VILLACORTE.

CELSO ICASIANO, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO, oppositors-appellants.

G.R. No. L-18979, 11 S 422, June 30, 1964

REYES, J.B.L., J .:

FACTS: Petitioner Celso Icasiano filed a petition for the allowance and admission to probate of
the alleged will of Josefa Villacorte, deceased. Petitioner also filed a motion for the admission of
an amended and supplemental petition, alleging that the decedent left a will executed in duplicate
with all the legal requirements, and that he was, on that date, submitting the signed duplicate
which he allegedly found only after the filing of the petition. Respondent then filed her
opposition; and she petitioned to have herself appointed as a special administrator. The records
show that the original of the will, which was surrendered simultaneously with the filing of the
petition consists of five pages. While signed at the end and in every page, it does not contain the
signature of one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose V. Natividad, on page three thereof; but the
duplicate copy attached to the amended and supplemental petition is signed by the testatrix and
her three attesting witnesses in each and every page.

Witness Natividad who testified on his failure to sign page three of the original, admits that he
may have lifted two pages instead of one when he signed the same, but affirmed that page 3was
signed in his presence.

Oppositors-appellants in turn introduced expert testimony to the effect that the signatures of the
testatrix in the duplicate are not genuine nor were they written or affixed on the same occasion as
the original, and further aver that granting that the documents were genuine, they were executed
through mistake and with undue influence and pressure because the testatrix was deceived into
adopting as her last will and testament the wishes of those who will stand to benefit from the
provisions of the will.

ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of one of the instrumental witnessess signature on a page of
the original copy of the will is fatal where the duplicate has the complete signatures of the
testator and all witnesses on every page.

RULING: The Court held that the testatrix signed both original and duplicate copies of the will
spontaneously, on the same in the presence of the three attesting witnesses, the notary public
who acknowledged the will; and Atty. Samson, who actually prepared the documents. Moreover,
there is no adequate evidence of fraud or undue influence. The fact that some heirs are more
favored than others is proof of neither.
The failure of one witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament, due to the
simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is not per se sufficient to justify denial
of probate. Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured not only by the fact that the
testatrix and two other witnesses did sign the defective page, but also by its bearing the
coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public before whom the testament was ratified by
testatrix and all three witnesses.

Furthermore, that the failure of witness Natividad to sign page three (3) was entirely
through pure oversight is shown by his own testimony as well as by the duplicate copy of the
will, which bears a complete set of signatures in every page.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs
against appellants.



DOROTEA PEREZ, (deceased): APOLONIO TABOADA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. AVELINO S. ROSAL, as Judge of Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte,
(Branch III, Maasin), respondent.
G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982

GUTIERREZ, JR. J .:
Facts: The last will and testament of the late Dorotea Perez, written in the Cebuano-Visayan
dialect consists of two pages. The first page contains the entire testamentary dispositions and is
signed at the end or bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the
three (3) instrumental witnesses. The second page which contains the attestation clause and the
acknowledgment is signed at the end of the attestation clause by the three (3) attesting witnesses
and at the left hand margin by the testatrix.

The petition filed for the probate of said will was denied by the trial court for want of a formality
in its execution.

Issue: For the validity of a formal notarial will, does Article 805 of the Civil Code require that
the testatrix and all the three instrumental and attesting witnesses sign at the end of the will and
in the presence of the testatrix and of one another?

Ruling: Under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will must be subscribed or signed at its end by
the testator himself or by the testator's name written by another person in his presence, and by his
express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence
of the testator and of one another.

Attestation and subscription are two different things. Attestation consists in witnessing the
testator's execution of the will in order to see and take note mentally that those things are, done
which the statute requires for the execution of a will and that the signature of the testator exists
as a fact. On the other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names upon the same
paper for the purpose of Identification of such paper as the will which was executed by the
testator. Insofar as the requirement of subscription is concerned, it is our considered view that the
will in this case was subscribed in a manner which fully satisfies the purpose of Identification.

The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of the will
attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of
the will as embodied in the attestation clause.

WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby granted. The orders of the respondent court which
denied the probate of tile will, the motion for reconsideration of the denial of probate, and the
motion for appointment of a special administrator are set aside. The respondent court is ordered
to allow the probate of the wig and to conduct further proceedings in accordance with this
decision.

FELIX AZUELA, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO substituted by ERNESTO G.
CASTILLO, Respondents.
G.R. 122880, 12 April 2006

TINGA, J.:

FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition with the trial court for the probate of a notarial will
purportedly executed by Eugenia E. Igsolo on June 10, 1981 and notarized on the same day. The
will consisted of two (2) pages and was written in Filipino. The attestation clause did not state
the number of pages and it was not signed by the attesting witnesses at the bottom thereof. The
said witnesses affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of the will though.
Geralda Castillo opposed the petition, claiming that the will was a forgery and that the true
purpose of its emergence was so it could be utilized as a defense in several court cases filed by
oppositor against petitioner, particularly for forcible entry and usurpation of real property, all
centering on petitioners right to occupy the properties of the decedent.
3
It also asserted that
contrary to the representations of petitioner, the decedent was actually survived by 12 legitimate
heirs, namely her grandchildren, who were then residing abroad. She also argued that the will
was not executed and attested to in accordance with law. She pointed out that the decedents
signature did not appear on the second page of the will, and the will was not properly
acknowledged.

Azuela argues that the requirement under Article 805 of the Civil Code that the number of
pages used in a notarial will be stated in the attestation clause is merely directory, rather than
mandatory, and thus susceptible to what he termed as the substantial compliance rule.

ISSUE: Whether or not the subject will is valid.

RULING: The court held that a will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of
pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will whose attestation clause is not
signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will
which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of
these defects is sufficient to deny probate.

The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on which the will was written
remains a fatal flaw. This requirement aims at safeguarding the will against possible
interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and thus preventing any increase or
decrease in the pages. In this case, however, there could have been no substantial compliance
with the requirements under Art. 805 of the Civil Code since there is no statement in the
attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the number of pages which comprise the
will. The subject will cannot be considered to have been validly attested to by the instrumental
witnesses. While the signatures of the instrumental witnesses appear on the left-hand margin of
the will, they do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause. Art. 805 particularly
segregates the requirement that the instrumental witnesses sign each page of the will, from the
requisite that the will be attested and subscribed by them. The signatures on the left-hand corner
of every page signify, among others, that the witnesses are aware that the page they are signing
forms part of the will.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, JUAN CABALLERO,
AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, HELEN CABALLERO, SANTOS
CABALLERO, PABLO CABALLERO, VICTOR RAGA, MAURICIA RAGA, QUIRICA
RAGA, RUPERTO ABAPO, represented herein by his Attorney-in-Fact, ARMSTICIA *
ABAPO VELANO, and CONSESO CANEDA, represented herein by his heirs, JESUS
CANEDA, NATIVIDAD CANEDA and ARTURO CANEDA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM CABRERA, as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Mateo Caballero, respondents.
G.R. No. 103554, May 28, 1993
REGALADO, J.:

FACTS: Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children and already in the twilight years of
his life, executed a last will and testament before three attesting witnesses, namely, Cipriano
Labuca, Gregorio Cabando and Flaviano Toregosa. It was declared therein, among other things,
that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to
Presentacion Gaviola, Angel Abatayo, Rogelio Abatayo, Isabelito Abatayo, Benoni G. Cabrera
and Marcosa Alcantara, all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator. , Mateo Caballero
himself filed a petition docketed as Special Proceeding No. 3899-R before Branch II of the then
Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking the probate of his last will and testament.

The petitioners appeared as oppositors and objected to the allowance of the testator's will on the
ground that the attestation clause, in contravention of the express requirements of the third
paragraph of Article 805 of the Civil Code for attestation clauses, fails to specifically state the
fact that the the testator signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the witnesses and that
they, the witnesses, likewise signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator
and of each other.

ISSUE: Whether or not the attestation clause contained in the last will and testament complies
with the requirements of Article 805, in relation to Article 809, of the Civil Code.

RULING: Article 805 provides that the attestation clause should state (1) the number of the
pages used upon which the will is written; (2) that the testator signed, or expressly caused
another to sign, the will and every page thereof in the presence of the attesting witnesses; and (3)
that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages, and
that said witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and
of one another. Failure to state the said facts shall invalidate the will.

In the present case, the attestation clause, while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will
and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well as 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.

The defects and imperfections of a will, with respect to the form of the attestation or the
language employed therein, would not render a will invalid should it be proved that the will was
really executed and attested in compliance with Article 805.

The foregoing considerations do not apply where the attestation clause totally omits the fact that
the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the presence of the testator and
of each other. In such a situation, the defect is not only in the form or language of the attestation
clause but the total absence of a specific element required by Article 805 to be specifically stated
in the attestation clause of a will.

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 Special Proceeding No. 3899-R (Petition for the Probate of the Last Will
and Testament of Mateo Caballero) and to REVIVE Special Proceeding No. 3965-R (In the
matter of the Intestate Estate of Mateo Caballero) as an active case and thereafter duly proceed
with the settlement of the estate of the said decedent.

AGAPITA N. CRUZ, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUDGE GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, Presiding Judge of Branch I, Court of First
Instance of Cebu, and MANUEL B. LUGAY, respondents.
G.R. No. L-32213 November 26, 1973
ESGUERRA, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner-appellant Agapita N. Cruz, the surviving spouse of the said decease opposed
the allowance of the will alleging the will was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation
and undue influence; that the said instrument was execute without the testator having been fully
informed of the content thereof, particularly as to what properties he was disposing and that the
supposed last will and testament was not executed in accordance with law. Notwithstanding her
objection, the Court allowed the probate of the said last will and testament. Hence this appeal by
certiorari which was given due course.
Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto, namely Deogracias T. Jamaloas Jr., Dr. Francisco
Paares and Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr., one of them, the last named, is at the same time the
Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to have been acknowledged. Reduced to
simpler terms, the question was attested and subscribed by at least three credible witnesses in the
presence of the testator and of each other, considering that the three attesting witnesses must
appear before the notary public to acknowledge the same. As the third witness is the notary
public himself, petitioner argues that the result is that only two witnesses appeared before the
notary public to acknowledge the will.
On the other hand, private respondent-appellee, Manuel B. Lugay, who is the supposed executor
of the will, following the reasoning of the trial court, maintains that there is substantial
compliance with the legal requirement of having at least three attesting witnesses even if the
notary public acted as one of them.
FACTS: Whether the supposed last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz was executed in
accordance with law, particularly Articles 805 and 806 of the new Civil Code, the first requiring
at least three credible witnesses to attest and subscribe to the will, and the second requiring the
testator and the witnesses to acknowledge the will before a notary public.
RULING: After weighing the merits of the conflicting claims of the parties, the Court sustained
that of the appellant that the last will and testament in question was not executed in accordance
with law. The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the
third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the
will. To acknowledge before means to avow (Javellana v. Ledesma, 97 Phil. 258, 262; Castro v.
Castro, 100 Phil. 239, 247); to own as genuine, to assent, to admit; and "before" means in front
or preceding in space or ahead of. (The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English
Language, p. 72; Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, p. 252;
Webster's New International Dictionary 2d. p. 245.) Consequently, if the third witness were the
notary public himself, he would have to avow assent, or admit his having signed the will in front
of himself. This cannot be done because he cannot split his personality into two so that one will
appear before the other to acknowledge his participation in the making of the will. To permit
such a situation to obtain would be sanctioning a sheer absurdity.
Furthermore, the function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or
immoral arrangement Balinon v. De Leon, 50 0. G. 583.) That function would defeated if the
notary public were one of the attesting instrumental witnesses. For them he
would be interested sustaining the validity of the will as it directly involves him and the validity
of his own act. It would place him in inconsistent position and the very purpose of
acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud (Report of Code Commission p. 106-107), would
be thwarted.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the probate
of the last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz is declared not valid and hereby set aside.
Guerrero vs Bihis
G.R. No. 174144. APRIL 17, 2007
CORONA, J.;
FACTS: Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner Bella A. Guerrero and respondent
Resurreccion A. Bihis, died. Guerrero filed for probate in the RTC Quezon City. Respondent
Bihis opposed her elder sisters petition on the following grounds: the will was not executed and
attested as required by law; its attestation clause and acknowledgment did not comply with the
requirement of the law; the signature of the testatrix was procured by fraud and petitioner and her
children procure the will through undue and improper pressure and influence.
Petitioner Guerrero was appointed special administratix. Respondent opposed petitioners
appointment but subsequently withdrew her opposition. The trial court denied the probate of the
will ruling that Article 806 of the Civil Code was not complied with because the was
acknowledged by the testatrix and the witnesses at the testatrixs residence at No. 40 Kanlaon
Street, Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a commissioned notary public for
and in Caloocan City.
ISSUE: Does the will acknowledged by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses before a
notary public acting outside the place of his commission satisfy the requirement under Article
806 of the Civil Code.
HELD: No. one of the formalities required by law in connection with the execution of a notarial
will is that it must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. This
formal requirement is one of the indispensable requisites for the validity of a will. In other
words, a notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for probate.
The notarial law provides:
Section 240. Territorial jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be co-
extensive in the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila shall be co-
extensive with said city. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the
limits of his jurisdiction.
The compulsory language of Article 806 of the Civil Code was not complied with and the
interdiction of Article 240 of the Notarial Law was breached. Ineluctably, the acts of the
testatrix, her witnesses and Atty. Directo were all completely void.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA, Petitioner,
- versus
JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 157451, 16 December 2005
PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTSL: Placido toiled and lived for a long time in the United States until he finally reached
retirement. In 1980, he finally came home to stay in the Philippines, and lived in the house and
lot which he owned in common with his sister Ciriaca Valmonte. Two years after his arrival
from the United States, and at the age of 80 he wed Josefina who was then 28 years old. But in a
little more than two years of wedded bliss, Placido died on October 8, 1984.
Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in English and consisting of two (2)
pages wherein he left all of his properties to his wife Josefina. But the allowance to probate of
the will was opposed by Leticia Valmonte, one of the siblings of the deceased. One of the
grounds raised in the opposition was the mental capacity of the testator, alleging that at the time
of the execution of the will the testator was already 83 years old and was no longer of sound
mind.
The trial court denied the probate of the will. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the
court and admitted the will to probate.
ISSUE: Whether or not Placido Valmonte has testamentary capacity at the time he allegedly
executed the subject will
RULING: According to Article 799, the three things that the testator must have the ability to
know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the nature of the estate to be disposed
of, (2) the proper objects of the testator's bounty, and (3) the character of the testamentary act.
Applying this test to the present case, the Court finds that the appellate court was correct in
holding that Placido had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of his will.
It must be noted that despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify accurately the kinds
of property he owned, the extent of his shares in them and even their locations. As regards the
proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. As
stated earlier, the omission of some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity.
There being no showing of fraud in its execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.
Worth reiterating in determining soundness of mind is Alsua-Betts v. CA, which held thus:
"Between the highest degree of soundness of mind and memory which unquestionably carries
with it full testamentary capacity, and that degrees of mental aberration generally known as
insanity or idiocy, there are numberless degrees of mental capacity or incapacity and while on
one hand it has been held that mere weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from disease of body,
or from age, will not render a person incapable of making a will; a weak or feebleminded person
may make a valid will, provided he has understanding and memory sufficient to enable him to
know what he is about to do and how or to whom he is disposing of his property. To constitute a
sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or
unshattered by disease or otherwise. It has been held that testamentary incapacity does not
necessarily require that a person shall actually be insane or of unsound mind."
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals areAFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., Presiding Justice, HON. MA. ROSARIO QUETULIO
LOSA and HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Associate Justices, Intermediate Appellate
Court, First Division (Civil Cases), and BAYANI MA. RINO, respondents.
G.R. No. 74695, 226 S 347, September 14, 1993
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS: Seventy nine year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled "Huling
Habilin" wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner) and expressly revoked a
previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate. As testified to by the three
instrumental witnesses, the notary public and by private respondent who were present at the
execution, the testator did not read the final draft of the will himself. Instead, private respondent,
as the lawyer who drafted the eight-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of the
testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The latter four followed the
reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them. Meanwhile, Brigido's
holographic will was subsequently admitted to probate on 9 December 1977.
On the 29th day of the same month, a codicil entitled "Kasulatan ng Pagbabago sa Ilang
Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na may Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido
Alvarado" was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the
testator's eye operation. Brigido was then suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and
revocatory clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not
personally read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who read it aloud
in his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same as those of the
notarial will) and the notary public who followed the reading using their own copies.
A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed upon the testator's death on 3
January 1979 by private respondent as executor. Petitioner, in turn, filed an Opposition.
Subsequently, a Probate Order was issued. Upon appeal, it was contended that the deceased was
blind within the meaning of the law at the time his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached
thereto was executed; that since the reading required by Art. 808 of the Civil Code was
admittedly not complied with, probate of the deceased's last will and codicil should have been
denied.
The Court of Appeals rendered the decision under review with the following findings: that
Brigido Alvarado was not blind at the time his last will and codicil were executed; that assuming
his blindness, the reading requirement of Art. 808 was substantially complied with when both
documents were read aloud to the testator with each of the three instrumental witnesses and the
notary public following the reading with their respective copies of the instruments. The appellate
court then concluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to the letter, there was substantial
compliance since its purpose of making known to the testator the contents of the drafted will was
served.
ISSUE: Was the double-reading requirement of Article 808 complied with?
RULING: Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be
read twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary public before
whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known to the incapacitated testator
the contents of the document before signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anything
is contrary to his instructions.
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead of the notary public and an
instrumental witness, it was the lawyer (private respondent) who drafted the eight-paged will and
the five-paged codicil who read the same aloud to the testator, and read them only once, not
twice as Art. 808 requires.
Private respondent however insists that there was substantial compliance and that the single
reading suffices for purposes of the law. The Court sustained private respondent's stand. The
Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial compliance is acceptable where the
purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the
execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are
never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.
In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud in the presence of
the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and subsequent thereto,
the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read corresponded with his instructions.
Only then did the signing and acknowledgement take place. There is no evidence, and petitioner
does not so allege, that the contents of the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known and
communicated to the testator. On the contrary, with respect to the "Huling Habilin," the day of
the execution was not the first time that Brigido had affirmed the truth and authenticity of the
contents of the draft. The uncontradicted testimony of Atty. Rino is that Brigido Alvarado
already acknowledged that the will was drafted in accordance with his expressed wishes even
prior to 5 November 1977 when Atty. Rino went to the testator's residence precisely for the
purpose of securing his conformity.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of respondent Court of
Appeals dated 11 April 1986 is AFFIRMED. Considering the length of time that this case has
remained pending, this decision is immediately executory. Costs against petitioner.

Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., Presiding Justice, HON. MA. ROSARIO QUETULIO
LOSA and HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Associate Justices, Intermediate Appellate
Court, First Division (Civil Cases), and BAYANI MA. RINO, respondents.
G.R. No. 74695, 226 S 347, September 14, 1993
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS: Seventy nine year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled "Huling
Habilin" wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner) and expressly revoked a
previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate. As testified to by the three
instrumental witnesses, the notary public and by private respondent who were present at the
execution, the testator did not read the final draft of the will himself. Instead, private respondent,
as the lawyer who drafted the eight-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of the
testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The latter four followed the
reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them. Meanwhile, Brigido's
holographic will was subsequently admitted to probate on 9 December 1977.
On the 29th day of the same month, a codicil entitled "Kasulatan ng Pagbabago sa Ilang
Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na may Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido
Alvarado" was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the
testator's eye operation. Brigido was then suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and
revocatory clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not
personally read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who read it aloud
in his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same as those of the
notarial will) and the notary public who followed the reading using their own copies.
A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed upon the testator's death on 3
January 1979 by private respondent as executor. Petitioner, in turn, filed an Opposition.
Subsequently, a Probate Order was issued. Upon appeal, it was contended that the deceased was
blind within the meaning of the law at the time his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached
thereto was executed; that since the reading required by Art. 808 of the Civil Code was
admittedly not complied with, probate of the deceased's last will and codicil should have been
denied.
The Court of Appeals rendered the decision under review with the following findings: that
Brigido Alvarado was not blind at the time his last will and codicil were executed; that assuming
his blindness, the reading requirement of Art. 808 was substantially complied with when both
documents were read aloud to the testator with each of the three instrumental witnesses and the
notary public following the reading with their respective copies of the instruments. The appellate
court then concluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to the letter, there was substantial
compliance since its purpose of making known to the testator the contents of the drafted will was
served.
ISSUE: Was the double-reading requirement of Article 808 complied with?
RULING: Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be
read twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary public before
whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known to the incapacitated testator
the contents of the document before signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anything
is contrary to his instructions.
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead of the notary public and an
instrumental witness, it was the lawyer (private respondent) who drafted the eight-paged will and
the five-paged codicil who read the same aloud to the testator, and read them only once, not
twice as Art. 808 requires.
Private respondent however insists that there was substantial compliance and that the single
reading suffices for purposes of the law. The Court sustained private respondent's stand. The
Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial compliance is acceptable where the
purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the
execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are
never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.
In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud in the presence of
the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and subsequent thereto,
the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read corresponded with his instructions.
Only then did the signing and acknowledgement take place. There is no evidence, and petitioner
does not so allege, that the contents of the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known and
communicated to the testator. On the contrary, with respect to the "Huling Habilin," the day of
the execution was not the first time that Brigido had affirmed the truth and authenticity of the
contents of the draft. The uncontradicted testimony of Atty. Rino is that Brigido Alvarado
already acknowledged that the will was drafted in accordance with his expressed wishes even
prior to 5 November 1977 when Atty. Rino went to the testator's residence precisely for the
purpose of securing his conformity.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of respondent Court of
Appeals dated 11 April 1986 is AFFIRMED. Considering the length of time that this case has
remained pending, this decision is immediately executory. Costs against petitioner.
ROSA K. KALAW, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN RELOVA, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Batangas, Branch VI,
Lipa City, and GREGORIO K. KALAW, respondents.
G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
FACTS: On September 1, 1971, private respondent GREGORIO K. KALAW, claiming to be
the sole heir of his deceased sister, Natividad K. Kalaw, filed a petition for the probate of her
holographic Will executed on December 24, 1968.
The holographic Will, as first written, named ROSA K. Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix as her sole
heir. Hence, on November 10, 1971, petitioner ROSA K. Kalaw opposed probate alleging, in
substance, that the holographic Will contained alterations, corrections, and insertions without the
proper authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil
Code.
ROSA's position was that the holographic Will, as first written, should be given effect and
probated so that she could be the sole heir thereunder.
After trial, respondent Judge denied probate.
ISSUE: Whether or not the alterations, insertions, and/or additions in the will affect its validity
RULING: Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the
testator in a holographic Will litem not been noted under his signature, ... the Will is not thereby
invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or
interlined.
However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial
provision, which was altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration
did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect
must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the
Will after that which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first written should be given
efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. But that change of mind can
neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by
affixing her full signature.
WHEREFORE, this Petition is hereby dismissed and the Decision of respondent Judge, dated
September 3, 1973, is hereby affirmed in toto. No costs.
SOFIA J. NEPOMUCENO vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RUFINA
GOMEZ, OSCAR JUGO ANG, CARMELITA JUGO.
G.R. No. L-62952 ; October 9, 1985
GUTIERREZ, JR., (ponente)
FACTS: On July 16, 1974, Martin Jugo died leaving a duly executed will. Under the will, the
testator appointed Sofia Nepomuceno as his sole and only executor of his estate. Further, the will
expressly stated that he was legally married to Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate
children, Oscar and Carmelita, but since 1952, he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded
wife and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. In fact, on December 5, 1952, the
testator and Sofia were married in Tarlac before the Justice of the Peace. The testator devised to
his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire
estate and the free portion petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition for probate of the will. The
legal wife, Rufina and her children filed an opposition. In 1976, the lower court denied the
probate of the Will on the ground that as the testator admitted in his will to cohabiting with the
petitioner from December 1952 until his death on July 16, 1974, the Will's admission to probate
will be an idle exercise because on the face of the Will, the invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is
evident.
The petitioner appealed to the respondent-appellate court. The respondent court set aside the
decision of the declaring the will to be valid except the devise in favor of the petitioner pursuant
to Article 739 in relation with Article 1028 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner may validly inherit from the will.
RULING: No, the Supreme Court held that the will contained provisions which are dubious and
because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate the trial court acted correctly in
passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been established. The
probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void.
Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even
before it is probated, the court should meet the issue. The denial of petitioner of not having any
knowledge of the previous marriage was held to lack credibility as it was inherently improbable
for being contrary to the experience in common life and ordinary instincts which would prompt a
person to question why a woman would not bother to inquire if the man that she was going to
marry was already married to another, knowing that the testator already had children. The
prohibition in Article 739 of the Civil Code is against the making of a donation between persons
who are living in adultery or concubinage. It is the donation, which becomes void. The giver
cannot give even assuming that the recipient may receive. The very wordings of the Will
invalidate the legacy because the testator admitted he was disposing the properties to a person
with whom he had been living in concubinage.


REMEDIOS NUGUID, petitioner and appellant,
vs.
FELIX NUGUID and PAZ SALONGA NUGUID, oppositors and appellees.

No. L-23445, June 23, 1966
SANCHEZ, J.:
FACTS: Rosario died without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her
legitimate parents Felix and Paz, and 6 brothers and sisters.
Remedios, one of the sister filed in court a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario
instituting the former as the sole, universal heir of all her properties. She prayed that said will be
admitted to probate and that letter of administration be issued to her.
Felix and Paz opposed to the probate of the will on the ground that by the institution of
Remedios as universal heir of the deceased, oppositors who are compulsory heirs in the direct
ascending line were illegally preterited and that in consequence, the institution is void.
Article 854 provides that preterition of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line,
whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall
annul the institution of heir.
Petitioners contention is that the present is a case of ineffective disinheritance rather than one of
preterition drawing the conclusion that Article 854 does not apply in the case at bar.
ISSUE: Whether or not the institution of one of the sister of the deceased as the sole, universal
heir preterited the compulsory heirs.
HELD: Yes. Where the deceased left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate, but she left
forced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents, and her holographic will does not
explicitly disinherit them but simply omits their names altogether, the case is one of preterition
of the parents, not a case of ineffective disinheritance.
Preterition consists in the omission in the testators will of the forced heirs or anyone of them,
either because they are not mentioned therein, or, through mentioned, they are neither instituted
as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Disinheritance, in turn, is a testamentary disposition
depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law.
Where the one sentence will institutes the petitioner as the sole, universal heir and preterits the
parents of the testatrix, and it contains no specific legacies or bequests, such universal institution
of petitioner, by itself, is void. And intestate succession ensues.
WHEREFORE, upon the view we take of this case, the order of November 8, 1963 under review
is hereby affirmed. No costs allowed. So ordered.

EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL, petitioners,
vs.
EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, and UEFEMIA
PATIGAS, respondents.
G.R. No. 123486 August 12, 1999
PARDO, J.:
FACTS: Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees and legatees of
the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal, filed a petition for probate
of the holographic will of the deceased, who died on January 16, 1990. They claimed that the
deceased Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal, was of sound and disposing mind when she executed
the will on August 30, 1978, that there was no fraud, undue influence, and duress employed in
the person of the testator, and will was written voluntarily.
Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an opposition to the petition for probate,
alleging that the holographic will was a forgery and that the same is even illegible. This gives an
impression that a "third hand" of an interested party other than the "true hand" of Matilde Seo
Vda. de Ramonal executed the holographic will. They argued that the repeated dates
incorporated or appearing on will after every disposition is out of the ordinary. If the deceased
was the one who executed the will, and was not forced, the dates and the signature should appear
at the bottom after the dispositions, as regularly done and not after every disposition. And
assuming that the holographic will is in the handwriting of the deceased, it was procured by
undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries, or through fraud and
trickery.
Respondents presented six (6) witnesses and various documentary evidence
ISSUE: Whether or not the requirement for the probate of a contested holographic will, that at
least three witnesses explicitly declares that the signature in the will is the genuine signature of
the testator is mandatory.
RULING: In this petition, the petitioners ask whether the provisions of Article 811 of the Civil
Code are permissive or mandatory. The article provides, as a requirement for the probate of a
contested holographic will, that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the signature in the
will is the genuine signature of the testator.
The Supreme Court is convinced, based on the language used, that Article 811 of the Civil Code
is mandatory. The word "shall" connotes a mandatory order. It ruled that "shall" in a statute
commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and
that the presumption is that the word "shall," when used in a statute is mandatory.
Laws are enacted to achieve a goal intended and to guide against an evil or mischief that aims to
prevent. In the case at bar, the goal to achieve is to give effect to the wishes of the deceased and
the evil to be prevented is the possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit will
employ means to defeat the wishes of the testator.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE. The records are ordered
remanded to the court of origin with instructions to allow petitioners to adduce evidence in
support of their opposition to the probate of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo
vda. de Ramonal.