Icasiano v.

Icasiano Digest
Icasiano vs. Icasiano
G.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964
Facts:
1. Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of Josefa
Villacorte and for his appointment as executor thereof. It appears from
the evidence that the testatrix died on September 12, 1958. She
executed a will in Tagalog, and through the help of her lawyer, it was
prepared in duplicates, an original and a carbon copy.
2. On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only
brought the original copy of the will while the carbon duplicate
(unsigned) was left in Bulacan. One of the witnesses failed to sign one
of the pages in the original copy but admitted he may have lifted 2
pages simultaneously instead when he signed the will. Nevertheless,
he affirmed that the will was signed by the testator and other
witnesses in his presence.
Issue: Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing
witnesses to affix his signature to a page is sufficient to deny
probate of the will
RULING: No, the failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or
mere inadvertence. Since the duplicated bore the required signatures,
this proves that the omission was not intentional. Even if the original is
in existence, a duplicate may still be admitted to probate since the
original is deemed to be defective, then in law, there is no other will bu
the duly signed carbon duplicate and the same can be probated.
The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize
the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over
whose conduct she has no control of. Where the purpose of the law is
to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages,
and there is no intentional or deliberate deviation existed.
Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the rules
that the will should be signed by the witnesses on every page. The
carbon copy duplicate was regular in all respects.

2.dolar vs diancin- wills digest by phoebe

Garcia v. Lacuesta Digest

Garcia v. Lacuesta
G.R. L-4067 November 29, 1951
Ponente: Paras, C.J.
Facts:
1. The CA disallowed the probate of the will of Antero Mercado dated
Jan 1943. The said will was written in Ilocano dialect.
2. The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who
wrote the name of the testator followed below by 'A ruego del testador'
and the name of Florentino Javier. In effect, it was signed by another
although under the express direction of the testator. This fact however
was not recited in the attestation clause. Mercado also affixed a cross
on the will.
3. The lower court admitted the will to probate but this order was
reversed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the attestation
failed to recite the facts surrounding the signing of the testator and the
witnesses.
Issue: Whether or not the attestation clause in the will is valid
HELD: NO the attestation is fatally defective for its failure to state that
Antero or the testator caused Atty. Javier to write the former's name
under his express direction as required by Sec. 618 of the Civil
Procedure. Finally, on the cross affixed on the will by the testator, the
Court held that it is not prepared to liken the mere sign of a cross to a
thumbmark for obvious reasons- the cross does not have the
trustworthiness of a thumbmark so it is not considered as a valid
signature.
- See more at: http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/01/garcia-v-lacuestadigest.html#sthash.epWQc8hZ.dpuf

G.R. No. L-26545 December 16, 1927

Testate Estate of Florencia R. Mateo. PERFECTO GABRIEL, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
RITA R. MATEO, ET AL., opponents-appellants.
R. Gonzales Lloret, Carlos S. Basa, Thomas Cary Welch and Camus, Delgado and Recto for
appellants.
The appellee in his own behalf.

AVANCEA, C. J.:
The judgment appealed from allowed the will of Florencia Mateo dated February 6, 1923, composed
of two used sheets to probate. The will appears to be signed by the testatrix and three witnesses on
the left margin of each of the sheets, by the testatrix alone at the bottom, and by the three witnesses
after the attestation clause. The testatrix died on August 13, 1925. Opposition to such probate was
filed by Rita Mateo, the testatrix's sister, and by other relatives.
The three attesting witnesses to this will, testifying in this case, declared that the signature of the
testatrix were written in their presence and that they signed their names in the presence of the
testatrix and of each other.
The testatrix from girlhood knew how to sign her name and did so with her right hand; but as the
right side of her body later became paralyzed, she learned to sign with her left hand and for many
years thereafter, up to the time of her death, she used to sign with that hand. Opponents allege that
Florencia Mateo did not sign this will.
There are three salient arguments among those adduced by the opponents in support of their
opposition.
The attesting witnesses testified that the testratrix signed before they did. The signatures of the
testatrix on the left margin of the two sheets of the will are between the signatures of the two
witnesses Vidal Raoa and Julio Gabriel, and below her surname is the signature of the other
witness Felicisimo Gabriel. The signatures of Vidal Raoa and Julio Gabriel are on a level with each
other, while that of Felicisimo Gabriel is found a little lower down. The testatrix's signatures start on
the line with Felicisimo Gabriel's signature, but tend to rise and her surname reaches a level with
Julio Gabriel's signature.
It is said that this direction of the testatrix's signature was due to the fact that when it was written
Felicisimo Gabriel's signature was already there, and so she had to write her surname upwards in
order to avoid interfering with that Felicisimo Gabriel, which would have been the case had she
continued on the horizontal line on which she had written her first name. From this detail it is
pretended to draw the inference that the attesting witnesses signed before testatrix, contrary to their
testimony that she singed before they did. This deduction, however, is unnecessary. It may be
inferred with equal, if not greater, logic that the testatrix signed before him, and when it came to the
witness Gabriel's turn, he, finding the space below the testatrix signature free, signed his name

there. On the other hand, it may be noted that the testatrix's other signature at the bottom of the will
also shows a more or less marked tendency to rise, notwithstanding the fact that there was no
signature with which she might interfere if she continued to write in a straight horizontal line.
Furthermore, if, as the opposition alleges, the testatrix's signature is not genuine and was placed
there by another person, it is strange that the latter should have done so in such a way as to write it
above Gabriel's signature while following the horizontal line, when this could have been avoided by
simply putting it a little higher. And this may be attributed to carelessness in the first case, but it
cannot be so explained in the second.
Attention is also called to the apparently different kinds of ink used by the testatrix in her signature
and by the attesting witnesses. Really an examination of these signature reveals a somewhat
deeper intensity of ink in the signature of the testatrix than in those of the attesting witnesses. It is
alleged that this circumstance cannot be reconciled with the declaration of the attesting witnesses
that they used the same pen and ink as the testatrix. But, only one of these witnesses declared this.
The other one was not sure of it and said that he said that he did not perfectly remember this detail.
The third scarcely made reference to this particular. At all events, this apparent difference in ink may
be merely
due supposing that the same ink and pen were used to the difference in pressure employed in
writing these signatures, as is reasonable to suppose when we consider that the testatrix was a
paralytic and wrote with her left hand; or it may have been due to the fact that the attesting
witnesses dipped lightly in the ink while the testatrix dipped the pen so as to take up the ink from the
bottom of the well. To bring out this irregularity, the opposition presented the expert Del Rosario who
asserted, among other things, that the signature of the testatrix is more recent than that of the
attesting witnesses. If this opinion is correct and if, as alleged, the testatrix's signature is forged, it
would mean that the forgers, after having prepared the will and made the witnesses sign, allowed
sometime to elapsed before forging the testatrix's signature, which supposition is not all probable,
nor has it been explained.
lawphi1.net

At all events, even admitting that there is a certain question as to whether the attesting witnesses
signed before or after the testatrix, or whether or not they signed with the same pen and ink, these
are details of such trivial importance, considering that this will was signed two years before the date
on which these witnesses gave their testimony, that it is not proper to set aside the will for this
reason alone.
The attesting witnesses to this will, who testified also as witnesses at the trial of this case, showed
themselves to be intelligent and honest, one of them being a lawyer of twelve year's practice, and
there is no reason to reject their testimony, and to suppose that they were untruthful in testifying, and
that they falsified the will in question.
Lastly, attention is called to the unreasonableness of the testatrix in not leaving anything to the
principal opponent, her sister Rita Mateo, and to her nephews and nieces, to whom she had been so
affectionate during life. But as to the affectionate relations between the deceased and the
opponents, only the opponent Rita Mateo testified, and she only stated that she was on good terms
with her sister during the latter's lifetime; that the said sister used to give her a sack or some gantas
of rice, and, a times, a little money; that she held all her nephews and nieces in equal regard. But
even supposing that this were so, there is nothing strange in the testatrix having left nothing to the

opponents, or in her having left all of her estate to the only heir instituted in her will, Tomas Mateo,
who is also one of her nieces. And not only is it not strange, but it seems reasonable, since,
according to the evidence of the testatrix when the former was but 3 years old, and from then on up
to the time of her death had never been separated from her.
The opposition presented Doctor Banks as expert. He testified that the signatures of the testatrix in
the will are not genuine. The petitioner, on the other hand, presented another expert, Pedro Serrano
Laktao, who affirmed that these signatures are genuine. But, over the testimony of these experts, we
have the categorical and positive declaration of veracious witnesses who affirm that these signatures
were written by the testatrix herself.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Johnson, Villamor, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

JOHNS, J., dissenting:

Appellants assign the following errors:
FIRST ERROR
The Honorable Court a quo erred in imputing as theory of the oppositors "that the deceased
did not know how to write except with her right hand and that due to sickness of paralysis
during the last few years of her life she became physically unable to hold the pen and to
write her name and surname.
SECOND ERROR
The Honorable Court a quo erred in finding that the three disputed signatures on the two
pages of Exhibit A are signatures of Florencia R. Mateo based on mere "possibility," and in
not holding them spurious as shown by specific, unrebutted findings of Drs. Charles S.
Banks and Jose I. del Rosario.
THIRD ERROR

The Honorable Court a quo erred in giving credit to the testimonies of the so-called
instrumental witnesses in Exhibit A.
FOURTH ERROR
The Court a quo erred in admitting Exhibit A to probate.
Hence, the only questions presented are question of fact. Time and experience has taught us that
but little, if anything, is ever accomplished by writing a dissenting opinion on such questions. Be that
as it may, this is one case in which we feel that it is our duty to dissent and to state the reasons why.
The decisive question in this case is whether or not the signatures of Florencia R. Mateo both to the
body of the will and on the margin of the pages are true and genuine. It must be admitted that if it be
a fact that her signature to the body of the will is true and genuine, and that her signatures on the
margin of the pages are not true and genuine, then the will in question is null and void.
In the trial of the case in the court below, much evidence was introduced for the oppositors tending
to show that neither one of the signatures of Florencia R. Mateo appearing on the will were true and
genuine, and both Drs. Charles S. Banks and Jose I. del Rosario so testified and gave their reasons
why. Enlarged photographs of her signatures were introduced in evidence which were admitted to be
true and genuine, and of her signatures to the will, and a comparison and detailed analysis was
made of the differences between them, both as to the character and formation of the letters of her
name, the length and height of the letters, and the space between them, and the length and the slant
of the signatures, from which Doctor Banks, in particular, testified that signatures of Florencia R.
Mateo to the will were forgeries, and that her three respective signatures on the will were not made
at the same time or with the same pen or ink. In that particular, his testimony was corroborated by
that of Jose I. del Rosario.
We have been taught that mathematics, chemistry and photography are exact sciences. It appears
from an ocular inspection and without the aid of even a magnifying glass that there is a very marked
difference between the signature of Florencia R. Mateo to the body of the will and as it appears on
the margin of the pages of the will, both as to the character and the height, length and slant of the
signatures, all of which can be seen and detected with the naked eye without the aid of an expert or
a photographic enlargement of the letters. It is also apparent to the naked eye that the three
respective signatures of Florencia R. Mateo appearing on the will were each made with different ink,
and that they were all made with different ink than that used by the witnesses to the will. It is also
apparent to the naked eye that each of her signatures as they appear on the margin of the will were
made over and above and, hence, appear the signature of the witness J. Gabriel.
It is true that the will upon its face appears to have been executed with all of the required legal
formalities and that the witnesses to the will testified that the signatures of the deceased were true
and genuine. Be that as it may, both chemistry and photography are an exact science, and all of that
oral evidence is flatly contradicted by that of both chemistry and photography, in addition to all which,
it is apparent to the naked eye and without the aid of either science, that the signatures in question
were not made at the same time, and that the two signatures appearing on the margin of the will
were made after, over and above the name of the witness J. Gabriel.

The will recites that Florencia R. Mateo is "sixty-eight years of age," and it purports to have been
executed on February 6, 1923, and the record is conclusive that she was born February 22, 1850,
and that at the time of the alleged execution of the will, she was nearly 73 years of age. It also
appears that the will in question was prepared by attorney Perfecto Gabriel, was executed in his
office, and that by its terms, he was named as the sole executor, and that although he was called as
a witness on a minor point, he was not questioned and did not testify as to how and when the will
was executed, or by whom it was signed or as to the genuiness of either of the signatures of
Florencia R. Mateo, all of which are the very storm center of this contest. Perfecto Gabriel having
prepared the will which was executed in his own office, it is strange, indeed, and to say the least very
suspicious, that he was not called as a witness to testify about the questioned signatures and as to
whether or not they were true and genuine.
We are not prepared to say as to whether all of the signatures of Florencia R. Mateo as they appear
on the will are forgeries, but we are clearly of the opinion that her signatures as they appear on the
margin of the pages of the will are not true and genuine, and that they were not made at the same
time or place or by the same person as her signature which appears to the body of the will. In either
event the will in question was never legally executed by Florencia R. Mateo, and is therefore, null
and void.
For such reasons, we are forced to dissent.
Street, Malcolm and Ostrand, JJ., concur.

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 2586. January 19, 1906. ]
TOMAS GUISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MARIA CONCEPCION, Respondent.
Teodoro Gonzalez, for Appellant.
Gabriel & Borbon, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. WILLS; INABILITY TO SIGN; SIGNATURE BY ANOTHER. The testatrix was not able to sign her name to
the will, and she requested another person to sign it for her. Instead of writing her name he wrote his own
upon the will. Held, That the will was not duly executed. (Following Ex No. 2002, August 18, 1905.)

DECISION

WILLARD, J. :

Jacoba Concepcion Salcedo made her will in Manila, on January 3, 1904. The last part of the will is as
follows:
jgc:chanroble s.com.ph

"Asi lo otorgo ante los testigos Seores Ambrosio Reyes, Mariano de Leon y Felix Polintan, de Manila, Islas
Filipinas, y por no yo poder firmar, firma a mi ruego el mismo Feliciano Maglaqui, en mi presencia y de los
mencionados testigos, quienes tambien suscriben, cada uno de ellos en presencia de los otros y la mia.
"(Firmado) FELICIANO MAGLAQUI.
"(Firmado) AMBROSIO REYES.
"(Firmado) MARIANO DE LEON.
"(Firmado) FELIX POLINTAN.
"Nosotros Ambrosio Reyes, Mariano de Leon y Felix Polintan, atestiguamos que Filiciano Maglaqui, a ruego
de la Sra. Jacoba Concepcion Salcedo y en presencia de la misma y la nuestra, firmo el testamento que
antecede; y que cada uno de nosotros lo firmo en presencia de los otros y de dicha testadora.
"Manila, tres de Enero de mil novecientos cuatro.
"(Firmado) AMBROSIO REYES.
"(Firmado) MARIANO DE LEON.
"(Firmado) FELIX POLINTAN."

cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be seen that the witness Feliciano Maglaqui, instead of writing the name of the testatrix on the will,
wrote his own. Probate of the will was refused in the court below on the ground that the name of the
testatrix was not signed thereto, and the petitioner has appealed. The question presented has been decided
adversely to the appellant in the following cases: Ex parte Pedro Arcenas Et. Al., 1 No. 1708, August 24,
1905 (4 Off. Gaz., 568); Ex parte Nemesio Delfin Santiago, 2 No. 2002, August 18, 1905 (4 Off. Gaz., 507.)
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant, and after
the expiration of twenty days judgment should be entered in accordance herewith and the case remanded to
the court below for execution. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:

1. 4 Phil. Rep., 700.

2. 4 Phil. Rep., 692.

Avera vs Garcia- wills digest by phoebe

Rivera vs iac, ajero vs ca- scribd
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-7188

August 9, 1954

In re: Will and Testament of the deceased REVEREND SANCHO ABADIA.

SEVERINA A. VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, ET AL., petitioners-appellees,
vs.
MIGUEL ABADIA, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
Manuel A. Zosa, Luis B. Ladonga, Mariano A. Zosa and B. G. Advincula for appellants.
C. de la Victoria for appellees.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, parish priest of Talisay, Cebu, executed a document
purporting to be his Last Will and Testament now marked Exhibit "A". Resident of the City of Cebu,
he died on January 14, 1943, in the municipality of Aloguinsan, Cebu, where he was an evacuee. He
left properties estimated at P8,000 in value. On October 2, 1946, one Andres Enriquez, one of the
legatees in Exhibit "A", filed a petition for its probate in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Some
cousins and nephews who would inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no will, filed opposition.
During the hearing one of the attesting witnesses, the other two being dead, testified without
contradiction that in his presence and in the presence of his co-witnesses, Father Sancho wrote out
in longhand Exhibit "A" in Spanish which the testator spoke and understood; that he (testator) signed
on he left hand margin of the front page of each of the three folios or sheets of which the document
is composed, and numbered the same with Arabic numerals, and finally signed his name at the end
of his writing at the last page, all this, in the presence of the three attesting witnesses after telling
that it was his last will and that the said three witnesses signed their names on the last page after the
attestation clause in his presence and in the presence of each other. The oppositors did not submit
any evidence.
The learned trial court found and declared Exhibit "A" to be a holographic will; that it was in the
handwriting of the testator and that although at the time it was executed and at the time of the
testator's death, holographic wills were not permitted by law still, because at the time of the hearing
and when the case was to be decided the new Civil Code was already in force, which Code
permitted the execution of holographic wills, under a liberal view, and to carry out the intention of the
testator which according to the trial court is the controlling factor and may override any defect in
form, said trial court by order dated January 24, 1952, admitted to probate Exhibit "A", as the Last
Will and Testament of Father Sancho Abadia. The oppositors are appealing from that decision; and
because only questions of law are involved in the appeal, the case was certified to us by the Court of
Appeals.
The new Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386) under article 810 thereof provides that a person may
execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated and signed by the testator himself
and need not be witnessed. It is a fact, however, that at the time that Exhibit "A" was executed in
1923 and at the time that Father Abadia died in 1943, holographic wills were not permitted, and the
law at the time imposed certain requirements for the execution of wills, such as numbering
correlatively each page (not folio or sheet) in letters and signing on the left hand margin by the
testator and by the three attesting witnesses, requirements which were not complied with in Exhibit
"A" because the back pages of the first two folios of the will were not signed by any one, not even by
the testator and were not numbered, and as to the three front pages, they were signed only by the
testator.

Interpreting and applying this requirement this Court in the case of In re Estate of Saguinsin, 41
Phil., 875, 879, referring to the failure of the testator and his witnesses to sign on the left hand
margin of every page, said:
. . . . This defect is radical and totally vitiates the testament. It is not enough that the
signatures guaranteeing authenticity should appear upon two folios or leaves; three pages
having been written on, the authenticity of all three of them should be guaranteed by the
signature of the alleged testatrix and her witnesses.
And in the case of Aspe vs. Prieto, 46 Phil., 700, referring to the same requirement, this Court
declared:
From an examination of the document in question, it appears that the left margins of the six
pages of the document are signed only by Ventura Prieto. The noncompliance with section 2
of Act No. 2645 by the attesting witnesses who omitted to sign with the testator at the left
margin of each of the five pages of the document alleged to be the will of Ventura Prieto, is a
fatal defect that constitutes an obstacle to its probate.
What is the law to apply to the probate of Exh. "A"? May we apply the provisions of the new Civil
Code which not allows holographic wills, like Exhibit "A" which provisions were invoked by the
appellee-petitioner and applied by the lower court? But article 795 of this same new Civil Code
expressly provides: "The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in
force at the time it is made." The above provision is but an expression or statement of the weight of
authority to the affect that the validity of a will is to be judged not by the law enforce at the time of the
testator's death or at the time the supposed will is presented in court for probate or when the petition
is decided by the court but at the time the instrument was executed. One reason in support of the
rule is that although the will operates upon and after the death of the testator, the wishes of the
testator about the disposition of his estate among his heirs and among the legatees is given solemn
expression at the time the will is executed, and in reality, the legacy or bequest then becomes a
completed act. This ruling has been laid down by this court in the case of In re Will of Riosa, 39 Phil.,
23. It is a wholesome doctrine and should be followed.
Of course, there is the view that the intention of the testator should be the ruling and controlling
factor and that all adequate remedies and interpretations should be resorted to in order to carry out
said intention, and that when statutes passed after the execution of the will and after the death of the
testator lessen the formalities required by law for the execution of wills, said subsequent statutes
should be applied so as to validate wills defectively executed according to the law in force at the time
of execution. However, we should not forget that from the day of the death of the testator, if he
leaves a will, the title of the legatees and devisees under it becomes a vested right, protected under
the due process clause of the constitution against a subsequent change in the statute adding new
legal requirements of execution of wills which would invalidate such a will. By parity of reasoning,
when one executes a will which is invalid for failure to observe and follow the legal requirements at
the time of its execution then upon his death he should be regarded and declared as having died
intestate, and his heirs will then inherit by intestate succession, and no subsequent law with more
liberal requirements or which dispenses with such requirements as to execution should be allowed to
validate a defective will and thereby divest the heirs of their vested rights in the estate by intestate
succession. The general rule is that the Legislature can not validate void wills (57 Am. Jur., Wills,
Sec. 231, pp. 192-193).
In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is reversed, and Exhibit "A" is denied probate. With
costs.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and
Reyes J.B.L., JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation