(IN RE PROBATE OF THE WILL OF GABINA RAQUEL) AUREA MATIAS vs.

BASILIA SALUD
(G.R. NO. L-10751 June 23, 1958)

FACTS:

Gabina Raquel (90 yo, w/ herpes zoster) left no ascendants/descendants. In 1950, she allegedly executed a Spanish will in Cavite in the
presence of Modesta Gonzales, Felipa Samala and Lourdes Samonte, who signed as instrumental witnesses, and of attorney Ricardo Agbunag,
who prepared the instrument. It is composed of 3 pages. On the lower half of the second page, preceding the attestation clause, appears the
signature Gabina Raquel which is apparently of admitted authenticity. Alongside it is a smudge in violet ink, with blurred ridge lines, claimed by the
proponents to be a thumbmark affixed by the testatrix. On the third page, at the end of the attestation clause appear the signatures appearing on the
left margin of each page; and on the upper part of each pages left margin appears a violet ink smudge similar to the one previously described,
accompanied by the written words Gabina Raquel and underneath said name by Lourdes Samonte.

Most of the properties are bequeathed to her niece Aurea Matias in recompense for the services rendered to me for more than 30 years. some
legacies are made to her other nephews and nieces surnamed Salud and Matias; Aurea Matias is appointed executrix without bond.

Allegedly upon Agbunags insistence, she attempted to sign with his fountain pen, but was only able to affix the signature at the end of the
testamentary dispositions (in the lower half of page two) because immediately after, she dropped the pen, grasping her right shoulder and
complaining of pain.

Salud opposed the probate, alleging that fingermark cannot be regarded as a valid signature and that the attestation clause, transcribed earlier in
this opinion, should be held defective because it fails to state that Lourdes Samonte signed for the testator. CFI denied probate because:

(1) That the attestation clause did not state that the testatrix and the witnesses signed each and every page of the will; and while the left margins of
each page exhibit the words Gabina Raquel by Lourdes Samonte, the attestation does not express that Lourdes was expressly directed to
sign for the testatrix;
(2) That the proponent did not adequately explain the nonproduction of witness Modesta Gonzalez, contrary to sec. 11, Rule 77 of the Rules of
Court;
(3) That the alleged signing and thumbmarking by the deceased was not done in the presence of the witnesses, nor did the latter sign in the
presence of Gabina Raquel;
(4) That fraud and bad faith attended the execution of the will.

Matias directly appealed before SC.

ISSUE:

W/N the will should be admitted to probate

RULING: YES

This Court has repeatedly held that the legal requisite that the will should be signed by the testator is satisfied by a thumbprint or other mark
affixed by him; and that where such mark is affixed by the decedent, it is unnecessary to state in the attestation clause that another person wrote the
testators name at his request. While in some of these cases the signing by mark was described in the will or in the attestation clause, it does not
appear that the Court ever held that the absence of such description is a fatal defect.

As to the clarity of the ridge impressions, it is so dependent on aleatory circumstances (consistency of the ink, overinking, slipping of the finger,
etc.) as to require a dexterity that can be expected of very few persons; and we do not believe testators should be required to possess the skill of
trained officers. It is to be conceded that where a testator employs an unfamiliar way of signing, and both the attestation clause and the will are
silent on the matter, such silence is a factor to be considered against the authenticity of the testament; but the failure to describe the unusual
signature by itself alone is not sufficient to refuse probate when the evidence for the proponent fully satisfies the court (as it does satisfy us in this
case) that the will was executed and witnessed as required by law.
AGAPITA N. CRUZ vs. HON. JUDGE GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, Presiding Judge of Branch I, Court of First Instance of Cebu, and MANUEL
B. LUGAY
(G.R. No. L-32213 November 26, 1973)

FACTS:

Involved in this case is the last will and testament of the late Valente Z. Cruz, w/c was admitted into probate. Agapita, the surviving spouse
opposed the allowance of the will. Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto, namely Deogracias T. Jamaloas Jr., Dr. Francisco Paares and Atty.
Angel H. Teves, Jr., one of them, the last named, is at the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to have been
acknowledged. Lugay, the supposed executor, defended that there is substantial compliance w/ the law.

ISSUE:

W/N the supposed last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz was executed in accordance with law, particularly Articles 805 and 806 of the
new Civil Code, the first requiring at least three credible witnesses to attest and subscribe to the will, and the second requiring the testator
and the witnesses to acknowledge the will before a notary public

RULING: NO.

The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge
before himself his having signed the will. To acknowledge before means to avow; to own as genuine, to assent, to admit; and "before" means in front
or preceding in space or ahead of. Consequently, if the third witness were the notary public himself, he would have to avow assent, or admit his
having signed the will in front of himself. This cannot be done because he cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before the other
to acknowledge his participation in the making of the will. To permit such a situation to obtain would be sanctioning a sheer absurdity.

Furthermore, the function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangement. That function would defeated
if the notary public were one of the attesting instrumental witnesses.

To allow the notary public to act as third witness, or one the attesting and acknowledging witnesses, would have the effect of having only two
attesting witnesses to the will which would be in contravention of the provisions of Article 80 be requiring at least three credible witnesses to act as
such and of Article 806 which requires that the testator and the required number of witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge
the will.
 REV. FATHER LUCIO V. GARCIA, ANTONIO JESUS DE PRAGA, MARIA NATIVIDAD DE JESUS AND DR. JAIME ROSARIO v. HON.
CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch and CONSUELO GONZALES VDA. DE PRECILLA
(G.R. No. L-26615. April 30, 1970)

FACTS:

In 1965, Gliceria Avelino del Rosario died unmarried, leaving no descendants, ascendants, brother or sister. Later, Consuelo S. Gonzales Vda.
de Precilla, the decedents niece petitioned for the probate of the 1960 will. It was opposed by the legatees, devisees, and her relatives within the
fifth civil degree, saying that there has been a 1956 will, and the 1960 will is invalid for having been made with irregularities and apparent haste, the
testatrix not having known of her bounty, and the formalities for execution were not complied with. They sought to exclude the niece as the special
administratrix for possessing an adverse interest to the estate. Nonetheless, the niece was appointed as such upon a bond. The will was likewise
admitted to probate.

The voluntary heirs consistently opposed and maintained that the 1956 will is the real one, it having been made in Spanish, the language known
to the testator. The niece defended that the 1960 will was even silently read by the testator before signing it. But the voluntary heirs contended that
the testators eyesight (cataract & possible glaucoma) was so poor and defective that she could not have read the provisions of the will.

ISSUE:

W/N the 1960 will was properly admitted into probate

RULING: NO

The declarations in court of the ophthalmologist as to the condition of the testatrixs eyesight fully establish the fact that her vision remained
mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading print; that she was, at the time of the execution of the second will on December 29, 1960,
incapable of reading and could not have read the provisions of the will supposedly signed by her.

Upon its face, the testamentary provisions, the attestation clause and acknowledgment were crammed together into a single sheet of paper,
apparently to save on space. Plainly, the testament was not prepared with any regard for the defective vision of Da. Gliceria, the typographical
errors remained uncorrected thereby indicating that the execution thereof must have been characterized by haste. It is difficult to understand that so
important a document containing the final disposition of ones worldly possessions should be embodied in an informal and untidy written instrument;
or that the glaring spelling errors should have escaped her notice if she had actually retained the ability to read the purported will and had done so.

The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself is to make the
provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes. Where as in the 1960 will there is
nothing in the record to show that the requisites of Art. 808 of the Civil Code of the Philippines that "if the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him
twice," have not been complied with, the said 1960 will suffer from infirmity that affects its due execution.
 TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, JUAN CABALLERO, AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, HELEN
CABALLERO, SANTOS CABALLERO, PABLO CABALLERO, VICTOR RAGA, MAURICIA RAGA, QUIRICA RAGA, RUPERTO ABAPO,
represented herein by his Attorney-in-Fact, ARMSTICIA * ABAPO VELANO, and CONSESO CANEDA, represented herein by his heirs,
JESUS CANEDA, NATIVIDAD CANEDA and ARTURO CANEDA vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM CABRERA, as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Mateo Caballero
(G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993)

FACTS:

In 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children and already in the twilight years of his life, executed a last will and testament in Cebu.
In 1979, he himself filed a petition for the probate of the same. Hearings were postponed, until he passed away in 1980.In 1981, Benoni Cabrera,
one of the legatees, sought his appointment as a special administrator. The same was granted.

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" opposed thereat the probate of the Testator's will and the appointment of a special administrator for his estate. Oppositors 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 of the signature of the testator therein.

The probate court upheld the validity of the will. Oppositors elevated the case to CA, as the attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to
specifically state that the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that they also signed the will
and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. CA affirmed RTC.

ISSUE:

W/N the will is valid

RULING: NO (NO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE)

It is our considered view that the absence of that statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the
disallowance of the will that is here sought to be admitted to probate. Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the aforestated defect in the
attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the form of the will or the language used therein which would warrant the
application of the substantial compliance rule.

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 in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is not proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in
substantial compliance with all the requirements of article 805"

The rule 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 and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be
supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF MELECIO LABRADOR. SAGRADO LABRADOR (Deceased), substituted by
ROSITA LABRADOR, ENRICA LABRADOR, and CRISTOBAL LABRADOR vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GAUDENCIO LABRADOR, and JESUS
LABRADOR
(G.R. Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990)

FACTS:

In 1972, Melecio Labrador died in Zambales, leaving a holographic will. In 1975, Sagrado, Enrica, and Cristobal filed a petition for the probate of
the will. Jesus and Gaudencio opposed as the will was extinguished or revoked by implication of law because the property was already sold in their
favor before the testators death. Sagrado filed against his brothers a complaint for the annulment of the purported deed of absolute sale. The lower
court allowed the probate of the will and declared the deed of sale null and void, and ordered reimbursement of what Sagrado has paid as the
redemption price. CA reversed.

Respondents further contend that the holographic will was undated, hence CA was correct.

ISSUE:

W/N the will was dated

RULING: YES

The petition, which principally alleges that the holographic will is really dated, although the date is not in its usual place, is impressed with merit.

The will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810. It is worthy of note to quote the first paragraph
of the second page of the holographic will, viz:

And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said fishpond, and this
being in the month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who
made this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father.

Respondents claim that the date 17 March 1968 in the will was when the testator and his beneficiaries entered into an agreement among
themselves about "the partitioning and assigning the respective assignments of the said fishpond," and was not the date of execution of the
holographic will. Respondents are in error. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of the will is plain from the tenor of the
succeeding words of the paragraph.
 TESTATE ESTATE OF FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALTO-YAP deceased. FAUSTO E. GAN vs. ILDEFONSO YAP
(G.R. No. L-12190 August 30, 1958)

FACTS: (sought advice from nephew who was then preparing for the bar)

In 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of heart failure in the University of Santo Tomas Hospital. In 1952, Fausto E. Gan initiated them
proceedings in the Manila court of first instance with a petition for the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by Yap. The surviving husband
opposed, asserting that the deceased had not left any will, nor executed any testament during her lifetime. The will itself was not presented. Only
witnesses were presented. Allegedly, they were the testators visitors who were able to read the purported will. The lower court refused to probate
the will.

ISSUE:

W/N the holographic will, although not presented in court, may be admitted to probate

RULING: NO

Obviously, when the will itself is not submitted, these means of opposition, and of assessing the evidence are not available. And then the only
guaranty of authenticity3 the testator's handwriting has disappeared. Therefore, the question presents itself, may a holographic will be probated
upon the testimony of witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in the handwriting of the testator? How can the oppositor
prove that such document was not in the testator's handwriting? His witnesses who know testator's handwriting have not examined it. His experts
can not testify, because there is no way to compare the alleged testament with other documents admittedly, or proven to be, in the testator's hand.

The courts will not distribute the property of the deceased in accordance with his holographic will, unless they are shown his handwriting and
signature.
 RIZALINA GABRIEL GONZALES vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUTGARDA SANTIAGO
(G.R. No. L-37453 May 25, 1979)

FACTS:

In 1961, Isabel Andres Gabriel died as a widow and without issue in Navotas. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition for the probate of a will alleged
to have been executed by the deceased Isabel Gabriel and designating her as the principal beneficiary and executrix. Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales,
opposed alleging that the will is not genuine. The lower court disallowed the probate.

Lutgarda Santiago appealed to CA, w/c allowed the probate. Oppositors contended that the witnesses are disqualified to attest to the due
execution of the will as they failed to prove their good standing in the community.

ISSUE:

W/N the witnesses should be disqualified

RULING: NO.

Under the law, there is no mandatory requirement that the witness testify initially or at any time during the trial as to his good standing in the
community, his reputation for trustworthythiness and reliableness, his honesty and uprightness in order that his testimony may be believed and
accepted by the trial court. It is enough that the qualifications enumerated in Article 820 of the Civil Code are complied with, such that the soundness
of his mind can be shown by or deduced from his answers to the questions propounded to him, that his age (18 years or more) is shown from his
appearance, testimony , or competently proved otherwise, as well as the fact that he is not blind, deaf or dumb and that he is able to read and write
to the satisfaction of the Court, and that he has none of the disqualifications under Article 821 of the Civil Code. We reject petitioner's contention that
it must first be established in the record the good standing of the witness in the community, his reputation for trustworthiness and reliableness, his
honesty and uprightness, because such attributes are presumed of the witness unless the contrary is proved otherwise by the opposing party.

In probate proceedings, the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses for they merely attest the execution of a will or testament and
affirm the formalities attendant to said execution.

Expression 'credible witness' in relation to attestation of wins means 'competent witness that is, one competent under the law to testify to fact of
execution of will.
 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RICARDO B. BONILLA deceased, MARCELA RODELAS vs. AMPARO
ARANZA, ET AL., (oppositors-appellees), ATTY. LORENZO SUMULONG (intervenor)
(G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982)

FACTS:

In 1977, appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor.
Appellees opposed on the grounds that the appellant failed to produce the will w/in 20 days after testators death, only a copy of it was produced, it
does not contain any disposition. The court refused to probate the will.

ISSUE:

W/N a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy

RULING: YES

Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the court after its due execution has been
proved. The probate may be uncontested or not. If uncontested, at least one Identifying witness is required and, if no witness is available, experts
may be resorted to. If contested, at least three Identifying witnesses are required. However, if the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no
other copy is available, the will can not be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary
that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy
of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator.

Gan vs. Yap - "Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar
means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court," Evidently, the
photostatic or xerox 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.
 IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANDRES G. DE JESUS AND BIBIANA ROXAS DE JESUS, SIMEON R. ROXAS & PEDRO
ROXAS DE JESUS vs. ANDRES R. DE JESUS, JR
(G.R. No. L-38338 January 28, 1985)

FACTS:

After the death of Sps. De Jesus, Simeon Roxas filed In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. In
1973, he was appointed as administrator. He delivered to court the purported holographic will of Bibiana. Simeon testified that after his appointment,
he found Bibianas notebook and that on pages 21, 22, 23 and 24 thereof, a letter-win addressed to her children and entirely written and signed in
the handwriting of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was found.

The will is dated "FEB./61 " and states: "This is my will which I want to be respected although it is not written by a lawyer. Luz R. Henson,
another compulsory heir filed an "opposition to probate". The lower court allowed probate. Luz sought for reconsideration as the law requires that the
Will should contain the day, month and year of its execution and that this should be strictly complied with. The lower court granted her MR.

ISSUE:

W/N the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with the Article
810 of the Civil Code

RULING: YES. substantial compliance

ART. 810. A person may execute 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.

If the testator, in executing his Will, attempts to comply with all the requisites, although compliance is not literal, it is sufficient if the objective or
purpose sought to be accomplished by such requisite is actually attained by the form followed by the testator.

The purpose of the solemnities surrounding the execution of Wills has been expounded by this Court in Abangan v. Abanga 40 Phil. 476, where
we ruled that:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity.

In particular, a complete date is required to provide against such contingencies as that of two competing Wills executed on the same day, or of a
testator becoming insane on the day on which a Will was executed (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720). There is no such contingency in this case.

We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there any substitution
of Wins and Testaments. There is no question that the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus was entirely written, dated, and
signed by the testatrix herself and in a language known to her. There is also no question as to its genuineness and due execution. All the children of
the testatrix agree on the genuineness of the holographic Will of their mother and that she had the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution
of said Will.

As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and year of its execution. However, when as in the case at bar,
there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether
or not the date "FEB./61" appearing on the holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will
should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance.
 FEDERICO AZAOLA v. CESARIO SINGSON
(G.R. No. L-14003. August 5, 1960)

FACTS:

In 1957, Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance died in Quezon City. Francisco Azaola petitioned for probate and submitted the holographic will to court.
Maria Milagros Azaola was made the sole heir as against the nephew of the deceased Cesario Singson. Francisco was the sole witness. The court
refused to probate as the proponent must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature are in the writing of the testatrix,
the probate being contested; and because the lone witness presented by the proponent "did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written
in the handwriting of the testatrix.

Proponent appealed.

ISSUE:

W/N presentation of three witnesses is mandatory in this case

RULING: NO. (may even resort to expert witnesses if the court deem it nec)

We agree with the appellant that since the authenticity of the will was not contested, he was not required to produce more than one witness; but
even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 of our present Civil Code can not be interpreted
as to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the probate denied.
Since no witness may have been present at the execution of a holographic will, none being required by law (Art. 810, new Civil Code), it becomes
obvious that the existence of witnesses possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent.

For it is not merely a question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be witnesses "who know the handwriting and signature of
the testator" and who can declare (truthfully, of course, even if the law does not so express) "that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of
the testator."

Our conclusion is that the rule of the first paragraph of Article 811 of the Civil Code is merely directory and is not mandatory.
 EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL vs. EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, and EUFEMIA PATIGAS
(G.R. No. 123486. August 12, 1999)

FACTS:

In 1990, respondents, being the devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. De Ramonal, filed a petition for
probate of the said holographic will. Petitioners opposed, alleging that the holographic will was a forgery and that the same was even illegible which
gives an impression that a third hand of an interested party other than the true hand of Matilde Seo Vda. De Ramonal executed the holographic will.

At the hearing, respondents presented six ordinary witnesses and various documentary evidence. Petitioners, instead of presenting their
evidence, filed a demurrer to evidence which the trial court granted. Respondents appealed, and in support thereof, they once again reiterated the
testimony of their ordinary witnesses who testified as to the similarity, authenticity genuineness of the signature of the deceased in the holographic
will. On October 9, 1995, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision which ruled that the appeal was meritorious. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

W/N the will should be admitted to probate

RULING: NO.

The Court ruled that from a visual examination of the holographic will the strokes are different when compared with other documents written by
the testator. The signature of the testator in some of the disposition was not readable. There were uneven strokes, retracing and erasures on the will.
Comparing the signature in the holographic will dated August 30, 1978, and the signatures in several documents such as the application letter for
pasture permit dated December 30, 1980, and a letter dated June 16, 1978, the strokes were different. In the letters, there were continuous flows of
the strokes, evidencing that there was no hesitation in writing unlike that of the holographic will. The Court, therefore, ruled that it cannot be certain
that the holographic will was in the handwriting of the deceased.

SYLLABUS:

1. CIVIL LAW; SUCCESSION; PROBATE OF HOLOGRAPHIC WILL; THREE WITNESSES REQUIRED FOR A
CONTESTED HOLOGRAPHIC WILL IS MANDATORY.- In this petition, the petitioners ask whether the provisions of
Article 811 of the Civil Code are permissive or mandatory. The article provides, as a requirement for the probate of a contested
holographic will, that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the signature in the will is the genuine signature of the
testator. We are convinced, based on the language used, that Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The word shall in a
statute commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that
the word shall, when used in a statute is mandatory.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSE; TO ELIMINATE POSSIBILITY OF FALSE DOCUMENT BEING ADJUDGED AS WILL
OF TESTATOR.- In the case of Ajero vs. Court of Appeals, we said that the object of the solemnities surrounding the execution
of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth
and authenticity. Therefore, the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But on
the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the
right to make a will. However, we cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document being adjudged as the will of the testator,
which is why if the holographic will is contested, that law requires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting
of the deceased.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSE; TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE WISHES OF THE DECEASED.- Laws are enacted to achieve a goal
intended and to guide against an evil or mischief that they aim to prevent. In the case at bar, the goal to achieve is to give effect
to the wishes of the deceased and the evil to be prevented is the possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit
will employ means to defeat the wishes of the testator.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; HANDWRITING OF DECEASED IN HOLOGRAPHIC WILL CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED; CASE AT
BAR.- A visual examination of the holographic will convince us that the strokes are different when compared with other
documents written by the testator. The signature of the testator in some of the disposition is not readable. There were uneven
strokes, retracing and erasures on the will. Comparing the signatures In the holographic will dated August 30, 1978, and the
signatures in several documents such as the application letter for pasture permit dated December 30, 1980, and a letter dated June
16, 1978, the strokes are different. In the letters, there are continuous flows of the strokes, evidencing that there is no hesitation
in writing unlike that of the holographic will. We, therefore, cannot be certain that the holographic will was in the handwriting by
the deceased.
 ROSA K. KALAW vs. HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN RELOVA, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Batangas, Branch VI, Lipa City, and GREGORIO K.
KALAW
(G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984)

FACTS:

In 1971, Gregorio Kalaw, claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased sister, Natividad K. Kalaw, filed a petition for the probate of the latters
1968 holographic will. ROSA K. Kalaw, a sister of the testatrix was named as her sole heir. Rosa opposed that the holographic Will contained
alterations, corrections, and insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil
Code. ROSA's position was that the holographic Will, as first written, should be given effect and probated so that she could be the sole heir
thereunder. Trial court denied probate. Gregorios MR was denied.

Rosa filed a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

W/N the original unaltered text after subsequent alterations and insertions were voided by the Trial Court for lack of authentication by the
full signature of the testatrix, should be probated

RULING: NO.

Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will litem not been noted under his
signature, the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased, corrected or interlined.

However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the original
heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that the
entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after that which could remain valid. To state that the Will as first
written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. But that change of mind can neither be given effect
because she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature.
 SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND
(G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994)

FACTS:

Annie Sand died in 1982, leaving a holographic will w/c named as devisees petitioners Roberto and Thelma Ajero, private respondent Clemente
Sand, Meriam S. Arong, Leah Sand, Lilia Sand, Edgar Sand, Fe Sand, Lisa S. Sand, and Dr. Jose Ajero, Sr., and their children. In 1983, petitioners
instituted Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, for allowance of decedent's holographic will. They alleged that at the time of its execution, 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. Respondent
opposed as neither the testament's body nor the signature therein was in decedent's 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.

Nonetheless, trial court admitted the will into probate. On appeal, decision was reversed. found that, "the holographic will fails to meet the
requirements for its validity." It held that the decedent did not comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code.

Art. 813: When a number of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed without being dated, and the last disposition has a signature
and date, such date validates the dispositions preceding it, whatever be the time of prior dispositions.

Art. 814: In case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by his full
signature.

It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and undated, or signed but not dated. It also found that the erasures,
alterations and cancellations made thereon had not been authenticated by decedent.

Hence, this further appeal.

ISSUE:

W/N the will should be admitted into probate

RULING: YES

A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will,
but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such
failure, however, does not render the whole testament void.

Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814.

Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on testator's signature,
9 their presence does not invalidate the will itself. 10 The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes. It is also proper to
note that the requirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and 814) separate
from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will.