1.

Garcia vs Lacuesta

Facts: Antero Mercado left a will. 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 was alleged to have written a cross immediately
after his name.

Issue: Whether or not the attestation clause in the will is valid.

Held: No. 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. Also, the
cross appearing on the will is not the usual signature of Antero Mercado or even one of the
ways by which he signed his name.

2. Payad vs. Tolentino

Facts: A will was prepared by Attorney Marciano Almario in favor of Victorio Payad at the
request of the testatrix Leoncia Tolentino. The will was written by Attorney Almario in his own
handwriting, and was written in Spanish because he had been instructed to do so by the
testatrix. The testatrix approved all the contents of the document and requested Attorney
Almario to write her name where she had to sign by means of her thumbmark.

Issue: Was it necessary that the attestation clause state that the testatrix caused Atty. Almario
to write her name at her express direction?

Held: No. The evidence of record establishes the fact the Leoncia Tolentino, assisted by
Attorney Almario, placed her thumb mark on each and every page of the questioned will and
that said attorney merely wrote her name to indicate the place where she placed said thumb
mark. In other words Attorney Almario did not sign for the testatrix. She signed by placing her
thumb mark on each and every page thereof. “A statute requiring a will to be ‘signed’ is satisfied
if the signature is made by the testator’s mark.” (Quoted by this court from 28 R. C. L., p. 117;
De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil., 104, 108.)

3. Jaboneta vs. Gustilo

Facts: Macario Jaboneta executed a will and called Julio Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and
Isabelo Jena as witnesses. The will was signed in the following order: Jaboneta, Jena,
Jalbeuna, Javellana. But when Javellana was signing the will, Isabelo Jena left the room.

Issue: Whether or not Javellana signed in presence of all the witnesses.

Held. Yes. The fact that Jena was still in the room when he saw Javellana moving his hand and
pen in the act of affixing his signature to the will, taken together with the testimony of the
remaining witnesses which shows that Javellana did in fact there and then sign his name to the
will, convinced the court that the signature was affixed in the presence of Jena.
The purpose of a statutory requirement that the witness sign in the presence of the
testator is said to be that the testator may have ocular evidence of the identity of the instrument
subscribed by the witness and himself, and the generally accepted tests of presence are vision
and mental apprehension. This principle on as between the testator and the witnesses are
equally applicable in determining whether the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence
of each other, as required by the statute.
4. Nera vs. Rimando

Facts: When a will was being signed, it was alleged that the testator and some subscribing
witnesses were in the inner room while the other subscribing witnesses were in the outer room.
What separates the inner room from the outer room was a doorway which was hung a curtain.

Issue: Whether one of the subscribing witnesses was present in the small room where it was
executed at the time when the testator and the other subscribing witnesses attached their
signatures.

Yes: The court held that the true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the
execution of a will is not whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they might have
been seen each other sign, had they chosen to do so, considering their mental and physical
condition and position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each signature.
In this case it was not proven that the other witnesses was indeed in the outer room and
was separated by a curtain. If such was the case then the will would be invalid.

6. Taboada vs. Rosal

Facts: Dorotea Perez left a will consisting 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. However,
the attestation clause of the will failed to state the number of pages used in the will.

Issue: Whether or not the will should be granted probate for failing to state the number of pages
used in attestation clause of the will.

Held: Yes. The law must be interpreted liberally. 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. Also, the acknowledgment itself states that "This Last Will and Testament consists of
two pages including this page"

7. Icasiano vs. Icasiano

Facts: Josefa Villacorte executed a last will and testament in duplicate. In the original will
consisting of five pages, and while signed at the end and in every page, does not contain the
signature of one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose V. Natividad, on page three (3) thereof;
but the duplicate copy is signed by the testatrix and her three attesting witnesses in each and
every page.

Issue: Whether or not the will should be granted probate for failure of one witness to sign page 3
of the will.

Held: Yes. 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.
 The failure of witness Natividad to sign page three (3) was entirely through pure oversight
can be shown in his own testimony as well as by the duplicate copy of the will, which bears a
complete set of signatures in every page.

8. Calde vs CA

Facts: Decedent, Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang, left a Last Will and Testament and a Codicil
thereto. Both documents contained the thumbmarks of decedent. They were also signed by
three (3) attesting witnesses each, and acknowledged before Tomas A. Tolete, then the
Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mt. Province.

Issue: Whether or not, based on the evidence submitted, both decedent’s Last Will and
Testament, and its Codicil were subscribed by the instrumental witnesses on separate
occasions and should be denied probate.

Held: Yes. As sharply noted by respondent appellate court, the signatures of some attesting
witnesses in decedent’s will and its codicil were written in blue ink, while the others were in
black. This discrepancy 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.

9. Cagro vs. Cagro

Facts: Vicente Cagro allegedly executed a will. The attestation clause was not signed by the
attesting witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not the will should be granted probate for failure of the 3 witnesses to sign the
attestation clause.

Held: No. If the attestation clause is not signed by the attesting witnesses at the bottom thereof,
the will is void since omission negates the participation of said witnesses.

10. Cruz vs. Calugay

Facts: The late Valente Z. Cruz executed a will. Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto,
namely Deogracias T. Jamaloas Jr., Dr. Francisco Pañares 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. 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.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Teyes can be instrumental witness being also the notary public
before whom the will is to be acknowledge.

Held: No. 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, to own as genuine, to assent, to admit; and
"before" means in front or preceding in space or ahead of. 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.

11. Cesar Alvarado vs Ramon Gaviola

GR No. 74695 – Septemeber 14, 1993
Facts:
• 79-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 before the Regional Trial Court.
• 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-page 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 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 by private respondent as executor with the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner, in turn,
filed an Opposition on the following grounds: that the will sought to be probated was not
executed and attested as required by law; that the testator was insane or otherwise mentally
incapacitated to make a will at the time of its execution due to senility and old age; that the will
was executed under duress, or influence of fear and threats; that it was procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary who stands to get the lion's share
of the testator's estate; and lastly, that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or
trick.
• When the oppositor (petitioner) failed to substantiate the grounds relied upon in the
Opposition, a Probate Order was issued from which an appeal was made to respondent court.
• Later, 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:
• Whether or not the double-reading requirement of said article complied with.
Held:
• 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.
• This 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 to the draft.

12. Simeon Roxas vs Andres De Jesus

GR No. L-38338 – January 28, 1985
Facts:
• After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. Petitioner
Simeon R. Roxas, the brother of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus filed a Special
Proceeding for the probate Settlement of the Spouses’ estate. Later, petitioner Simeon R.
Roxas was appointed administrator. After Letters of Administration had been granted to the
petitioner, he delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be the holographic Will of
the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus.
• Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testified that after his appointment as administrator, he
found a notebook belonging to the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus and that on pages 21, 22, 23
and 24 thereof, a letter-win addressed to her children and entirely written and signed in the
handwriting of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was found. 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.
• The testimony of Simeon R. Roxas was corroborated by the testimonies of Pedro Roxas
de Jesus and Manuel Roxas de Jesus who likewise testified that the letter dated "FEB./61 " is
the holographic Will of their deceased mother, Bibiana R. de Jesus. 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.
• Respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir filed an "opposition to probate"
assailing the purported holographic Will of Bibiana R. de Jesus because a it was not executed in
accordance with law, (b) it was executed through force, intimidation and/or under duress, undue
influence and improper pressure, and (c) the alleged testatrix acted by mistake and/or did not
intend, nor could have intended the said Will to be her last Will and testament at the time of its
execution.
• Respondent Judge Jose C. Colayco issued an order allowing the probate of the
holographic Will which he found to have been duly executed in accordance with law.
Respondent Luz Roxas de Jesus filed a motion for reconsideration alleging inter alia that the
alleged holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was not dated as required by
Article 810 of the Civil Code. She contends 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.
• Respondent Judge Colayco reconsidered his earlier order and disallowed the probate of
the holographic Will on the ground that the word "dated" has generally been held to include the
month, day, and year.
Issue:
• Whether or not 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:
• The petitioners contend that while Article 685 of the Spanish Civil Code and Article 688
of the Old Civil Code require the testator to state in his holographic Win the "year, month, and
day of its execution," the present Civil Code omitted the phrase Año mes y dia and simply
requires that the holographic Will should be dated. The petitioners submit that the liberal
construction of the holographic Will should prevail.
• 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 (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720). There is no such contingency in this
case.
• 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.

13. Melecio Labrador vs Court of Appeals

GR No. 83843-44 – April 5, 1990
Facts:
• Melecio Labrador died leaving behind a parcel of land, and the instituting his children,
namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all
surnamed Labrador, on a holographic will.
• Sagrado Labrador (substituted by his heirs), Enrica Labrador and Cristobal Labrador,
filed in the court a quo a petition for the probate of the alleged holographic will of the late
Melecio Labrador.
• Subsequently , Jesus Labrador (substituted by his heirs), and Gaudencio Labrador filed
an opposition to the petition on the ground that the will has been extinguished or revoked by
implication of law, alleging therein that, before Melecio's death, for the consideration of Six
Thousand (P6,000) Pesos, testator Melecio executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling,
transferring and conveying in favor of oppositors.
• Sagrado thereupon filed a complaint against his brothers, Gaudencio and Jesus, for the
annulment of said purported Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land which Sagrado
allegedly had already acquired by devise from their father Melecio Labrador under a holographic
will executed on March 17, 1968, the complaint being premised on the fact that the aforesaid
Deed of Absolute Sale is fictitious.
• After both parties had rested and submitted their respective evidence, the trial court
rendered a joint decision allowing the probate of the holographic will and declaring null and void
the Deed of Absolute sale. Respondents appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals modified
said decision of the court a quo by denying the allowance of the probate of the will for being
undated.
Issue:
• Whether or not the alleged holographic will of one Melecio Labrador is dated, as
provided for in Article 810 of the New Civil Code.
Held:
• The petition, which principally alleges that the holographic will is really dated, although
the date is not in its usual place, is impressed with merit. The will has been dated in the hand of
the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810.
• The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the
will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the
testator. These requirements are present in the subject will.
• The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of the will is plain from
the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will was not
an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he was
executing was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning as the
testator's instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of
the nature of the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act
as a means to control the disposition of his estate.

14. Fausto Gan vs Idelfonso Yap

GR No. L-12190 – August 30, 1958
Facts:
• On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died leaving several properties. On
March 17, 1952, Fausto E. Gan initiated proceedings in the court of first instance with a petition
for the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by the deceased, leaving two (2)
properties to herein petitioner and to herein oppositor the remaining properties on the condition
that the latter will construct a health center worth sixty thousand pesos. Opposing the petition,
her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that the deceased had not left any will, nor
executed any testament during her lifetime.
• After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the court refused to probate the
alleged will. A seventy-page motion for reconsideration failed. Hence this appeal. However, The
will itself was not presented.
Issue:
• Whether or not a holographic will be probated solely based upon the testimony of
witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in the handwriting of the
testator
Held:
• In the matter of holographic wills, no such guaranties of truth and veracity are
demanded, since as stated, they need no witnesses; provided however, that they are "entirely
written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself." The law, it is reasonable to
suppose, regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity, and as its own safeguard,
since it could at any time, be demonstrated to be — or not to be — in the hands of the testator
himself. "In the probate of a holographic will" says the New Civil Code, "it shall be necessary
that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly
declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is
contested, at least three such witnesses shall be required. In the absence of any such
witnesses, (familiar with decedent's handwriting) and if the court deem it necessary, expert
testimony may be resorted to."
• Obviously, when the will itself is not submitted, these means of opposition, and of
assessing the evidence are not available. And then the only guaranty of authenticity — the
testator's handwriting — has disappeared.

15. Federico Azaola vs Cesario Singson

GR No. L-14003 – August 5, 1960
Facts:
• When Fortunata Vda de Yance died, Francisco Azaola filed a petition for the probate of
the former’s will, whereby Maria Milgaros Azaola was made the sole heir as against the nephew
of the deceased Cesario Singson. Francisco witnessed that one month before the death of the
testator, the same was handed to him and his wife.
• The opposition to the probate was on the ground that (1) the execution of the will was
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the petitioner and his
wife, and (2) that the testatrix did not seriously intend the instrument to be her last will, and that
the same was actually written either on the 5th or 6th day of August 1957and not on November
20, 1956 as appears on the will.
• The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the Civil Code, the
proponent must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature are in
the writing of the testatrix, the probate being contested.
Issue:
• Whether or not the will may be allowed probate.
Held:
• We agree with the appellant that since the authenticity of the will was not contested, he
was not required to produce more than one witness; but even if the genuineness of the
holographic will were contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 of our present Civil Code
cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify
the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the probate denied. Since no witness
may have been present at the execution of a holographic will, none being required by law (Art.
810, new Civil Code), it becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing the requisite
qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. For it is not merely a question of
finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be witnesses "who know the handwriting
and signature of the testator" and who can declare (truthfully, of course, even if the law does not
so express) "that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator". There may be
no available witness of the testator's hand; or even if so familiarized, the witnesses may be
unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811 may
thus become an impossibility. That is evidently the reason why the second paragraph of Article
811 prescribes that in the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding
paragraph, and if the court deems it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.

16. Eugenia Codoy vs Evangeline Calungay

GR No. 123486 – August 12, 1999
Facts:
• Respondents Evangeline Calugay, Josepine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, being the
devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. De Ramonal,
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Misamis Oriental, a petition for probate of the said
holographic will. On the other hand, petitioners Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal
filed an opposition thereto, alleging that the holographic will was a forgery and that the same
was even illegible which 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. At the hearing,
respondents presented six ordinary witnesses and various documentary evidence. Petitioners,
instead of presenting their evidence, filed a demurrer to evidence which the trial court granted.
Respondents appealed, and in support thereof, they once again reiterated the testimony of their
ordinary witnesses who testified as to the similarity, authenticity genuineness of the signature of
the deceased in the holographic will.
• The Court of Appeals rendered a decision which ruled that the appeal was meritorious.
Paraphrasing Azaola vs. Singson, even if the genuineness of the holographic will were
contested, Article 811 of the civil code cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory
presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of the
having the probate denied. No witness need be present in the execution of the holographic will.
And the rule requiring the production of three witnesses is merely permissive.
Issue:
• Whether or not the ruling of the case of Azaola vs. Singson, 109 Phil. 102, relied upon
by the respondent Court of Appeals, was applicable to the case.
Held:
• 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. We are convinced, based on the language used,
that Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The word “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.
• In the case of Ajero vs. Court of Appeals, we said that "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. Therefore, the
laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But
on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to
restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will.

17. Rosa Kalaw vs Hon. Benjamin Relova

GR No. L-40207 – September 28, 1984
Facts:
• Private respondent Gregorio K. Kalaw, claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased
sister, Natividad K. Kalaw, filed a petition before the Court of First Instance 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 based on the fact that the NBI reported that
the handwriting, the signature, the insertions and/or additions and the initial were made by one
and the same person, although the alterations and/or insertions or additions above-mentioned
were not authenticated by the full signature of the testatrix pursuant to Art. 814 of the Civil
Code.
• From that Order, GREGORIO moved for 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.
Issue:
• Whether or not a will containing alterations which lacks the authentication by the full
signature of the testatrix should be probated.
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.
• The ruling in Velasco, supra, must be held confined to such insertions, cancellations,
erasures or alterations in a holographic Will, which affect only the efficacy of the altered words
themselves but not the essence and validity of the Will itself. As it is, with the erasures,
cancellations and alterations made by the testatrix herein, her real intention cannot be
determined with certitude.

18. Rizalina Gonzales v. Court of Appeals

GR No. L-37453 – May 25, 1979
Facts:
• Herein private respondent Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition with the Court of First
Instance for the probate of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased Isabel Gabriel
and designating therein petitioner as the principal beneficiary and executrix.
• There is no dispute in the records that the late Isabel Andres Gabriel died as a widow at
the age of eighty-five (85). It is likewise not controverted that herein private respondent Lutgarda
Santiago and petitioner Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales are nieces of the deceased, and that private
respondent, with her husband and children, lived with the deceased at the latters residence prior
an- d up to the time of her death.
• The will submitted for probate was typewritten and in Tagalog, appears to have been
executed barely two (2) months prior to the death of Isabel Gabriel. It consists of five (5) pages,
including the pages whereon the attestation clause and the acknowledgment of the notary
public were written. The signatures of the deceased Isabel Gabriel appear at the end of the will
on page four and at the left margin of all the pages.
• The petition was opposed by Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales, herein petitioner, assailing the
document purporting to be the will of the deceased on the grounds that the same is not genuine;
and in the alternative; that the same was not executed and attested as required by law; that, at
the time of the alleged execution of the purported wilt the decedent lacked testamentary
capacity due to old age and sickness; and in the second alternative; that the purported Will was
procured through undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the principal
beneficiary, and/or of some other person for her benefit.
• After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment disallowing the probate of the last will and
testament. From this judgment of disallowance, Lutgarda Santiago appealed to respondent
Court. The Court of Appeals, upon consideration of the evidence adduced by both parties,
rendered the decision now under review, holding that the will in question was signed and
executed by the deceased Isabel Gabriel in the presence of the three attesting witnesses,
Matilde Orobia, Celso Gimpaya and Maria Gimpaya, signing and witnessing the document in
the presence of the deceased and of each other as required by law, hence allowed probate.
Issue:
• Whether or not there is a need of absolute proof that the three instrumental witnesses
were credible witnesses.
Held:
• Under the law, there is no mandatory requirement that the witness testify initially or at
any time during the trial as to his good standing in the community, his reputation for
trustworthythiness and reliableness, his honesty and uprightness in order that his testimony may
be believed and accepted by the trial court. It is enough that the qualifications enumerated in
Article 820 of the Civil Code are complied with, such that the soundness of his mind can be
shown by or deduced from his answers to the questions propounded to him, that his age (18
years or more) is shown from his appearance, testimony , or competently proved otherwise, as
well as the fact that he is not blind, deaf or dumb and that he is able to read and write to the
satisfaction of the Court, and that he has none of the disqualifications under Article 821 of the
Civil Code. We reject petitioner's contention that it must first be established in the record the
good standing of the witness in the community, his reputation for trustworthiness and
reliableness, his honesty and uprightness, because such attributes are presumed of the witness
unless the contrary is proved otherwise by the opposing party.