Republic of the Philippines written in the language or dialect known by the testator," etc. (Emphasis supplied.

estator," etc. (Emphasis supplied.) Nor can the

SUPREME COURT presumption in favor of the will established by this court in Abangan vs. Abangan (40 Phil., 476),
Manila to the effect that the testator is presumed to know the dialect of the locality where he resides,
unless there is proof to the contrary, even he invoked in support of the probate of said document
EN BANC Exhibit A, as a will, because, in the instant case, not only is it not proven that English is the
language of the City of Baguio where the deceased Piraso lived and where Exhibit A was drawn,
but that the record contains positive proof that said Piraso knew no other language than the
G.R. No. L-28946 January 16, 1929
Igorrote dialect, with a smattering of Ilocano; that is, he did not know the English language in
which Exhibit A is written. So that even if such a presumption could have been raised in this case
In re estate of Piraso, deceased. it would have been wholly contradicted and destroyed.
SIXTO ACOP, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
We consider the other question raised in this appeal needless and immaterial to the adjudication
SALMING PIRASO, ET AL., opponents-appellees.
of this case, it having been, as it was, proven, that the instrument in question could not be
probated as the last will and testament of the deceased Piraso, having been written in the English
Gibbs and McDonough and Roman Ozaeta for appellant. language with which the latter was unacquainted.
Adolfo A. Scheerer for appellees.
Such a result based upon solidly established facts would be the same whether or not it be
ROMUALDEZ, J.: technically held that said will, in order to be valid, must be written in the Ilocano dialect; whether or
not the Igorrote or Inibaloi dialect is a cultivated language and used as a means of communication
This appeal was taken from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Benguet, denying the in writing, and whether or not the testator Piraso knew the Ilocano dialect well enough to
probate of the instrument Exhibit A, as the last will and testament of the deceased Piraso. understand a will written in said dialect. The fact is, we repeat, that it is quite certain that the
instrument Exhibit A was written in English which the supposed testator Piraso did not know, and
The proponent-appellant assigns the following as alleged errors of the lower court: this is sufficient to invalidate said will according to the clear and positive provisions of the law, and
inevitably prevents its probate.
1. In holding that in order to be valid the will in question should have been drawn up in the
Ilocano dialect. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So
ordered.
2. In not holding that the testator Piraso did not know the Ilocano dialect well enough to
understand a will drawn up in said dialect.

3. In refusing to admit the will in question to probate.

The fundamental errors assigned refer chiefly to the part of the judgment which reads as follows:

The evidence shows that Piraso knew how to speak the Ilocano dialect, although
imperfectly, and could make himself understood in that dialect, and the court is of the
opinion that his will should have been written in that dialect.

Such statements were not unnecessary for the decision of the case, once it has been proved
without contradiction, that the said deceased Piraso did not know English, in which language the
instrument Exhibit A, alleged to be his will, is drawn. Section 628 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
strictly provides that:

"No will, except as provides in the preceding section" (as to wills executed by a Spaniard or a
resident of the Philippine Islands, before the present Code of Civil Procedure went into effect),
"shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be
 Republic of the Philippines margin would be unneccessary; and if they do not guaranty, same signatures, affixed on another
SUPREME COURT part of same sheet, would add nothing. We cannot assume that the statute regards of such
Manila importance the place where the testator and the witnesses must sign on the sheet that it would
consider that their signatures written on the bottom do not guaranty the authenticity of the sheet
EN BANC but, if repeated on the margin, give sufficient security.

G.R. No. L-13431 November 12, 1919 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
In re will of Ana Abangan.
one sheet only, the object of the statute disappears because the removal of this single sheet,
GERTRUDIS ABANGAN, executrix-appellee,
although unnumbered, cannot be hidden.
vs.
ANASTACIA ABANGAN, ET AL., opponents-appellants.
What has been said is also applicable to the attestation clause. Wherefore, without considering
whether or not this clause is an essential part of the will, we hold that in the one accompanying the
Filemon Sotto for appellants.
will in question, the signatures of the testatrix and of the three witnesses on the margin and the
M. Jesus Cuenco for appellee.
numbering of the pages of the sheet are formalities not required by the statute. Moreover, referring
specially to the signature of the testatrix, we can add that same is not necessary in the attestation
clause because this, as its name implies, appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator
since the latter does not attest, but executes, the will.

AVANCEÑA, J.: Synthesizing our opinion, we hold that in a will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains
all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses
On September 19, 1917, the Court of First Instance of Cebu admitted to probate Ana Abangan's and the second contains only the attestation clause and is signed also at the bottom by the three
will executed July, 1916. From this decision the opponent's appealed. witnesses, it is not necessary that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator
and the witnesses, or be paged.
Said document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's will, consists of two sheets, the first of which
contains all of the disposition of the testatrix, duly signed at the bottom by Martin Montalban (in the The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad
name and under the direction of the testatrix) and by three witnesses. The following sheet faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and
contains only the attestation clause duly signed at the bottom by the three instrumental witnesses. authenticity. Therefore the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain
Neither of these sheets is signed on the left margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses, nor these primordal ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not
numbered by letters; and these omissions, according to appellants' contention, are defects the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an
whereby the probate of the will should have been denied. We are of the opinion that the will was interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds
duly admitted to probate. nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustative of the testator's
last will, must be disregarded. lawphil.net
In requiring that each and every sheet of the will should also be signed on the left margin by the
testator and three witnesses in the presence of each other, Act No. 2645 (which is the one As another ground for this appeal, it is alleged the records do not show that the testarix knew the
applicable in the case) evidently has for its object (referring to the body of the will itself) to avoid dialect in which the will is written. But the circumstance appearing in the will itself that same was
the substitution of any of said sheets, thereby changing the testator's dispositions. But when these executed in the city of Cebu and in the dialect of this locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is
dispositions are wholly written on only one sheet signed at the bottom by the testator and three enough, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, to presume that she knew this dialect in which
witnesses (as the instant case), their signatures on the left margin of said sheet would be this will is written.
completely purposeless. In requiring this signature on the margin, the statute took into
consideration, undoubtedly, the case of a will written on several sheets and must have referred to For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs
the sheets which the testator and the witnesses do not have to sign at the bottom. A different against the appellants. So ordered.
interpretation would assume that the statute requires that this sheet, already signed at the bottom,
be signed twice. We cannot attribute to the statute such an intention. As these signatures must be
written by the testator and the witnesses in the presence of each other, it appears that, if the
signatures at the bottom of the sheet guaranties its authenticity, another signature on its left
 Republic of the Philippines Judge Bienvenido A. Tan dismissed the second guardianship proceeding and confirmed Nenita's
SUPREME COURT appointment as guardian of Agapito (p. 16, Rollo of CA case). Agapito has been staying in a
Manila veteran's hospital in San Francisco or Palo Alto, California (p. 87, Record).

SECOND DIVISION On a date not indicated in the record, the spouses Antonio Sy and Hermogena Talan begot a child
named Marilyn Sy, who, when a few days old, was entrusted to Arsenia de la Cruz (apparently a
A.M. No. 2026-CFI December 19, 1981 girl friend of Agapito) and who was later delivered to Marcelina Salvador Suroza who brought her
up as a supposed daughter of Agapito and as her granddaughter (pp. 23-26, Rollo of CA-G.R.
No.SP-08654-R). Marilyn used the surname Suroza. She stayed with Marcelina but was not
NENITA DE VERA SUROZA, complainant,
legally adopted by Agapito. She married Oscar Medrano and is residing at 7666 J.B. Roxas
vs. Street, Makati, apparently a neighbor of Marina Paje, a resident of 7668 J.B. Roxas Street.
JUDGE REYNALDO P. HONRADO of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch 25
and EVANGELINE S. YUIPCO, Deputy Clerk of Court, respondents.
Marcelina supposedly executed a notarial will in Manila on July 23, 1973, when she was 73 years
old. That will which is in English was thumbmarked by her. She was illiterate. Her letters in English
to the Veterans Administration were also thumbmarked by her (pp. 38-39, CA Rollo). In that wig,
Marcelina bequeathed all her estate to her supposed granddaughter Marilyn.
AQUINO, J.:
Marcelina died on November 15, 1974 at the Veterans Hospital in Quezon City. At the time of her
Should disciplinary action be taken against respondent judge for having admitted to probate a will, death, she was a resident of 7374 San Maximo Street, Olimpia, Makati, Rizal. She owned a 150-
which on its face is void because it is written in English, a language not known to the illiterate square meter lot and house in that place. She acquired the lot in 1966 (p. 134, Record of testate
testatrix, and which is probably a forged will because she and the attesting witnesses did not case).
appear before the notary as admitted by the notary himself?
On January 13, 1975, Marina Paje, alleged to be a laundrywoman of Marcelina (P. 97, CA Rollo)
That question arises under the pleadings filed in the testate case and in the certiorari case in the and the executrix in her will (the alternate executrix was Juanita Macaraeg, mother of Oscar,
Court of Appeals which reveal the following tangled strands of human relationship: Marilyn's husband), filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch 25, a petition for
the probate of Marcelina's alleged will. The case was assigned to Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado.
Mauro Suroza, a corporal in the 45th Infantry of the U.S. Army (Philippine Scouts), Fort McKinley,
married Marcelina Salvador in 1923 (p. 150, Spec. Proc. No. 7816). They were childless. They As there was no opposition, Judge Honrado commissioned his deputy clerk of court, Evangeline
reared a boy named Agapito who used the surname Suroza and who considered them as his S. Yuipco, to hear the evidence. The transcripts of the stenographic notes taken at the hearing
parents as shown in his 1945 marriage contract with Nenita de Vera (p. 15, Rollo of CA-G.R. No. before the deputy clerk of court are not in the record.
08654-R; p. 148, Rollo of Testate Case showing that Agapito was 5 years old when Mauro
married Marcelina in 1923).
In an order dated March 31, 1975, Judge Honrado appointed Marina as administratrix. On the
following day, April 1, Judge Honrado issued two orders directing the Merchants Banking
Mauro died in 1942. Marcelina, as a veteran's widow, became a pensioner of the Federal Corporation and the Bank of America to allow Marina to withdraw the sum of P10,000 from the
Government. That explains why on her death she had accumulated some cash in two banks. savings accounts of Marcelina S. Suroza and Marilyn Suroza and requiring Corazon Castro, the
custodian of the passbooks, to deliver them to Marina.
Agapito and Nenita begot a child named Lilia who became a medical technologist and went
abroad. Agapito also became a soldier. He was disabled and his wife Nenita was appointed as his Upon motion of Marina, Judge Honrado issued another order dated April 11, 1975, instructing a
guardian in 1953 when he was declared an incompetent in Special Proceeding No. 1807 of the deputy sheriff to eject the occupants of the testatrix's house, among whom was Nenita V. Suroza,
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch I (p. 16, Rollo of CA-G.R. No. 08654-R). and to place Marina in possession thereof.

In that connection, it should be noted that a woman named Arsenia de la Cruz wanted also to be That order alerted Nenita to the existence of the testamentary proceeding for the settlement of
his guardian in another proceeding. Arsenia tried to prove that Nenita was living separately from Marcelina's estate. She and the other occupants of the decedent's house filed on April 18 in the
Agapito and that she (Nenita) admitted to Marcelina that she was unfaithful to Agapito (pp. 61-63, said proceeding a motion to set aside the order of April 11 ejecting them. They alleged that the
Record of testate case). decedent's son Agapito was the sole heir of the deceased, that he has a daughter named Lilia,
that Nenita was Agapito's guardian and that Marilyn was not Agapito's daughter nor the
decedent's granddaughter (pp. 52-68, Record of testate case). Later, they questioned the probate Instead of appealing from that order and the order probating the wig, Nenita "filed a case to annul"
court's jurisdiction to issue the ejectment order. the probate proceedings (p. 332, Record). That case, Civil Case No. 24276, Suroza vs. Paje and
Honrado (p. 398, Record), was also assigned to Judge Honrado. He dismissed it in his order of
In spite of the fact that Judge Honrado was already apprised that persons, other than Marilyn, February 16, 1977 (pp. 398-402, Record).
were claiming Marcelina's estate, he issued on April 23 an order probating her supposed will
wherein Marilyn was the instituted heiress (pp. 74-77, Record). Judge Honrado in his order dated December 22, 1977, after noting that the executrix had
delivered the estate to Marilyn, and that the estate tax had been paid, closed the testamentary
On April 24, Nenita filed in the testate case an omnibus petition "to set aside proceedings, admit proceeding.
opposition with counter-petition for administration and preliminary injunction". Nenita in that motion
reiterated her allegation that Marilyn was a stranger to Marcelina, that the will was not duly About ten months later, in a verified complaint dated October 12, 1978, filed in this Court, Nenita
executed and attested, that it was procured by means of undue influence employed by Marina and charged Judge Honrado with having probated the fraudulent will of Marcelina. The complainant
Marilyn and that the thumbmarks of the testatrix were procured by fraud or trick. reiterated her contention that the testatrix was illiterate as shown by the fact that she affixed her
thumbmark to the will and that she did not know English, the language in which the win was
Nenita further alleged that the institution of Marilyn as heir is void because of the preterition of written. (In the decree of probate Judge Honrado did not make any finding that the will was written
Agapito and that Marina was not qualified to act as executrix (pp. 83-91, Record). in a language known to the testatrix.)

To that motion was attached an affidavit of Zenaida A. Penaojas the housemaid of Marcelina, who Nenita further alleged that Judge Honrado, in spite of his knowledge that the testatrix had a son
swore that the alleged will was falsified (p. 109, Record). named Agapito (the testatrix's supposed sole compulsory and legal heir), who was preterited in
the will, did not take into account the consequences of such a preterition.
Not content with her motion to set aside the ejectment order (filed on April 18) and her omnibus
motion to set aside the proceedings (filed on April 24), Nenita filed the next day, April 25, an Nenita disclosed that she talked several times with Judge Honrado and informed him that the
opposition to the probate of the will and a counter-petition for letters of administration. In that testatrix did not know the executrix Marina Paje, that the beneficiary's real name is Marilyn Sy and
opposition, Nenita assailed the due execution of the will and stated the names and addresses of that she was not the next of kin of the testatrix.
Marcelina's intestate heirs, her nieces and nephews (pp. 113-121, Record). Nenita was not aware
of the decree of probate dated April 23, 1975. Nenita denounced Judge Honrado for having acted corruptly in allowing Marina and her cohorts to
withdraw from various banks the deposits Marcelina.
To that opposition was attached an affidavit of Dominga Salvador Teodocio, Marcelina's niece,
who swore that Marcelina never executed a win (pp. 124-125, Record). She also denounced Evangeline S. Yuipco, the deputy clerk of court, for not giving her access to
the record of the probate case by alleging that it was useless for Nenita to oppose the probate
Marina in her answer to Nenita's motion to set aside the proceedings admitted that Marilyn was since Judge Honrado would not change his decision. Nenita also said that Evangeline insinuated
not Marcelina's granddaughter but was the daughter of Agapito and Arsenia de la Cruz and that that if she (Nenita) had ten thousand pesos, the case might be decided in her favor. Evangeline
Agapito was not Marcelina's son but merely an anak-anakan who was not legally adopted (p. 143, allegedly advised Nenita to desist from claiming the properties of the testatrix because she
Record). (Nenita) had no rights thereto and, should she persist, she might lose her pension from the
Federal Government.
Judge Honrado in his order of July 17, 1975 dismissed Nenita's counter-petition for the issuance
of letters of administration because of the non-appearance of her counsel at the hearing. She Judge Honrado in his brief comment did not deal specifically with the allegations of the complaint.
moved for the reconsideration of that order. He merely pointed to the fact that Nenita did not appeal from the decree of probate and that in a
motion dated July 6, 1976 she asked for a thirty day period within which to vacate the house of the
testatrix.
In a motion dated December 5, 1975, for the consolidation of all pending incidents, Nenita V.
Suroza reiterated her contention that the alleged will is void because Marcelina did not appear
before the notary and because it is written in English which is not known to her (pp. 208-209, Evangeline S. Yuipco in her affidavit said that she never talked with Nenita and that the latter did
Record). not mention Evangeline in her letter dated September 11, 1978 to President Marcos.

Judge Honrado in his order of June 8, 1976 "denied" the various incidents "raised" by Nenita (p. Evangeline branded as a lie Nenita's imputation that she (Evangeline) prevented Nenita from
284, Record). having access to the record of the testamentary proceeding. Evangeline was not the custodian of
the record. Evangeline " strongly, vehemently and flatly denied" Nenita's charge that she
(Evangeline) said that the sum of ten thousand pesos was needed in order that Nenita could get a In this case, respondent judge, on perusing the will and noting that it was written in English and
favorable decision. Evangeline also denied that she has any knowledge of Nenita's pension from was thumbmarked by an obviously illiterate testatrix, could have readily perceived that the will is
the Federal Government. void.

The 1978 complaint against Judge Honorado was brought to attention of this Court in the Court In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a language "understood and
Administrator's memorandum of September 25, 1980. The case was referred to Justice Juan A. known" to the testatrix. But in its concluding paragraph, it was stated that the will was read to the
Sison of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. He submitted a report testatrix "and translated into Filipino language". (p. 16, Record of testate case). That could only
dated October 7, 1981. 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
On December 14, 1978, Nenita filed in the Court of Appeals against Judge Honrado a petition for executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. Thus, a will written in English, which was
certiorari and prohibition wherein she prayed that the will, the decree of probate and all the not known to the Igorot testator, is void and was disallowed (Acop vs. Piraso, 52 Phil. 660).
proceedings in the probate case be declared void.
The hasty preparation of the will is shown in the attestation clause and notarial acknowledgment
Attached to the petition was the affidavit of Domingo P. Aquino, who notarized the will. He swore where Marcelina Salvador Suroza is repeatedly referred to as the "testator" instead of "testatrix".
that the testatrix and the three attesting witnesses did not appear before him and that he notarized
the will "just to accommodate a brother lawyer on the condition" that said lawyer would bring to the Had respondent judge been careful and observant, he could have noted not only the anomaly as
notary the testatrix and the witnesses but the lawyer never complied with his commitment. to the language of the will but also that there was something wrong in instituting the supposed
granddaughter as sole heiress and giving nothing at all to her supposed father who was still alive.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because Nenita's remedy was an appeal and her
failure to do so did not entitle her to resort to the special civil action of certiorari (Suroza vs. Furthermore, after the hearing conducted by respondent deputy clerk of court, respondent judge
Honrado, CA-G.R. No. SP-08654, May 24, 1981). could have noticed that the notary was not presented as a witness.

Relying on that decision, Judge Honrado filed on November 17, 1981 a motion to dismiss the In spite of the absence of an opposition, respondent judge should have personally conducted the
administrative case for having allegedly become moot and academic. hearing on the probate of the will so that he could have ascertained whether the will was validly
executed.
We hold that disciplinary action should be taken against respondent judge for his improper
disposition of the testate case which might have resulted in a miscarriage of justice because the Under the circumstances, we find his negligence and dereliction of duty to be inexcusable.
decedent's legal heirs and not the instituted heiress in the void win should have inherited the
decedent's estate. WHEREFORE, for inefficiency in handling the testate case of Marcelina S. Suroza, a fine
equivalent to his salary for one month is imposed on respondent judge (his compulsory retirement
A judge may be criminally liable or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or interlocutory order falls on December 25, 1981).
or rendering a manifestly unjust judgment or interlocutory order by reason of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance (Arts. 204 to 206, Revised Penal Code). The case against respondent Yuipco has become moot and academic because she is no longer
employed in the judiciary. Since September 1, 1980 she has been assistant city fiscal of Surigao
Administrative action may be taken against a judge of the court of first instance for serious City. She is beyond this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction (Peralta vs. Firm Adm. Matter No. 2044-
misconduct or inefficiency ( Sec. 67, Judiciary Law). Misconduct implies malice or a wrongful CFI November 21, 1980, 101 SCRA 225).
intent, not a mere error of judgment. "For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable
evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to SO ORDERED.
violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules" (In re lmpeachment of
Horrilleno, 43 Phil. 212, 214-215).

Inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance and carelessness. A judge would be

inexcusably negligent if he failed to observe in the performance of his duties that diligence,
prudence and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service (In
re Climaco, Adm. Case No. 134-J, Jan. 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 107, 119).
 Republic of the Philippines Phil., 291), this court declared after an elaborate examination of the American and English
SUPREME COURT authorities that when a contest is instituted, all of the attesting witnesses must be examined, if
Manila alive and within reach of the process of the court.

EN BANC In the present case no explanation was made at the trial as to why all three of the attesting
witnesses were not produced, but the probable reason is found in the fact that, although the
G.R. No. 15566 September 14, 1921 petition for the probate of this will had been pending from December 21, 1917, until the date set
for the hearing, which was April 5, 1919, no formal contest was entered until the very day set for
the hearing; and it is probable that the attorney for the proponent, believing in good faith the
EUTIQUIA AVERA, petitioner-appellee,
probate would not be contested, repaired to the court with only one of the three attesting
vs.
witnesses at hand, and upon finding that the will was contested, incautiously permitted the case to
MARINO GARCIA, and JUAN RODRIGUEZ, as guardian of the minors Cesar Garcia and
go to proof without asking for a postponement of the trial in order that he might produce all the
Jose Garcia, objectors-appellants.
attesting witnesses.

Dionisio Villanueva for appellants.

Although this circumstance may explain why the three witnesses were not produced, it does not in
Marcelino Lontok for appellee.
itself supply any basis for changing the rule expounded in the case above referred to; and were it
not for a fact now to be mentioned, this court would probably be compelled to reverse this case on
STREET, J.: the ground that the execution of the will had not been proved by a sufficient number of attesting
witnesses.
In proceedings in the court below, instituted by Eutiquia Avera for probate of the will of one
Esteban Garcia, contest was made by Marino Garcia and Juan Rodriguez, the latter in the It appears, however, that this point was not raised by the appellant in the lower court either upon
capacity of guardian for the minors Jose Garcia and Cesar Garcia. Upon the date appointed for the submission of the cause for determination in that court or upon the occasion of the filing of the
the hearing, the proponent of the will introduced one of the three attesting witnesses who testified motion for a new trial. Accordingly it is insisted for the appellee that this question cannot now be
— with details not necessary to be here specified — that the will was executed with all necessary raised for the first time in this court. We believe this point is well taken, and the first assignment of
external formalities, and that the testator was at the time in full possession of disposing faculties. error must be declared not be well taken. This exact question has been decided by the Supreme
Upon the latter point the witness was corroborated by the person who wrote the will at the request Court of California adversely to the contention of the appellant, and we see no reason why the
of the testator. Two of the attesting witnesses were not introduced, nor was their absence same rule of practice should not be observed by us. (Estate of McCarty, 58 Cal., 335, 337.)
accounted for by the proponent of the will.
There are at least two reason why the appellate tribunals are disinclined to permit certain
When the proponent rested the attorney for the opposition introduced a single witness whose questions to be raised for the first time in the second instance. In the first place it eliminates the
testimony tended to show in a vague and indecisive manner that at the time the will was made the judicial criterion of the Court of First Instance upon the point there presented and makes the
testator was so debilitated as to be unable to comprehend what he was about. appellate court in effect a court of first instance with reference to that point, unless the case is
remanded for a new trial. In the second place, it permits, if it does not encourage, attorneys to trifle
After the cause had been submitted for determination upon the proof thus presented, the trial with the administration of justice by concealing from the trial court and from their opponent the
judge found that the testator at the time of the making of the will was of sound mind and disposing actual point upon which reliance is placed, while they are engaged in other discussions more
memory and that the will had been properly executed. He accordingly admitted the will to probate. simulated than real. These considerations are, we think, decisive.

From this judgment an appeal was taken in behalf of the persons contesting the will, and the only In ruling upon the point above presented we do not wish to be understood as laying down any
errors here assigned have reference to the two following points, namely, first, whether a will can hard and fast rule that would prove an embarrassment to this court in the administration of justice
be admitted to probate, where opposition is made, upon the proof of a single attesting witness, in the future. In one way or another we are constantly here considering aspects of cases and
without producing or accounting for the absence of the other two; and, secondly, whether the will applying doctrines which have escaped the attention of all persons concerned in the litigation
in question is rendered invalid by reason of the fact that the signature of the testator and of the below; and this is necessary if this court is to contribute the part due from it in the correct decision
three attesting witnesses are written on the right margin of each page of the will instead of the left of the cases brought before it. What we mean to declare is that when we believe that substantial
margin. justice has been done in the Court of First Instance, and the point relied on for reversal in this
court appears to be one which ought properly to have been presented in that court, we will in the
Upon the first point, while it is undoubtedly true that an uncontested will bay be proved by the exercise of a sound discretion ignore such question relates a defect which might have been cured
testimony of only one of the three attesting witnesses, nevertheless in Cabang vs. Delfinado (34 in the Court of First Instance if attention had been called to it there. In the present case, if the
appellant had raised this question in the lower court, either at the hearing or upon a motion for a
new trial, that court would have had the power, and it would have been is duty, considering the The controlling considerations on the point now before us were well stated In Re will of Abangan
tardy institution of the contest, to have granted a new trial in order that all the witnesses to the will (40 Phil., 476, 479), where the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Avanceña, in a case where the
might be brought into court. But instead of thus calling the error to the attention of the court and signatures were placed at the bottom of the page and not in the margin, said:
his adversary, the point is first raised by the appellant in this court. We hold that this is too late.
The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door
Properly understood, the case of Cabang vs. Delfinado, supra, contains nothing inconsistent with against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution o will and testaments and to guarantee
the ruling we now make, for it appears from the opinion in that case that the proponent of the will their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on this subject should be interpreted in
had obtained an order for a republication and new trial for the avowed purpose of presenting the such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not
two additional attesting witnesses who had not been previously examined, but nevertheless lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise
subsequently failed without any apparent reason to take their testimony. Both parties in that case of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends,
were therefore fully apprised that the question of the number of witnesses necessary to prove the any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites
will was in issue in the lower court. entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be
disregarded.
The second point involved in this case is whether, under section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645, it is essential to the validity of a will in this jurisdiction In the case before us, where ingenuity could not suggest any possible prejudice to any person, as
that the names of the testator and the instrumental witnesses should be written on the left margin attendant upon the actual deviation from the letter of the law, such deviation must be considered
of each page, as required in said Act, and not upon the right margin, as in the will now before us; too trivial to invalidate the instrument.
and upon this we are of the opinion that the will in question is valid. It is true that the statute says
that the testator and the instrumental witnesses shall sign their names on the left margin of each It results that the legal errors assigned are not sustainable, and the judgment appealed from will
and every page; and it is undeniable that the general doctrine is to the effect that all statutory be affirmed. It is so ordered, with costs against the appellants.
requirements as to the execution of wills must be fully complied with. The same doctrine is also
deducible from cases heretofore decided by this court.

Still some details at times creep into legislative enactments which are so trivial it would be absurd
to suppose that the Legislature could have attached any decisive importance to them. The
provision to the effect that the signatures of the testator and witnesses shall be written on the left
margin of each page — rather than on the right margin — seems to be this character. So far as
concerns the authentication of the will, and of every part thereof, it can make no possible
difference whether the names appear on the left or no the right margin, provided they are on one
or the other. In Caraig vs. Tatlonghari (R. G. No. 12558, decided March 23, 1918, not reported),
this court declared a will void which was totally lacking in the signatures required to be written on
its several pages; and in the case of Re estate of Saguinsin (41 Phil., 875), a will was likewise
declared void which contained the necessary signatures on the margin of each leaf ( folio), but not
in the margin of each page containing written matter.

The instrument now before us contains the necessary signatures on every page, and the only
point of deviation from the requirement of the statute is that these signatures appear in the right
margin instead of the left. By the mode of signing adopted every page and provision of the will is
authenticated and guarded from possible alteration in exactly the same degree that it would have
been protected by being signed in the left margin; and the resources of casuistry could be
exhausted without discovering the slightest difference between the consequences of affixing the
signatures in one margin or the other.

The same could not be said of a case like that of Estate of Saguinsin, supra, where only the
leaves, or alternate pages, were signed and not each written page; for as observed in that case by
our late lamented Chief Justice, it was possible that in the will as there originally executed by the
testratrix only the alternative pages had been used, leaving blanks on the reverse sides, which
conceivably might have been filled in subsequently.
 Republic of the Philippines will; and (d) the fact that the testator does not appear to have signed all the sheets in the presence
SUPREME COURT of the three witnesses, and the latter to have attested and signed all the sheets in the presence of
Manila the testator and of each other.

EN BANC As to the signatures on the margin, it is true, as above stated, that the third page actually used
was signed by the testator, not on the left margin, as it was by the witnesses, but about the middle
G.R. No. L-21755 December 29, 1924 of the page and the end of the will; and that the fourth page was signed by the witnesses, not on
the left margin, as it was by the testator, but about the middle of the page and at the end of the
attestation clause.
In the matter of the testate estate of Antonio Mojal, deceased. FILOMENA NAYVE, petitioner-
appellee,
vs. In this respect the holding of this court in the case of Avera vs. Garcia and Rodriguez (42 Phil.,
LEONA MOJAL and LUCIANA AGUILAR, opponents-appellants. 145), is applicable, wherein the will in question was signed by the testator and the witnesses, not
on the left, but right, margin. The rule laid down in that case is that the document contained the
necessary signatures on each page, whereby each page of the will was authenticated and
Manuel M. Calleja for appellants.
safeguarded against any possible alteration. In that case, the validity of the will was sustained,
Felix U. Calleja for appellee.
and consequently it was allowed to probate.

Applying that doctrine to the instant case, we hold that, as each and every page used of the will
bears the signatures of the testator and the witnesses, the fact that said signatures do not all
appear on the left margin of each page does not detract from the validity of the will.lawphi1.net
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
Turning to the second defect alleged, that is to say, the fact that the sheets of the document are
This is a proceeding for the probate of the will of the deceased Antonio Mojal instituted by his not paged with letters, suffice it to cite the case of Unson vs. Abella (43 Phil., 494), where this
surviving spouse, Filomena Nayve. The probate is opposed by Leona Mojal and Luciana Aguilar, court held that paging with Arabic numerals and not with letters, as in the case before us, is within
sister and niece, respectively, of the deceased. the spirit of the law and is just as valid as paging with letters.

The Court of First Instance of Albay, which tried the case, overruled the objections to the will, and As to the proposition that the attestation clause does not state the number of sheets or pages of
ordered the probate thereof, holding that the document in controversy was the last will and the will, which is the third defect assigned, it must be noted that the last paragraph of the will here
testament of Antonio Mojal, executed in accordance with law. From this judgment the opponents in question and the attestation clause, coming next to it, are of the following tenor:
appeal, assigning error to the decree of the court allowing the will to probate and overruling their
opposition.
In witness whereof, I set my hand unto this will here in the town of
Camalig, Albay, Philippine Islands, this 26th day of November, nineteen
The will in question, Exhibit A, is composed of four sheets with written matter on only side of each, hundred and eighteen, composed of four sheets, including the next:
that is, four pages written on four sheets. The four sides or pages containing written matter are
paged "Pag. 1," "Pag. 2," "Pag. 3," "Pag. 4," successively. Each of the first two sides or pages, ANTONIO
which was issued, was signed by the testator and the three witnesses on the margin, left side of MOJAL
the reader. On the third page actually used, the signatures of the three witnesses appear also on
the margin, left side of the reader, but the signature of the testator is not on the margin, but about
the middle of the page, at the end of the will and before the attestation clause. On the fourth page, (Signed and declared by the testator Don Antonio Mojal to be his last will
the signatures of the witnesses do not appear on the margin, but at the bottom of the attestation and testament in the presence of each of us, and at the request of said
clause, it being the signature of the testator that is on the margin, left side of the reader. testator Don Antonio Mojal, we signed this will in the presence of each
other and of the testator.)
The defects attributed to the will are: PEDRO CARO
SILVERIO
(a) The fact of not having been signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and every sheet MORCO
on the left margin; (b) the fact of the sheets of the document not being paged with letters; (c) the ZOILO MASINAS
fact that the attestation clause does not state the number of sheets or pages actually used of the
As may be seen, the number of sheets is stated in said last paragraph of the will. It is true that in
the case of Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca (43 Phil., 405), it was held that the attestation clause
must state the number of sheets or pages composing the will; but when, as in the case before us,
such fact, while it is not stated in the attestation clause, appears at the end of the will proper, so
that no proof aliunde is necessary of the number of the sheets of the will, then there can be no
doubt that it complies with the intention of the law that the number of sheets of which the will is
composed be shown by the document itself, to prevent the number of the sheets of the will from
being unduly increased or decreased.

With regard to the last defect pointed out, namely, that the testator does not appear to have
signed on all the sheets of the will in the presence of the three witnesses, and the latter to have
attested and signed on all the sheets in the presence of the testator and of each other, it must be
noted that in the attestation clause above set out it is said that the testator signed the will "in the
presence of each of the witnesses" and the latter signed "in the presence of each other and of the
testator." So that, as to whether the testator and the attesting witnesses saw each other sign the
will, such a requirement was clearly and sufficiently complied with. What is not stated in this clause
is whether the testator and the witnesses signed all the sheets of the will.

The act of the testator and the witnesses seeing reciprocally the signing of the will is one which
cannot be proven by the mere exhibition of the will unless it is stated in the document. And this
fact is expressly stated in the attestation clause now before us. But the fact of the testator and the
witnesses having signed all the sheets of the will may be proven by the mere examination of the
document, although it does not say anything about this, and if that is the fact, as it is in the instant
case, the danger of fraud in this respect, which is what the law tries to avoid, does not exist.

Therefore, as in the instant case the fact that the testator and the witnesses signed each and
every page of the will is proven by the mere examination of the signatures in the will, the omission
to expressly state such evident fact does not invalidate the will nor prevent its probate.

The order appealed from is affirmed with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-9150 March 31, 1915

MARIANO LEAÑO, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
ARCADIO LEAÑO, objector-appellee.

Vicente Llanes for appellant.

Severo Hernando for appellee.

CARSON, J.:

The evidence of record satisfactorily discloses that Cristina Valdes, deceased, placed her costs
against her name, attached by some other person to the instrument offered for probate which
purports to be her last will and testament, in the presence of three witnesses whose names are
attached to the attesting clause, and that they attested and subscribed the instrument in her
presence and in the presence of each other.

We are of the opinion that the placing of the cross opposite her name at the construction of the
instrument was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which prescribes that except where wills are signed by some other person than the
testator in the manner and from herein indicated, a valid will must be signed by the testator. The
right of a testator to sign his will by mark, executed animo testandi has been uniformly sustained
by the courts of last resort of the United States in construing statutory provisions prescribing the
mode of execution of wills in language identical with, or substantially similar to that found in
section 618 of our code, which was taken from section 2349 of the Code of Vermont. (Page on
Wills, par. 173, and the cases there cited in support of the doctrine just announced.)

The trial judge was of contrary opinion, and declined to admit the instrument to probate as the last
will and testament of the decedent. We are of opinion, however, that the evidence of record
satisfactorily establishes the execution of that instrument as and for her last will and testament in
the manner and form prescribed by law.

The judgment entered in the court below should therefore be reversed, without costs in this
instance, and the record remanded to the court below, where judgment will be entered admitting
the instrument in question to probate in accordance with the prayer of the petitioner. So ordered.
 Republic of the Philippines end of his name and on the left margin of the three pages of which the will consists and at the end
SUPREME COURT thereof; (3) to certify that the three witnesses signed the will in all the pages thereon in the
Manila presence of the testator and of each other.

EN BANC In our opinion, the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero Mercado
caused Atty. Florentino Javier to write the testator's name under his express direction, as required
G.R. No. L-4067 November 29, 1951 by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The herein petitioner (who is appealing by way of
certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals) argues, however, that there is no need for
such recital because the cross written by the testator after his name is a sufficient signature and
In the Matter of the will of ANTERO MERCADO, deceased. ROSARIO GARCIA, petitioner,
the signature of Atty. Florentino Javier is a surplusage. Petitioner's theory is that the cross is as
vs.
much a signature as a thumbmark, the latter having been held sufficient by this Court in the cases
JULIANA LACUESTA, ET AL., respondents.
of De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil., 104; Dolar vs. Diancin, 55 Phil., 479;
Payad vs. Tolentino, 62 Phil., 848; Neyra vs. Neyra, 76 Phil., 296 and Lopez vs. Liboro, 81 Phil.,
Elviro L. Peralta and Hermenegildo A. Prieto for petitioner. 429.
Faustino B. Tobia, Juan I. Ines and Federico Tacason for respondents.
It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the usual signature of Antero
PARAS, C.J.: Mercado or even one of the ways by which he signed his name. After mature reflection, we are not
prepared to liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark, and the reason is obvious. The cross
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals disallowing the will of Antero Mercado cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.
dated January 3, 1943. The will is written in the Ilocano dialect and contains the following
attestation clause: What has been said makes it unnecessary for us to determine there is a sufficient recital in the
attestation clause as to the signing of the will by the testator in the presence of the witnesses, and
We, the undersigned, by these presents to declare that the foregoing testament of Antero by the latter in the presence of the testator and of each other.
Mercado was signed by himself and also by us below his name and of this attestation
clause and that of the left margin of the three pages thereof. Page three the continuation Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with against the petitioner. So ordered.
of this attestation clause; this will is written in Ilocano dialect which is spoken and
understood by the testator, and it bears the corresponding number in letter which
compose of three pages and all them were signed in the presence of the testator and
witnesses, and the witnesses in the presence of the testator and all and each and every
one of us witnesses.

In testimony, whereof, we sign this statement, this the third day of January, one thousand
nine hundred forty three, (1943) A.D.

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

(Sgd.) BIBIANA ILLEGIBLE

The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero
Mercado, followed below by "A reugo del testator" and the name of Florentino Javier. Antero
Mercado is alleged to have written a cross immediately after his name. The Court of Appeals,
reversing the judgement of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, ruled that the attestation
clause failed (1) to certify that the will was signed on all the left margins of the three pages and at
the end of the will by Atty. Florentino Javier at the express request of the testator in the presence
of the testator and each and every one of the witnesses; (2) to certify that after the signing of the
name of the testator by Atty. Javier at the former's request said testator has written a cross at the
 Republic of the Philippines The appeal squarely presents the following issue: Does the signature of Dr. Juan A. Abello above
SUPREME COURT the typewritten statement "Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana . . ., Ciudad de Zamboanga,"
Manila comply with the requirements of law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be executed?

EN BANC The present law, Article 805 of the Civil Code, in part provides as follows:

G.R. No. L-15153 August 31, 1960 Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the
testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence,
In the Matter of the summary settlement of the Estate of the deceased and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible
ANACLETA ABELLANA. LUCIO BALONAN, petitioner-appellee, witness in the presence of the testator and of one another. (Emphasis supplied.)
vs.
EUSEBIA ABELLANA, et al., oppositors-appellants. The clause "must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's
name written by some other person in his presence and by his express direction," is practically the
T. de los Santos for appellee. same as the provisions of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) which reads
Climaco and Climaco for appellants. as follows:

LABARADOR, J.: No will, except as provided in the preceding section shall be valid to pass any estate, real
or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be in writing and signed by the
testator, or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City admitting to probate the
his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in
will of one Anacleta Abellana. The case was originally appealed to the Court of Appeals where the the presence of the testator and of each other. . . . (Emphasis supplied).
following assignment of error is made:

Note that the old law as well as the new require that the testator himself sign the will, or if he
The appellants respectfully submit that the Trial Court erred in holding that the supposed
cannot do so, the testator's name must be written by some other person in his presence and by
testament, Exh. "A", was signed in accordance with law; and in admitting the will to
his express direction. Applying this provision this Court said in the case of Ex Parte Pedro
probate.
Arcenas, et al., Phil., 700:

In view of the fact that the appeal involves a question of law the said court has certified the case to
It will be noticed from the above-quoted section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure that
us.
where the testator does not know how, or is unable, to sign, it will not be sufficient that
one of the attesting witnesses signs the will at the testator's request, the notary certifying
The facts as found by the trial court are as follows: thereto as provided in Article 695 of the Civil Code, which, in this respect, was modified
by section 618 above referred to, but it is necessary that the testator's name be written by
It appears on record that the last Will and Testament (Exhibit "A"), which is sought to be the person signing in his stead in the place where he could have signed if he knew how or
probated, is written in the Spanish language and consists of two (2) typewritten pages was able to do so, and this in the testator's presence and by his express direction; so that
(pages 4 and 5 of the record) double space. The first page is signed by Juan Bello and a will signed in a manner different than that prescribed by law shall not be valid and will
under his name appears typewritten "Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana, residence not be allowed to be probated.
Certificate A-1167629, Enero 20, 1951, Ciudad de Zamboanga', and on the second page
appears the signature of three (3) instrumental witnesses Blas Sebastian, Faustino Where a testator does not know how, or is unable for any reason, to sign the will himself,
Macaso and Rafael Ignacio, at the bottom of which appears the signature of T. de los it shall be signed in the following manner:
Santos and below his signature is his official designation as the notary public who
notarized the said testament. On the first page on the left margin of the said instrument John Doe by the testator, Richard Doe; or in this form: "By the testator, John Doe,
also appear the signatures of the instrumental witnesses. On the second page, which is Richard Doe." All this must be written by the witness signing at the request of the testator.
the last page of said last Will and Testament, also appears the signature of the three (3)
instrumental witnesses and on that second page on the left margin appears the signature
of Juan Bello under whose name appears handwritten the following phrase, "Por la Therefore, under the law now in force, the witness Naval A. Vidal should have written at
Testadora Anacleta Abellana'. The will is duly acknowledged before Notary Public the bottom of the will the full name of the testator and his own name in one forms given
Attorney Timoteo de los Santos. (Emphasis supplied) above. He did not do so, however, and this is failure to comply with the law is a
 substantial defect which affects the validity of the will and precludes its allowance,
notwithstanding the fact that no one appeared to oppose it.

The same ruling was laid down in the case of Cuison vs. Concepcion, 5 Phil., 552. In the case
of Barut vs. Cabacungan, 21 Phil., 461, we held that the important thing is that it clearly appears
that the name of the testatrix was signed at her express direction; it is unimportant whether the
person who writes the name of the testatrix signs his own or not. Cases of the same import areas
follows: (Ex Parte Juan Ondevilla, 13 Phil., 479, Caluya vs. Domingo, 27 Phil., 330;
Garcia vs. Lacuesta, 90 Phil., 489).

In the case at bar the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written under the
will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan Abello. There is, therefore, a failure to comply with the
express requirement in the law that the testator must himself sign the will, or that his name be
affixed thereto by some other person in his presence and by his express direction.

It appearing that the above provision of the law has not been complied with, we are constrained to
declare that the said will of the deceased Anacleta Abellana may not be admitted to probate.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside and the petition for the probate of
the will denied. With costs against petitioner.
 Republic of the Philippines The attestation clause also states that the witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testatrix
SUPREME COURT and of each other. While it is also stated that these signatures were written on the left margin of
Manila the pages of the will, it should be so understood in view of the fact that these witnesses only
signed on the left margin of the pages of the will, for otherwise it would not be a fact that they, as
EN BANC they state, signed the will.

G.R. No. L-45924 May 18, 1939 The drafting of the attestation clause of this will is not, technically, free from criticism, but it is
substantially in compliance with the law.
In the matter of the will of the deceased Josefa Ylanan.
CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ, applicant-appellant, We maintain the view that there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of
vs. the will in order to insure its authenticity, but at the same time we believe that formal imperfections
EUGENIO YAP, ET AL., oppositors-appellees. should be brushed aside when they do not affect this purpose and which, when taken into
account, may defeat the testator's will.
Rodriguez and Fernan for appellant.
Miguel Cuenco for appellees. The appealed judgment is reversed, and it is held that the will of the deceased Josefa Ylanan is
allowable, without special pronouncement as to the costs in this instance. So ordered.
AVANCEÑA, C.J.:

The appealed decision denies the probate of the will left by the deceased Josefa Ylanan. This will
contains the following attestation clause:

We, Wenceslao Fernan, Sancho Mondares, Luis N. Murillo and Celestino Rodriguez,
depose: (a) That this is the last will of Josefa Ylanan; (b) said will is composed of two
pages; (c) inasmuch as Josefa Ylanan does not know how to write, upon her direction,
her name was signed by Celestino Rodriguez in the presence of Josefa Ylanan and of her
witnesses; (d) that the name of Josefa Ylanan was signed in all the pages; (e) and we
have signed this will in the presence of the testatrix and in the presence of each and
everyone of us here in Cebu, Cebu, this 27th day of January, 1926.

The name of the testatrix appears at the foot of the will and on the left margin of its two pages.
The signatures of the witnesses appear only on the left margin of the two pages and not at the
bottom of the will.

In denying the probate of the will, the court relied on the fact that the attestation clause
aforequoted is substantially defective because not containing the declaration that the testatrix
signed at the foot of the will in the presence of the witnesses or that the witnesses signed on the
margin of its pages in the presence of the testatrix and of each other. We are not ready to affirm
the appealed decision as these grounds.

The attestation clause states (c) that, as the testatrix did not know how to write, her name was
written by Celestino Rodriguez under her direction and in her presence and that of her witnesses.
While not so stated, this can only refer to the foot of the will, and not to the margin of the pages
thereof, because there is added, (b) that the name of the testatrix was written in all its pages,
which would otherwise have been necessary.
 Republic of the Philippines A. 1641 Because he had the pen in his hand, which was resting on the paper,
SUPREME COURT though I did not actually see him sign.
Manila
Q. 1641 Explain this contradictory statement.
EN BANC
A. 1641 After I signed I asked permission to leave, because I was in a hurry, and
G.R. No. 1641 January 19, 1906 while I was leaving Julio had already taken the pen in his hand, as it appeared, for the
purpose of signing, and when I was near the door I happened to turn my face and I saw
GERMAN JABONETA, plaintiff-appellant, that he had his hand with the pen resting on the will, moving it as if for the purpose of
vs. signing.
RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Q. 1641 State positively whether Julio moved his hand with the pen as if for the
Ledesma, Sumulong and Quintos for appellant. purpose of signing, or whether he was signing
Del-Pan, Ortigas and Fisher for appellees.
A. I believe he was signing.
CARSON, J.:
The truth and accuracy of the testimony of this witness does not seem to have been questioned by
In these proceedings probate was denied the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta, any of the parties to the proceedings, but the court, nevertheless, found the following facts:
deceased, because the lower court was of the opinion from the evidence adduced at the hearing
that Julio Javellana, one of the witnesses, did not attach his signature thereto in the presence of On the 26th day of December, 1901, Macario Jaboneta executed under the following
Isabelo Jena, another of the witnesses, as required by the provisions of section 618 of the Code of circumstances the document in question, which has been presented for probate as his
Civil Procedure. will:

The following is a copy of the evidence which appears of record on this particular point, being a Being in the house of Arcadio Jarandilla, in Jaro, in this province, he ordered that the
part of the testimony of the said Isabeo Jena: document in question be written, and calling Julio Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and
Isabelo Jena as witnesses, executed the said document as his will. They were all
Q. 1641 Who first signed the will? together, and were in the room where Jaboneta was, and were present when he signed
the document, Isabelo Jena signing afterwards as a witness, at his request, and in his
presence and in the presence of the other two witnesses. Aniceto Jalbuena then signed
A. 1641 I signed it first, and afterwards Aniceto and the others.
as a witness in the presence of the testator, and in the presence of the other two persons
who signed as witnesses. At that moment Isabelo Jena, being in a hurry to leave, took his
Q. 1641 Who were those others to whom you have just referred? hat and left the room. As he was leaving the house Julio Javellana took the pen in his
hand and put himself in position to sign the will as a witness, but did not sign in the
A. 1641 After the witness Aniceto signed the will I left the house, because I was in a presence of Isabelo Jena; but nevertheless, after Jena had left the room the said Julio
hurry, and at the moment when I was leaving I saw Julio Javellana with the pen in his Javellana signed as a witness in the presence of the testator and of the witness Aniceto
hand in position ready to sign (en actitud de firmar). I believe he signed, because he was Jalbuena.
at the table. . . .
We can not agree with so much of the above finding of facts as holds that the signature of
Q. 1641 State positively whether Julio Javellana did or did not sign as a witness to Javellana was not signed in the presence of Jena, in compliance with the provisions of section 618
the will. of the Code of Civil Procedure. 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
A. 1641 I can't say certainly, because as I was leaving the house I saw Julio testimony of the remaining witnesses which shows that Javellana did in fact there and then sign
Javellana with the pen in his hand, in position ready to sign. I believe he signed. his name to the will, convinces us that the signature was affixed in the presence of Jena. The fact
that he was in the act of leaving, and that his back was turned while a portion of the name of the
witness was being written, is of no importance. He, with the other witnesses and the testator, had
Q. 1641 Why do you believe Julio Javellana signed? assembled for the purpose of executing the testament, and were together in the same room for
that purpose, and at the moment when the witness Javellana signed the document he was
actually and physically present and in such position with relation to Javellana that he could see
everything which took place by merely casting his eyes in the proper direction, and without any
physical obstruction to prevent his doing so, therefore we are of opinion that the document was in
fact signed before he finally left the room.

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. (See Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 30, p.
599, and cases there cited.)

In the matter of Bedell (2 Connoly (N.Y.), 328) it was held that it is sufficient if the witnesses are
together for the purpose of witnessing the execution of the will, and in a position to actually see
the testator write, if they choose to do so; and there are many cases which lay down the rule that
the true test of vision is not whether the testator actually saw the witness sign, but whether he
might have seen him sign, considering his mental and physical condition and position at the time
of the subscription. (Spoonemore vs. Cables, 66 Mo., 579.)

The principles on which these cases rest and the tests of presence 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, and applying them to the facts proven in
these proceedings we are of opinion that the statutory requisites as to the execution of the
instrument were complied with, and that the lower court erred in denying probate to the will on the
ground stated in the ruling appealed from.

We are of opinion from the evidence of record that the instrument propounded in these
proceedings was satisfactorily proven to be the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta,
deceased, and that it should therefore be admitted to probate.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, without especial condemnation of costs, and after
twenty days the record will be returned to the court form whence it came, where the proper orders
will be entered in conformance herewith. So ordered.
 Republic of the Philippines August 20, 1979 but the same and subsequent scheduled hearings were postponed for one
SUPREME COURT reason to another. On May 29, 1980, the testator passed away before his petition could finally be
Manila heard by the probate court.3 On February 25, 1981, Benoni Cabrera, on of the legatees named in
the will, sough his appointment as special administrator of the testator's estate, the estimated
SECOND DIVISION value of which was P24,000.00, and he was so appointed by the probate court in its order of
March 6, 1981.4

Thereafter, herein petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a
second petition, entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Mateo Caballero" and docketed as
G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993
Special Proceeding No. 3965-R, before Branch IX of the aforesaid Court of First Instance of Cebu.
On October 18, 1982, herein petitioners had their said petition intestate proceeding consolidated
TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, JUAN CABALLERO, AUREA with Special Proceeding No. 3899-R in Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and
CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, HELEN CABALLERO, SANTOS CABALLERO, PABLO opposed thereat the probate of the Testator's will and the appointment of a special administrator
CABALLERO, VICTOR RAGA, MAURICIA RAGA, QUIRICA RAGA, RUPERTO ABAPO, for his estate.5
represented herein by his Attorney-in-Fact, ARMSTICIA * ABAPO VELANO, and CONSESO
CANEDA, represented herein by his heirs, JESUS CANEDA, NATIVIDAD CANEDA and
Benoni Cabrera died on February 8, 1982 hence the probate court, now known as Branch XV of
ARTURO CANEDA, petitioners,
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, appointed William Cabrera as special administrator on June 21,
vs.
1983. Thereafter, on July 20, 1983, it issued an order for the return of the records of Special
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM CABRERA, as Special Administrator of the Estate
Proceeding No. 3965-R to the archives since the testate proceeding for the probate of the will had
of Mateo Caballero, respondents.
to be heard and resolved first. On March 26, 1984 the case was reraffled and eventually assigned
to Branch XII of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu where it remained until the conclusion of the
Palma, Palma & Associates for petitioners. probate proceedings.6

Emilio Lumontad, Jr. for private respondents. In the course of the hearing in Special Proceeding No. 3899-R, herein petitioners appeared as
oppositors and objected to the allowance of the testator's will on the ground that on the alleged
date of its execution, the testator was already in the poor state of health such that he could not
have possibly executed the same. Petitioners likewise reiterated the issue as to the genuineness
REGALADO, J.: of the signature of the testator therein.7

Presented for resolution by this Court in the present petition for review on certiorari is the issue of On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses, Cipriano Labuca, and the notary public Atty.
whether or not the attestation clause contained in the last will and testament of the late Mateo Filoteo Manigos, testified that the testator executed the will in question in their presence while he
Caballero complies with the requirements of Article 805, in relation to Article 809, of the Civil was of sound and disposing mind and that, contrary to the assertions of the oppositors, Mateo
Code. Caballero was in good health and was not unduly influenced in any way in the execution of his will.
Labuca also testified that he and the other witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence
of the testator and of each other. The other two attesting witnesses were not presented in the
The records show that on December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children probate hearing as the had died by then.8
and already in the twilight years of his life, executed a last will and testament at his residence in
Talisay, Cebu before three attesting witnesses, namely, Cipriano Labuca, Gregorio Cabando and
Flaviano Toregosa. The said testator was duly assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Emilio Lumontad, and On April 5, 1988, the probate court rendered a decision declaring the will in question as the last
a notary public, Atty. Filoteo Manigos, in the preparation of that last will. 1 It was declared therein, will and testament of the late Mateo Caballero, on the ratiocination that:
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, . . . The self-serving testimony of the two witnesses of the oppositors cannot
Benoni G. Cabrera and Marcosa Alcantara, all of whom do not appear to be related to the overcome the positive testimonies of Atty. Filoteo Manigos and Cipriano Labuca
testator.2 who clearly told the Court that indeed Mateo Caballero executed the Last Will
and Testament now marked Exhibit "C" on December 5, 1978. Moreover, the fact
Four months later, or on April 4, 1979, Mateo Caballero himself filed a petition docketed as that it was Mateo Caballero who initiated the probate of his Will during his lifetime
Special Proceeding No. 3899-R before Branch II of the then Court of First Instance of Cebu when he caused the filing of the original petition now marked Exhibit "D" clearly
seeking the probate of his last will and testament. The probate court set the petition for hearing on underscores the fact that this was indeed his Last Will. At the start, counsel for
 the oppositors manifested that he would want the signature of Mateo Caballero in ground as that raised before respondent court, the validity of the attestation clause in the last will
Exhibit "C" examined by a handwriting expert of the NBI but it would seem that of Mateo Caballero.
despite their avowal and intention for the examination of this signature of Mateo
Caballero in Exhibit "C", nothing came out of it because they abandoned the idea We find the present petition to be meritorious, as we shall shortly hereafter, after some prefatory
and instead presented Aurea Caballero and Helen Caballero Campo as observations which we feel should be made in aid of the rationale for our resolution of the
witnesses for the oppositors. controversy.

All told, it is the finding of this Court that Exhibit "C" is the Last Will and 1. A will has been defined as a species of conveyance whereby a person is permitted, with the
Testament of Mateo Caballero and that it was executed in accordance with all formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate after his
the requisites of the law.9 death. 13 Under the Civil Code, there are two kinds of wills which a testator may execute. 14 the first
kind is the ordinary or attested will, the execution of which is governed by Articles 804 to 809 of
Undaunted by the said judgment of the probate court, petitioners elevated the case in the Court of the Code. Article 805 requires that:
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 19669. They asserted therein that the will in question is null and void
for the reason that its attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end
instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other
they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and
another. subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator
and of one another.
On October 15, 1991, respondent court promulgated its decision 10 affirming that of the trial court,
and ruling that the attestation clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero substantially complies with The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the
Article 805 of the Civil Code, thus: instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every
page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be
The question therefore is whether the attestation clause in question may be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page.
considered as having substantialy complied with the requirements of Art. 805 of
the Civil Code. What appears in the attestation clause which the oppositors claim The attestation should state the number of pages used upon which the will is
to be defective is "we do certify that the testament was read by him and the written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or
attestator, Mateo Caballero, has published unto us the foregoing will consisting of caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the
THREE PAGES, including the acknowledgment, each page numbered presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed
correlatively in letters of the upper part of each page, as his Last Will and the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
Testament, and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces another.
provided for his signature and on the left hand margin in the presence of the said
testator and in the presence of each and all of us (emphasis supplied).
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witness, it shall be
interpreted to them.
To our thinking, this is sufficient compliance and no evidence need be presented
to indicate the meaning that the said will was signed by the testator and by them
(the witnesses) in the presence of all of them and of one another. Or as the In addition, the ordinary will must be acknowledged before a notary public by a testator and the
language of the law would have it that the testator signed the will "in the attesting witness. 15 hence it is likewise known as notarial will. Where the attestator is deaf or deaf-
presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed mute, Article 807 requires that he must personally read the will, if able to do so. Otherwise, he
the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one should designate two persons who would read the will and communicate its contents to him in a
another." If not completely or ideally perfect in accordance with the wordings of practicable manner. On the other hand, if the testator is blind, the will should be read to him twice;
once, by anyone of the witnesses thereto, and then again, by the notary public before whom it is
Art. 805 but (sic) the phrase as formulated is in substantial compliance with the
acknowledged. 16
requirement of the law." 11

The other kind of will is the holographic will, which Article 810 defines as one that is entirely
Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the said ruling of respondent court, but the same was
denied in the latter's resolution of January 14, 1992, 12 hence this appeal now before us. written, dated, and signed by the testator himself. This kind of will, unlike the ordinary type,
Petitioners assert that respondent court has ruled upon said issue in a manner not in accord with requires no attestation by witnesses. A common requirement in both kinds of will is that they
the law and settled jurisprudence on the matter and are now questioning once more, on the same should be in writing and must have been executed in a language or dialect known to the
testator. 17
However, in the case of an ordinary or attested will, its attestation clause need not be written in a This objective is in accord with the modern tendency with respect to the
language or dialect known to the testator since it does not form part of the testamentary formalities in the execution of wills. . . .29
disposition. Furthermore, the language used in the attestation clause likewise need not even be
known to the attesting witnesses. 18 The last paragraph of Article 805 merely requires that, in such 2. An examination of the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero shows that it is comprised of
a case, the attestation clause shall be interpreted to said witnesses. three sheets all of which have been numbered correlatively, with the left margin of each page
thereof bearing the respective signatures of the testator and the three attesting witnesses. The
An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses certify part of the will containing the testamentary dispositions is expressed in the Cebuano-Visayan
that the instrument has been executed before them and to the manner of the execution the dialect and is signed at the foot thereof by the testator. The attestation clause in question, on the
same. 19 It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution other hand, is recited in the English language and is likewise signed at the end thereof by the
and once signed by the witnesses, it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential three attesting witnesses hereto.30 Since it is the proverbial bone of contention, we reproduce it
formalities required by law has been observed. 20 It is made for the purpose of preserving in a again for facility of reference:
permanent form a record of the facts that attended the execution of a particular will, so that in case
of failure of the memory of the attesting witnesses, or other casualty, such facts may still be We, the undersigned attesting Witnesses, whose Residences and postal
proved. 21 addresses appear on the Opposite of our respective names, we do hereby certify
that the Testament was read by him and the testator, MATEO CABALLERO; has
Under the third paragraph of Article 805, such a clause, the complete lack of which would result in published unto us the foregoing Will consisting of THREE PAGES, including the
the invalidity of the will, 22 should state (1) the number of the pages used upon which the will is Acknowledgment, each page numbered correlatively in the letters on the upper
written; (2) that the testator signed, or expressly caused another to sign, the will and every page part of each page, as his Last Will and Testament and he has the same and
thereof in the presence of the attesting witnesses; and (3) that the attesting witnesses witnessed every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand
the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages, and that said witnesses also signed the margin, in the presence of the said testator and in the presence of each and all of
will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. us.

The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which the will is It will be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest and subscribe to the
written is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and will in the presence of the testator and of one another. "Attestation" and "subscription" differ in
to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages;23 whereas the subscription of the signature of meaning. Attestation is the act of senses, while subscription is the act of the hand. The former is
the testator and the attesting witnesses is made for the purpose of authentication and mental, the latter mechanical, and to attest a will is to know that it was published as such, and to
identification, and thus indicates that the will is the very same instrument executed by the testator certify the facts required to constitute an actual and legal publication; but to subscribe a paper
and attested to by the witnesses.24 published as a will is only to write on the same paper the names of the witnesses, for the sole
purpose of identification.31
Further, by attesting and subscribing to the will, the witnesses thereby declare the due execution
of the will as embodied in the attestation clause.25 The attestation clause, therefore, provide strong In Taboada vs. Rizal,32 we clarified that attestation consists in witnessing the testator's execution
legal guaranties for the due execution of a will and to insure the authenticity thereof. 26 As it of the will in order to see and take note mentally that those things are done which the statute
appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator, it need be signed only by them. 27 Where it requires for the execution of a will and that the signature of the testator exists as a fact. On the
is left unsigned, it would result in the invalidation of the will as it would be possible and easy to add other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names upon the same paper for the
the clause on a subsequent occasion in the absence of the testator and its witnesses.28 purpose of identification of such paper as the will which was executed by the testator. As it
involves a mental act, there would be no means, therefore, of ascertaining by a physical
In its report, the Code Commission commented on the reasons of the law for requiring the examination of the will whether the witnesses had indeed signed in the presence of the testator
formalities to be followed in the execution of wills, in the following manner: and of each other unless this is substantially expressed in the attestation.

The underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the provisions on the law It is contended by petitioners that the aforequoted attestation clause, in contravention of the
on wills in this Project consists in the liberalization of the manner of their express requirements of the third paragraph of Article 805 of the Civil Code for attestation clauses,
execution with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing fails to specifically state the fact that the attesting witnesses the testator sign the will and all its
his last wishes, but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the pages in their presence and that they, the witnesses, likewise signed the will and every page
commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. We agree.
influence upon the testator.
What is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation clause herein assailed is the fact
that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the
three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does the will itself can reveal, and defects or even omissions concerning them in the
not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective attestation clause can be safely disregarded. But the total number of pages, and
signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. whether all persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other must
substantially appear in the attestation clause, being the only check against
The phrase "and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his perjury in the probate proceedings. (Emphasis ours.)
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." On the 3. We stress once more that under Article 809, the defects and imperfections must only be with
other hand, although the words "in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each and all respect to the form of the attestation or the language employed therein. Such defects or
of us" may, at first blush, appear to likewise signify and refer to the witnesses, it must, however, be imperfections would not render a will invalid should it be proved that the will was really executed
interpreted as referring only to the testator signing in the presence of the witnesses since said and attested in compliance with Article 805. In this regard, however, the manner of proving the
phrase immediately follows the words "he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the due execution and attestation has been held to be limited to merely an examination of the will itself
spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand margin." What is then clearly lacking, in the without resorting to evidence aliunde, whether oral or written.
final logical analysis , is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in
the presence of the testator and of one another. 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
It is our considered view that the absence of that statement required by law is a fatal defect or of each other.35 In such a situation, the defect is not only in the form or language of the attestation
imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be clause but the total absence of a specific element required by Article 805 to be specifically stated
admitted to probate. Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the aforestated defect in the in the attestation clause of a will. That is precisely the defect complained of in the present case
attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the form of the will or the since there is no plausible way by which we can read into the questioned attestation clause
language used therein which would warrant the application of the substantial compliance rule, as statement, or an implication thereof, that the attesting witness did actually bear witness to the
contemplated in the pertinent provision thereon in the Civil Code, to wit: signing by the testator of the will and all of its pages and that said instrumental witnesses also
signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
Art. 809. In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper
pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or Furthermore, the rule on substantial compliance in Article 809 cannot be revoked or relied on by
in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is not proved that respondents since it presupposes that the defects in the attestation clause can be cured or
the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the supplied by the text of the will or a consideration of matters apparent therefrom which would
requirements of article 805" (Emphasis supplied.) provide the data not expressed in the attestation clause or from which it may necessarily be
gleaned or clearly inferred that the acts not stated in the omitted textual requirements were
While it may be true that the attestation clause is indeed subscribed at the end thereof and at the actually complied within the execution of the will. In other words, defects must be remedied by
left margin of each page by the three attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot be conclusively intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself.
inferred therefrom that the said witness affixed their respective signatures in the presence of the
testator and of each other since, as petitioners correctly observed, the presence of said signatures In the case at bar, contrarily, proof of the acts required to have been performed by the attesting
only establishes the fact that it was indeed signed, but it does not prove that the attesting witnesses can be supplied by only extrinsic evidence thereof, since an overall appreciation of the
witnesses did subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The execution contents of the will yields no basis whatsoever from with such facts may be plausibly deduced.
of a will is supposed to be one act so that where the testator and the witnesses sign on various What private respondent insists on are the testimonies of his witnesses alleging that they saw the
days or occasions and in various combinations, the will cannot be stamped with the imprimatur of compliance with such requirements by the instrumental witnesses, oblivious of the fact that he is
effectivity.33 thereby resorting to extrinsic evidence to prove the same and would accordingly be doing by the
indirection what in law he cannot do directly.
We believe that the further comment of former Justice J.B.L. Reyes 34 regarding Article 809,
wherein he urged caution in the application of the substantial compliance rule therein, is correct 4. Prior to the advent of the Civil Code on August 30, 1950, there was a divergence of views as to
and should be applied in the case under consideration, as well as to future cases with similar which manner of interpretation should be followed in resolving issues centering on compliance
questions: with the legal formalities required in the execution of wills. The formal requirements were at that
time embodied primarily in Section 618 of Act No. 190, the Code of Civil Procedure. Said section
. . . The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied was later amended by Act No. 2645, but the provisions respecting said formalities found in Act.
by an examination of the will itself: whether all the pages are consecutively No. 190 and the amendment thereto were practically reproduced and adopted in the Civil Code.
numbered; whether the signatures appear in each and every page; whether the
subscribing witnesses are three or the will was notarized. All theses are facts that
One view advance the liberal or substantial compliance rule. This was first laid down in the case document itself, and the omission to state such evident facts does not invalidate
of Abangan vs. Abangan,36 where it was held that the object of the solemnities surrounding the the will.
execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. Therefore, the laws on this subject should It is a habit of courts to reaffirm or distinguish previous cases; seldom do they
be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. Nonetheless, it was also admit inconsistency in doctrine. Yet here, unless aided impossible to reconcile
emphasized that one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain the Mojal and Quintana decisions. They are fundamentally at variance. If we rely
and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will, hence when an interpretation already given on one, we affirm. If we rely on the other, we reverse.
assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever that adds nothing but demands more
requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be
disregarded. The subsequent cases of Avera vs. Garcia,37 Aldaba vs. Roque,38 Unson vs. In resolving this puzzling question of authority, three outstanding points may be
Abella,39 Pecson vs. Coronel,40 Fernandez vs. Vergel de Dios, et al.,41 and Nayve vs. Mojal, et mentioned. In the first place, the Mojal, decision was concurred in by only four
al.42 all adhered to this position. members of the court, less than a majority, with two strong dissenting opinions;
the Quintana decision was concurred in by seven members of the court, a clear
majority, with one formal dissent. In the second place, the Mojal decision was
The other view which advocated the rule that statutes which prescribe the formalities that should promulgated in December, 1924, while the Quintana decision was promulgated
be observed in the execution of wills are mandatory in nature and are to be strictly construed was in December, 1925; the Quintana decision was thus subsequent in point of time.
followed in the subsequent cases of In the Matter of the Estate of Saguinsin,43 In re Will of And in the third place, the Quintana decision is believed more nearly to conform
Andrada,44 Uy Coque vs. Sioca,45 In re Estate of Neumark, 46 and Sano vs. Quintana.47 to the applicable provisions of the law.

Gumban vs. Gorecho, et al.,48 provided the Court with the occasion to clarify the seemingly The right to dispose of property by will is governed entirely by statute. The law of
conflicting decisions in the aforementioned cases. In said case of Gumban, the attestation clause the case is here found in section 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended
had failed to state that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof on the left by Act No. 2645, and in section 634 of the same Code, as unamended. It is in
margin in the presence of the testator. The will in question was disallowed, with these reasons part provided in section 61, as amended that "No will . . . shall be valid . .
therefor: . unless . . .." It is further provided in the same section that "The
attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the will is
In support of their argument on the assignment of error above-mentioned, written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or
appellants rely on a series of cases of this court beginning with (I)n the Matter of caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the
the (E)state of Saguinsin ([1920], 41 Phil., 875), continuing with In re Will of presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all
Andrada [1921], 42 Phil., 180), Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca [1922], 43 Phil., pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other." Codal section
405), and In re Estate of Neumark ([1923], 46 Phil., 841), and ending with Sano 634 provides that "The will shall be disallowed in either of the following case: 1.
vs. Quintana ([1925], 48 Phil., 506). Appellee counters with the citation of a If not executed and attested as in this Act provided." The law not alone carefully
series of cases beginning with Abangan vs. Abangan ([1919], 40 Phil., 476), makes use of the imperative, but cautiously goes further and makes use of the
continuing through Aldaba vs. Roque ([1922], 43 Phil., 378), and Fernandez vs. negative, to enforce legislative intention. It is not within the province of the courts
Vergel de Dios ([1924], 46 Phil., 922), and culminating in Nayve vs. Mojal and to disregard the legislative purpose so emphatically and clearly expressed.
Aguilar ([1924], 47 Phil., 152). In its last analysis, our task is to contrast and, if
possible, conciliate the last two decisions cited by opposing counsel, namely, We adopt and reaffirm the decision in the case of Sano vs. Quintana, supra, and,
those of Sano vs. Quintana, supra, and Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar, supra. to the extent necessary, modify the decision in the case of Nayve vs. Mojal and
Aguilar, supra. (Emphases in the original text).
In the case of Sano vs. Quintana, supra, it was decided that an attestation clause
which does not recite that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page But after the Gumban clarificatory pronouncement, there were decisions of the Court that once
thereof on the left margin in the presence of the testator is defective, and such a more appeared to revive the seeming diversity of views that was earlier threshed out therein. The
defect annuls the will. The case of Uy Coque vs. Sioca, supra, was cited, but the cases of Quinto vs. Morata,49 Rodriguez vs. Alcala,50 Enchevarria vs. Sarmiento,51 and Testate
case of Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar, supra, was not mentioned. In contrast, is Estate of Toray52 went the way of the ruling as restated in Gumban. But De Gala vs. Gonzales, et
the decision in Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar, supra, wherein it was held that the al.,53 Rey vs. Cartagena,54 De Ticson vs. De Gorostiza,55 Sebastian vs. Panganiban,56 Rodriguez
attestation clause must estate the fact that the testator and the witnesses vs. Yap,57 Grey vs. Fabia,58 Leynez vs. Leynez,59 Martir vs. Martir,60 Alcala vs. De Villa,61 Sabado
reciprocally saw the signing of the will, for such an act cannot be proved by the vs.
mere exhibition of the will, if it is not stated therein. It was also held that the fact Fernandez,62 Mendoza vs. Pilapil, 63 and Lopez vs. Liboro,64 veered away from the strict
that the testator and the witnesses signed each and every page of the will can be interpretation rule and established a trend toward an application of the liberal view.
proved also by the mere examination of the signatures appearing on the
The Code Commission, cognizant of such a conflicting welter of views and of the undeniable and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed.
inclination towards a liberal construction, recommended the codification of the substantial However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in
compliance rule, as it believed this rule to be in accord with the modern tendency to give a liberal the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself.67
approach to the interpretation of wills. Said rule thus became what is now Article 809 of the Civil
Code, with this explanation of the Code Commission: 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
The present law provides for only one form of executing a will, and that is, in its Special Proceeding No. 3899-R (Petition for the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of
accordance with the formalities prescribed by Section 618 of the Code of Civil Mateo Caballero) and to REVIVE Special Proceeding No. 3965-R (In the matter of the Intestate
Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645. The Supreme Court of the Philippines Estate of Mateo Caballero) as an active case and thereafter duly proceed with the settlement of
had previously upheld the strict compliance with the legal formalities and had the estate of the said decedent.
even said that the provisions of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
amended regarding the contents of the attestation clause were mandatory, and SO ORDERED.
non-compliance therewith invalidated the will (Uy Coque vs. Sioca, 43 Phil. 405).
These decisions necessarily restrained the freedom of the testator in disposing of
his property.

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

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

"Art. 829. In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue

and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections
in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall
not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact
executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of article 829."65

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

It may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that omissions which can be supplied by an
examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal
 Republic of the Philippines will and codicil subject of the petition (Exhibits H and L) were procured through
SUPREME COURT fraud and undue influence; that the formalities requited by law for the execution
Manila of a will and codicil have not been complied with as the same were not properly
attested to or executed and not expressing the free will and deed of the
FIRST DIVISION purported testatrix; that the late Eugenia Danila had already executed on
November 5, 1951 her last will and testament (Exhibit 3) which was duly
probated (Exhibit 4) and not revoked or annulled during the lifetime of the
G.R. No. L-40804 January 31, 1978
testatrix, and that the petitioner is not competent and qualified to act as
administration of the estate.
ROSARIO FELICIANO VDA. DE RAMOS, MIGUEL DANILA, RAYMUNDO A. DANILA,
CONSOLACION SANTOS, MIGUEL G. DANILA, AMOR DANILA, MOISES MARTINEZ,
On November 4, 1968, the petitioner and the oppositors, assisted by their
MIGUELA GAVINO, MELITON NISTA, PRIMITIVA NISTA, HEIRS OF DANIEL NISTA, MOISES
respective counsels, entered into a Compromise Agreement with the following
NISTA, DOMINGO NISTA and ADELAIDA NISTA, petitioners,
terms and conditions, thus:
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, MARCELINA (MARTINA) GUERRA and THE HEIRS OF
BUENAVENTURA GUERRA, respondents. 1. That oppositors Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina (Martina) Guerra are the
legally adopted son and daughter, respectively, of the deceased spouses,
Florentino Guerra and Eugenia Manila;
Ernesto C. Hidalgo for petitioners.
2. That Florentino Guerra pre-deceased Eugenia Danila that Eugenia Danila died
Romulo S. Brion & Florentino M. Poonin for private respondents.
on May 21, 1966, at San Pablo City, but during her lifetime, she had already sold,
donated or disposed of all her properties, some of which to Marcelina Martina
Guerra, as indicated and confirmed in paragraph 13 of the Complaint in Civil
Case No. SP620, entitled Marcelina Guerra versus Adelaida Nista, et al., and
GUERRERO, J.: Which We hereby 'likewise admit and confirm;

Appeal by way of certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 49915-R, 3. That, however, with respect to the parcel of riceland covered by TCT No. T-
entitled "Adelaida Nista Petitioner-appellee, versus Buenaventura Guerra, et al., Oppositors - 5559 of the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City, which oppositors believe to be
Appellants, " denying and disallowing the probate of the second last will and codicil of the late the estate left and undisposed of at the time of the death of the owner thereof,
Eugenia Danila previously probated by the Court of First Instance of Laguna Branch III at San Eugenia Danila it now appears that there is a Deed of Donation covering the
Pablo City. same together with another parcel of coconut land situated at Barrio San Ignacio,
San Pablo City, with an area of 19,905 sq.m., and covered by Tax Declaration
The facts are rotated in the appealed decision. the pertinent portions of which state: No. 31286, executed by the late Eugenia Danila in favor of Adelaida Nista, as per
Doc. No. 406, Page No. 83, Series of 1966 under Notarial Register III of Notary
Public Pio Aquino of San Pablo city;
It appears that on June 2, 1966, Adelaida Nista who claimed to be one of the
instituted heirs, filed a petition for the probate of the alleged will and testament
dated March 9, 1963 (Exhibit H) and codicil dated April 18, 1963 (Exhibit L) of the 4. That inasmuch as the above-mentioned parcel of coconut and has been earlier
late Eugenia Danila who died on May 21, 1966. The petitioner prayed that after donated inter vivos and validly conveyed on November 15, 1965 by the late
due notice and proper hearing, the alleged will and codicil be probates and Eugenia Danila to Marcelina (Martina) Guerra as shown by Doc. No. 237, Page
allowed and that she or any other person be appointed as administrator of the No. 49, Series of 1965, under Notarial Register XV of Notary Public Atty. Romulo
testatrix's estate. She also prayed that in case no opposition thereto be S. Brion of San Pablo City, the inclusion of said parcel in the subsequent
interposed and the value of the estate be less than P10,000.00, said estate be donation to Adelaida Nista is admittedly considered a mistake and of no force
summarily settled in accordance with the Rules. and effect and will in no way prejudice the ownership and right of Marcelina
Martina Guerra over the said parcel; that as a matter of fact Whatever rights and
interests Adelaida Nista has or may still have thereon are already considered
Buenaventura and Marcelina (Martina) both surnamed Guerra filed an opposition waived and renounced in favor of Marcelina Martina Guerra;
on July 18, 1966 and an amended opposition on August 19, 1967, to the petition
alleging among others that they are the legally adopted son and daughter of the
late spouses Florentino Guerra and Eugenia Danila (Exhibit 1); that the purported
5. That in view of the fact that the riceland mentioned in paragraph 3 of the the estate of the late Eugenia Danila They also filed a reply partly admitting and
foregoing appears to have already been disposed of by Eugenia Danila in favor denying the material allegations in the opposition to the petition and alleging
of petitioner Adelaida Nista which the parties hereto do not now contest, there is among other things, that oppositors repudiated their institution as heirs and
therefore no more estate left by the said deceased Eugenia Danila to he executors when they failed to cause the recording in the Register of Deeds of
disposed of by the will sought to be probated in this proceedings; that San Pablo City the will and testament dated November 5, 1951 (Exhibit 3) in
consequently, and for the sake of peace and harmony money among the accordance with the Rules and committed acts of ingratitude when they
relations and kins and adopted children of the deceased Eugenia Danila and with abandoned the testatrix and denied her support after they managed, through
the further aim of settling differences among themselves, the will and codicil of fraud and undue influence, to secure the schedule of partition dated January 15,
Eugenia Danila submitted to this Honorable Court by the petitioner for probate, 1962. The Intervenors prayed for the probate and/or allowance of the will and
are considered abrogated and set aside; codicil (Exhibits H and L), respectively and the appointment of any of them in as
administrator of said estate.
6. That as the late Eugenia Danila has incurred debts to private persons during
her lifetime, which in addition to the burial and incidental expenses amounts to On December 6, 1968, the intervenors also filed a motion for new trial and/or re-
SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS (P6,800.00) her adopted daughter, hearing and/or relief from judgment and to set aside the judgment based on
Marcelina (Martina) Guerra is now determined to settle the same, but herein compromise dated November 5, 1968. The oppositors interposed an opposition
petitioner Adelaida Nista hereby agrees to contribute to Marcelina (Martina) to the motion to which the intervenors filed their reply.
Guerra for the settlement of the said indebtedness in the amount of THREE
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS (P3,400.00), Philippine Currency, the The lower court resolved the motions in an order the dispositive portion reading,
same to be delivered by Adelaida Nista to Marcelina (Martina) Guerra at the thus:
latter's residence at Rizal Avenue, San Pablo City, on or about February 28,
1969;
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING the Court hereby makes the following dispositions
—
7. That should there be any other property of the deceased Eugenia Danila that
may later on be discovered to be undisposed of as yet by Eugenia Danila during
(1) Movants Rosario de Ramos, Miguel C. Danila Miguela Gavino Amor Danila
her lifetime, the same should be considered as exclusive property of her adopted
Consolacion Santos, Miguel A. Danila and Raymundo Danila are allowed and
children and heirs, Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina (Martina) Guerra and
admitted to intervene to this proceeding as Party Petitioners; and likewise
any right of the petitioner and signatories hereto, with respect to said property or
admitted in their reply to the amended opposition of November 11, 1968;
properties, shall be deemed waived and renounced in favor of said Buenaventura
and Marcelina (Martina) Guerra; and
(2) The compromise agreement dated October 15, 1968 by and between
Petitioner Adelaida Nista and oppositors Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina
8. That with the exception of the foregoing agreement, parties hereto waived and
renounce further claim against each other, and the above-entitled case. (Exh. 6) Guerra Martina is disapproved, except as regards their respective lawful rights in
the subject estate; and, accordingly, the judgment on compromise rendered by
this Court on November 5, 1968 is reconsidered and set aside; and
This Agreement was approved by the lower court in a judgment readings as
follows:
(3) The original Petition and amended opposition to probate of the alleged will
and codicil stand.
WHEREFORE, said compromise agreement, being not contrary to public policy,
law and moral, the same is hereby approved and judgment is hereby rendered in
xxx xxx xxx
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the above- quoted
compromise agreement, which is hereby made an integral part of the dispositive
portion of this decision, and the parties are strictly enjoined to comply with the The lower court also denied the motion for the appointment of a special
same. (Exh. 7) administrator filed by the intervenors.

On November 16, 1968, Rosario de Ramos, Miguel Danila Felix Danila Miguel xxx xxx xxx
Gavino Amor Danila Consolacion Santos and Miguel Danila son of the late
Fortunato Danila filed a motion for leave to intervene as co-petitioners alleging A motion for reconsideration of the foregoing order was filed by the intervenors
that being instituted heirs or devisees, they have rights and interests to protect in co-petitioners but the motion was denied.
 xxx xxx xxx CLAUSES AND THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND NOTARIAL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC; AND
On February 9, 1971, a motion for the substitution of Irene, Crispina, Cristina
Casiano, Edilberto Felisa, Guerra in place of their father, the oppositor (B) THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HAVING DENIED THE
Buenaventura Guerra who died on January 23, 1971, was filed and granted by PROBATE OF THE WILL AND CODICIL DESPITE CONVINCING EVIDENCE
the lower court. FOR THEIR ALLOWANCE.

After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered its decision dated July 6, 1971 allowing the We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and restore the decision of the trial court
probate of the wilt In that decision, although two of the attesting witness Odon Sarmiento and allowing probate of the will and codicil in question.
Rosendo Paz, testified that they did not see the testatrix Eugenia Danila sign the will but that the
same was already signed by her when they affixed their own signatures thereon, the trial court The main point in controversy here is whether or not the last testament and its accompanying
gave more weight and ment to the .'straight-forward and candid" testimony of Atty. Ricardo codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities of the law, considering the complicated
Barcenas, the Notary Public who assisted in the execution of the wilt that the testatrix and the circumstances that two of the attesting witnesses testified against their due execution while other
three (3) instrumental witnesses signed the will in the presence of each other, and that with non-subscribing witnesses testified to the contrary.
respect to the codicil the same manner was likewise observed as corroborated to by the testimony
of another lawyer, Atty. Manuel Alvero who was also present during the execution of the codicil.
Petitioners argue that the attestation clauses of the win and codicil which were signed by the
instrumental witnesses are admissions of due execution of the deeds, thus, preventing the said
The dispositive portion of the decision reads: witnesses from prevaricating later on by testifying against due execution. Petitioners further
maintain that it is error for respondent court to give credence to the testimony of the biased
WHEREFORE, it appearing that the late Eugenia Danila had testamentary witnesses as against their own attestation to the fact of due execution and over the testimonial
capacity when she executed the will, Exh. H., and the codicil Exh. L, and that account of the Notary Public who was also present during the execution and before whom right
said will and codicil were duly signed by her and the three attesting witnesses after, the deeds were acknowledged.
and acknowledged before a Notary Public in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by law, the said will and codicil are hereby declared probated. No Private respondents, on the other hand reiterate in their contention the declaration of the two
evidence having been adduced regarding the qualification and fitness of any of surviving witnesses, Odon Sarmiento and Rosendo Paz, that the win was not signed by the
the intervenors- co-petitioners to act as executors, the appointment of executors testatrix before their presence, which is strengthened by two photographic evidence showing only
of the will and codicil is held pending until after due hearing on the matter. the two witnesses in the act of signing, there being no picture of the same occasion showing the
testatrix signing the will. Respondent court holds the view that where there was an opportunity to
SO ORDERED. take pictures it is not understandable why pictures were taken of the witnesses and not of the
testatrix. It concludes that the absence of the latter's picture to complete the evidence belies the
Oppositors Marcelina Guam and the heirs of Buenaventura Guam appealed the foregoing testimony of Atty. Barcenas that the testatrix and the witnesses did sign the will and the codicil in
decision to the Court of Appeals The latter court, in its derision dated May 12, 1975 ruled that the the presence of each other.
lower court acted correctly in setting aside its judgment approving the Compromise Agreement
and in allowing the intervenor petitioners to participate in the instant probate proceedings; The oppositors' argument is untenable. There is ample and satisfactory evidence to convince us
however, it disallowed the probate of the will on the that the evidence failed to establish that the that the will and codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities required by law. It
testatrix Eugenia Danila signed her will in the presence of the instrumental witness in accordance appears positively and convincingly that the documents were prepared by a lawyer, Atty. Manuel
with Article 805 of the Civil Code, as testified to by the two surviving instrumental witnesses. Alvero The execution of the same was evidently supervised by his associate, Atty. Ricardo
Barcenas and before whom the deeds were also acknowledged. The solemnity surrounding the
In this present appeal petitioners vigorously insists on constitutional grounds the nullity of the execution of a will is attended by some intricacies not usually within the comprehension of an
decision of respondent court but We deem it needless to consider the same as it is not necessary ordinary layman. The object is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution
in resolving this appeal on the following assigned errors: of the will and testament, and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. 2 If there should be any
stress on the participation of lawyers in the execution of a wig, other than an interested party, it
cannot be less than the exercise of their primary duty as members of the Bar to uphold the lofty
(A) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED GRAVELY IN NOT HAVING GIVEN
purpose of the law. There is no showing that the above-named lawyers had been remiss in their
WEIGHT TO THE MANIFESTATION CLAUSES IN THE TESTAMENT AND sworn duty. Consequently, respondent court failed to consider the presumption of ty in the
CODICIL ANNEX B (PETITION) AND INSTEAD IT GAVE CREDENCE TO THE execution of the questioned documents. There were no incidents brought to the attention of the
TESTIMONIES OR BIASED WITNESSES OVER THEIR OWN ATTESTATION trial court to arouse suspicion of anomaly. While the opposition alleged fraud and undue influence,
no evidence was presented to prove their occurrence. There is no question that each and every In the case at bar, the s bear a disparity in the quality of the testimonies of Odon Sarmiento and
page of the will and codicil carry the authentic signatures of Eugenia Danila and the three (3) Rosendo Paz on one hand, and the Notary Public, Atty. Ricardo A. Barcenas, on the other. The
attesting witnesses. Similarly, the attestation claim far from being deficient, were properly signed testimony of Odon Sarmiento was contradicted by his own admission. Though his admission to the
by the attesting witnesses. Neither is it disputed that these witnesses took turns in signing the will effect that "when Eugenia Danila signed the testament (he) and the two other attesting witnesses
and codicil in the presence of each other and the testatrix. Both instruments were duly Rosendo Paz and Calixto Azusada were present" (t.s.n., Feb. 12, 1970, p. 115) was made
acknowledged before a Notary Public who was all the time present during the execution. extrajudicially, it was not squarely refuted when inquired upon during the trial.

The presumption of regularity can of course be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the With respect to the testimony of Rosendo Paz, it had been refuted by the declaration of Atty.
contrary, but not easily by the mere expediency of the negative testimony of Odon Sarmiento and Ricardo A. Barcenas. The records show that this attesting witness was fetched by Felix Danila
Rosendo Paz that they did not see the testatrix sign the will. A negative testimony does not enjoy from his place of work in order to act as witness to a wilt Rosendo Paz did not know what the
equal standing with a positive assertion, and faced with the convincing appearance of the will, document he signed was all about. Although he performed his function as an attesting witness, his
such negative statement must be examined with extra care. For in this regard — participation was rather passive. We do not expect, therefore, that his testimony, "half-hearted" as
that of Odon Sarmiento, be as candid and complete as one proceeding from a keen mind fully
It has also been held that the condition and physical appearance of a questioned attentive to the details of the execution of the deeds. Quite differently, Atty. Ricardo A. Barcenas,
document constitute a valuable factor which, if correctly evaluated in the light of more than a direct witness himself, was Purposely there to oversee the accomplishment of the will
surrounding circumstances, may help in determining whether it is genuine or and codicil. His testimony is an account of what he actually heard and saw during the conduct of
forged. Subscribing witnesses may forget or exaggerating what they really know, his profession. There is no evidence to show that this lawyer was motivated by any material
saw, heard or did; they may be biased and, therefore, tell only half-truths to interest to take sides or that his statement is truth perverted.
mislead the court or favor one party to the prejudice of the others. This cannot be
said of the condition and Physical appearance of the questioned document. Both, It has been regarded that the function of the Notary Public is, among others, to guard against any
albeit silent, will reveal the naked truth, hiding nothing, forgetting nothing, and illegal or immoral arrangements in the execution of a will. 10 In the absence of any showing of self-
exaggerating nothing. 3 interest that might possibly have warped his judgment and twisted his declaration, the intervention
of a Notary Public, in his professional capacity, in the execution of a will deserves grave
Unlike other deeds, ordinary wills by necessity of law must contain an attestation clause Which, consideration. 11 An appraise of a lawyer's participation has been succinctly stated by the Court
significantly is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding that the conduct of in Fernandez v. Tantoco, supra, this wise:
execution. Once signed by the attesting witnesses, it that compliance with the indispensable legal
formalities had been observed. This Court had previously hold that the attestation clause basically In weighing the testimony of the attesting witnesses to a will, his statements of a
contracts the pretense of undue ex execution which later on may be made by the attesting competent attorney, who has been charged with the responsibility of seeing to
witnesses. 4 In the attestation clause, the witnesses do not merely attest to the signature of the the proper execution of the instrument, is entitled to greater weight than the
testatrix but also to the proper execution of the will, and their signature following that of the testimony of a person casually called to anticipate in the act, supposing of course
testatrix show that they have in fact at not only to the genuineness of the testatrix's signature but that no motive is revealed that should induce the attorney to prevaricate. The
also to the due execution of the will as embodied in the attention clause. 5 By signing the wilt the reason is that the mind of the attorney being conversant of the instrument, is
witnesses impliedly to the truth of the facts which admit to probate, including the sufficiency of more likely to become fixed on details, and he is more likely than other persons
execution, the capacity of the testatrix, the absence of undue influence, and the like. 6 to retain those incidents in his memory.

In this jurisdiction, all the attesting witness to a will if available, must be called to prove the wilt One final point, the absence of a photograph of the testator Eugenia Danila in the act of signing
Under this circumstance, they become "forced witnesses" " and their declaration derogatory to the her will. The fact that the only pictures available are those which show the Witnesses signing the
probate of the will need not bind the proponent hence, the latter may present other proof of due will in the presence of the testatrix and of each other does not belie the probability that the testatrix
exemption even if contrary to the testimony of or all of the at, testing witness. 7 As a rule, if any or also signed the will before the presence of the witnesses. We must stress that the pictures are
all of the submitting witness testify against the due execution of the will, or do not remember worthy only of what they show and prove and not of what they did not speak of including the
having attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful ability, the will may, nevertheless, be allowed if events they failed to capture. The probate of a will is a proceeding not embued with adverse
the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witness and from all the evidence presented that character, wherein courts should relax the rules on evidence "to the end that nothing less than the
the will was executed and attested in the manner by law. 8 Accordingly, although the subscribing best evidence of which the matter is susceptible" should be presented to the court before a
witnesses to a contested will are the best witness in connection with its due execution, to deserve reported will may be probated or denied probate. 12
full credit, their testimony must be reasonable, and unbiased; if otherwise it may be overcome by
any competent evidence, direct or circubstantial. 9 We find here that the failure to imprint in photographs all the stages in the execution of the win
does not serve any persuasive effect nor have any evidentiary value to prove that one vital and
indispensable requisite has not been acted on. Much less can it defeat, by any ordinary or special
reason, the presentation of other competent evidence intended to confirm a fact otherwise existent
but not confirmed by the photographic evidence. The probate court having satisfied itself that the
win and codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities required by law, and there being
no indication of abuse of discretion on its part, We find no error committed or any exceptional
circumstance warranting the subsequent reversal of its decision allowing the probate of the deeds
in question.

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals is hereby reversed in so far its it
disallowed the probate of the will and codicil. With costs against respondents.

SO ORDERED.
 Republic of the Philippines The formal deffects of the will in question occur in its attestation clause which, in translation, read
SUPREME COURT as follows:
Manila
We, the undersigned witnesses of this will, state that it has been shown to us by the
EN BANC testatrix as her last will and testament. And as she cannot sign her name, she asked that
Mr. Filomeno Piczon sign her name in the presence of each of us, and each of us, the
G.R. No. 17430 May 31, 1922 witnesses, also signed in the presence of the testatrix.

In the matter of the estate of Geronima Uy Coque, deceased. It will be noted that the attestation clause does not state the number of pages contained in the will
ANDREA UY COQUE, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, nor does it state that the witnesses signed in the presence of each other. Neither do these facts
vs. appear in any other part of the will.
JUAN NAVAS L. SIOCA, special administrator of the estate of Geronima Uy Coque,
deceased, opponent-appellant. Statutes prescribing the formalities to be observed in the execution of wills are very strictly
construed. As stated in 40 Cyc., at page 1097, "A will must be executed in accordance with the
Crossfiled & O'Brien for appellant. statutory requirements; otherwise it is entirely void. All these requirements stand as of equal
Ruperto Kapunan for appellees. importance and must be observed, and courts cannot supply the defective execution of a will. No
power or discretion is vested in them, either to superadd other conditions or dispose with those
enumerated in the statutes."
OSTRAND, J.:

This court has also frequently held that a will should not be probated unless in its execution there
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Samar, admitting a will to probate.
has been a strict complaince with all the requisites prescribed in section 618 of the Code of Civil
Produre. It is true that in the case of Abangan vs. Abangan (40 Phil., 476) the court upheld the
The validity of the will is attacked on the ground that the testatrix was mentally incapacitated at the validity of a will consisting of only two pages, the first containing all the testamentary dispositions
time of its execution and on the further ground that it was not executed on the form prescribed by and being signed by the testator at the bottom and by both the testator and the witnesses in the
section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645, margin, the second page containing only the attestaiton clause with the signatures of the
witnesses at the bottom but without marginal signatures. The decision was based on the ground
The transcript of the testimony taken in the probate proceedings not appearing in the record, we that it could not have been the intention of the legislator to require, as an essential to the validity of
cannot review the findings of the court below as to the sanity of the testatrix. This leaves for our the will, that all the signatures appear twice on the same page as such a requirement would be
consideration only the question as to whether the omission of certain formalities in the execution entirely purposeless. This decision is no doubt sound; that in statutory construction the
of the will are fatal to its validity. evident intent of the legislator controls will probably not be disputed.

Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645 reads: But it must not be forgotten that in construing statutory provisions in regard to the formal requisites
of a will, we are seeking to ascertain the intent, of the legislator and not that the testator; the
No will, except as provided in the preceding section, shall be valid to pass any estate, real latter's intention is frequently defeated through non-observance of the statue.
or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be written in the language or dialect
known by the testator and signed by him, or by the testator's name written by some other The purpose of the Legislature in prescribing the rather strict formalities now required in the
person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by execution of a will are clearly revealed by comparing section 618, supra, as originally enacted with
three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The the amended section quoted above. The original section reads:
testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses
of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, on the left margin, No will, except as provided in the preceding section, shall be valid to pass any estate, real
and said pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be in writing and signed by the
sheet. The attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the will testator, or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by
is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in
some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of three the presence of the testator and of each other. The attestation shall state the fact that the
witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the testator signed the will, or caused it to be signed by some other person, at this express
presence of the testator and of each other. direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and that they attested and subscribed it is
his presence and in the presence of each other. But the absence of such form of
 attestation shall not render the will in valid if it is proven that the will was in fact signed
and attested as in this section provided.

The amendments or changes introduced by Act No. 2645 are (a) that the will must now be
executed in a language or dialect known to the testator; (b) that the testator and witnesses must
sign each page on the left margin; (c) that the pages be numbered correclatively; (d) that the
attestation clause shall state the number sheets or page used in the will and (e) that it must
appear from the attestation clause itself that the testator and witnesses signed in the form and
manner required by law and that is this can no longer be proven by evidence aliunde.

The changes mentioned under (d) and (e) are the only ones which need be considered in the
present case. The purpose of requiring the number of sheets to be stated in the attestation clause
is obvious; the document might easily be so prepared that the removal of a sheet would
completely change the testamentary dispositions of the will and in the absence of a statement of
the total number of sheets such removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and changing
the numbers at the top of the following sheets or pages. If, on the other hand, the total number of
sheets is stated in the attestation clause the falsification of the document will involve the inserting
of new pages and the forgoing of the signatures of the testator and witnesses in the margin, a
matter attended with much greater difficulty.

The purpose of the new requirement that it must appear in the attestation clause that the testator
and the witnesses signed in the presence of each other and that the fact cannot be proved by
evidence aliunde is, perhaps, less obvious, but, in view of the well-known unreliability of oral
evidence, it is clear that a statement in the attestation clause will afford more satisfatory evidence
of the fact to be proven. In any event, the fact that the old rule in regard to admissibility or oral
evidence to prove that the testator and witnesses signed in the manner prescribed by the law
evidently had been found unsatisfactory and was deliberately varied by amendment shows that
the Legislature attached importance to the mater. If so, the courts will not be justified in enervating
the amendment by too liberal a construction.

We therefore hold that the two defects noted in the attestation clause of the alleged will renders it
null and void and that it cannot be admitted to probate. The order appealed from is reversed with
the costs against the appellee. So ordered.
 EN BANC Herminio Maravilla’s petition for probate was opposed by the appellees in an amended opposition
filed in the course of the trial in the court below and admitted without objection. The opposition
[G.R. No. L-23225. February 27, 1971.] alleged the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO PROBATE OF THE WILL OF DIGNA MARAVILLA, "a) That the deceased, Digna Maravilla, the alleged testatrix and the instrumental witnesses did
HERMINIO MARAVILLA, petitioner-appellant, and ADELINA SAJO, legatee-appellant, v. not sign the alleged will, each and every page thereof, in the presence of each other;
PEDRO MARAVILLA, ASUNCION MARAVILLA and REGINA MARAVILLA, oppositors-
appellees, CONCEPCION KOHLHAAS and ROSE MARY KOHLHAAS, intervenors. "b) That the deceased, Digna Maravilla, the alleged testatrix, affixed her signature to her alleged
will under undue and improper pressure and influence and/or duress brought to bear upon her by
Felino A. Garcia for legatee-appellant. the petitioner, for his own personal benefit and advantage and that of his nieces, Adelina Sajo and
Rose Marie Kohlhaas and his half-sister Conchita Maravilla Kohlhaas;
Salonga, Ordoñez, Yap, Sicat & Associates and Paredes, Poblador, Cruz & Nazareno
for Petitioner-Appellant. "c) That the deceased, Digna Maravilla, at the time she affixed her signature to her alleged will
was not of sound and disposing mind;
Jose Gutierrez David, Placido C. Ramos, Augurio Abeto, Alex Mirasol and Alex Umadhay,
for oppositors-appellees. "d) That the alleged will, now being offered for probate had already been revoked by the
deceased, Digna Maravilla." 6
Jose M. Luison for intervenors.
After trial, the court below rendered judgment, holding as unsubstantiated the last three (3)
grounds above-enumerated, but sustaining the first, that is, that the will was not executed in
DECISION accordance with Section 618 of Act 190, and, therefore, denied the probate of the will.

The petitioner and one Adelina Sajro, who was named a devisee under the questioned will,
REYES, J.B.L., J.: appealed the judgment, as aforesaid, assigning errors of fact and law. The oppositors-appellees
did not appeal but counter-assigned errors their brief.

These are appeals (before Republic Act 5440) from the decision of the Court of First Instance of There is no controversy that the late Digna Maravilla died in Manapla, Negros Occidental, on 12
Negros Occidental, in its Special Proceeding No. 4977, denying the probate of the will of the August 1958, leaving an extensive estate. Prior to her death, she was a resident of Saravia, same
deceased, Digna Maravilla. These appeals were brought to the Court of Appeals, but said court province. It is, likewise, undisputed that, at the time of the probate proceedings, only one (1)
certified the same to this Supreme Court on 26 May 1964, in accord with the latter’s prior decision (Aquilino Mansueto) of the three (3) attesting witnesses to the will had survived, the two (2) others
in Fernandez, etc., Et. Al. v. Maravilla, L-18799, 31 March 1964, 1 which settled the question of (Timoteo Hernaez and Mariano Buenaflor) having died previously.
appellate jurisdiction in favor of the Supreme Court over that of the Court of Appeals, on the
appeal from the appointment of a special co-administrator in the same Special Proceeding No. The will submitted for probate, Exhibit "A," which is typewritten in the Spanish language, purports
4977 in view of the value of the estate. to have been executed in Manila on the 7th day of October, 1944; it consists of five (5) pages,
including the page on which the attestation clause was completed. The purported signatures of the
Appellant Herminio Maravilla, probate petitioner and husband of the decedent, died on 16 July testatrix appear at the logical end of the will on page four and at the left margin of all the other
1966, after the case was submitted for decision. Upon motion for intervention filed by Concepcion pages. The attestation clause reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Maravilla Kohlhaas and Rose Mary Kohlhaas, this Supreme Court allowed their intervention on 24
July 1967, upon showing that their interest as substitute heirs was vested definitely upon the death "CLAUSULA DE ATESTIGUAMIENTO
of Herminio Maravilla, and that said movants for intervention merely adopt the pleadings and briefs
filed in behalf of the deceased Herminio Maravilla so that the intervention will not delay the "Nosotros, TIMOTEO HERNAEZ, AQUILINO MANSUETO y MARIANO BUENAFLOR los abajo
disposition of the case. 2 firmantes todos mayores de edad y sin impedimento alguno para ser testigo de este testamento,
certificamos y atestiguamos: Que en la fecha y lugar arriba mencionados Da. DIGNA MARAVILLA
Appellees Pedro, 3 Asuncion and Regina, all surnamed "Maravilla," who are allegedly the brother ha otorgado el presente documento como su testamento y ultima voluntad que consta de cinco
and sisters of the deceased Digna Maravilla and oppositors to the probate, had moved to require paginas utiles incluyendo esta pagina de atestiguamiento, escrito a maquinilla en una sola cara de
the P. C. Laboratory to submit explanations of the photographs of the will and the signatures cada hoja, todas paginadas correlativamente en letras de puño y letra de la testadora, habiendo
thereon previously filed, 4 but this Court, considering that such explanation would amount to new dicha testadora, despues de leido el mismo en nuestra presencia, firmado por triplicado al pie de
evidence not heard at the trial, denied the motion on 3 August 1967. 5 este testamento y al margen izquierdo de cada una de las cinco paginas de que se compone en
presencia de todos y cada uno de nosotros que tambien firmamos en el margen izquierdo de
cada pagina y al pie de este atestiguamiento los unos en presencia de los otros y todos en Maravilla, and of attorney Manuel Villanueva. Herminio Maravilla’s evidence is that a week before
presencia de lo testadora, quien en el acto del otorgamiento y firma de este documento se halla 7 October 1944 his wife, Digna Maravilla, told him of her desire to "renew" her will because of the
en plena capacidad intelectual, amenazada ni enganada par otorgar y firmar este testamento. critical period in Manila before the liberation; 10 he invited Buenaflor, Hernaez and Mansueto to
attest to the will; 11 sent his messenger, Mariano Buenaflor, to ask attorney Manuel Villanueva to
"Asi lo atestiguamos y firmamos por triplicado de nuestro puño y letra en Manila hoy a siete de come to his house at Mabini, Ermita, Manila, in order to prepare the will; 12 at his wife’s request,
Octubre de mil novecientos cuarenta y cuatro."cralaw virtua1aw library he gave the list of properties to Villanueva; 13 he knew that the will was executed in the dining
room while he remained in the sala; 14 and Villanueva, Mansueto, Hernaez and Buenaflor were in
At the bottom thereof appear the purported signatures of Timoteo Hernaez, Aquilino Mansueto his house in the morning of 7 October 1944 and sat with his wife around the table in the dining
and Mariano Buenaflor, attesting witnesses. Their signatures appear also on the left margin of all room, with Villanueva at one end, Digna beside him and the witnesses facing each other; 15 and
the five (5) pages. The paging of the will is by handwritten words, such as "Pagina Primera," after the signing they had lunch, at his invitation, and when they were eating, petitioner Maravilla
"Pagina Segunda," etc., written at the top of each page. On the lower half of the third page, before saw the three (3) copies of the will on the dining table. 16 However, he did not see there sign. 17
the name "CONCEPCION P. MARAVILLA," is the typewritten word "hermana," which was crossed
out, and over it was handwritten the word "cuñada," bearing, at the left hereof, the initials "D. Attorney Manuel Villanueva, as third witness for the proponent asserted that he had been the
M."cralaw virtua1aw library lawyer of the Maravillas; that 5 or 6 days before 7 October 1944 he had been summoned through
Mariano Buenaflor to the house of the Maravillas at 222 Mabini, Ermita, Manila, and there met
After the legacies in favor of herein appellant Adelina Sajo, a niece of Digna Maravilla, the latter’s Digna who requested him to draft a new will, revoking her old one, to include as additional
sister-in-law, Concepcion P. Maravilla de Kohlhaas, and Concepcion’s daughter, Rose Mary beneficiaries Adelina Sajo, Concepcion Maravilla, and the latter’s youngest daughter, Rose Mary
Kohlhaas, the will named appellant Herminio Maravilla as universal heir and executor. In case of Kohlhaas, who lived with her (Digna) and whom she considered as her real children, having cared
the heir’s death, or if he should not become heir for any reason, he is to be substituted by the for them since childhood. Digna gave Villanueva instructions concerning the will, and handed him
legatee Adelina Sajo in one-half of the properties bequeathed, the other half to pass collectively to her old will and a handwritten list of the certificates of title of her properties, which list she asked
legatees Concepcion P. Maravilla and the daughter of the latter, Rose Mary Kohlhaas. All previous and obtained from her husband. Before leaving, Villanueva asked Digna to look for three
wills are declared revoked. witnesses; their names were furnished him two or three days later and he sent word that the will
could be executed on 7 October 1944 (as it actually was); on that day he brought one original and
In view of the trial court’s decision of 8 February 1960 (Record on Appeal, pages 25-51) refusing 2 copies with him, and handed them to Digna; she read the document and while doing so the
probate of the will, the instituted heir, Herminio Maravilla, and the legatee, Adelina Sajo, perfected witnesses Mansueto, Hernaez and Buenaflor came. Villanueva talked with them and satisfied
their appeal, assigning as errors the findings of the trial court that (a) instrumental witness Aquilino himself that they were competent, whereupon all proceeded to the dining room table. Attorney
Mansueto did not actually see Digna Maravilla sign the will; (b) that Digna Maravilla was not Villanueva sat at the head thereof, Digna at his right, and Hernaez at the right of Digna; at his left
present when Mansueto signed the will as witness; (c) that Mansueto "most probably" did not see was first Mansueto and then Buenaflor. At the lawyer’s behest Digna Maravilla read the will in the
Mariano Buenaflor sign as witness to the will; (d) the testimony of attorney Manuel Villanueva on presence of the witnesses; after reading she called his attention to a clerical error on page 3, at
the due execution of Digna Maravilla’s testament was biased and not deserving of credit; and (e) the second to the last line of paragraph 9, where Concepcion Maravilla was designated as
in refusing probate to the alleged will for not having been executed with the requisites prescribed "hermana" ; the word was cancelled by the testatrix who wrote "cuñada" above the cancelled
by Section 618 of Act 190. word, and placed her initials "D. M." beside it. She also wrote on top of each page the words
"Pagina primera," "Pagina Segunda" and so on, upon Villanueva’s instructions, and then Digna
At the hearing before the court a quo, only one of the three instrumental witnesses, Col. (ret.) and the witnesses signed in the presence of one another and of attorney Villanueva. 18 The latter
Aquilino Mansueto, appeared and testified, inasmuch as the other two witnesses (Timoteo did not ask the husband (Herminio) to join the group when the will was executed, and Herminio
Hernaez and Mariano Buenaflor) concededly died prior to the trial of the case. Col. Mansueto remained near the window in the sala. 19 Digna appeared to the witness very healthy and spoke
identified his own signature and those of Dr. Timoteo Hernaez and of Digna Maravilla, and in Spanish intelligently. The signing ended around 12:30 p.m., and after it all ate lunch. 20
asserted that the latter did sign in the presence of all three witnesses and attorney Villanueva; 7
that Hernaez signed in his presence and in the presence of the other witnesses and of Digna Upon the evidence, the trial judge concluded that Mansueto did not actually see Digna Maravilla
Maravilla and that present at the signing were "Dr. Timoteo Hernaez, Mr. Mariano Buenaflor, sign the will in question, basing such conclusion upon the fact that while Mansueto positively
attorney Manuel Villanueva and both Herminio Maravilla and Mrs. Digna Maravilla, (the testatrix) identified his own signature ("I identify this as my signature") but not that of the testatrix, his five
and identified his signature and those of Digna and Hernaez 8 although, subsequently, the witness answers to the questions of counsel, in reference thereto, being "this must be the signature of Mrs.
admitted that he could not remember very well whether Mr. Maravilla was there at the time he Digna Maravilla."cralaw virtua1aw library
signed the will. The witness explained that he could not remember some details because fourteen
years had elapsed, and when he signed as a witness, he did not give it any importance and In our opinion, the trial court’s conclusion is far fetched, fanciful and unwarranted. It was but
because of the time he (Col. Mansueto) was very worried because of rumours that the Japanese natural that witness Mansueto should be positive about his own signature, since he was familiar
Kempeitai would arrest officers of the USAFFE who did not want to collaborate. 9 with it. He had to be less positive about Digna Maravilla’s signature since he could not be closely
acquainted with the same: for aught the record shows, the signing of the will was the only
Colonel Mansueto’s testimony was supported by that of the husband of the testatrix, Herminio occasion he saw her sign; he had no opportunity to study her signature before or after the
execution of Exhibit "A." Furthermore, he witnessed Digna’s signing not less than fourteen years participate in the act, supposing of course that no motive is revealed that should induce the
previously. To demand that in identifying Digna’s signature Mansueto should display a attorney to prevaricate. The reason is that the mind of the attorney, being conversant with the
positiveness equal to the certainty shown by him in recognizing his own, exceeds the bounds of requisites of proper execution of the instrument, is more likely to become fixed on details, and he
the reasonable. The variation in the expressions used by the witness is the best evidence that he is more likely than other persons to retain those incidents in his memory.’" (Italics supplied)
was being candid and careful, and it is a clear badge of truthfulness rather than the reverse.
Appellees endeavoured to sustain the court’s refusal to probate the will by referring to the
The trial court’s error gains no support from Mansueto’s statement on cross-examination that "I evidence of their witness Marino Tupas, a man of "no permanent job", 23 who narrated that on the
remember and (I) signed the will in the presence of all the witnesses and in the presence of last week of September, 1944 one Mariano Buenaflor had been introduced to him by one Lt.
attorney Villanueva" (page 29, Volume 1, T.s.n., Amago). In the absence of an assurance that no Garaton at his guerrilla outpost in Montalban and described as a man wanted by the Japanese.
one else was present, this assertion does not really contradict Mansueto’s testimony in chief that "I Tupas’ patently exaggerated testimony is that this Buenaflor stayed with him at his outpost camp
have read the entire document before I signed it in the presence of the other witnesses, Digna until January, 1945, living and sleeping with him, and was never for a single moment out of his
Maravilla and Attorney Villanueva" (t.s.n., Amago, Volume 1, pages 18-19). It is well to note that sight. 24 Why a civilian refugee should remain at a guerrilla outpost for four months; without
the cross examiner did not ask Mansueto if no one else besides those mentioned by him had seen engaging in any particular helpful activity on his part, was not explained. Shown photographs and
him sign. Any contradiction inferred from both statements is purely conjectural; it did not come asked to identify Buenaflor, Tupas hedged by pleading that the Buenaflor who stayed with him had
from the witness and is insufficient to impeach his veracity, the difference in the answers being a long beard. Thus, oppositor-appellees’ reverse alibi for the instrumental witness, Mariano
due to no more than an accidental lapse of memory. A will may be allowed even if some witnesses Buenaflor, was not only patently mendacious but did not establish any reliable connection
not remember having attested it, if other evidence satisfactorily show due execution (V. Act 190, between the instrumental witness of Digna’s will and the Buenaflor who, according to Tupas, stuck
Section 632), and that failure of witness to identify his signature does not bar probate. 21 to him as a burr in 1944. No wonder the trial court gave no credit to such evidence.

That Mansueto, Hernaez and Buenaflor, together with the testatrix and the lawyer, sat next to one Oppositors’ attempts to establish that the testatrix Digna Maravilla was mentally incompetent to
another around one table when the will was signed is clearly established by the uncontradicted validly execute the will in question met no better fate in the court below. They introduced one
testimony of both attorney Villanueva and Herminio Maravilla; and that detail proves beyond doubt Eufrocina Berja who qualified Digna Maravilla as insane because she saw Digna Maravilla acting
that each one of the parties concerned did sign in the presence of all the others. It should be strangely one morning in 1921 (23 years before the will was executed). In Berja’s own words —
remembered, in this connection, that the test is not whether a witness did see the signing of the
will but whether he was in a position to see if he chose to do so. 22 "Would you not call a person insane who is waving a bunch of flowers and singing along a road,
especially taking into consideration their reputation in the Community?" (t.s.n., 21 May 1959, page
The trial court rejected the evidence of both Herminio Maravilla and Manuel Villanueva, giving as a 19)
reason that they were biased and interested in having the probate succeed. The reasoning is not
warranted: for Herminio Maravilla certainly stood to gain more under the previous will of his wife Even if to this ridiculous appraisal were to be added the fact that (according to this witness) Digna
(Exhibit "G") where he was made the sole beneficiary, As to attorney Villanueva, while he had saw her in 1946, but would not answer her questions and "was in a deep thought (sic) and her
been a friend of Herminio from boyhood, he also had been the family lawyer, and his intervention tongue was coming out of her mouth" (Do., pages 14-15), her evidence would certainly not justify
in the execution of the will of one of his clients became inevitable, for it is not to be expected that a finding that Digna Maravilla was not competent to execute the testament in 1944. By Berja’s
the testatrix should call upon a stranger for the purpose. If Villanueva wished to perjure in favor of standards, any one could be held insane.
Herminio, all he needed was to color his testimony against the due execution of the will (Exhibit
"A") and not in favor thereof, since, as previously observed, Digna’s first will (Exhibit "G") was Nor is the case for the oppositors improved by the evidence of their witness Eleazar Lopez, who
more advantageous to the widower. asserted having visited his aunt, Digna Maravilla (whom he had not seen since he was four years
old), two days after the first bombing of Manila by the American planes in September, 1944. Lopez
We find it difficult to understand the trial court’s distrust of a lawyer who did no more than claimed to have seen Digna on that occasion laughing and crying and then staring blankly at the
discharge his professional duty, or its readiness to attribute improper motives to proponent’s ceiling, without recognizing the witness; and that he visited her again toward mid-October of the
witnesses. This Court, in Sotelo v. Luzan, 59 Phil. 908, has remarked that — same year and she had worsened. 25 Coming from a nephew who expected to succeed if the will
in question * were denied probate, and who sought to become administrator of the estate, even
"It is hardly conceivable that any attorney of any standing would risk his professional reputation by offering to resign from his position in the government if appointed, 26 this testimony of Lopez was
falsifying a will and then go before a court and give false testimony."cralaw virtua1aw library evidently colored by his monetary interest, thus leading to its correct discrediting by the trial court.
His recollection after 15 years of the alleged symptoms of his aunt is very suspicious, as it does
And in the Fernandez v. Tantoco, 49 Phil. 380, 385, We ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph not even appear that Lopez at the time bothered to inquire from other persons what caused his
aunt’s alleged abnormal condition. Moreover, the court’s duty to reconcile conflicts of evidence
"‘In weighing the testimony of the attesting witnesses to a will, the statements of a competent should lead it to hold that the symptoms described by Lopez were due to a temporary disturbance
attorney, who has been charged with the responsibility of seeing to the proper execution of the of the nerves caused by the unsettling effect of a bombardment not previously experienced,
instrument, is entitled to greater weight than the testimony of a person casually called to compatible with the due execution of the will on 7 October 1944. As between the testimony of
Lopez and that of attorney Villanueva, who repeatedly visited and talked to the testatrix around the
time her will was executed, We have no hesitation in accepting the latter’s view that Digna
Maravilla was competent to make the will when it was signed. The law itself declares that —

"To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning
faculties or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired or unshattered by disease, injury or
other cause." (Civil Code, Article 799; Bugnao v. Ubag, 14 Phil. 163.)

We are satisfied that the preponderance of evidence is to the effect that the testament, Exhibit "A,"
was duly executed by a qualified testatrix and competent witnesses, in conformity with the
statutory requirements.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decree of the court below denying probate of the 1944 will of
Digna Maravilla (Exhibit "A") is reversed and the said testament is hereby ordered probated. Let
the records be returned to the Court of origin for further proceedings conformable to law. Costs
against oppositors-appellees.
 Republic of the Philippines (4) That, after the rough copy was amended by the addition of the above-mentioned
SUPREME COURT clause, a clear copy thereof was made up and was again read to the testatrix, who
Manila approved it in all of its parts, and as she was unable to sign, she requested Amando de
Ocampo to sign for her and the latter wrote the following words with his own hand. "At the
EN BANC request of the testatrix D.a Simplicia de los Santos, I signed — Amando de Ocampo."
Immediately afterwards and also in the presence of the same testatrux and of each other,
the witnesses Jose Juico, Gabino Panopio, Eusebio dayao, Juan Angeles, Jose Torres,
G.R. No. L-5149 March 22, 1910
Alejo San Pedro, and Gregorio Sangil signed at the bottom of the will.

GREGORIO MACAPINLAC, petitioner-appellee,

In view of the said facts—the lower court concludes—the will executed by Simplicia de los
vs.
Santos must be admitted to probate. The provisions of section 618 of the Code of
MARIANO ALIMURONG, opponent-appellant.
Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings are fully complied with. The will bears
the name of the testatrix written by Amando de Ocampo in her presence and by her
Carlos Ledesma and Mariano Lim, for appellant. express direction, and has been witnessed and signed by more than three trustworthy
Hartigan and Rohde and Roman Lacson, for appellee. witnesses, in the presence of the testatrix and of each other.

ARELLANO, C. J.: The judgment was as follows:

Simplicia de los Santos having died on June 19, 1907, her surviving husband, Gregorio It is ordered that exhibit No. 1, duly translated, be probated as the last will of Simplicia de
Macapinlac, submitted her will to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga for probate. Macario los Santos and that the corresponding letters of administration be issued in favor of
Alimurong, a nephew of the deceased, opposed the proceedings and requested that "the will of Gregorio Macapinlac, the surviving husband of the said Simplicia de los Santos, the
the deceased, Doña Simplicia de los Santos, be declared null and void for either of the two protest of the adverse party being dismissed, with the costs.
reasons" which he expresses, and which are:
The opponent appealed, and the appeal having been submitted to this court, together with the
(1) Because the will was not executed and signed by the witnesses in accordance with allegations of both parties, it appears that the appellant has alleged the following assignments of
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure now in force. error:

(2) Because it was executed under duress and undue and illegal influence on the part of 1 That the proceedings were not dismissed, because the witnesses for the petitioner did not sign
the persons benefited thereby or of a person acting in their interests. their respective testimony.

The trial having been held and evidence adduced, the trial court declared the following facts to be 2 That it was declared that the will of the deceased Simplicia de los Santos was executed with a
proven: legal formalities.

(1) That at 6 o' clock on the evening of June 17, 1907, Simplicia de los Santos, who was 3 That it was not declared that the will of the deceased Simplicia de los Santos was executed
sick but in full possession of all her faculties, executed her will, which is the document under undue and illegal influence on the part of the persons benefited thereby or of a person
attached to the record, Exhibit No. 1 of the petitioner. acting in their interests.

(2) That after the execution of such will on Monday, the testatrix died early on the morning With reference to the first assignment of error, inasmuch as no question was raised in the first
of the following Wednesday. instance in the form of a motion and denied by the court below and exception taken and brought
up on appeal, there is no ground on which we may take into consideration such assignment and
(3) That, as a preliminary act, a rough copy of the said will was made up, which rough decide a matter not covered by the appeal and with reference to which a decision by this court is
copy was read to the testatrix, and the latter ordered an additional clause to be added not properly sought.
thereto, in connection with a legacy that she desired to make in favor of some of her old
servants who and rendered good service. In regard to the second assignment, in view of the facts set forth and of the findings made by the
trial court, according to the preponderance of the evidence, it can not be rationally shown that the
conclusion should have been otherwise, nor does it appear that the conclusion infringes any Against this finding of fact, based upon the preponderance of the evidence as weighed by the trial
statute or legal doctrine for the enforcement of which this court should review the evidence. court, we find no reason or ground for deciding this question of fact in any other way. We find no
data showing that the person above mentioned directly influenced the provisions of the will; that
But, besides the question of fact, the appellant submit another question of law, viz, whether or not such is the illegal and improper influence which the law condemns as overcoming that freedom by
the will was signed in accordance with the law, and he affirms that it was not, inasmuch as the law which the last will of a man must be expressed.
requires that when a person signs in place of the testator he should write the name of the latter in
the will as the signature; this was not done by Amando de Ocampo in the will in question, as he The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the
did not sign it with the name of testatrix. appellant. So ordered.

It is shown by the evidence that the will was wholly written in the handwriting of the subscribing
witness, Gregorio Sangil, and at the foot thereof the following words appear in a new paragraph
and sufficiently apart:

At the request of the testatrix, Da. Simplicia de los Santos, I signed.

For Simplicia de los Santos. Amando de Ocampo.

As a question of fact, the authenticity of the words "For Simplicia de los Santos," prefixed to the
signature, is impugned as not having been written at the time of the execution of the will.

And, as a question of law, it is claimed that the form of signing for the testatrix "At the request of
the testatrix Da. Simplicio de los Santos, I signed: Amando de Ocampo," is not in accordance with
the requirements of the law.

Regarding the first question, the trial court concluded that "the posterior insertion of the words 'For
Simplicia de los Santos' can not affect the validity of the will."

Therefore, it can be considered as nonexistent, and the other as the only fore of signature by the
testatrix, the authenticity of which has not been impugned or which the trial court admits as
conclusive, and is only one taken into account in its findings of fact. Although the said words "For
Simplicia de los Santos" be considered as inserted subsequently, which we neither affirm nor
deny, because a specific determination either way is unnecessary, in our opinion the signature for
the testatrix as if she signed the will, and also the signature of the witness who, at her request,
wrote the name of the testatrix and signed for her, affirming the truth of this fact, attested by the
other witnesses then present. And this fully complies with the provisions of section 618 of the Act.

With reference to the third assignment of error, the court below found:

. . . and the influence which, according to the adverse party, was exercised upon the
testatrix by Father Lupo is not shown. While the rough copy of the will was being made,
Father Lupo simply discussed with those who were making the rough draft the question of
the more appropriate use of some phrases in Pampango. It is true that he went in and out
of the room of the testatrix several times, and that from time to time he showed a relic to
her, but there is no evidence to indicate that Father Lupo influenced the testatrix directly
and caused her to be influenced in any way.
 Republic of the Philippines Instead of complying with the order of the trial court, the petitioner filed a manifestation and/or
SUPREME COURT motion, ex parte praying for a thirty-day period within which to deliberate on any step to be taken
Manila as a result of the disallowance of the will. He also asked that the ten-day period required by the
court to submit the names of intestate heirs with their addresses be held in abeyance.
FIRST DIVISION
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the probate of the will.
G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982 However, the motion together with the previous manifestation and/or motion could not be acted
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF THE WILL OF DOROTEA upon by the Honorable Ramon C. Pamatian due to his transfer to his new station at Pasig, Rizal.
PEREZ, (deceased): APOLONIO TABOADA, petitioner, The said motions or incidents were still pending resolution when respondent Judge Avelino S.
vs. Rosal assumed the position of presiding judge of the respondent court.
HON. AVELINO S. ROSAL, as Judge of Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte, (Branch
III, Maasin), respondent. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of special administrator.

Erasmo M. Diola counsel for petition. Subsequently, the new Judge denied the motion for reconsideration as well as the manifestation
and/or motion filed ex parte. In the same order of denial, the motion for the appointment of special
Hon. Avelino S. Rosal in his own behalf. administrator was likewise denied because of the petitioner's failure to comply with the order
requiring him to submit the names of' the intestate heirs and their addresses.

The petitioner decided to file the present petition.

GUTIERREZ, JR. J.:
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
This is a petition for review of the orders issued by the Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte, presence of the testatrix and of one another?
Branch III, in Special Proceedings No. R-1713, entitled "In the Matter of the Petition for Probate of
the Will of Dorotea Perez, Deceased; Apolonio Taboada, Petitioner", which denied the probate of
the will, the motion for reconsideration and the motion for appointment of a special administrator. Article 805 of the Civil Code provides:

In the petition for probate filed with the respondent court, the petitioner attached the alleged last Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by
will and testament of the late Dorotea Perez. Written in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect, the will the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his
consists of two pages. The first page contains the entire testamentary dispositions and is signed at presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or
the end or bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the three (3) more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
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 The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the
and at the left hand margin by the testatrix. instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every
page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be
Since no opposition was filed after the petitioner's compliance with the requirement of publication, numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page.
the trial court commissioned the branch clerk of court to receive the petitioner's evidence.
Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his evidence and presented Vicente Timkang, one of the The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is
subscribing witnesses to the will, who testified on its genuineness and due execution. written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or
caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the
The trial court, thru then Presiding Judge Ramon C. Pamatian issued the questioned order presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the lacier witnesses and signed
denying the probate of the will of Dorotea Perez for want of a formality in its execution. In the the will and the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
same order, the petitioner was also required to submit the names of the intestate heirs with their
corresponding addresses so that they could be properly notified and could intervene in the If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be
summary settlement of the estate. interpreted to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them.
The respondent Judge interprets the above-quoted provision of law to require that, for a notarial Parenthetically, Judge Ramon C. Pamatian stated in his questioned order that were not for the
will to be valid, it is not enough that only the testatrix signs at the "end" but an the three defect in the place of signatures of the witnesses, he would have found the testimony sufficient to
subscribing witnesses must also sign at the same place or at the end, in the presence of the establish the validity of the will.
testatrix and of one another because the attesting witnesses to a will attest not merely the will itself
but also the signature of the testator. It is not sufficient compliance to sign the page, where the The objects of attestation and of subscription were fully met and satisfied in the present case
end of the will is found, at the left hand margin of that page. when the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page which contains all the
testamentary dispositions, especially so when the will was properly Identified by subscribing
On the other hand, the petitioner maintains that Article 805 of the Civil Code does not make it a witness Vicente Timkang to be the same will executed by the testatrix. There was no question of
condition precedent or a matter of absolute necessity for the extrinsic validity of the wig that the fraud or substitution behind the questioned order.
signatures of the subscribing witnesses should be specifically located at the end of the wig after
the signature of the testatrix. He contends that it would be absurd that the legislature intended to We have examined the will in question and noticed that the attestation clause failed to state the
place so heavy an import on the space or particular location where the signatures are to be found number of pages used in writing the will. This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the
as long as this space or particular location wherein the signatures are found is consistent with fact that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire wig that it is really and actually composed of
good faith and the honest frailties of human nature. only two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses. As earlier stated, the
first page which contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions is signed by the testatrix at
We find the petition meritorious. 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
Undoubtedly, under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will must be subscribed or signed at its end acknowledgment itself states that "This Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including
by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by another person in his presence, and by this page".
his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the
presence of the testator and of one another. In Singson v. Florentino, et al. (92 Phil. 161, 164), this Court made the following observations with
respect to the purpose of the requirement that the attestation clause must state the number of
It must be noted that the law uses the terms attested and subscribed Attestation consists in pages used:
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 The law referred to is article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by
testator exists as a fact. On the other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names Act No. 2645, which requires that the attestation clause shall state the number of
upon the same paper for the purpose of Identification of such paper as the will which was pages or sheets upon which the win is written, which requirement has been held
executed by the testator. (Ragsdale v. Hill, 269 SW 2d 911). to be mandatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of interpolation
or omission of some of the pages of the will to the prejudice of the heirs to whom
Insofar as the requirement of subscription is concerned, it is our considered view that the will in the property is intended to be bequeathed (In re will of Andrada, 42 Phil., 180; Uy
this case was subscribed in a manner which fully satisfies the purpose of Identification. Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil. 405; Gumban vs. Gorecho, 50 Phil. 30;
Quinto vs. Morata, 54 Phil. 481; Echevarria vs. Sarmiento, 66 Phil. 611).
The ratio decidendi of these cases seems to be that the attestation clause must
The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of the will attested
contain a statement of the number of sheets or pages composing the will and
not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of the will
that if this is missing or is omitted, it will have the effect of invalidating the will if
as embodied in the attestation clause.
the deficiency cannot be supplied, not by evidence aliunde, but by a
consideration or examination of the will itself. But here the situation is different.
While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual While the attestation clause does not state the number of sheets or pages upon
forms should be ignored, especially where the authenticity of the will is not assailed. (Gonzales v. which the will is written, however, the last part of the body of the will contains a
Gonzales, 90 Phil. 444, 449). statement that it is composed of eight pages, which circumstance in our opinion
takes this case out of the rigid rule of construction and places it within the realm
The law is to be liberally construed, "the underlying and fundamental objective permeating the of similar cases where a broad and more liberal view has been adopted to
provisions on the law on wills in this project consists in the liberalization of the manner of their prevent the will of the testator from being defeated by purely technical
execution with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes considerations.
but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise
of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. This objective is in accord with Icasiano v. Icasiano (11 SCRA 422, 429) has the following ruling which applies a similar liberal
the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the execution of a will" (Report of the Code approach:
commission, p. 103).
 ... Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured not only (sic) 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 fun observance of the statutory
requisites. Otherwise, as stated in Vda. de Gil. Vs. Murciano, 49 Off. Gaz. 1459,
at 1479 (decision on reconsideration) 'witnesses may sabotage the will by
muddling or bungling it or the attestation clause.

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.
No pronouncement on costs.

SO ORDERED.