:
SECTION 240.Territorial jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be co-extensive with theprovince. 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 notarialact beyond the limits of his
jurisdiction.Sine Atty. Directo was not a commissioned notary public for and in QuezonCity, he lacked the authority to take the
acknowledgment of the testratix andthe instrumental witnesses. In the same vain, the testratix and theinstrumental witnesses could
not have validly acknowledged the will beforehim. Thus, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventuras last will and testament was, in effect, not
acknowledged as required by law.

Ortega v. Valmonte
478 SCRA 247

FACTS:
Two years after the arrival of Placido from the United States and at the age of 80 he wedJosefina who was then 28 years old. But in a
little more than two years of wedded bliss,Placido died. Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in English
andconsisting of 2 pages, and dated 15 June 1983but acknowledged only on 9 August 1983.

The allowance to probate of this will was opposed by Leticia, Placidos sister. Accordingto the notary public who notarized the
testators will, after the testator instructed him onthe terms and dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary public told them to
come back on 15 August 1983 to give him time to prepare. The testator and his witnessesreturned on the appointed date but the
notary public was out of town so they wereinstructed by his wife to come back on 9 August 1983. The formal execution was
actuallyon 9 August 1983. He reasoned he no longer changed the typewritten date of 15 June1983 because he did not like the
document to appear dirty.Petiti
oners argument:

1. At the time of the execution of the notarial will Placido was already 83 years old and was no longer of sound mind.2. Josefina
conspired with the notary public and the 3 attesting witnesses in deceivingPlacido to sign it. Deception is allegedly reflected in the
varying dates of the executionand the attestation of the will.

ISSUE:
1. W/N Placido has testamentary capacity at the time he allegedly executed the will.2. W/N the signature of Placido in the will was
procured by fraud or trickery.

HELD:
1. YES. Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify accurately the kinds ofproperty he owned, the extent of his shares in
them and even their location. As regardsthe proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient that he identified his wife as sole
beneficiary. The omission of some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There being no showing of fraud in its
execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.2. NO. Fraud is a trick, secret devise, false statement, or pretense, by which
the subjectof it is cheated. It may be of such character that the testator is misled or deceived as tothe nature or contents of the
document which he executes, or it may relate to someextrinsic fact, in consequence of the deception regarding which the testator is
led tomake a certain will which, but for fraud, he would not have made.The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving
the existence of fraud at thetime of its execution. The burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the willonly upon a
showing of credible evidence of fraud.Omission of some relatives does not affect the due execution of a will. Moreover, theconflict
between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the document,because the law does not even require that a notarial
will be executed and
acknowledged on the same occasion. The variance in the dates of the will as to itssupposed execution and attestation was
satisfactorily and persuasively explained by thenotary public and instrumental witnesses.
Alvarado v. Gaviola
On 5 November 1977, 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled Huling Habilin wherein he disinherited an
illegitimate son, petitioner Cesar Alvarado, and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting
probate before the RTC of Laguna.
According to Bayani Ma. Rino, private respondent, he was present when the said notarial will was executed, together with three
instrumental witnesses and the notary public, where the testator did not read the will himself, suffering as he did from glaucoma.
Rino, a lawyer, drafted the eight-page document and read the same aloud before the testator, the three instrumental witnesses and
the notary public, the latter four following the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them.
Thereafter, a codicil entitled Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na May Petsa Nobiembre
5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the testators eye
operation. Said codicil was likewise not read by Brigido Alvarado and was read in the same manner as with the previously executed
will.
When the notarial will was submitted to the court for probate, Cesar Alvarado filed his opposition as he said that the will was not
executed and attested as required by law; that the testator was insane or mentally incapacitated due to senility and old age; that the
will was executed under duress, or influence of fear or threats; that it was procured by undue pressure and influence on the part of
the beneficiary; and that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick.
Whether or not notarial will of Brigido Alvarado should be admitted to probate despite allegations of defects in the execution and
attestation thereof as testator was allegedly blind at the time of execution and the double-reading requirement under Art. 808 of
the NCC was not complied with.
YES. The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial
requirements of law in order to insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do
not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the testators will. Cesar Alvardo was correct in asserting
that his father was not totally blind (of counting fingers at 3 feet) when the will and codicil were executed, but he can be so
considered for purposes of Art. 808. That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. However, in the case at bar, there was
substantial compliance where the purpose of the law has been satisfied: that of making the provisions known to the testator who is
blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate) and enabling him to object if they do not accord with his
wishes.
Rino read the testators 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 acknowledgment take place.
There is no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the
testator. With four persons, mostly known to the testator, 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 were the terms actually appearing on the
typewritten documents.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will to himself (as
when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance
with his wishes. Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of law in order to insure the
authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when
taken into account, may only defeat the testators will.
In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres De Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus vs. Andres De Jesus Jr.
Facts:
After the death of spouses Andres and Bibiana de Jesus, a special proceeding was filed by Simeon Roxas Bibianas brother. Simeon
was appointed administrator. He then delivered to the court what purported to be Bibianas holographic Will. He testified during the
probate that after his appointment, he found a notebook belonging to Bibiana and that on certain pages therein was a letter-win
addressed to her children and entirely written and signed in her handwriting. The will is dated "FEB./61 " and states: "This is my win
which I want to be respected although it is not written by a lawyer. ...
This was corroborated by Bibianas children, Pedro and Manuel, who testified that it was the holographic will of their mother. They
both recognized the handwriting of their mother and positively Identified her signature. They further testified that their deceased
mother understood English, the language in which the holographic Will is written, and that the date "FEB./61 " was the date when
said Will was executed by their mother.
The probate was allowed. Luz Roxas de Jesus then filed a motion for reconsideration alleging inter alia that the alleged holographic
Will was not dated as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code. She contended that the law requires that the Will should contain the
day, month and year of its execution and that this should be strictly complied with.
The probate was disallowed on the ground that the word "dated" has generally been held to include the month, day, and year. The
dispositive portion of the order reads:
Issue:
WON the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the
Article 810 of the Civil Code.
Held:
YES. If the testator, in executing his Will, attempts to comply with all the requisites, although compliance is not literal, it is sufficient
if the objective or purpose sought to be accomplished by such requisite is actually attained by the form followed by the testator.
The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution
of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. ...
In particular, a complete date is required to provide against such contingencies as that of two competing Wills executed on the same
day, or of a testator becoming insane on the day on which a Will was executed. There is no such contingency in this case.
There was no evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there any substitution of Wins and Testaments. There is no
question that the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus was entirely written, dated, and signed by the testatrix
herself and in a language known to her. There is also no question as to its genuineness and due execution. All the children of the
testatrix agree on the genuineness of the holographic Will of their mother and that she had the testamentary capacity at the time of
the execution of said Will. The objection interposed by the oppositor-respondent Luz Henson is that the holographic Will is fatally
defective because the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will is not sufficient compliance with Article 810 of the Civil
Code. This objection is too technical to be entertained.
As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and year of its execution. However, when as in the
case at bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established
and the only issue is whether or not the date "FEB./61" appearing on the holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of
the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance.
Kalaw vs. Relova
Facts:
Gregorio Kalaw, claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased sister, Natividad K. Kalaw, filed a petition for the probate of her
holographic Will executed on December 24, 1968.
The holographic Will, as first written, named Rosa Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix as her sole heir. Rosa then opposed the probate
alleging that the holographic Will contained alterations, corrections, and insertions without the proper authentication by the full
signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code. Rosas position was that the holographic Will, as first written,
should be given effect and probated so that she could be the sole heir thereunder.
The court in its ruling, read an NBI report pertaining to the holographic will,that everything in it was made by one and the same
person. It was declared as Natividads handwriting. However, the court found the provision of Article 814 of the Civil Code is
applicable to the said will. So since the insertions, alterations and/or additions in that document Exhibit "C" were not authenticated
by the full signature of the testatrix Natividad, the probate was denied.
Gregorio moved reconsideration arguing that since the alterations and/or insertions were the testatrix, the denial to probate of her
holographic Will would be contrary to her right of testamentary disposition. This was denied on the ground that "Article 814 of the
Civil Code being , clear and explicit, (it) requires no necessity for interpretation."
Issue:
WON the original unaltered text after subsequent alterations and insertions were voided by the Trial Court for lack of authentication
by the full signature of the testatrix, should be probated or not, with Rosa as sole heir.
Held:
Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will litem not been
noted under his signature, ... the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased,
corrected or interlined. However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial provision, which was
altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full
signature of the testator, the effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in
the Will after that which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming
change of mind of the testatrix. But that change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the
manner required by law by affixing her full signature,