Batch 2: Succession Cases for September 22, 2020 The party challenging the will bears the burden
ll bears the burden of proving
1. ORTEGA V. VALMONTE
G.R. No. 157451, 16 December 2005, 478 SCRA 247
FACTS:
Two years after the arrival of Placido 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. Placido executed a notarial last will and
testament written in English and consisting of 2 pages, and
dated 15 June 1983¸but acknowledged only on 9 August
1983. The allowance to probate of this will was opposed by
Leticia, Placido’s sister. According to the notary public who
notarized the testator’s will, after the testator instructed
him on the 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 witnesses
returned on the appointed date but the notary public was
out of town so they were instructed by his wife to come back
on 9 August 1983. The formal execution was actually on 9
August 1983. He reasoned he no longer changed the
typewritten date of 15 June 1983 because he did not like the
document to appear dirty.
Petitioner’s 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 deceiving Placido to sign it. Deception
is allegedly reflected in the varying dates of the execution
and 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 of property he owned, the extent of his
shares in them and even their location. As regards the
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 subject of it is cheated. It may be of
such character that the testator is misled or deceived as to
the nature or contents of the document which he executes,
or it may relate to some extrinsic fact, in consequence of the
deception regarding which the testator is led to make a
certain will which, but for fraud, he would not have made.
the existence of fraud at the time of its execution. The
burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will
only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud.
Omission of some relatives does not affect the due
execution of a will. Moreover, the conflict 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 its
supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily and
persuasively explained by the notary public and
instrumental witnesses.
2. BALTAZAR vs. LAXA | G.R. No. 174489 | April 11,
2012 | Del Castillo, J.:
FACTS: Paciencia was a 78 y/o spinster when she made her
last will and testament in the Pampango dialect on Sept. 13,
1981. The will, executed in the house of retired Judge
Limpin, was read to Paciencia twice. After which, Paciencia
expressed in the presence of the instrumental witnesses
that the document is her last will and testament. She
thereafter affixed her signature at the end of the said
document on page 3 and then on the left margin of pages 1,
2 and 4 thereof.
Childless and without any brothers or sisters, Paciencia
bequeathed all her properties to respondent Lorenzo Laxa
and his wife Corazon Laza and their children Luna and
Katherine. Lorenzo is Paciencia’s nephew whom she treated
as her own son. Conversely, Lorenzo came to know and
treated Paciencia as his own mother.
Six days after the execution of the Will (Sept. 19, 1981),
Paciencia left for USA. There, she resided with Lorenzo and
his family until her death on Jan. 4, 1996. In the interim, the
Will remained in the custody of Judge Limpin.
More than 4 years after the death of Paciencia or on Apr.
27, 2000, Lorenzo filed a petition with the RTC of Guagua,
Pampanga for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and for
the issuance of Letters of Administration in his favor.
On Jun 23, 2000 one of petitioners, Antonio Baltazar filed an
opposition to Lorenzo’s petition. Antonio averred that the
properties subject of Paciencia’s Will belong to Nicomeda
Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest; hence, Paciencia
had no right to bequeath them to Lorenzo. Also, one of the
petitioners, Rosie Mateo testified that Paciencia is in the
state of being “mangulyan” or forgetful making her unfit for
executing a will and that the execution of the will had been
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence.
Petitioners also opposed the issuance of the Letters of
Administration in Lorenzo’s favor arguing that Lorenzo was
disqualified to be appointed as such, he being a citizen and
resident of the USA. Petitioners prayed that Letters of
Administration be instead issued in favor of Antonio.
RTC denies the petition for probate of the will and
concluded that when Paciencia signed the will, she was no
longer possessed of the sufficient reason or strength of
mind to have the testamentary capacity. On appeal, CA
reversed the decision of the RTC and granted the probate of
the will. The petitioner went up to SC for a petition for
review on Certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether the authenticity and due execution of the
will was sufficiently established to warrant its allowance for
probate.
HELD: Yes. A careful examination of the face of the Will
shows faithful compliance with the formalities laid down by
law. The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her
instrumental witnesses and the notary public, are all
present and evident on the Will. Further, the attestation
clause explicitly states the critical requirement that the
testatrix and her instrumental witnesses attested and
subscribed to the Will in the presence of the testator and of
one another. In fact, even the petitioners acceded that the
signature of Paciencia in the Will may be authentic although
they question of her state of mind when she signed the
same as well as the voluntary nature of said act.
3. SUROZA V. HONRADO
A.M. No. 2026-CFI, 19 December 1981, 110 SCRA 388
FACTS:
In 1973, Marcelina Suroza supposedly executed a notarial
will bequeathing her house and lot to a certain Marilyn
Suroza. In 1974, Marcelina died. Marina Paje was named as
the executrix in the said will and she petitioned before CFI
Rizal that the will be admitted to probate. The presiding
judge, Honrado admitted the will to probate and assigned
Paje as the administratrix. Honrado also issued an ejectment
order against the occupants of the house and lot subject of
the will.
Nenita Suroza, daughter in law of Marcelina (her husband,
son of Marcelina was confined in the Veteran’s Hospital),
learned of the probate proceeding when she received the
ejectment order (as she was residing in said house and lot).
Nenita opposed the probate proceeding. She alleged that
the said notarial will is void because (a) the instituted heir
therein Marilyn Suroza is actually Marilyn Sy and she is a
stranger to Marcelina, (b) the only son of Marcelina, Agapito
Suroza, is still alive and is the compulsory heir, (c) the
notarial will is written in English a language not known to
Marcelina because the latter was illiterate so much so that
she merely thumbmarked the will, (d) the notary public who
notarized will admitted that Marcelina never appeared
before him and that he notarized the said will merely to
accommodate the request of a lawyer friend but with the
understanding that Marcelina should later appear before
him but that never happened.
Honrado still continued with the probate despite the
opposition until testamentary proceeding closed and the
property transferred to Marilyn Sy. Nenita then filed this
administrative case against Honrado on the ground of
misconduct.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Honrado is guilty of misconduct for
admitting into probate a void will.
RULING:
Yes. Despite the valid claim raised by Nenita, he still
continued with the testamentary proceeding, which
showed his wrongful intent. He may even be criminally
liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or
interlocutory order or rendering a manifestly unjust
judgment or interlocutory order by reason of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
The will is written in English and was thumb marked by an
obviously illiterate Marcelina. This could have readily been
perceived by Honrado that that the will is void. In the
opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was
a language “understood and known” to the testatrix. But in
its concluding paragraph, it was stated that the will was read
to the testatrix “and translated into Filipino language.” That
could only mean that the will was written in a language not
known to the illiterate testatrix and, therefore, it is void
because of the mandatory provision of Article 804 of the
Civil Code that every will must be executed in a language or
dialect known to the testator.
Had Honrado been careful and observant, he could have
noted not only the anomaly as to the language of the will
but also that there was something wrong in instituting to
Marilyn Sy as sole heiress and giving nothing at all to Agapito
who was still alive.
Honrado was fined by the Supreme Court.
4. ABANGAN V. ABANGAN, 40 Phil 476, AVANCENA
On September 19, 1917, CFI of Cebu admitted to probate
Ana Abangan’s will executed July, 1916. From this decision
the opponents appealed.
The will consists of 2 sheets. The first contains all the
disposition of the testatrix, duly signed at the bottom by
Martin Montalban (in the name and under the direction of
the testatrix) and by three witnesses. The following sheet
contains only the attestation clause duly signed at the
bottom by the three instrumental witnesses. Neither of
these sheets is signed on the left margin by the testatrix and
the three witnesses, nor numbered by letters. These
omissions, according to appellants’ contention, are defects
whereby the probate of the will should have been denied.
Whether or not the will was duly admitted to probate.
YES. In requiring that each and every sheet of the will be
signed on the left margin by the testator and three
witnesses in the presence of each other, Act No. 2645
evidently has for its object the avoidance of substitution of
any of said sheets which may change the disposition of the
testatrix. But when these dispositions are wholly written on
only one sheet (as in the instant case) signed at the bottom
by the testator and three witnesses, their signatures on the
left margin of said sheet are not anymore necessary as such
will be purposeless.
In requiring that each and every page of a will must be
numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part
of the sheet, it is likewise clear that the object of Act No.
2645 is to know whether any sheet of the will has been
removed. But, when all the dispositive parts of a will are
written on one sheet only, the object of the statute
disappears because the removal of this single sheet,
although unnumbered, cannot be hidden.
In a will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains
all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom
by the testator and three witnesses and the second contains
only the attestation clause and is signed also at the bottom
by the three witnesses, it is not necessary that both sheets
be further signed on their margins by the testator and the
witnesses, or be paged.
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
primordal 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.
So when an interpretation already given assures such ends,
any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but
demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and
frustative of the testator’s last will, must be disregarded.
5. MATIAS V. SALUD
L-10751, 23 June 1958
FACTS:
The CFI denied probate of the will of Gabina Raquel. It must
be noted that Gabina Raquel was suffering from herpes
zoster that afflicted the right arm and shoulder of the
testatrix, which made writing difficult and a painful act.
Thus, upon the insistence of the attorney, Gabina
attempted to sign, but since it was so painful she just
managed to thumbmarked the foot of the document and
the left margin at each page. The parties opposing the
probate of the will contended that the will was void due to
the irregularities in the execution thereof.
One of the points raised by the oppositors was that the
finger mark can not be regarded as the decedent’s valid
signature as it does not show distinct identifying ridgelines.
And since the finger mark was an invalid signature, there
must appear in the attestation clause that another person
wrote the testator’s name at his request.
ISSUE:
W/N the will was valid.
HELD:
YES. As to the clarity of the ridge impressions, it is so
dependent on aleatory requirements as to require
dexterity that can be expected of very few persons;
testators should not be required to possess the skill of
trained officers.
And as to the validity of the thumbprints as signature, the
SC held that it has been held in a long line of cases that a
thumbprint is always a valid and sufficient signature for the
purpose of complying with the requirement of the article.
Furthermore, the validity of thumbprints should not be
limited in cases of illness or infirmity. A thumbprint is
considered as a valid and sufficient signature in complying
with the requirements of the article.
6. GARCIA V. LACUESTA
G.R. L-4067 November 29, 1951
FACTS:
1. The CA disallowed the probate of the will of Antero
Mercado dated Jan 1943. The said will was written in Ilocano
dialect.
2. The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino
Javier who wrote the name of the testator followed below
by 'A ruego del testador' and the name of Florentino Javier.
In effect, it was signed by another although under the
express direction of the testator. This fact however was not
recited in the attestation clause. Mercado also affixed a
cross on the will.
3. The lower court admitted the will to probate but this
order was reversed by the Court of Appeals on the ground
that the attestation failed to recite the facts surrounding the
signing of the testator and the witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not the attestation clause in the will is
valid
HELD: NO the attestation is fatally defective for its failure to
state that Antero or the testator caused Atty. Javier to write
the former's name under his express direction as required
by Sec. 618 of the Civil Procedure. Finally, on the cross
affixed on the will by the testator, the Court held that it is
not prepared to liken the mere sign of a cross to a
thumbmark for obvious reasons- the cross does not have
the trustworthiness of a thumbmark so it is not considered
as a valid signature.
7. BARUT V. CABACUNGAN
G.R. No. L-6285, 15 February 1912, 21:461
FACTS:
Barut applied for the probate of the will of deceased, Maria
Salomon. The testatrix stated in the will that being unable
to read or write, the will was read to her by Ciriaco
Concepcion and Timotea Inoselda and that she had
instructed Severo Agayan to sign her name to it as testatrix.
The probate was contested by a number of the relatives of
the deceased on various grounds.
The probate court found that the will was not entitled to
probate because “the handwriting of the person who it is
alleged signed the name of the testatrix to the will for and
on her behalf looked more like the handwriting of one of the
other witnesses to the will than to the person whose
handwriting it was alleged to be.
ISSUE:
Was the dissimilarity in handwriting sufficient to deny
probate of the will?
HELD:
No. The name of a person who is unable to write may be
signed by another by express direction to any instrument
known to the law. There is no necessity whatever, so far as
the validity of the instrument is concerned, for the person
who writes the name of the principal in the document to
sign his own name also. As a matter of policy it may be wise
that he do so inasmuch as it would give such intimation as
would enable a person proving the document to
demonstrate more readily the execution by the principal.
But as a matter of essential validity of the document, it is
unnecessary. The main thing to be established in the
execution of the will is the signature of the testator. If that
signature is proved, whether it be written by himself or by
another at his request, it is none the less valid, and the fact
of such signature can be proved as perfectly and as
completely when the person signing for the principal omits
to sign his own name as it can when he actually signs. To
hold a will invalid for the lack of the signature of the person
signing the name of the principal is, in the particular case, a
complete abrogation of the law of wills, as it rejects and
destroys a will which the statute expressly declares is valid.
8. NERA V. RIMANDO
G.R. L-5971 February 27, 1911
'Test of Presence'
Facts:
1. At the time the will was executed, in a large room
connecting with a smaller room by a doorway where a
curtain hangs across, one of the witnesses was in the
outside room when the other witnesses were attaching
their signatures to the instrument.
2. The trial court did not consider the determination of the
issue as to the position of the witness as of vital importance
in determining the case. It agreed with the ruling in the case
of Jaboneta v. Gustillo that the alleged fact being that one
of the subscribing witnesses was in the outer room while
the signing occurred in the inner room, would not be
sufficient to invalidate the execution of the will.
3. The CA deemed the will valid.
Issue: Whether or not the subscribing witness was able to
see the testator and other witnesses in the act of affixing
their signatures.
HELD: YES
The Court is unanimous in its opinion that had the witnesses
been proven to be in the outer room when the testator and
other witnesses signed the will in the inner room, it would
have invalidated the will since the attaching of the
signatures under the circumstances was not done 'in the
presence' of the witnesses in the outer room. The line of
vision of the witness to the testator and other witnesses was
blocked by the curtain separating the rooms.
The position of the parties must be such that with relation
to each other at the moment of the attaching the
signatures, they may see each other sign if they chose to.
In the Jaboneta case, the true test of presence is not
whether or not they actualy saw each other sign but
whether they might have seen each other sign if they chose
to doso considering their physical, mental condition and
position in relation to each other at the moment of the
inscription of the signature.
9. TABOADA V. ROSAL,
G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982.
14AUG
FACTS
In the petition for probate filed with the respondent court,
the petitioner attached the alleged last will and testament
of the late Dorotea Perez. Written in the Cebuano-Visayan
dialect, the will 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.
ISSUE
Whether or not the will is void for failure to state the
number of pages used in writing the will.
RULING
NO. 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.
[T]he first page which contains the entirety of the
testamentary dispositions is signed by the testatrix at the
end or at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses
signed at the left margin. The other page which is marked as
“Pagina dos” comprises the attestation clause and the
acknowledgment. The acknowledgment itself states that
“This Last Will and Testament consists of two pages
including this page”.
10. ICASIANO V. ICASIANO,
G.R. No. L-18979, June 30, 1964.
14AUG
[REYES, J.B.L., J.]
FACTS
Witness Natividad who testified on his failure to sign page
three (3) of the original, admits that he may have lifted two
pages instead of one when he signed the same, but affirmed
that page three (3) was signed in his presence.
ISSUE
Whether or not a will can be probated if one of the witness
inadvertently failed to sign one of the pages thereof.
RULING
YES. The inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his
signature to one page of a testament, due to the
simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is
not per se sufficient to justify denial of probate.
Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured not only
the fact that the testatrix and two other witnesses did sign
the defective page, but also by its bearing the coincident
imprint of the seal of the notary public before whom the
testament was ratified by testatrix and all three witnesses.
The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as
to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a
single witness over whose conduct she had no control,
where the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of
the testament and its component pages is sufficiently
attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation existed, and
the evidence on record attests to the full observance of the
statutory requisites.
11. LEE V. TAMBAGO
544 SCRA 393
FACTS:
Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty.
Regino B. Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and the
Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a will that is
alleged to be spurious in nature in containing forged
signatures of his father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. and
two other witnesses. In the said will, the decedent
supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his wife
Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to
Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, half-siblings of complainant.
The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged
before respondent on June 30, 1965.Complainant, however,
pointed out that the residence certificateof the testator
noted in the acknowledgment of the will was dated January
5, 1962.Furthermore, the signature of the testator was not
the same as his signature as donor in a deed of
donationwhich supposedly contained his purported
signature. Complainant averred that the signatures of his
deceased father in the will and in the deed of donation were
“in any way entirely and diametrically opposed from one
another in all angle[s].”
Complainant also questioned the absence of notation of
the residence certificates of the purported witnesses
Noynay and Grajo. He alleged that their signatures
had likewise been forged and merely copied from their
respective voters’ affidavits.
Complainant further asserted that no copy of such
purported will was on file in the archives division of the
Records Management and Archives Office of the National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA).
ISSUE:
Was the will spurious?
HELD:
Yes, thus Tambago violated the Notarial Law and the ethics
of legal profession.
The law provides for certain formalities that must be
followed in the execution of wills. The object of solemnities
surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on
bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.
A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required
by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator
himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by
three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the
testator and of one another. The will in question was
attested by only two witnesses. On
this circumstance alone, the will must be considered void.
This is in consonance with the rule that acts executed
against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws
shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their
validity. The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and
the witnesses. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has
executed a deed in going before some competent officer or
court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an
extra step undertaken whereby the signatory actually
declares to the notary public that the same is his or her
own free act and deed. The acknowledgment in a notarial
will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to safeguard the testator’s
wishes long after his demise and (2) to assure that his estate
is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.
A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in
question shows that this particular requirement was neither
strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was
the conspicuous absence of a notation of the residence
certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in
the acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of the
testator’s old residence certificate in the same
acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These
omissions by respondent invalidated the will.
As the acknowledging officer of the contested will,
respondent was required to faithfully observe the
formalities of a will and those of notarization. These
formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded.
12. TESTATE ESTATE OF CAGRO V. CAGRO
G.R. L-5826
Facts:
1. The case is an appeal interposed by the oppositors from
a decision of the CFI of Samar which admitted to probate a
will allegedly executed by Vicente Cagro who died in
Pambujan, Samar on Feb. 14, 1949.
2. The appellants insisted that the will is defective because
the attestation was not signed by the witnesses at the
bottom although the page containing the same was signed
by the witnesses on the left hand margin.
3. Petitioner contended that the signatures of the 3
witnesses on the left hand margin conform substantially to
law and may be deemed as their signatures to the
attestation clause.
Issue: Whether or not the will is valid
HELD: Will is not valid. The attestation clause is a
memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the
will. It is 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 negatives their participation.
Moreover, the signatures affixed on the let hand margin is
not substantial conformance to the law. The said signatures
were merely in conformance with the requirement that the
will must be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages.
If the attestation clause is unsigned by the 3 witnesses at the
bottom, it would be easier to add clauses to a will on a
subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator and
any or all of the witnesses.
The probate of the will is denied.
13. AZUELA V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 122880 (2006)
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the
notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo. However, this was opposed
by Geralda Castillo, who was the attorney-in-fact of “the 12
legitimate heirs” of the decedent. According to her, the will
was forged, and imbued with several fatal defects.
Particularly, the issue relevant in this subject is that the will
was not properly acknowledged. The notary public, Petronio
Y. Bautista, only wrote “Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko
ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng
Maynila.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the will is fatally defective as it was
not properly acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses as required by Article 806 of the
Civil Code.
RULING: Yes, the will is fatally defective. By no manner of
contemplation can those words be construed as an
acknowledgment.
An acknowledgement is the act of one who has executed a
deed in going before some competent officer or court and
declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step
undertaken whereby the signore actually declares to the
notary that the executor of a document has attested to the
notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed.
It might be possible to construe the averment as a jurat,
even though it does not hew to the usual language thereof.
A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies
that before him/her, the document was subscribed and
sworn to by the executor
Yet even if we consider what was affixed by the notary
public as a jurat, the will would nonetheless remain invalid,
as the express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be
“acknowledged,” and not merely subscribed and sworn to.
The will does not present any textual proof, much less one
under oath, that the decedent and the instrumental
witnesses executed or signed the will as their own free act
or deed. The acknowledgment made in a will provides for
another all-important legal safeguard against spurious wills
or those made beyond the free consent of the testator.
14. JAVELLANA VS. LEDESMA
G.R. No. L-7179
Facts:
1. The CFI of Iloilo admitted to probate a will and codicil
executed by the deceased Apolinaria Ledesma in July 1953.
This testament was deemed executed on May 1950 and
May 1952. The contestant was the sister and nearest
surviving relative of the deceased. She appealed from this
decision alleging that the will were not executed in
accordance with law.
2. The testament was executed at the house of the testatrix.
One the other hand, the codicil was executed after the
enactment of the New Civil Code (NCC), and therefore had
to be acknowledged before a notary public. Now, the
contestant, who happens to be one of the instrumental
witnesses asserted that after the codicil was signed and
attested at the San Pablo hospital, that Gimotea (the notary)
signed and sealed it on the same occasion. Gimotea,
however, said that he did not do so, and that the act of
signing and sealing was done afterwards.
2. One of the allegations was that the certificate of
acknowledgement to the codicil was signed somewhere else
or in the office of the notary. The ix and the witnesses at the
hospital, was signed and sealed by the notary only when he
brought it in his office.
Issue: Whether or not the signing and sealing of the will or
codicil in the absence of the testator and witnesses affects
the validity of the will
RULING: NO. Unlike in the Old Civil Code of 1899, the NCC
does not require that the signing of the testator, the
witnesses and the notary be accomplished in one single act.
All that is required is that every will must be acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and witnesses. The
subsequent signing and sealing is not part of the
acknowledgement itself nor of the testamentary act. Their
separate execution out of the presence of the testator and
the witnesses cannot be a violation of the rule that
testaments should be completed without interruption.
15. CRUZ V. JUDGE VILLASOR,
G.R. No. L-32213, November 26, 1973.
14AUG
FACTS
The probate of the last will and testament of the late
Valente Z. Cruz was opposed by petitioner Agapita on the
ground of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and undue
influence, and that it was not executed in accordance with
law. 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.
ISSUE
Whether or not the probate of a will is valid if one of the
three instrumental witnessed is the notary public to whom
the will was acknowledged.
RULING
NO. To allow the notary public to act as third witness, or one
the attesting and acknowledging witnesses, would have the
effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the will
which would be in contravention of the provisions of Article
80 be requiring at least three credible witnesses to act as
such and of Article 806 which requires that the testator and
the required number of witnesses must appear before the
notary public to acknowledge the will. The result would be,
as has been said, that only two witnesses appeared before
the notary public for or that purpose. In the circumstances,
the law would not be duly in observed.
16. BELLA A. GUERRERO v. RESURRECCION A. BIHIS,
GR NO. 174144, 2007-04-17
Facts:
Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner Bella A.
Guerrero and respondent Resurreccion A. Bihis, died...
petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last will and
testament of the decedent
The petition alleged the following: petitioner was named as
executrix in the decedent's will and she was legally qualified
to act as such
Respondent opposed her elder sister's petition on the
following grounds: the will was not executed and attested
as required by law... 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" by the
testatrix... and the witnesses at the testatrix's, residence...
at
Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a
commissioned notary public for and in Caloocan City
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but the
appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
resolution of the trial court.
Issues:
Did 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?
Ruling:
Article 806 of the Civil Code provides
Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by
the testator and the witnesses.
An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a
deed in going before some competent officer and declaring
it to be his act or deed.
Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent
officer, that is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary
public.
A notary public's commission is the grant of authority in his
favor to perform notarial acts.
It is issued "within and for" a particular territorial
jurisdiction and the notary public's authority is co-extensive
with it. In other words, a notary public... is authorized to
perform notarial acts, including the taking of
acknowledgments, within that territorial jurisdiction only.
Outside the place of his commission, he is bereft of power
to perform any notarial act; he is not a notary public. Any
notarial act outside... the limits of his jurisdiction has no
force and effect.
Since Atty. Directo was not a commissioned notary public
for and in Quezon City, he lacked the authority to take the
acknowledgment of the testatrix and the instrumental
witnesses.
the petition is hereby DENIED
17. ORTEGA V. VALMONTE
G.R. No. 157451, 16 December 2005, 478 SCRA 247
FACTS:
Two years after the arrival of Placido 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. Placido executed a notarial last will and
testament written in English and consisting of 2 pages, and
dated 15 June 1983¸but acknowledged only on 9 August
1983. The allowance to probate of this will was opposed by
Leticia, Placido’s sister. According to the notary public who
notarized the testator’s will, after the testator instructed
him on the 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 witnesses
returned on the appointed date but the notary public was
out of town so they were instructed by his wife to come back
on 9 August 1983. The formal execution was actually on 9
August 1983. He reasoned he no longer changed the
typewritten date of 15 June 1983 because he did not like the
document to appear dirty.
Petitioner’s 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 deceiving Placido to sign it. Deception
is allegedly reflected in the varying dates of the execution
and 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 of property he owned, the extent of his
shares in them and even their location. As regards the
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 subject of it is cheated. It may be of
such character that the testator is misled or deceived as to
the nature or contents of the document which he executes,
or it may relate to some extrinsic fact, in consequence of the
deception regarding which the testator is led to make 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 the time of its execution. The
burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will
only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud.
Omission of some relatives does not affect the due
execution of a will. Moreover, the conflict 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 its
supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily and
persuasively explained by the notary public and
instrumental witnesses.
18. GARCIA V. VASQUEZ
G.R. No. L-26808, 28 March 1969, 32 SCRA 489
FACTS:
Gliceria del Rosario executed 2 wills, one in June 1956,
written in Spanish, a language she knew and spoke. The
other will was executed in December 1960 consisting of only
one page, and written in Tagalog. The witnesses to the 1960
will declared that the will was first read ‘silently’ by the
testatrix before signing it. The probate court admitted the
will.
The oppositors alleged that the eyesight of the testatrix as
of December 1960, was so poor and defective that she could
not have read the provisions contrary to the testimony of
the witnesses.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the will is valid
RULING:
The will is not valid. If the testator is blind, Art. 808 of the
New Civil Code (NCC) should apply.If the testator is blind or
incapable of reading, he must be apprised of the contents of
the will for him to be able to have the opportunity to object
if the provisions therein are not in accordance with his
wishes.
The testimony of her opthalmologist established that
notwithstanding an operation to remove her cataract and
being fitted with the lenses, this did not improve her vision.
Her vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects and
not for reading. There was no evidence that her vision
improved at the time of the execution of the 2nd will.
Hence, she was incapable of reading her own will. The
admission of the will to probate is therefore erroneous.
19. ALVARADO vs. GAVIOLA
September 14, 1993
FACTS:
The testator did not read the final draft of the will himself.
Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the
8-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of
the testator, the 3 instrumental witnesses and the notary
public. The latter 4 followed the reading with their own
respective copies previously furnished them.
Said will was admitted to probate. Later on, a codicil
was executed, and by that time, the testator was already
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.
ISSUE:
Was there substantial compliance to the reading of
the will?
HELD:
Article 808 not only applies to blind testators, but also to
those who, for one reason or another, are incapable of
reading their wills. Hence, the will should have been read
by the notary public and an instrumental witness. However,
the spirit behind the law was served though the letter was
not. In this case, there was substantial
compliance. 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 this case, 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.

20. CANEDA V. CA
G.R. No. 103554, 28 May 1993, 222 SCRA 781
FACTS:
On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without
any children and already in the twilight years of his life,
executed a last will and testament at his residence before 3
witnesses. He was assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Emilio
Lumontad. In the will, it was declared that the testator was
leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal
properties to several people all of whom do not appear to
be related to the testator. 4 months later, Mateo Caballero
himself filed a case seeking the probate of his last will and
testament, but numerous postponements pushed back the
initial hearing of the probate court regarding the will. On
May 29, 1980, the testator passed away before his petition
could finally be heard by the probate court. Thereafter one
of the legatees, Benoni Cabrera, sought his appointment as
special administrator of the testator’s estate. Thereafter,
the petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the
testator, instituted a second petition for intestate
proceedings. They also opposed the probate of the
testator’s will and the appointment of a special
administrator for his estate. Benoni Cabrera died and was
replaced by William Cabrera as special administrator and
gave an order that the testate proceedings for the probate
of the will had to be heard and resolved first. In the course
of the proceedings, petitioners opposed to the allowance of
the testator’s will on the ground that on the alleged date of
its execution, the testator was already in poor state of
health such that he could not have possibly executed the
same. Also the genuineness of the signature of the testator
is in doubt.
On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses and the
notary public testified that the testator executed the will in
question in their presence while he was of sound and
disposing mind and that the testator was in good health and
was not unduly influenced in any way in the execution of his
will.
Probate court then rendered a decision declaring the will in
question as the last will and testament of the late Mateo
Caballero. CA affirmed the probate court’s decision stating
that it substantially complies with Article 805. Hence this
appeal.
ISSUE:
W/N the attestation clause in the will of the testator is
fatally defective or can be cured under the art. 809.
HELD:
No. It does not comply with the provisions of the law.
Ordinary or attested wills are governed by Arts. 804 to 809.
The will must be acknowledged before a notary public by
the testator and the attesting witnesses. The attestation
clause need not be written in a language known to the
testator or even to the attesting witnesses. 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.
The attestation clause, therefore, provides strong legal
guaranties for the due execution of a will and to insure the
authenticity thereof. It is contended by petitioners that the
attestation clause in the will failed to specifically state the
fact that the attesting witnesses witnessed the testator sign
the will and all its pages in their presence and that they, the
witnesses, likewise signed the will and every page thereof in
the presence of the testator and of each other. And the
Court agrees. The attestation clause 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 phrase, “and he has signed the same and every page
thereof, on the space provided for his signature and on the
left hand margin,” obviously refers to the testator and not
the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by
the words” as his last will and testament.” 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. That 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 probated.
Also, Art. 809 does not apply to the present case because
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. The defect
in this case is not only with respect to the form or the
language of the attestation clause. The defects must be
remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself
which is clearly lacking in this case.
Therefore, the probate of the will is set aside and the case
for the intestate proceedings shall be revived. Article 809
cannot be used to cure the defects of the will when it does
not pertain to the form or language of the will. This is
because there is not substantial compliance with Article
805.
21. LOPEZ V. LOPEZ, G.R. No. 189984, November 12, 2012.
14AUG
FACTS
The RTC disallowed the probate of the will for failure to
comply with the required statement in the attestation
clause as to the number of pages used upon which the will
is written. While the acknowledgment portion stated that
the will consists of 7 pages including the page on which the ISSUES: 1. Whether the failure to sign the last page of the
ratification and acknowledgment are written, the RTC will is fatal to the will’s validity (NO)
observed that it has 8 pages including the acknowledgment
2. Whether the failure to state the number of pages in the
portion. As such, it disallowed the will for not having been
attestation clause will invalidate the will (NO)
executed and attested in accordance with law.

RULING: It is a skewed stance in insisting that the testator

ISSUE
Whether or not the discrepancy between the number of
pages in the attestation clause and the actual number of
pages in the will that would warrant its disallowance.
RULING
YES. The provisions of the Civil Code on Forms of Wills,
particularly, Articles 805 and 809 of the Civil Code provide
that the attestation must state the number of pages used
upon which the will is written. The purpose of the law is to
safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one
or some of its pages and prevent any increase or decrease
in the pages. Here, the will actually consists of 8 pages
including its acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be
explained by mere examination of the will itself but through
the presentation of evidence aliunde.
22. MARGIE SANTOS MITRA, -versus - PERPETUA L.
SABLAN- GUEVARRA, REMEGIO L. SABLAN, ET AL.,
G.R. No. 213994,
SECOND DIVISION, April 18, 2018, REYES, JR, J.
What is imperative for the allowance of a will despite the existence
of omissions is that such omissions must be supplied by an
examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to
extrinsic evidence. An examination of the will in question reveals
that the attestation clause indeed failed to state the number of
pages comprising the will. However, as was the situation in
Taboada, this omission was supplied in the Acknowledgment.
Legaspi and the instrumental witnesses should have signed
on the last page of the subject will. When Article 805 of the
Civil Code requires the testator to subscribe at the end of
the will, it necessarily refers to the logical end thereof,
which is where the last testamentary disposition ends. As
the probate court correctly appreciated, the last page of the
will does not contain any testamentary disposition; it is but
a mere continuation of the Acknowledgment. In Taboada vs.
Hon. Rosal, the Court allowed the probate of a will
notwithstanding that the number of pages was stated not in
the attestation clause, but in the Acknowledgment. In
Azuela vs. CA, the Court ruled that there is substantial
compliance with the requirement, if it is stated elsewhere in
the will how many pages it is comprised of. What is
imperative for the allowance of a will despite the existence
of omissions is that such omissions must be supplied by an
examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting
to extrinsic evidence. "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." An examination of the will in question
reveals that the attestation clause indeed failed to state the
number of pages comprising the will. However, as was the
situation in Taboada, this omission was supplied in the
Acknowledgment. It was specified therein that the will is
composed of four pages, the Acknowledgment included.

FACTS: Margie Santos Mitra filed a petition for the probate

of the notarial will of Remedios Legaspi. Mitra alleged she is
a de facto adopted daughter of Legaspi and Legaspi left a
notarial will instituting Mitra along with Orlando Castro,
Perpetua Sablan-Guevarra, and Remigio LegaspiSablan, as
her heirs, legatees and devisees. Perpetua Sablan-Guevarra
and Remegio Sablan opposed the petition. They aver that
the will was not executed in accordance with the formalities
required by law since the last page of the will which
contained the Acknowledgment was not signed by Legaspi
and her instrumental witnesses. Further the attestation
clause failed to state the number of pages upon which the
will was written. The number of pages was however
supplied by the Acknowledgment portion.