Grethel V.

Villarubia
Executive Class
Mondonido vs De Roda
Facts:
Ricardo de Roda awarded two public writings, forcing Lazaro Mondoido to sell a portion of land,
which he was to inherit from their grandparents, receiving P200 as advance payment !t the time
of the granting of such deeds there were already legal settlement in the "ourt of #irst $nstance of
"ebu property of his grandfather %duardo de Roda &ith minor differences, the first document is
written as the second
'hereafter, the plaintiff presented fulfilling demand as(ing the two contracts 'he defendant, as
administrator of the goods relict of Richard de Roda, presented two defenses) *a+ that such deeds
are void as it concerned future inheritance, and *b+ that the action is barred
&hen %dward died, he left his children and grandchildren as heirs Ricardo, in representation of
his father, inherited the ,-2. parts of the goods of his abuelo &hen Ricardo died, subse/uently
his relict goods were distributed to %duardo Ricardo her late grandfather and his sister Roberta
received in that to 0 or their participation in the legacy of %dward, which was administered by the
widow of Richard, Roberta giving this to their participation in the products of that heritage
Issue:
&hether or not, the agreement of the two scripts concerned future inheritance
Held:
1o doubt they are written in a way that one can not be sure if Ricardo was selling his participation
in the estate of his late grandfather %dward alone or in those of his grandparents %dward and
!ntonina, but even if he had promised to sell its participation in the estate of his grandfather and
grandmother, the promise of sale in terms of the latter property is null and gun denin value
because it refers to selling future inheritance 23n future inheritance 4 says the 5panish "ivil "ode
4 you may, however, enter into other contracts than those whose purpose is to practice the
division between living a flow according to art 60782 *!rt 6296, par 2 : !rroyo against ;erona,
7< Phil, 2.7= 'ordilla against 'ordilla, 80 Phil, 692+ !ntonina Ricardo 5epulveda lived even if
awarded the scriptures, but there are zero in for goods that Ricardo recibria the intestate of his
grandfather %dward, because such goods were already in process relict of court settlement when
the otorgo Los Ricardo rights to succession are transmitted by operation of law from the time of
death *art 879, "ode "iv 5panish+ Ricardo was already owner of the ,-2. parts of such
property, by way of royal heritage, present and future
Tordilla vs Tordilla
Facts:
#rancisco 'ordilla, who died intestate in 1aga, "amarines 5ur, leaving as his only heirs his
widow, a legitimate son, the defendant and appellant, and a recognized natural daughter,
petitioner and appellee
! contract was entered into between the appellee and the appellant in another case and signed
shortly before the death of their father 'he contract is in the nature of a compromise and covered
two items, namely, first, the support of the natural daughter which the brother agreed to assume
for one year and, second, a proposed division of their future inheritance upon the death of their
father $t is assumed that appellant has complied with his terms of the contract, and the father
died before the obligation of the brother terminated
Issue: &hether or not, the contract, which involves future inheritance is valid
Held: 'he second portion of the contract clearly relates to the anticipated future inheritance and,
therefore, is null and void under the provisions of article 6296 of the "ivil "ode which reads)
2!R' 6296 !ll things, even future ones, which are not out of the commerce of man, may be
the sub>ect4matter of contracts
21evertheless, no contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritances, e?cept those
the ob>ect of which is to ma(e a division intervivos of the estate, in accordance with article 6078
2!ny services not contrary to law or to good morals may also be the sub>ect4matter of a contract2
'he action of the trial court in holding the said contract to be uncontroverted and predicating its
final action on the terms of that document was erroneous and contrary to law
Comarison bet!een the cases Mondonido and Tordilla
$n the Mondonido case, the sub>ect of the contract was a future inheritance= hence, the "ourt
declared it as void $n the case of 'ordilla, the sub>ect matter of the contact involves an obligation
to support and division of future inheritance 'he court in this case declared the the first
obligation as valid while the second portion of the contract was declared as null and void 'he
declaration of its nullity is the same with the Mondonido case as it involves future inheritance
"aboneta vs Gustillo
Facts: 3n the 28th day of @ecember, 6A06, Macario Baboneta e?ecuted under the following
circumstances the document in /uestion, which has been presented for probate as his will) Ceing
in the house of !rcadio Barandilla, in Baro, in this province, he ordered that the document in
/uestion be written, and calling Bulio Bavellana, !niceto Balbuena, and $sabelo Bena as witnesses,
e?ecuted the said document as his will 'hey were all together, and were in the room where
Baboneta was, and were present when he signed the document, $sabelo Bena signing afterwards
as a witness, at his re/uest, and in his presence and in the presence of the other two witnesses
!niceto Balbuena then signed as a witness in the presence of the testator, and in the presence of
the other two persons who signed as witnesses !t that moment $sabelo Bena, being in a hurry to
leave, too( his hat and left the room !s he was leaving the house Bulio Bavellana too( the pen in
his hand and put himself in position to sign the will as a witness, but did not sign in the presence
of $sabelo Bena= but nevertheless, after Bena had left the room the said Bulio Bavellana signed as
a witness in the presence of the testator and of the witness !niceto Balbuena
'he proceedings probate was denied the last will and testament of Macario Baboneta, deceased,
because the lower court was of the opinion from the evidence adduced at the hearing that Bulio
Bavellana, one of the witnesses, did not attach his signature thereto in the presence of $sabelo
Bena, another of the witnesses, as re/uired
Issue: &hether or not the denial of the last will and testament was proper on the ground that one
of the witnesses did not attach his signature thereto in the presence of another of the witnesses
Rulin#: 1o, the purpose of a statutory re/uirement that the witness sign in the presence of the
testator is said to be that the testator may have ocular evidence of the identity of the instrument
subscribed by the witness and himself, and the generally accepted tests of presence are vision
and mental apprehension$t is sufficient if the witnesses are together for the purpose of witnessing
the e?ecution 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
'he principles on which these cases rest and the tests of presence as between the testator and
the witnesses are e/ually applicable in determining whether the witnesses signed the instrument
in the presence of each other, as re/uired by the statute, and applying them to the facts proven in
these proceedings we are of opinion that the statutory re/uisites as to the e?ecution 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 'hus, the 5upreme "ourt admitted the instrument
propounded therein to probate as the last will and testament of Macario Baboneta
$era v. Rimando
Facts:!t the time the will was e?ecuted, in a large room connecting with a smaller room by a
doorway where a curtain hangs across, one of the witnesses was in the outside room when the
other witnesses were attaching their signatures to the instrument
'he trial court did not consider the determination of the issue as to the position of the witness as
of vital importance in determining the case $t agreed with the ruling in the case of Baboneta v
;ustillo that the alleged fact being that one of the subscribing witnesses was in the outer room
while the signing occurred in the inner room, would not be sufficient to invalidate the e?ecution of
the will
Issue: &hether or not the subscribing witness was able to see the testator and other witnesses in
the act of affi?ing their signatures
Held: Des, the "ourt is unanimous in its opinion that had the witnesses been proven to be in the
outer room when the testator and other witnesses signed the will in the inner room, it would have
invalidated the will since the attaching of the signatures under the circumstances was not done in
the presenceE of the witnesses in the outer room 'he line of vision of the witness to the testator
and other witnesses was bloc(ed by the curtain separating the rooms
'he position of the parties must be such that with relation to each other at the moment of the
attaching the signatures, they may see each other sign if they chose to
$n the Baboneta case, the true test of presence is not whether or not they actuallmy saw each
other sign but whether they might have seen each other sign if they chose to do so considering
their physical, mental condition and position in relation to each other at the moment of the
inscription of the signature
Comarison bet!een the case o% "aboneta and the case o% $era
$n both cases, the due e?ecution of the last will and testament of the testator were being
challenged because one of the subscribing witnesses did not attach his signature in the presence
of another witnesses, as re/uired by law
'he 5upreme "ourt resolve the issue by declaring that, the purpose of a statutory re/uirement
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
$t is sufficient if the witnesses are together for the purpose of witnessing the e?ecution 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
De Gala vs Gon&ales and 'na
Facts: 3n 1ovember 2,, 6A20, 5everina ;onzales e?ecuted a will in which 5erapia de ;ala, a
niece of 5everina, was designated e?ecutri? 'he testatri? died in 1ovember, 6A28, leaving no
heirs by force of law, and on @ecember 2, 6A28, 5erapia, through her counsel, presented the will
for probate
'he appellants 5inforoso 3na and !polinario ;onzales argue that the will in /uestion was not
e?ecuted in the form prescribed by section 86< of the "ode of "ivil Procedure as amended by !ct
1o 28.7 which re/uires that in cases where the testator is unabele to sign, the testator or the
person re/uested 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, and said pages shall be
numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each sheet
'he attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the will is 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 e?press direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and the latter
witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each
other
'he principal points raised by the appeal are *6+ that the person re/uested to sign the name of
the testatri? signed only the latterEs name and not her own= *2+ that the attestation clause does not
mention the placing of the thumb4mar( of the testatri? in the will= and *,+ that the fact that the will
had been signed in the presence of the witnesses was not stated in the attestation clause but
only in the last paragraph of the body of the will
Issue: &hether or not the will be considered invalid because *6+ the person re/uested to sign the
name of the testatri? signed only the latterEs name and not her own= *2+ the attestation clause
does not mention the placing of the thumb4mar( of the testatri? in the will= and *,+ the fact that the
will had been signed in the presence of the witnesses was not stated in the attestation clause but
only in the last paragraph of the body of the will
Rulin#: 1o, the will is still considered valid !s to the first point, it had been held by this court that
where a testator is unable to write and his name is signed by another at his re/uest, in his
presence and in that of the subscribing witnesses thereto, it is unimportant, so far as the validity
of the will is concerned, whether the person who writes the name of the testator signs his own or
not 'here is, however, an entirely different view which can be ta(en of the situation 'his is that
the testatri? placed her thumb4mar( on the will in the proper places &hen, therefore, the law
says that the will shall be EsignedE by the testator or testatri?, the law is fulfilled not only by the
customary written signature but by the testator or testatri?E thumb4mar( 'he construction put
upon the word EsignedE by most courts is the original meaning of a signum or sign, rather than the
derivative meaning of a sign manual or handwriting ! statute re/uiring a will to be EsignedE is
satisfied if the signature is made by the testatorEs mar( 'he testatri? thumb4mar( appears in the
center of her name as written by 5erapia de ;ala on all of the pages of the will
'he second and third points raised are sufficiently refuted by /uoting the last clause of the body
of the will together with the attestation clause 'hough, it was not mentioned in the attestation
clause that the testatri? signed by thumb4mar(, but it does there appear that the signature was
affi?ed in the presence of the witnesses, and the form of the signature is sufficiently described
and e?plained in the last clause of the body of the will $t maybe conceded that the attestation
clause is not artistically drawn and that, standing alone, it does not /uite meet the re/uirements of
the statute, but ta(en in connection with the last clause of the body of the will, it is fairly clear and
sufficiently carries out the legislative intent= it leaves no possible doubt as to the authenticity of
the document
Garcia v. (acuesta
Facts:'he "! disallowed the probate of the will of !ntero Mercado dated Ban 6A., 'he said will
was written in $locano dialect
'he will appears to have been signed by !tty #lorentino Bavier who wrote the name of the
testator followed below by E! ruego del testadorE and the name of #lorentino Bavier $n effect, it
was signed by another although under the e?press direction of the testator 'his fact however
was not recited in the attestation clause Mercado also affi?ed a cross on the will
'he lower court admitted the will to probate but this order was reversed by the "ourt of !ppeals
on the ground that the attestation failed to recite the facts surrounding the signing of the testator
and the witnesses
Issue: &hether or not the attestation clause in the will is valid
Held: 1o, the attestation is fatally defective for its failure to state that !ntero or the testator
caused !tty Bavier to write the formerEs name under his e?press direction as re/uired by 5ec 86<
of the "ivil Procedure #inally, on the cross affi?ed on the will by the testator, the "ourt held that it
is not prepared to li(en the mere sign of a cross to a thumbmar( for obvious reasons4 the cross
does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmar( so it is not considered as a valid signature
Comarison bet!een De Gala and Garcia
$n the case of @e ;ala, the signature that was affi?ed by the testatri? 5erapia @e ;ala was
through a thumbmar( 'he court, in this case, said that the law is fulfilled not only by the
customary written signature but by the testator or testatri?E thumb4mar(Fowever, in the ;arcia
case, a cross was used as a signature 'he court said that it is not valid $t is not here presented
that the cross appearing on the will is the usual signature of the testator or even one of the ways
by which he signed his name 'he mere signing of a cross cannot be li(ened to a thumbmar(,
because the cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmar(
)ala! v. Relova
Facts: ;regorio Galaw, the private respondent, claiming to be the sole heir of sister 1atividad,
filed a peition for probate of the latterEs holographic will in 6A8< 'he will contained 2 alterations)
a+ RosaEs name, designated as the sole heir was crossed out and instead 2Rosario2 was written
above it 5uch was not initialed, b+ RosaEs name was crossed out as sole e?ecutri? and
;regorioEs name was written above it 'his alteration was initialed by the testator
Rosa contended that the will as first written should be given effect so that she would be the sole
heir 'he lower court denied the probate due to the unauthenticated alterations and additions
Issue: &hether or not the will is valid
Held: 1o, the will is voided or revo(ed since nothing remains in the will which could remain valid
as there was only one disposition in it 5uch was altered by the substitution of the original heir
with another 'o rule that the first will should be given effect is to disregard the testatri?E change of
mind Fowever, this change of mind cannot be given effect either as she failed to authenticate it
in accordance with !rt <6., or by affi?ing her full signature
*+',*E* -"ER' vs. THE C',RT 'F -++E-(*
Facts: !n instrument was submitted for probate is the holographic will of the late !nnie 5and,
who died on 1ovember 27, 6A<2 $n the will, decedent named as devisees, the following)
petitioners Roberto and 'helma !>ero, private respondent "lemente 5and, and their children
3n Banuary 20, 6A<,, petitioners instituted 5p Proc 1o H4,9696, for allowance of decedentEs
holographic will 'hey alleged that at the time of its e?ecution, she was of sound and disposing
mind, not acting under duress, fraud or undue influence, and was in every respect capacitated to
dispose of her estate by will
Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that) neither the testamentEs body nor the
signature therein was in decedentEs handwriting= it contained alterations and corrections which
were not duly signed by decedent= and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper
pressure and undue influence 'he petition was li(ewise opposed by @r Bose !>ero Fe contested
the disposition in the will of a house and lot located in "abadbaran, !gusan @el 1orte Fe
claimed that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its
sole owner
Respondent court held that the holographic will of !nne 5and was not e?ecuted in accordance
with the formalities prescribed by law $t held that !rticles <6, and <6. of the 1ew "ivil "ode,
ante, were not complied with, hence, it disallowed the probate of said will Fence, this petition
Issue: &hether or not the non4compliance of the sub>ect holographic will to !rticles <6, I <6. of
the 1ew "ivil "ode ma(es the will testament void
Held: 1o, in the case of holographic wills, on the other hand, what assures authenticity is the
re/uirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself, as provided
under !rticle <60 of the 1ew "ivil "ode, thus)
! person may e?ecute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the
hand of the testator himself It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the
Philippines, and need not be witnessed
#ailure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will
that is un/uestionably handwritten by the testator
! reading of !rticle <6, of the 1ew "ivil "ode shows that its re/uirement affects the validity of the
dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate $f the testator fails to sign and
date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated 5uch
failure, however, does not render the whole testament void
Li(ewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non4compliance with
the provisions of !rticle <6. J3rdinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and
interlineations made by the testator in a holographic &ill have not been noted under his
signature, the &ill is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the
particular words erased, corrected or interlinedK *Galaw vs Relova+
'hus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date
of the holographic will or on testatorEs signature, their presence does not invalidate the will itself
'he lac( of authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes
Comarison bet!een the case o% )ala! to the case o% -.ero:
$n Kalaw, the 5upreme "ourt laid down an e?ception to the general rule, when it invalidated the
entire will because of an unauthenticated erasure made by the testator $n that case, the will had
only one substantial provision 'his was altered by substituting the original heir with another, with
such alteration being unauthenticated 'his was altered by substituting the original heir with
another, with such alteration being unauthenticated 'he 5upreme "ourt held that the whole will
was void 2for the simple reason that nothing remains in the &ill after *the provision is invalidated+
which could remain valid 'o state that the &ill as first written should be given efficacy is to
disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatri? Cut, that change of mind can neither be
given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner re/uired by law by affi?ing her full
signature2
$n !>ero, there were several dispositions in the will aside from the contended provision which
contains the erasures and alterations $n this case, the 5upreme "ourt said that, unless the
unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the holographic
will or on testatorEs signature, their presence does not invalidate the will itself 'he lac( of
authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes
Gan vs /a
Facts:!fter the death of #elicidad %sguerra !lto4Dap, #austo ;an filed a petition for the probate
of a holographic will allegedly e?ecuted by the fomer 3pposing the petition, her surviving
husband $ldefonso Dap asserted that the deceased had not left any will, nor e?ecuted any
testament during her lifetime 'he will itself was not presented ;an tried to establish its contents
and due e?ecution by the statements of allegedly four *.+ witnesses to the e?ecution of the
alleged will !fter hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the court refused to probate
the alleged will @ue to the denial of motion for reconsideration, ;an appealed
Issue: &hether or not a holographic will may be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who
have allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in the handwriting of the testator
Held: 'he Rules of "ourt allow proof *and probate+ of a lost or destroyed will by secondary
evidence L the testimony of witnesses in lieu of the original document Det such Rules could not
have contemplated holographic wills which could not then be validly made here
'he difference between holographic wills and ordinary will lies in the nature of the wills $n the
first, the only guarantee of authenticity is the handwriting itself, in the second, the testimony of the
subscribing or instrumental witnesses *and of the notary+ 'he loss of the holographic will entails
the loss of the only medium of proof, if the ordinary will is lost, the subscribing witnesses are
available to authenticate
'he evidence of presented by ;an is refused to be credited $n addition to the dubious
circumstance described in the appealed decision, we find it hard to believe that the deceased
should show her will precisely to relative who had received nothing from it 'hese could pester
her into amending her will to give them a share, or threaten to reveal its e?ecution to her
husband #urther, if she wanted so much to conceal the will from her husband, why did she not
entrust it to her beneficiariesM $n fine, even if oral testimony were admissible to establish and
probate a lost holographic will, we thin( the evidence submitted by petitioner is so tainted with
improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to that )Kclear and distinctK proof
re/uired by the Rules of "ourt
Rodelas v. -ran&a
Facts:'he appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo Conilla in
6A99 'he petition was opposed by the appellees on the ground that the deceased did not leave
any will, holographic or otherwise
'he lower court dismissed the petition for probate and held that since the original will was lost, a
photostatic copy cannot stand in the place of the original
Issue:
&hether or not a holographic will can be proved by means of a photocopy
Rulin#:
Des ! photocopy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because the
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court with the
standard writings of the testator
Comarison bet!een the case o% Gan to the case o% Rodelas:
$n the case of ;an vs Dap, 60. PF$L 70A, the "ourt ruled that 2the e?ecution and the contents of
a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who
have seen and-or read such will 'he will itself must be presented= otherwise, it shall produce no
effect 'he law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity2 Cut, in #ootnote < of
said decision, it says that 2Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy %ven
a mimeographed or carbon copy= or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the
handwriting of the deceased may be e?hibited and tested before the probate court,2 %vidently, the
photostatic or ?ero? copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then
the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court