Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 1
Succession
Article 774
1. Coronel v CA
The Coronels sold the land they inherited from their father
to Ramona. However, at the time of sale, the property was
still in the name of their late father.
After they were able to transfer the title of the property in
their name, they sold the same property to Catalina.
Ramona now filed a case for specific performance and
wishes to nullify the 2nd sale to Catalina.
It is the position of the Coronels that there was no
perfected contract of sale between them and Ramona since
at the time of sale they were not the absolute owner of the
property since it was registered in the name of their father.
ISSUE: WON the Coronels are absolute owners of the
property during the 1st sale.
HELD: Yes, they were the absolute owners thereof. The
rights to succession are transmitted at the moment of the
death of the decedent. The sellers in this case were the
sons and daughters of the deceased. They were called to
succession by the operation of law. Thus, at the moment
that their father died, they stepped into his shoes with
regard to the property subject of the sale.
2. Hermady v Luzon Surety
Luzon Surety Corp. filed a claim against the estate of
Hemady. Hemady is a surety solidary guarantor of 20
different agreements between Luzon Surety and its
debtors.
ISSUE: WON the liabilities of Hemady in the surety
agreements are transmitted to his heirs making his estate
liable.
HELD: Yes.
ART. 776,—The inheritance includes all the property,
rights and obligations of a person which are not
extinguished by his death.
Under our law, therefore, the general rule is that a party’s
contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the
successors.
Exception:
i. When the contract is intransmissible by their
nature.
ii. When the contract is intransmissible by
stipulation of the parties.
iii. Intransmissible by operation of law.
The contracts of suretyship entered into by K.H. Hemady
in favor of Luzon Surety Co. not being rendered
intransmissible due to the nature of the undertaking, nor
by the stipulations of the contracts themselves, nor by
provision of law, his eventual liability thereunder
necessarily passed upon his death to his heirs.
Our conclusion is that the solidary guarantor’s liability is
not extinguished by his death, and that in such event, the
Luzon Surety Co., had the right to file against the estate a
contingent claim for reimbursement.
3. Jakosalem v Rafols
The heir can sell his share in the inheritance even before
partition. However, he may sell only up to the extent of
his share.
4. Vitug v CA
5. Heirs of Natividad
6. Genato v Bayhon
Article 776 and 781
1. Conde v Abaya
Casiano Abaya, unmarried, died in 1899. Paula Conde,
claims his estate saying she is the natural mother of
Casiano’s unacknowledged children. Roman Abaya,
Casiano’s brother opposed that claim of Paula.
The trial court held That the administrator of the estate of
Casiano Abaya should recognize Teopista and Jose Conde
as being natural children of Casiano Abaya; that the
petitioner Paula Conde should succeed to the hereditary
rights of her children with respect to the inheritance of
their deceased natural father Casiano Abaya; and
therefore, it is hereby declared that she is the only heir to
the property of the said intestate estate, to the exclusion of
the administrator, Roman Abaya.
ISSUE: Whether the right of action brought to demand
from the natural father, or from his heirs, the
acknowledgment of the natural child which the former left
at his death was, by operation of the law, transmitted to
the natural mother by reason of the death of the said child
acknowledged by her.
HELD: No. Under the Civil Code, "the inheritance

includes all the property, rights, and obligations of a
person, which are not extinguished by his death."
But such action for the acknowledgment of a natural child
can only be exercised by him during his lifetime. It cannot
be transmitted to his descendants, or to his ascendants.
2. Ledesma v McLachlin
In the year 1916, the plaintiflf Socorro Ledesma lived
maritally with Lorenzo M. Quitco, while the latter was still
single, of which relation lasting until the year 1921. A
daughter was born who is the other plaintiff Ana Quitco
Ledesma. Socorro and Lorenzo executed a deed
acknowledging Ana as their natural child.
On January 21, 1922 Lorenzo issued a promissory note in
favor of Socorro Ledesma obliging himself to pay P2,000.
Subsequently, Lorenzo married Conchita McLachlin, the
defendant, with whom he had 4 children. Lorenzo died
followed by his father Eusebio. Lorenzo died leaving no
properties behind.
Socorro claimed the unpaid balance of the promissory
note amounting to P1,500 from the estate of Eusebio.
ISSUE: WON the father’s estate acquired the obligation to
pay the debt contracted by his son who left no properties.
HELD: No. the heirs only answer with the properties
received from their predecessor. The herein defendants, as
heirs of Eusebio Quitco, in representation of their father
Lorenzo M. Quitco, are not bound to pay the indebtedness
of their said father from whom they did not inherit
anything.
3. Speed Distributing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
In 1953, Pastor Lim married respondent Rufina Luy Lim.
During the early part of their marriage, Pastor organized
some family corporations using their conjugal funds.
Among these corporations was Skyline. Their relationship
turned sour and the couple eventually separated with no
children.
Eventually Pastor Lim incorporated other corporations
such as SPEED and LESLIM Corp. Pastor Lim died and he
was survived by his wife Rufina. Rufina applied for a
petition for the administration of the estate of the
deceased. The private respondent filed a motion praying
for the
annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the dorsal portion
of all titles over the properties in the name of Pastor.
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 2
Succession
Included in the said properties were those registered in
the name of other corporations of which Pastor was a
stockholder. Rufina claims that these properties were
actually owned by Pastor but was illegally transferred to
the said corporations. Included in the above is a property
in Quezon city registered under Leslim Corporation but
was subsequently transferred to SPEED. Rufina filed a
case to nullify the deed of sale covering the said property.
SPEED oppsed saying that Rufina is not a party in interest
because she is not a privy to the deed of sale.
ISSUE: WON the respondent as the heir of the decedent is
a real party-in-interest in the case to nullify the deed of
sale.
HELD: Yes. Under the RoC, a real party-in-interest is the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit.
The private respondent filed the complaint as one of the
heirs of
Pastor Lim, who died intestate on June 11, 1994. She was,
in fact, the surviving spouse of the deceased, a
compulsory heir by operation of law. The general rule
under the law on succession is that successional rights are
transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent and
compulsory heirs are called upon to succeed by operation
of law to the inheritance without the need of further
proceedings. Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code,
inheritance includes all the properties, rights and
obligations of a party, not extinguished by his death.35
Although the private respondent was appointed by the
probate court as a special administratrix of the estate of
Pastor Lim, she had the right, apart from her being a
special administratrix, to file the complaint against the
petitioners for the nullification of the deed of absolute
sale.
4. Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety Co., Inc.
- Supra
5. De Belen Vda. De Cabalu vs. Tabu
The property subject of the controversy is a 9,000 square
meter lot situated in Mariwalo, Tarlac, which was a
portion of a property registered in the name of the late
Faustina.
On December 8, 1941, Faustina died without any children.
She left a holographic will, dated July 27, 1939, assigning
and distributing her property to her nephews and nieces.

The said holographic will, however, was not probated.
One of the heirs was the father of Domingo Laxamana
(Domingo), Benjamin Laxamana, who died in 1960. On
March 5, 1975, Domingo allegedly executed a Deed of Sale
of Undivided Parcel of Land disposing of his 9,000 square
meter share of the land to Laureano Cabalu.
On August 1, 1994, to give effect to the holographic will,
the forced and legitimate heirs of Faustina executed a
Deed of Extrajudicial Succession with Partition. The said
deed imparted 9,000 square meters of the land covered by
TCT No. 16776 to Domingo. Thereafter, on December 14,
1995, Domingo sold 4,500 square meters of the 9,000
square meters to his nephew, Eleazar Tabamo. The
document was captioned Deed of Sale of a Portion of
Land. On May 7, 1996, the remaining 4,500 square meters
of Domingo’s share in the partition was registered under
his name under.
On August 4, 1996, Domingo passed away. On October 8,
1996, two months after his death, Domingo purportedly
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of TCT No. 281353 in
favor of respondent Renato Tabu (Tabu).
The heirs of Domingo challenged the said sale contending
that the spouses were merely allowed by Domingo to
occupy the said property.
Subsequently, the heirs of Cabalu also claimed the
property saying that they are the rightful owner of the lot
because it was sold to their father in 1975.
The heirs of Domingo countered that the sale was void
because Domingo was not yet the owner of the property,
as the same was still registered in the name of Faustina.
Domingo became the owner of the property only on
August 1, 1994, by virtue of the Deed of Extrajudicial
Succession with Partition executed by the forced heirs of
Faustina. In addition, they averred that Domingo was of
unsound mind having been confined in a mental
institution for a time.
ISSUES:
1. whether the Deed of Sale of Undivided Parcel of Land
covering the 9,000 square meter property executed by
Domingo in favor of Laureano Cabalu on March 5, 1975, is
valid; and
2] whether the Deed of Sale, dated October 8, 1996,
covering the 4,500 square meter portion of the 9,000
square meter property, executed by Domingo in favor of
Renato Tabu, is null and void.
HELD:
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 3
Succession
1. The sale of the property in 1975 was null and void.
Domingo was not yet the owner of the property during
the sale. Under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, “No
contract may be entered into upon future inheritance
except in cases expressly authorized by law.”
In this case, at the time the deed was executed, Faustina’s
will was not yet probated; the object of the contract, the
9,000 square meter property, still formed part of the
inheritance of his father from the estate of Faustina; and
Domingo had a mere inchoate hereditary right therein.
Domingo became the owner of the said property only on
August 1, 1994, the time of execution of the Deed of Extra-
judicial Succession with Partition by the heirs of Faustina,
when the 9,000 square meter lot was adjudicated to him.
2. The sale to Tabu is evidently null and void.The
document itself shows that it was executed 2 months after
the death of Domingo.
6. Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals
On May 13, 1995, Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a
will in Angeles City leaving several personal and real
properties. He also left a widow, respondent Esperanza P.
Orfinada, and 7 children.
Apart from the respondents, the demise of the decedent
left in mourning his paramour and their children. They
are petitioner
Teodora Riofero, who became a part of his life when he
entered into an extra-marital relationship with her during
the subsistence of his marriage to Esperanza sometime in
1965, and co-petitioners Veronica, Alberto and Rowena.
The children of esperanza found out that petitioner
Teodora Rioferio and her children executed an
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person
with Quitclaim involving the properties of the estate of the
decedent located in Dagupan City. Respondents also
found out that petitioners were able to obtain a loan of
P700,000.00 from the Rural Bank of Mangaldan Inc. by
executing a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties
subject of the extrajudicial settlement.
Respondent filed a complaint for the annulment of the
extre-judicial settlement and the real estate mortgage
ISSUE: Whether the heirs may bring suit to recover
property of the estate pending the appointment of an
administrator is the issue in this case.

HELD: YES. Pending the filing of administration
proceedings, the heirs without doubt have legal
personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the
decedent in accordance with the provision of Article 777
of the New Civil Code “that (t)he rights to succession are
transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent.”
The provision in turn is the foundation of the principle
that the property, rights and obligations to the extent and
value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted
through his death to another or others by his will or by
operation of law.
Court recognized the legal standing of the heirs to
represent the rights and properties of the decedent under
administration pending the appointment of an
administrator.
7. Genato v Bayhon
- Already discussed
Article 804-824
1. Baltazar v. Laxa
Paciencia was a 78 y/o spinster when she made her last
will and testament in the Pampango dialect on Sept. 13,
1981. The will, executed in the house of retired Judge
Limpin, was read to Paciencia twice. After which,
Paciencia expressed in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses that the document is her last will and testament.
She thereafter affixed her signature at the end of the said
document on page 3 and then on the left margin of pages
1, 2 and 4 thereof.
Childless and without any brothers or sisters, Paciencia
bequeathed all her properties to respondent Lorenzo Laxa
and his wife Corazon Laza and their children Luna and
Katherine. Lorenzo is Paciencia’s nephew whom she
treated as her own son. Conversely, Lorenzo came to
know and treated Paciencia as his own mother.
Six days after the execution of the Will (Sept. 19, 1981),
Paciencia left for USA. There, she resided with Lorenzo
and his family until her death on Jan. 4, 1996. In the
interim, the Will remained in the custody of Judge Limpin.
More than 4 years after the death of Paciencia or on Apr.
27, 2000, Lorenzo filed a petition with the RTC of Guagua,
Pampanga for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and for
the issuance of Letters of Administration in his favor.
On Jun 23, 2000 one of petitioners, Antonio Baltazar filed
an opposition to Lorenzo’s petition. Antonio averred that
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 4
Succession
the properties subject of Paciencia’s Will belong to
Nicomeda Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest;
hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath them to
Lorenzo. Also, one of the petitioners, Rosie Mateo testified
that Paciencia is in the state of being “mangulyan” or
forgetful making her unfit for executing a will and that the
execution of the will had been procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence.
Petitioners also opposed the issuance of the Letters of
Administration in Lorenzo’s favor arguing that Lorenzo
was disqualified to be appointed as such, he being a
citizen and resident of the USA. Petitioners prayed that
Letters of Administration be instead issued in favor of
Antonio.
RTC denies the petition for probate of the will and
concluded that when Paciencia signed the will, she was no
longer possessed of the sufficient reason or strength of
mind to have the testamentary capacity. On appeal, CA
reversed the decision of the RTC and granted the probate
of the will. The petitioner went up to SC for a petition for
review on Certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether the authenticity and due execution of
the will was sufficiently established to warrant its
allowance for probate.
HELD: YES. A careful examination of the face of the Will
shows faithful compliance with the formalities laid down
by law. The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her
instrumental witnesses and the notary public, are all
present and evident on the Will. Further, the attestation
clause explicitly states the critical requirement that the
testatrix and her instrumental witnesses attested and
subscribed to the
Will in the presence of the testator and of one another. In
fact, even the petitioners acceded that the signature of
Paciencia in the Will may be authentic although they
question of her state of mind when she signed the same as
well as the voluntary nature of said act.
The burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind
at the time of the execution of the will lies on the
shoulders of the petitioners. The SC agree with the
position of the CA that the state of being forgetful does
not necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as to
render him unfit to execute a Will. Forgetfulness is not
equivalent to being of unsound mind. Besides, Art. 799 of
the NCC states: “To be of unsound 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. It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the
time of making the Will to know the nature of the estate to
be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the
character of the testamentary act.”
2. Amata and Almojuela, vs. Tablizo
A petition was filed by Antonio Amata and Felipe
Almojuela, praying for the probate of the last will and
testament of the deceased Pedro Tablizo, and the issuance
of letters of administration to the petitioners. Juana
Tablizo and others opposed the probate of the will applied
for stating that the deceased Pedro Tablizo was not
habitually of sound mind, but on the contrary, was
unconscious at the time of' the execution of said
document;
The petitioners attempted to prove that the deceased
Pedro Tablizo was 82 years old and was near-sighted.
Beginning May 4, 1924, he was confined to his bed by
reason of senile weakness and could not stand up. On the
evening of June 3, 1924, he ordered that Felipe Almojuela
be called. Pedro Tablizo asked Antonio Amata to bring
him the list of his real properties, and to read one by one
the items therein. As Antonio Amata was mentioning each
parcel, Pedro Tablizo was telling him to whom it must be
allotted. At 6:30 Pedro Tablizo began to dictate his will to
Felipe Almojuela, in the presence of his wife, of Mariano
Arcilla and Antonio Amata. Felipe thereafter finished
writing his will.
On June 4, As Pedro could no longer see, Eufrosina
Tablizo, niece of the testator and wife of Antonio Amata,
placed the pen between his fingers, held his hand and put
the point of the pen on the place where he had to write his
signature. The testator signed unaided on the left margin
of each of the pages and at the bottom of the will in the
presence of all the witnesses, who did the same in the
presence of each other and of the testator.
Other witnesses were also presented. On June 4, 1924,
Pedro Tablizo sent for Father Cecilio Penilla and
confessed. Before the confession, he had been talking with
said priest. On the 9th day of June, 1924, Serapia Torcelino
and her husband went to the house of the deceased
looking for a carabao to purchase, and Pedro Tablizo
ordered that the carabao called Tilbayong be sold. On the
10th day of the same month and year, Fathers Andres
Tablizo and Mariano Surtida, paid a visit to the testator
and the latter talked with them. On the 12th day of the
same month and year, Father Cecilio Penilla saw him for
the last time, and on said date, as on June 4, he found him
lying down on his bed, being unable to move, but he
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 5
Succession
could speak, and prayed correctly, first in an audible voice
and then in a low voice.
ISSUE: was the mind of the testator perfectly sound when
he made and signed the will ?
HELD: Where it appears that a few hours and days after
the execution of the 'will, the testator was intelligently and
intelligibly conversing with other persons, making a clear
and coherent narration of facts, although lying down on
his bed and unable to move or stand up unassisted, and
could still effect the sale of a property belonging to him,
these circumstances show that at the time of the execution
of the will, the testator was in perfectly sound mental
condition.
3. DOLORES AVELINO v. VICTORIANA DE LA CRUZ
The present is an appeal from an order of the Honorable
George N. Hurd, judge of the Court of First Instance of the
city of Manila, in which he had legalized the will of the
said Pascual de la Cruz, deceased. The appellant
attempted to show that the deceased was incompetent to
make his will because he was blind at the time the same
was executed and had been for several years theretofore.
ISSUE: WoN the will is void due to the blindness of the
deceased.
HELD: No. There is absolutely no proof to show that the
deceased was incapacitated at the time he executed his
will. No presumption of incapacity can arise from the
mere fact that he was blind. The only requirement of the
law as to the capacity to make a will is that the person
shall be of age and of sound mind and memory. (Sec. 614,
Code of Procedure in Civil Actions.) Section 620 of the
same code prohibits blind persons from acting as
witnesses in the execution of wills, but no limitation is
placed upon testamentary capacity, except age and
soundness of mind.
In our opinion the record contains nothing which justifies
the modification of the order made legalizing the will in
the present case. The order of the lower court admitting to
probate and legalizing the will in question is therefore
hereby affirmed with costs.
4. Eulalio Hernaez v Rosendo Hernaez
The subject of this action is the will executed by Doña
Juana Espinosa, widow of Don Pedro Hernaez, on
December 5, 1894, before a notary public, and three
witnesses, and with the aid of an interpreter, the testatrix
not understanding Spanish. In this will, Rosendo, the
testator’s son is left with a better portion of the

inheritance. Hence, Eulalio, one of the 5 other children of
Doña Juana, brought this suit to annul the latter’s will on
the grounds of: incapacity of the testatrix; (2) the
incapacity of the notary, attesting witnesses, and the
interpreter; and (3) a substantial formal defect in the will.
The incapacity of the testatrix according to the complaint
is alleged to consist in this: That on the 5th of December,
1894, she was over 80 years of age and was so ill that three
days before she had received the sacraments and extreme
unction, and that two days afterwards she died; and that
prior thereto she walked in a stooping attitude, and gave
contradictory orders, as a result of her senile debility. The
incapacity of the notary in that he did not understand the
Visayan dialect, the language of the testatrix. The
incapacity of the attesting witnesses is supposed to consist
in their not having a perfect knowledge of Spanish, and
the incapacity of the interpreter in that he was an
amaneunsis of the notary and was the person who wrote
out the will. The substantial formal defect of the will is
supposed to consist in the fact that two physicians were
not present to certify to the sanity of the testatrix at the
time of its execution, and the absence of two interpreters
to translate the will.
1st Issue:
Whether or not the testator in the case at bar is of sound
mind at the time of the execution of the will.
HELD: Yes, Doña Juana was of sound mind at the time of
the execution of her will.
The fact that on old woman gives contradictory orders,
that she walks in a stooping position, that she has fainting
fits, that she received the sacraments some days before
making her will, are circumstances which even if fully
demonstrated by proof could not lead the court to
establish a conclusion contrary to the mental soundness of
a person who is to be presumed to be in the full enjoyment
of the mental faculties until the contrary is conclusively
proven. Moreover, the intervention of the notary and the
witnesses constitutes a true guarantee of the capacity of
the testator, by reason of their knowledge of the matter.
2nd Issue: Whether or not the notary public who does not
understand the dialect of the will is qualified to notarize
the said will.
HELD: Yes, the notary public, although without
knowledge of the language or dialect of the will, is still
qualified to notarize the same provided that he avails
himself of an interpreter.
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 6
Succession
If this officer, upon whom the law imposes the obligation
of drawing the instrument in the official language, that is,
Castilian, does not know the dialect he can avail himself of
an interpreter in accordance with the provisions of the law
itself; hence the fact that the notary who legalized the will
in question did not know the Visayan dialect spoken by
the testatrix is by no means an argument in favor of the
nullity of this public instrument.
Hence, Doña Juana’s will is valid and effective.
5. EUSEBIA LIM VS JULIANA CHINCO
Deceased Victorina Villaranda y Diaz purportedly
executed a will leaving her estate, consisting of properties
valued at P50,000.00, more or less chiefly to her collateral
relatives Eusebia, Crispina and Maria, all surname of Lim.
The probate was opposed by Juliana Chinco, a full sister
of the deceased.
It has been established that on the morning of 2 June 1929,
the testator was stricken with apoplexy, incident to
cerebral hemorrhage, and was taken in an unconscious
condition, seated in a chair, to her room. Upon examining
the patient, Doctor Geronimo Z. Gaanan, a local physician,
found her insensible and incapable of talking or
controlling her movements. A certain Doctor Isidoro Lim,
of Manila, was also called upon to visit the patient and has
come to see her two or three times. With his approval, it
was decided to take the testator to the hospital of San Juan
de Dios in Manila, and on the morning of 5 June 1929, the
ambulance from the hospital arrived, in charge of Doctor
Guillermo Lopez del Castillo, a resident physician of the
hospital.
The purported will was prepared by Perfecto Gabriel, a
practicing attorney of Manila, whose wife appears to be
related to the chief beneficiaries named in the will. Gabriel
arrived upon the scene at 9 o'clock on the forenoon of 5
June 1929. After informing himself of the condition of the
testatrix, he went into a room adjacent to that occupied by
the patient and, taking a sheet from an exercise book,
wrote the instrument in question. He then took it into the
sick room for execution. Gabriel suggested to Doctor
Lopez del Castillo that he would be pleased to have
Doctor Castillo sign as a witness, but the latter excused
himself for the reason that he considered the old lady to be
lacking in testamentary capacity. Another person present
was Marcos Ira, a first cousin of the deceased, and
attorney Gabriel asked him also whether or not he was
willing to sign as one of the witnesses. Ira replied in a
discouraging tone, and the attorney turned away without
pressing the matter. In the end three persons served as

witnesses, all of whom were in friendly relations with the
lawyer, and two relatives of his wife. The intended
testatrix was not able to affix her signature to the
document, and it was signed for her by the attorney.
Upon hearing, the trial court sustained the opposition and
disallowed the will on the ground that the testatrix did not
have testamentary capacity at the time the instrument
purports to have been executed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the supposed testatrix had
testamentary capacity at the time the purported will was
signed.
RULING: No, the deceased did not possess testamentary
capacity in executing her purported will.
The deceased, on the morning of June 5, 1929, was in a
comatose condition and incapable of performing any
conscious and valid act. The patient was in a continuous
state of coma during the entire period of her stay in
Meycauayan, subsequent to the attack, and that at 9 or 10
o’clock of 5 June 1929, she did not have sufficient
command of her faculties to enable her to do any valid act.
In order that a will executed by one person and signed by
another on account of the testator’s inability to sign may
be deemed valid, the law requires that it shall have been
signed under the express direction or the express order of
the testator. Such was wanting in the case at bar.
6. Estate of the deceased Isidra Abquilan. Atanasio
Abquilan vs.Feliciana Abquilan
Facts: This court refused to legalize an instrument
purporting to be the last will and testament of Isidra
Abquilan, the deceased. It appears that the deceased left
no forced heirs, and her only heirs, in case of intestacy, are
her brother, Atanasio Abquilan, the proponent of the will,
and Feliciana Abquilan, a sister, who is the opponent.
The denial was based on the findings of the trial court that
the document propounded as the will of the deceased is
apocryphal, that the purported signatures of the deceased
to the supposed will are forgeries, and that the instrument
in question was not executed by the deceased. He
therefore denied probate, and the proponent appealed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the purported last will and
testament was executed by the deceased.
RULING: No. A clear preponderance of the evidence
shows that on November 6, 1924, the date when the will
purports to have been executed, the supposed testatrix
was not in a condition such as to enable her to have
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 7
Succession
participated in the act, she being in fact at that time
suffering from paralysis to cerebral hemorrhage in such
degree as completely to discapacitate her for intelligent
participation in the act of making a will. A careful
comparison of the name of the testatrix as signed in two
places to Exhibit A, with many of her authentic signatures
leads to the conclusion that the signatures to the supposed
will were made by some other person. Furthermore, the
combined testimony of Juan Serato and Alejandro Genito
completely demonstrate in our opinion that no will at all
was made on November 6, the date attributed to the
questioned document, and that, instead, an attempt was
made on the night of that day to fabricate another will,
which failed of completion because of the refusal of
Alejandro Genito to be a party to the making of a will in
which the testatrix took no part. The instrument before us
was undoubtedly fabricated later, probably on November
7, at a time when the condition of the deceased was such
as to make rational participation on her part in the act of
making a will impossible.
7. TORRES vs LOPEZ
For a long time prior to October, 1923, Tomas Rodriguez
was in feeble health. His breakdown was undoubtedly
due to organic weakness, to advancing years and to an
accident which occurred in 1921. Ultimately, on August 10
1923, on his initiative, Tomas Rodriguez designated
Vicente F. Lopez as the administrator of his property.
On October 22, 1923, Margarita Lopez petitioned the
Court of First Instance of Manila to name a guardian for
Tomas Rodriguez because of his age and pathological
state. This petition was opposed by Attorney Gregorio
Araneta acting on behalf of Tomas Rodriguez for the
reason that while Rodriguez was far from strong on
account of his years, he was yet capable of looking after
his property with the assistance of his administrator,
Vicente F. Lopez. The deposition of Tomas Rodriguez was
taken and a perusal of the same shows that he was able to
answer nearly all of the questions propounded
intelligently. At the conclusion of the hearing, an order
was declaring Tomas Rodriguez incapacitated to take care
of himself and to manage his property and naming
Vicente F. Lopez as his guardian.
Tomas Rodriguez was taken to the Philippine General
Hospital on November 27, 1923. There he was to remain
sick in bed until his death. On the door of the patient’s
room was placed a placard reading – “No visitors, except
father, mother, sisters, and brothers.” Permitted to visit
the patient only the following named persons: Santiago
Lopez, Manuel Ramirez, Romana Lopez, Luz Lopez de

Bueno, Remedio Lopez, Benita Lopez, Trinidad Vizcarra,
Apolonia Lopez, Antonio Haman, and Gregorio Araneta.
The list did not include the names of Margarita Lopez and
her husband Antonio Ventura. Indeed the last named
persons experienced considerable difficulty in penetrating
in to the room of Rodriguez.
Santiago Lopez states that on one occasion when he was
visiting Tomas Rodriguez in the hospital , Rodriguez
expressed to him a desire to make a will and suggested
that the matter be taken up with Vicente F. Lopez (S. R., p.
550). This information Santiago Lopez communicated to
Vicente F. Lopez, who then interviewed Maximino Mina,
a practicing attorney in the City of Manila, for the purpose
of securing him to prepare the will
On the afternoon of January 3, 1924 there gathered in the
quarters of Tomas Rodriguez in the Philippine General
Hospital, Santiago Lopez and Dr. A. De Asis, attesting
witness; and Dr. Elias Fernando Calderon, Dr. Elias
Domingo and Dr. Florentino Herrera, physicians, there for
purposes of observation. Possibly also Mrs. Luz Lopez de
Bueno and Mrs. Nena Lopez were present; at least they
were hovering in the background.
Not even prior to demise of the deceased, the two actions
in the Lopez family had prepared themselves for a fight
over the estate. The Luz Lopez faction had secured the
services of Doctor Domingo, the physician in charge of the
Department of Insane of San Lazaro Hospital an Assistant
Professor of Nervous and Mental Diseases in the
University of the Philippines, as attending physician; as
associated with him for purposes of investigation Dr.
Fernando Calderon the Director of the Philippine General
Hospital and Dr. Florentino Herrera, a physician in active
practice in the City of Manila; and had arranged to have
two members of the medical fraternity, Doctors De Asis
and Bonoan as attesting witnesses. The Margarita Lopez
faction had taken equal precautions by calling a witnesses
in the guardship proceedings Dr. Sixto de los Angeles
Professor and Chief of the Department of Legal Medicine
in the University of the Philippines, and Dr. Samuel
Tietze, with long experience in mental diseases; thereafter
by continuing Doctors de Los Angeles and Tietze to
examine Tomas Rodriguez and by associating with them
Dr. William Burke, a well-known physician of the City of
Manila. Skilled lawyers were available to aid and abet the
medical experts. Out of such situations, do will contests
arise.
An examination of the certificates made by the two sets of
physicians and of their testimony shows that on most facts
they concur. Their deductions from these facts disclose a
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 8
Succession
substantial divergence of opinion. It is a hopeless task to
try to reconcile the views of these distinguished gentlemen
who honestly arrived at definite but contradictory
conclusions. The best that we can do under the
circumstances is to set forth the findings of the Calderon
committed on the hand and of the De Los Angeles
committee on the other. Doctors Calderon, Domingo and
Herrera examined Tomas Rodriguez individually and
jointly before the date when the will was executed. All of
them, as we have noticed were, present at the signing of
the will to note the reactions of the testator
Doctor Calderon while on the witness-stand expressed a
definite opinion as to the mentality of Tomas Rodriguez.
Tomas Rodriguez was likewise examined thoroughly by
Doctors De los Angeles, Tietze, and Burke. Doctor De los
Angeles had been a witness in the gurardianship
proceedings and had seen the patient of November 6 and
7, 1923. Doctor Tietze had also been a witness in the
guardianship case and had visited the patient on
November 9 and 12, 1923, and on January 15, 1924.
Doctors Tietze and Burke together examined Rodriguez
on January 17, 20, and 24, 1924. The three physicians
conducted a joint examination result.
Another angle to the condition of the patient on or about
January 3, 1924, is disclosed by the treatment record kept
daily by the nurses, in which appear the nurse’s remarks.
On certain facts pertaining to the condition of Tomas
Rodriguez there is no dispute. On January 3, 1924,
Rodriguez had reached the advanced age of 76 years. He
was suffering from anemia, hernia inguinal, chronic
dypsia, and senility. Physically he was a wreck.
As to the mental state of Tomas Rodriguez on January 3,
1924, Doctors Calderon, Domingo and Herrera admit that
he was senile. They, together with Doctors De los Angeles,
Tietze, and Burke, further declare that his memory
however for remote events was generally good. He was
given to irrational exclamations symptomatic of a
deceased mind. While, however, Doctors Calderon
Domingo, and Herrera certify that the intellectual faculties
of the patient are “sound, except that his memory is
weak,” and that in executing the will the testator had full
understanding of the act he was performing and full
knowledge of the contents thereof, Doctors De Los
Angeles, Tietze and Burke certify that Tomas Rodriguez
was of unsound mind and that they diagnosed his case as
senile dementia of the simple type approaching the
deteriorated stage.
The Code of Civil Procedure prescribes as a requisite to
the allowance of a will that the testator be of “sound

mind” A “sound mind” is a “disposing mind.” One of the
grounds for disallowing a will is “If the testator was
insane or otherwise mentally incapable of the execution.”
Predicated on these statutory provisions, this court has
adopted the following definition of testamentary capacity:
“‘Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the
nature of the transaction in which the testator is engaged
at the time, to recollect the property to be disposed of and
the persons who would naturally be supposed to have
claims upon the testator, and to comprehend the manner
in which the instrument will distribute his property
among the objects of his bounty.’’ The mental capacity of
the testator is determined as of the date of the execution of
his will (Civil Code, art. 666).
It is here claimed that the unsoundness of mind of the
testator was the result of senile dementia. This is the form
of mental decay of the aged upon which will are most
often contested. A Newton, Paschal, a Cooley suffering
under the variable weather of the mind, the flying vapors
of incipient lunacy,” would have proved historic subjects
for expert dispute. Had Shakespeare’s King Lear made a
will, without any question it would have invited litigation
and doubt.
ISSUE:
Did Tomas Rodriguez on January 3, 1924, possess
sufficient mentality to make a will which would meet the
legal test regarding testamentary capacity and have the
proponents of the will carried successfully the burden of
proof and shown him to be of sound mind on that date?
HELD:
Two of the subscribing witnesses to the will, one a
physician clearly to the regular manner in which the will
was executed and to the testator’s mental condition. The
other subscribing witness, also, a physician on the
contrary testified to a fact which, if substantiated, would
require the court to disallow the will. The attending
physician and three other eminent members of the
medical fraternity, who were present at the execution of
the will, expressed opinions entirely favorable to the
capacity of the testator. As against this we have the
professional speculations of three other equally eminent
members of the medical profession when the will was
executed. The advantage on those facts is all with those
who offer the will for probate.
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 9
Succession
The will was short. It could easily be understood by a
person in physical distress. It was reasonable, that is, it
was reasonable if we take into account the evident
prejustice of the testator against the husband of Margarita
Lopez.
Tomas Rodriguez comprehended the nature of the
transaction in which he was engaged. He had two
conferences with his lawyer, Judge Mina, and knew what
the will was to contain. The will was read to him by Mr.
Legarda. He signed the will and its two copies in the
proper places at the bottom and on the left margin. At that
time the testator recollected the property to be disposed of
and the persons who would naturally be supposed to have
claims upon him. While for some months prior to the
making of the will he had not manage his property he
seem to have retained a distinct recollection of what it
consisted and of his income. Occasionally his memory
failed him with reference to the names of his relatives.
Ordinarily, he knew who they were, he seemed to
entertain a prediliction towards Vicente F. Lopez as would
be natural since Lopez was nearest in which the
instrument distributed the property naming the objects of
his bounty. His conversations with Judge Mina disclosed
as insistence on giving all of his property to the two
persons whom he specified.
On January 3, 1924, Tomas Rodriguez may have been of
advanced years, may have been physically decrepit, may
have been weak in intellect, may have suffered a loss of
memory, may have had a guardian and may have a been
extremely eccentric, but he still possessed the spark of
reason and of life, that strength of mind to form a fixed
intention and to summon his enfeebled thoughts to
enforce that intention, which the law terms “testamentary
capacity.” That in effect is the definite opinion which we
reach after an exhaustive and exhausting study of a
tedious record, after weighing the evidence for the
oppositors, and after giving to the case the serious
consideration which it deserves.
The judgment of the trial court is set aside and the will of
Tomas Rodriguez is admitted to probate without special
pronouncement as to costs in this instance.
8. Galvez v Galvez,
This appeal was raised by counsel for Santiago Galvez
from the judgment denying the petition presented by the
said Galvez for the probate of the testator Victor Galvez’
second will, and appointed as administratrix of the
testator Victor Galvez’s estate, the latter's only legitimate
daughter, Canuta Galvez.

Canuta Galvez, alleged that her father, owing to his very
serious sickness with cholera, lacked the intellectual
capacity and clear judgment requisite for making a will.
On the other hand, petitioner in this case suggests for the
probate of the second will as it was executed by Victor
Galvez on August 12, 1910, and signed in his presence by
the witness Juan Dimanlig, Nazaria Galvez and J.
Leoquinco, and, as the testator was no longer able to sign
on account of his sickness, Lorenzo Galvez, at his request,
affixed his own signature to the instrument, for him and
below his written name.
ISSUE: WON the denial of the probate of the will was
proper.
HELD: No, the denial of the probate of the will was not
proper. It is to be noted that a first will was executed on
the same date as the second will. It was for the purpose of
correcting an error contained in his first will, that the
testator had executed another will, which is the one
exhibited for probate.
Besides the attestation of the aforesaid subscribing
witnesses, the contents of the will and the testator's
positive determination to rectify the error he incurred in
the execution of his first will, show that Victor Galvez was
in his sound mind and was perfectly aware of his duties
9. Bagtas v. Paguio
The will was propounded by Bagtas, widow of decedent,
and the opponents are a son and several grandchildren by
a former marriage. The basis of the opposition is that the
testator was not in the full of enjoyment and use of his
mental faculties and was without the mental capacity
necessary to execute a valid will. The testator suffered
from a paralysis of the left side of his body. He retained
the use of his right hand, however, and was able to write
fairly well.
The basis of the opposition to the probation of the will is
that the same was not executed according to the
formalities and requirements of the law wills, and further
that the testator was not in the full enjoyment and use of
his mental faculties and was without the mental capacity
necessary to execute a valid will.
Records show that testator 15 or 14 years prior to his
death suffered a paralysis on the left side of his body. A
few years prior to his death, his hearing became impaired
and he lost the power of speech. Owing to the paralysis of
certain muscles, his head fell to one side and saliva ran
from his mouth. He retained the use of his right hand,
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 10
Succession
however and was able to write fairly well. Though the
medium of signs he was able to indicate his wishes to his
wife and other members of his family.
The three other witnesses and the witness Florentino
Ramos testified as to the manner in which the will was
executed. According to the uncontroverted testimony of
these witnesses the will was executed in the following
manner:
Pioquinto Paguio, the testator, wrote out on pieces of
paper notes and items relating to the disposition of his
property, and these notes were in turn delivered to Seilor
Marco, who transcribed them and put them in form. The
witnesses testify that the pieces of paper upon which the
notes were written were delivered to the attorney by the
testator; that after the will as a whole had been thus
written by the attorney, it was read in a loud voice in the
presence of the testator and the witnesses; that Señor
Marco gave the document to the testator; that the latter,
after looking over it, signed it in the presence of the four
subscribing witnesses; and that they in turn signed it in
the presence of the testator and of each other.
ISSUE: WON the formalities required in the due
execution of the will was complied with.
HELD: Yes,
The right to dispose of property by testamentary
disposition is as sacred as any other right which a person
may exercise and this right should not be nullified unless
mental incapacity is established in a positive and
conclusive manner.
"To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not
necessary that the mind shall be wholly unbroken,
unimpaired, or unshattered by disease or otherwise, or
that the testator should be in the full possession of his
reasoning faculties." - Campbell vs. Campbell . Neither
age, nor sickness, nor extreme distress, nor debility of
body will affect the capacity to make a will, if sufficient
intelligence remains. The failure of memory is not
sufficient to create the incapacity, unless it be total, or
extend to his immediate family or property.
"The question is not so much, what was the degree of
memory possessed by the testator, as, had he a disposing
memory? Was he able to remember the property he was
about to bequeath, the manner of distributing it, and the
objects of his bounty ? In a word, were his mind and
memory sufficiently sound to enable him to know and
understand the business in which he was engaged at the
time when he executed his will."

Paguio was of sound mind when he executed his will. At
the time of the execution of the will it does not appear that
his conduct was irrational in any particular. He seems to
have comprehended clearly what the nature of the
business was in which he was engaged. The evidence
shows that the writing and execution of the will occupied
a period of several hours and that the testator was present
during all this time, taking an active part in all the
proceedings. Contrary to the very prevalent lay
impression, perfect soundness of mind is not essential to
testamentary capacity. A testator may be afflicted with a
variety of mental weaknesses, disorders, or peculiarities
and still be capable in law of executing a valid will. Hence,
the will in the case at bar is perfectly reasonable and its
dispositions are those of a rational person.
10. In the matter of the testate estate of the late
Encarnacion Neyra
This case involves the wills executed by the deceased
Encarnacion Neyra dated November 3, 1942 and Sept. 14,
1939. The beneficiary, Trinidad Neyra, filed a petition for
the probate of the will dated Nov. 3, 1942. However, the
resps opposed the same on the ground that: (1) at the time
of the alleged execution of the said will, the testatrix no
longer possessed testamentary capacity as she was
suffering from Addison’s disease; (2) That the alleged will
dated Nov. 3, 1942, had not been executed in the manner
and form prescribed by law; and Subsequently, the
oppositors asked for the probate of the first will dated
Sept. 14, 1939 but it was opposed by the pets Trinidad,etc.
The lower court admitted the will dated Nov. 3, 1942 and
denied the probate of the will dated Sept. 14, 1939. The
oppositors claim that the attesting witnesses were not
present, at the time that the testatrix thumbed marked the
subject will, on her bed, in the sala of the house, as they
were allegedly in the caida.
Issue:
(1) WON the will is invalid;
(2) WON the testatrix had no capacity ot execute a will
Held:
(1) The will dated Nov. 2, 1942 is valid. It has been fully
shown that the attesting witnesses were present at the
time of the signing and execution of the agreement and
will in question, in the sala, where the testatrix was lying
on her bed. The true test is not whether they actually saw
each other, at the time of the signing of the will, but
whether they might have seen each other sign, had they
chosen to do so; and the attesting witnesses actually saw it
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 11
Succession
in this case. (Jaboneta vs. Gustilo, 5 Phil., 541.) And the
thumbmark placed by the testatrix on the will is
equivalent to her signature. (Yap Tua vs. Yap Ca Kuan
and Yap Ca Llu, 27 Phil., 579.)
(2) No. Testamentary capacity is the capacity to
comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the
testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the property to
be disposed of, and the persons who would naturally be
supposed to have claims upon the testator, and to
comprehend the manner in which the instrument will
distribute his property among the objects of his bounty.
(Bugnao vs. Ubag. 14 Phil., 163.) Where the mind of the
testator is in perfectly sound condition, neither old age,
nor ill health, nor the fact that somebody had to guide his
hand in order that he might sign, is sufficient to invalidate
his will. (Amata and Almojuela vs. Tablizo, 48 Phil., 485.)
The testimony of Dr. Dionisio Parulan, alleged medical
expert, as to the nature and effects of Addison's disease, is
absolutely unreliable. He had never seen or talked to the
testatrix Encarnacion Neyra. Presentacion Blanco, in the
course of her cross-examination, frankly admitted that, in
the morning and also at about 6 o'clock in the afternoon of
November 3, 1942, Encarnacion Neyra talked to her and
that they understood each other clearly, thus showing that
the testatrix was really of sound mind, at the time of the
signing and execution of the agreement and will in
question. It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that
the mental faculties of persons suffering from Addison's
disease, like the testatrix in this case, remain unimpaired,
partly due to the fact that, on account of the sleep they
enjoy, they necessarily receive the benefit of physical and
mental rest. And that like patients suffering from
tuberculosis, insomnia or diabetes, they preserve their
mental faculties until the moments of their death.
11. GUISON vs CONCEPCION
DOCTRINE: The person signing for the testator does not
even have to put his own name. All the law requires is
that he puts the name of the testator. If he puts down his
name and omits that of the testator, this would mean a
substantial violation of the law and would render the will
invalid.
FACTS:
Jacoba Salcedo made her will in 1904. Witness Maglaqui,
instead of writing the name of the testatrix on the will,
wrote his own.
Probate of the will was refused by the trial court on the
ground that the name of the testatrix was not signed
thereto.

ISSUE: WON the will was executed with the formalities
as required by law.
HELD: NO
Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as
follows:
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 his express direction,
and attested and subscribed by three or more credible
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each
other.
The attestation shall state the fact that the testator signed
the will, or caused it to be signed by some other person, at
his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses,
and that they attested and subscribed it in his presence
and in the presence of each other.
But the absence of such form of attestation shall not render
the will invalid if it is proven that the will was in fact
signed and attested as in this section provided.
It will be noticed from the above-quoted section 618 of the
Code of Civil Procedure that 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 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 the
person signing in his stead in the place where he would
have signed if he knew how or was able so to do, and this
in the testator's presence and by his express direction; so
that a will signed in a manner different than that
prescribed by law shall not be valid and will not be
allowed to be probated.
12. In The Matter of the will of Maria Siason Y Madrid
De Ledesma
MARIA SIASON executed a will. Upon legalization of the
will, the CFI refused probate on the ground that the
instrument was not subscribed by the witnesses in the
presence of the testatrix and of each other as required by
section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
When the will was executed the testatrix was ill and
confined to her house. It was executed in the sala where
she lay upon a sofa. The witnesses differ as to whether the
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 12
Succession
testatrix from where she lay could read what was written
at the table; and the first witness, after signing, went away
from the table.The witnesses being in the same apartment
were all present at the time of execution of the will.
However, one of the witnesses left the room or placed
himself so remotely therein as to be cut off from actual
participation in the proceedings, then it was presumed
that the subscription might not have taken place in his
presence within the meaning of the law.
The second objection pertains to the signature to the
instrument which was said to be defective. Since the form
was different.
Issue:
Whether or not the will conforms with the requirements
under section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
HELD: Yes, according to Section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure “No will, except as provided in the preceding
section, shall be valid to pass any estate, real of personal,
nor charge or effect 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 his express
direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and each
of the other. The attestation shall state the fact that the
testator signed the will, or caused it to be signed by some
other person, at his express direction, in the presence of
three witnesses, and that they attested and subscribed it in
his presence and in the presence of each other. But the
absence of such form of attestation shall not render the
will invalid if it is proven that the will was in fact signed
and attested as in this section provided.
The case involves confusion of the different wording of
the two clauses of this section the one specifying the
requisites of execution and the other those of the
attestation clause. The concluding sentence of the section,
however, makes clear that the former and not the latter is
to control. Consequently the will must be signed by the
testator, or by the testator's name written by some other
person in his presence, and by his express direction.
2. Are the words "Señora Maria Siason" her name written
by some other person?
Held: They undoubtedly are her name, but occurring as
they do after the words "at request of," it is contended that
they form a part of the recital and not a signature, the only
signature being the names of the witnesses themselves.
The majority of the court, however, are of the opinion that
the distinction is a tenable one inasmuch as in the

Concepcion will the name of the testatrix occurred only in
the body of the attestation clause, after the first signatures
of the witnesses, whereas in this will it immediately
follows the testament itself and precedes the names of the
witnesses.
13. MACAPINLAC vs. ALIMURONG
DOCTRINE: At the request of the testatrix, Da. Simplicia
de los Santos, I signed.
For Simplicia de los Santos.
Amando de Ocampo.
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.
FACTS:
Simplicia de los Santos having died, her surviving
husband, Gregorio Macapinlac, submitted her will to the
CFI for probate. Macario Alimurong, a nephew of the
deceased, opposed the proceedings and requested that
"the will of the deceased, Doña Simplicia de los Santos, be
declared null and void for either of the two reasons" and
which are:
(1) Because the will was not executed and signed by the
witnesses in accordance with the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure now in force.
(2) Because it was executed under duress and undue and
illegal influence on the part of the persons benefited
thereby or of a person acting in their interests.
Moreover the fact that, as Simplicia de los Santos 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 request of the testatrix D. 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, Alejo
San Pedro, and Gregorio Sangil signed at the bottom of
the will.
According to opponent-appellant, inasmuch as the law
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
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 13
Succession
the will in question, as he did not sign it with the name of
testatrix.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was signed in accordance
with the law.
HELD: YES.
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' cannot 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.
As the lower court concludes—the will executed by
Simplicia de los Santos must be admitted to probate. The
provisions of section 618 of the Code of 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 express

direction, and has been witnessed and signed by more
than three trustworthy witnesses, in the presence of the
testatrix and of each other.
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the
costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
14. MAMERTO GILLESANIA, ET AL. v. NICOLAS
MENASALVAS
Doctrine: When three of all the witnesses who signed the
will, signed at the request of the testator and in his
presence and in the presence of each other, the
requirements of the law were thereby complied with. The
mere fact that there were six witnesses to the said will and
that one of them did not see the others sign is not
sufficient to invalidate the said will when the other
requirements of the law are satisfied.
Facts: On 1903, Graciano Fadrigon executed his last will
and testament. On the 5th day of November, 1905, the said
Fadrigon died. Later the said will was presented to the
Court for probate. The probation of the will was opposed
by some of the relatives of the deceased. The opposition
seems to be based upon two grounds:
First. That the witnesses who signed the will did not all
sign in the presence of the testator and in the presence of
each other as required by section 618 of the Code of
Procedure; and second, that the said testator was mentally
incapable of making said will at the time the same was
authorized and made.
After hearing the evidence the lower court denied the
probation of said will. Hence this petition.
Issue: Whether the will should be probated.
HELD: Yes. An examination of the will shows that it was
signed by six witnesses. Said section 618 only requires that
wills be signed by three persons, in the presence of the
testator and in the presence of each other. An examination
of the evidence shows that each of the six persons who
signed the said will were examined as witnesses and it
appears, beyond peradventure of doubt, that five of the
six witnesses signed the said will at the request of the
testator, in the presence of the testator and in the presence
of each other. It is true that one of the witnesses, Mateo
Mena, who was the first witness to sign the will,
immediately left the room where the will was executed,
and did not see the other witnesses sign the said will.
Court held that, when three of all the witnesses who
signed the will, signed at the request of the testator and in
his presence and in the presence of each other, the
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 14
Succession
requirements of the law were thereby complied with. The
mere fact that there were six witnesses to the said will and
that one of them did not see the others sign is not
sufficient to invalidate the said will when the other
requirements of the law are satisfied.
With reference to the second above assignment of error, all
of the persons who signed the said will as witnesses,
declared that the testator at the time of the execution of the
said will was of sound mind and memory. There is no
evidence to show that the witnesses to the will had any
interest in the result of the will nor any motive in
declaring other than the truth with reference to the
questions presented to them.
The will was executed in due form, complying with the
requirements of the law, and the testator had full capacity
to execute the said will, the lower court committed an
error in not admitting the said will to probate.
15. ROMAN ABAYA VS. DONATA ZALAMERO
On the 6th of August, 1906, Roman Abaya filed a petition
for the allowance of the will executed by Juan Zalamero
on the 29th of October, 1905 which was written in the
Tagalog dialect. Donata Zalamero opposed the petition,
alleging that the will had been executed under pressure
and unlawful and improper influence on the part of those
who were to benefit thereby, and that it had not been
executed and signed in accordance with the provisions of
section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 10th of
January, 1907, the court refused to admit the will of said
Juan Zalaniero, as requested by Roman Abaya; Abaya
appealed from the decision.
Two points are presented. The first is, that Juan Zalamero,
while in life, executed his will on the 29th of October,
1905, under unlawful pressure and influence exercised by
those who were thereby benefited; and second, that the
said will was not executed and signed in accordance with
the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was not executed and
signed in accordance with the provisions of section 618 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
HELD: It appears that the will in question was executed
with the requirements established by the law in force.

It is shown by the evidence, and by the will itself, that for
the reasons set forth by the testator and at his own
request, one of the witnesses to the will, Mariano
Zaguirre, wrote with his own hand the name and surname
of Juan Zalamero, the testator, and in his presence, and
that the latter put a cross between them and a note stating
that what had been written before the name and surname
of the said Juan Zalamero, with the cross placed at the foot
thereof, was his testament and contained his last will as
stated by him when he directed the execution thereof in
the presence of the three witnesses who subscribed it in
his presence, and in the presence of each other.
It is true that the witness Mariano Zaguirre, who was
requested by the testator to write his name and surname at
the end of his will, did not affix his own signature
immediately below the name and surname of Juan
Zalamero and below the cross placed by the latter with the
words "by request of the testator Juan Zalamero;" but in
the said will are clearly stated the reasons why it was not
signed by the testator himself as also the request he made
to the witness Zaguirre, and a repetition thereof was not
necessary; further, that this same witness, upon being
requested, wrote with his own hand the name and
surname of the testator, who afterwards placed the cross
between them, stating that it was his testament, all of
which was written immediately after the said name and
surname of the testator and the cross made by him, and
the same was subscribed by the three witnesses in the
manner provided by law.
The essential requisites prescribed by the above-
mentioned section 618 of the law have been complied
with, namely, that three witnesses were present at the
execution of the will of Juan Zalamero at the date
mentioned therein; that they heard his statement that the
said instrument, written and drawn up under his
direction, contained his last will; that they saw and
witnessed when, at the express request of the testator, and
under his direction, the witness, Mariano Zaguirre, wrote
at the foot of the will the name and surname of Juan
Zalamero, and when the latter put the cross between his
written name and surname, each of the witnesses
subscribing it at the time and in the presence of each other.
16. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE
PROBATE OF THE WILL OF DOROTEA PEREZ
In the petition for probate filed with the respondent court,
the petitioner attached the alleged last will and testament
of the late Dorotea Perez. Written in the Cebuano-Visayan
dialect, the will consists of two pages. The first page
contains the entire testamentary dispositions and is signed
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 15
Succession
at the end or bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and
at the left hand margin by the three (3) instrumental
witnesses. The second page which contains the attestation
clause and the acknowledgment is signed at the end of the
attestation clause by the three (3) attesting witnesses and
at the left hand margin by the testatrix.
The trial court, thru then Presiding Judge Pamatian (later
assumed by Judge Rosal) issued the questioned order
denying the probate of the will of Dorotea Perez for want
of a formality in its execution, and ordered the petitioner
to submit the names of the intestate heirs with their
corresponding addresses so that they could be properly
notified and could intervene in the summary settlement of
the estate.
Instead of complying with the order, the petitioner filed a
manifestation and/or motion ex parte praying for a thirty-
day period within which to deliberate on any step to be
taken 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. And he filed a motion for the
appointment of special administrator. Judge Rosal denied
all the motions and manifestation of petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether the will was properly attested and subscribed by
the witnesses.
HELD: YES.
Article 805 of the Civil Code provides:
"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, and by his express direction, and attested and
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the
presence of the testator and of one another.
"The 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, except the
last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be
numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part
of each page.
"The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon
which the will is written xxx.”
Attestation consists in 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 testator
exists as a fact. On the other hand, subscription is the
signing of the witnesses' names upon the same paper for
the purpose of identification of such paper as the will
which was executed by the testator.
In this case, the will was subscribed in a manner which
fully satisfies the purpose of identification. The signatures
of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first
page of the will attested not only to the genuineness of the
signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of the
will as embodied in the attestation clause.
While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable,
unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be
ignored, especially where the authenticity of the will is not
assailed. (Gonzales v. Gonzales, 90 Phil. 444, 449). The law
is to be liberally construed, "the underlying and
fundamental objective permeating the provisions on the
law on wills in this project consists in the liberalization of
the manner of their execution with the end in view of
giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last
wishes 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.
As to the attestation, in this case, it is discernible from the
entire will that it is really and actually composed of only
two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her
instrumental witnesses. As earlier stated, the first page
which contains the entirety of the testamentary
dispositions is signed by the testatrix at the end or at the
bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed at the left
margin. The other page which is marked as "Pagina dos"
comprises the attestation clause and the acknowledgment.
The acknowledgment itself states that "This Last Will and
Testatment consists of two pages including this page".
17. In the Matter of the Will of Antero Mercado, Garcia
v. Lacuesta
FACTS:
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 attestation
clause failed to state that the testator caused another
person to write the testator’s name under his express
direction. The herein petitioner argues, however, that
there is no need for such recital because the cross written
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 16
Succession
by the testator after his name is a sufficient signature and
the signature of Atty. Florentino Javier is a surplusage.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the will is void on the ground that it failed
to state that the testator caused another person to write the
testator’s name under his express direction.
RULING:
YES. 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 by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It
is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will
is the usual signature of Antero Mercado or even one of
the ways by which he signed his name. After mature
reflection, [the Court is] not prepared to liken the mere
sign of the cross to a thumbmark, and the reason is
obvious. The cross cannot and does not have the
trustworthiness of a thumbmark.
18. Cruz vs. Villasor
Petition to review on certiorari the judgment of the Court
of First Instance of Cebu allowing the probate of the last
will and testament of the late Valente Z. Cruz. Petitioner-
appellant Agapita N. Cruz, the surviving spouse of the
said deceased, opposed the allowance of the will.
Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto, namely,
Deogracias T. Jamaoas, Jr., Dr. Francisco Pañares, and
Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr., one of them, the last named, is at
the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was
supposed to have been acknowledged.
ISSUE: whether the supposed last will and testament of
Valente Z. Cruz was executed in accordance with law.
HELD: 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.
19. Unson v. Abella

Pedro Unson, executor of Dona Josefa Zalamea’s last will,
filed a petition for the probate of the will of the latter.
Attached on the said will is an inventory of all the
properties of Dona Josefa. Opposition was made thereto
by Antonio, Ignacia and Avivencia Abella and Santiago
Vito on the grounds that the will is not paged correlatively
in letters rather it is in Arabic numerals, that there was no
attestation clause in the inventory attached to the will, and
that the will was not signed by the testatrix and the
witnesses in the presence of each other.
Only the two witnesses namely Gonzalo Avaya and
Eugenio Zalamea testified as to the authenticity of the
will. The third witness, Pedro de Jesus, was not presented
because he was hostile with Unson and has been meeting
with the oppositors since the filing of the petition for the
probate of the will of Josefa.
Issue: WoN the will is valid.
Ruling: Yes.
1. As to the paging of the will, the SC cited the case of
Aldaba v. Roque. Thus:
It was held that this way of numbering the pages of a will
is in compliance with the spirit of the law, inasmuch as
either one of these methods indicates the correlation of the
pages and serves to prevent the abstraction of any of
them. In the course of the decision, we said: "It might be
said that the object of the law in requiring that the paging
be made in letters is to make falsification more difficult,
but it should be noted that since all the pages of the
testament are signed at the margin by the testatrix and the
witnesses, the difficulty of forging the signatures in either
case remains the same. In other words the more or less
degree of facility to imitate the writing of the letters A, B,
C, etc.does not make for the easiness to forge the
signatures.
2. The inventory is referred to in the will as an “integral
part” of it so the inventory need not have an additional
attestation clause at the end.
3. The actuation of the proponents in NOT bringing to
court Pedro de Jesus does not render the will invalid. As
announced in Cabang vs. Delfinado, the general rule is
that, where opposition is made to the probate of a will, the
attesting witnesses must be produced.
Exceptions:
a. when a witness is dead, or
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 17
Succession
b. cannot be served with process of the court, or
c. his reputation for truth has been questioned or
d. He appears hostile to the cause of the proponent.
In the aforementioned cases, the will may be admitted to
probate without the testimony of said witness, if, upon the
other proofs adduced in the case, the court is satisfied that
the will has been duly executed.
But supposing that de Jesus, when cited, had testified
adversely to the application, this would not by itself have
change the result reached by the court a quo, for section
632 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a will can
be admitted to probate, notwithstanding that one or more
witnesses do not remember having attested it, provided
the court is satisfied upon the evidence adduced that the
will has been executed and signed in the manner
prescribed by the law.
20. Yap Tua v Yap Ca Kuan
Yap Tua, on August 23, 1909, filed before the court a
petition for the probate of the will of Tomasa Elizaga Yap
Caong. It was granted by the court.
However, on March 1, 2010, Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu
appeared and presented a petition, alleging that they were
interested in the matters of the said will and desired to
intervene. They argued that: the testator had no clear
knowledge and knew nothing of what she was doing at
the time of signing the will.
Rufino R. Papa, one of the many witnesses in this case,
was called as a witness for the purpose of supporting the
allegation that Tomasa was mentally incapacitated to
make the will. Papa’s testimony, however, was refuted by
several witnesses claiming that Tomasa was of sound
mind and in full control of her mental faculties at the time
of the execution of her will.
After hearing all the witnesses, the lower court ruled in
favor of the probate of the will of Tomasa as the court
found a preponderance of evidence showing that she was
of sound mind at the time of the execution of her will.
1st Issue: Whether or not the lower court’s finding which
is supported by a preponderance of evidence, may
properly be reversed on appeal by the appellate courts..
Ruling: No, great weight must be given by appellate
courts, who do not see or hear the witnesses, to the
conclusions of the trial courts who had that opportunity.

2nd Issue: Whether or not Tomasa is of sound mind
during the execution of her will.
Ruling: Yes, Tomasa was of sound mind during the
execution of her will.
While the testimony of Dr. Papa is very strong relating to
the mental condition of Tomasa, yet, nevertheless, his
testimony related to a time perhaps twenty-four hours
before the execution of the will in question. Several
witnesses testified that at the time the will was presented
to her for her signature, she was of sound mind and
memory and asked for a pen and ink and kept the will in
her possession for ten or fifteen minutes and finally signed
it. The lower court found that there was a preponderance
of evidence sustaining the conclusion that Tomasa was of
sound mind and memory and in the possession of her
faculties at the time she signed this will. In view of the
conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and the finding
of the lower court, we do not feel justified in reversing the
conclusions of the lower court.
21 GERMAN JABONETA VS RICARDO GUSTILO
In the execution of Macario Jaboneta’s will, Julio Javellana,
Ancieto Jalbuena and Isabela Jena signed as witness.
Based on the testimony of Isabela Jena, it appears that as
he was leaving, Julio Javellana took the pen in his hand
and put himself in position to sign the will as witness; but
nevertheless, the said Julio Javellana signed as witness in
the presence of the testator and of the witness Aniceto
Jalbuena.
Such will was denied in the probate proceeding, because
the lower court was of the opinion that Julio Javellana did
not attach his signature thereto in the presence of Isabla
Jena as required by the provisions of Section 618 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
ISSUE: WON the signature of Javellana was signed in the
presence of Jena in compliance with the provisions of
Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure
RULING: YES. The true test of presence of the testator
and the witnesses in the execution of a will is not whether
they actually saw each other sign, but whether they might
have seen each other sign, had they chosen to do so,
considering their mental and physical condition and
position with relation to each other at the moment of
inscription of each signature.
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 testimony
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 18
Succession
of the remaining witnesses, which shows that Javellana
did in fact there and then 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 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, the document was in fact signed
before he finally left the room.
22. Nera vs. Rimando
At the time the will was executed, in a large room
connecting with a smaller room by a doorway where a
curtain hangs across, one of the witnesses was in the
outside room when the other witnesses were attaching
their signatures to the instrument.
The trial court did not consider the determination of the
issue as to the position of the witness as of vital
importance in determining the case. It agreed with the
ruling in the case of Jaboneta v. Gustillo that the alleged
fact being that one of the subscribing witnesses was in the
outer room while the signing occurred in the inner room,
would not be sufficient to invalidate the execution of the
will.
Issue: Whether or not the notarial will is void for the
failure of the instrumental witnesses to see each other
sign.
Ruling: NO. The phrase “in the presence” required by law
simply means that the position of the parties with relation
to each other at the moment of the subscription of each
signature, must be such that they may see each other sign
if they choose to do so. The question whether the testator
and the subscribing witnesses to an alleged will sign the
instrument “in the presence” of each other does not
depend upon proof of the fact that their eyes were actually
cast upon the paper at the moment of its subscription by
each of them, but that at that moment existing conditions
and their position with relation to each other were such
that by merely casting the eyes in the proper direction
they could have seen each other sign.
23. Calde v CA

The records show that decedent left behind nine thousand
pesos (P9,000.00) worth of property. She also left a Last
Will and Testament, dated October 30, 1972, and a Codicil
thereto, dated July 24, 1973. Both documents contained the
thumbmarks of decedent. They were also signed by three
(3) attesting witnesses each, and acknowledged before
Tomas A. Tolete, then the Municipal Judge and Notary
Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mt. Province.
Nicasio Calde, the executor named in the will, filed a
Petition for its allowance before the RTC of Bontoc, Mt.
Province, Br. 36. 2 He died during the pendency of the
proceedings, and was duly substituted by petitioner.
Private respondents, relatives of decedent, opposed the
Petitioner filed by Calde, on the following grounds: that
the will and codicil were written in Ilocano, a dialect that
decedent did not know; that decedent was mentally
incapacitated to execute the two documents because of her
advanced age, illness and deafness; that decedent’s
thumbmarks were procured through fraud and undue
influence; and that the codicil was not executed in
accordance with law.
RTC decided that the documents were not signed by them
in their presence but on different occasions since the same
ballpen used by them supposedly in succession could not
have produced a different color from blue to black and
from black to blue. In fact, the attestation clause followed
the same pattern. The absurd sequence was repeated
when they signed the codicil, for which reason, RTC have
no other alternative but to disallow the Last Will and
Codicil. Verily, if the witnesses and testatrix used the
same ballpen, then their signatures would have been in
only one color, not in various ones as shown in the
documents. Moreover, the signatures, in different colors as
they are, appear to be of different broadness, some being
finer than the others, indicating that, contrary to what the
testamentary witnesses declared on the witness stand, not
only one ballpen was used, and, therefore, showing that
the documents were not signed by the testatrix and
instrumental witnesses in the presence of one another.
ISSUE: WoN the decedent’s will and codicil were not
subscribed by the witnesses in the presence of the testator
and of one another, contrary to the requirements of Article
805 of the Civil Code.
HELD:
YES. The will and codicil were not subscribed by the
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one
another, contrary to the requirements of Article 805 of the
Civil Code.
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 19
Succession
As sharply noted by respondent appellate court, the
signatures of some attesting witnesses in decedent’s will
and its codicil were written in blue ink, while the others
were in black. This discrepancy was not explained by
petitioner. Nobody of his six (6) witnesses testified that
two pens were used by the signatories on the two
documents. In fact, two (2) of petitioner’s witnesses even
testified that only one (1) ballpen was used in signing the
two testamentary documents.
In the case at bench, the autoptic proference contradicts
the testimonial evidence produced by petitioner. The will
and its codicil, upon inspection by the respondent court,
show in black and white — or more accurately, in black
and blue — that more than one pen was used by the
signatories thereto. Thus, it was not erroneous nor
baseless for respondent court to disbelieve petitioner’s
claim that both testamentary documents in question were
subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of Art. 805
of the Civil Code.
Neither did respondent court err when it did not accord
great weight to the testimony of Judge Tomas A. Tolete. It
is true that his testimony contains a narration of how the
two testamentary documents were subscribed and
attested to, starting from decedent’s thumbmarking
thereof, to the alleged signing of the instrumental
witnesses thereto in consecutive order. Nonetheless,
nowhere in Judge Tolete’s testimony is there any kind of
explanation for the different-colored signatures on the
testaments.
24. Abangan v Abangan, G.R. No. L-13431, November 12,
1919
On September 19, 1917, the Court of First Instance of Cebu
admitted to probate Ana Abangan's will executed July,
1916. From this decision, Anastacia Abangan et. Al
appealed.
Said document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's will,
consists of two sheets, the first sheet (body of the will) of
which contains all of the disposition of the testatrix, duly
signed at the bottom by Martin Montalban (in the name
and under the direction of the testatrix) and by three
witnesses. The second sheet (contains the attestation
clause only) duly signed at the bottom by the three
instrumental witnesses. According to the appellants'
contention, the following are the defects whereby the
probate of the will should have been denied:
1. Every sheet should have been signed on the left
margin by the testatrix and the witnesses.

2. The second sheet (attestation clause) was only
signed by the three witnesses and not by the testatrix.
3. Every page of a will was not numbered
correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of the
sheets.
Issue: WON the will was duly admitted to probate.
Held: Yes.
1. 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 applicable in the case) evidently has
for its object (referring to the body of the will itself) to
avoid the substitution of any of said sheets, thereby
changing the testator's dispositions. But when these
dispositions are wholly written on only one sheet signed
at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses (as the
instant case), their signatures on the left margin of said
sheet would be 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 the sheets which
the testator and the witnesses do not have to sign at the
bottom. If the signatures at the bottom of the sheet
guaranties its authenticity, another signature on its left
margin would be unnecessary.
2. 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 will in question,
the signatures of the testatrix and of the three witnesses on
the margin and the numbering of the pages of the sheet
are formalities not required by the statute. Moreover,
referring especially 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.
3. In requiring that each and every page of a will
must be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the
upper part of the sheet, it is likewise clear that the object of
Act No. 2645 is to know whether any sheet of the will has
been removed. But, when all the dispositive parts of a will
are written on one sheet only, the object of the statute
disappears because the removal of this single sheet,
although unnumbered, cannot be hidden.
The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of
wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 20
Succession
avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to
guarantee 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, one
must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the
law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make
a will. So, when an interpretation already given assures
such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds
nothing but demands more requisites entirely
unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's last
will, must be disregarded.
25. Javellana v. Javellana
Facts: Jose J. Javellana, at the time of his death, a resident
of San Juan, Rizal, left properties with an approximate
value of P400,000.00; he also left a will which was
delivered to the clerk of court pursuant to the Rules of
Court; Oscar Ledesma, therein named executor, had
agreed to act as such; the decedent's next of kin were: the
widow, Cristeta J. Vda. de Javellana, his children Erlinda
Javellana, Jose Javellana y Azaola, and Jose Javellana, Jr.
(Pepito), his sister Juanita J. de Ledesma, and brother
Benjamin Javellana.
A petition was filed for the probate of the will of Jose by
Cristeta Jimenea Vda. de Javellana and Benjamin
Javellana, widow and brother respectively of the deceased.
To this petition, Jose Azaola and Jose Javellana filed a
separate oppositions, both claiming that the alleged will of
Jose Javellana was null and void, the same not having
been executed in accordance with the formalities required
by law and that the legal requirements necessary for its
validity had not been complied with.
The oppositors limited their evidence to the presentation
of two letters in the Visayan dialect allegedly written by
the deceased, the signatures appearing thereon being
identified by Jose Javellana, Jr. (Pepito) and Manuel
Azaola, as those of the deceased, for the sole purpose of
comparing said signatures with those appearing in the
will.
Oppositors appealed to this Court charging the lower
court of committing error in allowing probate of the will,
Exhibit C, on 2 grounds: (1) that the 3 attesting witnesses
failed to clearly and convincingly establish the due
execution of the will; and (2) that petitioners failed to
prove that the will was written in a language known to the
testator.

Issue:
WON the will was executed in accordance with the
formalities required by law.
WON the language used in the testator’s will was a
language known to the testator.
Ruling:
1. YES,
For the purpose of determining the due execution of a
will, it is not necessary that the instrumental witnesses
should give an accurate and detailed account of the
proceeding, such as recalling the order of the signing of
the document by the said witnesses. It is sufficient that
they have seen or at least were so situated at the moment
that they could have seen each other sign, had they
wanted to do so. In fact, in the instant case, at least two
witnesses, Yulo and Guevarra, both testified that the
testator and the 3 witnesses signed in the presence of each
and every one of them.
2. NO,
Art. 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in a
language or dialect known to the testator.
There is evidence that the testator is a Visayan although
residing in San Juan, Rizal at the time of his death. The
will was executed in the City of Manila and in the record
some indicia(signs), although insufficient to give rise to
the presumption that the testator might, in fact, have
known the Spanish language. In oppositors' own Exhibit 3
(a letter admittedly written by the testator) appear the
salutation "Querido Primo" and the complimentary
ending "Su primo" which are Spanish terms.
All the formal requisites for the validity of the will have
been satisfactorily established, except the language
requirement, we deem it in the interest of justice to afford
the parties an opportunity to present evidence, if they so
desire, on this controverted issue.
26. ANDALIS VS. PULGUERAS
1. The alleged will of Victor Pulgueras was admitted to
probate.
2. The testimony of only one to the attesting witnesses was
taken.
3. The testimony was:
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 21
Succession
a) that the 6 pages of the will were signed on the margin
by the testator and two of the witnesses on January 4,
1931;
b) the remaining three pages were signed by the testator
and the three attesting witnesses on January 11, 1931, and
that the third attesting witness then signed the first six
pages.
Issue:
Was the will executed properly?
Held: Such an execution of the will was not in conformity
with the law. Under our statute, the execution of a will is
supposed to be one act and cannot be legally effective if
the various participants sign on various days and in
various combinations of those present.
27. EX PARTE PEDRO ARCENAS, FELISBERTA
ACEVEDO, ET AL.
● Jose de los Santos e Isada, executed his last will
on 1901.
● The testator did not sign the on account of his ill
health, and requested one of the witness Vidal to sign in
his stead.
● The other witnesses and the notary public also
signed the testament.
● Subsequently, Arcenas, one of the executors
under the said will presented the same for probate.
● Two of the witnesses to the will were examined.
Both testified under oath that the testator had voluntarily
executed the same but on account of his ill health did not
sign, the witness Vidal signing in his stead at the testator's
request;
● They further testified that the attesting witnesses
had signed the will in the presence of each other.
● The court disallowed the said will on the ground
that it was not signed by the testator, nor by the testator's
name written by Naval A. Vidal.
ISSUE: WON the will in question was executed with the
formalities as required by law.
HELD: NO.

● When 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,
but it is necessary that the testator's name be written by
the person signing in his stead in the place where he
would have signed if he knew how or was able so to do,
and this in the testator's presence and by his express
direction; so that a will signed in a manner different than
that prescribed by law shall not be valid and will not be
allowed to be probated.
Where a testator does not know how, or is unable for any
reason, to sign the will himself, it shall be signed in the
following manner: "John Doe, by the testator, Richard
Roe;" or in this form: "By the testator, John Doe, Richard
Roe." All this must be written by the witness signing at the
request of the testator.
Under the law now in force, the witness Naval A. Vidal
should have written at the bottom of the will the full name
of the testator and his own name in one of the forms given
above.
This 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 will in question, executed at Capiz on the 12th of
October, 1901, by the deceased, Jose de los Santas e Isada,
is hereby disallowed.
28 Ex Parte Juan Ondevilla
These proceedings were instituted for the probate of the
will of Pascuala Olaguer, deceased.
The lower court refused the probate on the ground of
sufficiency of form in which the name of the testatrix
appears at the foot of the will.
When the will was executed, the testatrix could not sign
the will and requested one named Fructuoso Llenaresa to
sign on her behalf, which the latter did any writing her
name and signing at the foot of the document.
The judge below was of the opinion that this manner of
writing the name of the testatrix is not in accordance with
the law, and this was his only reason for refusing the
probate of the will, because, as he says, "it is always better
that, where a testator can not sign his name, the person
signing for him should only write the name of the testator,
and that the latter should make a cross which should be
witnesses and attested by the witnesses to the act.
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 22
Succession
Issue: Whether or not the will was in accordance with the
form prescribed under Section 618 of the Code of
Procedure in Civil Actions.
Ruling: Yes.
Section 618 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions
provides that "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 his express direction, and attested and subscribed by
three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the
testator and of each other.”
As will be seen, the law does not prescribe the specific
form in which the name of the testator should be affixed at
the foot of the will when written at his request by another
person. The only thing required by law is that the will
shall bear the name of the testator. It was clear that the
will bears the essential thing which is the name of the
testator, hence the will is valid.
29. PEDRO BARUT vs. FAUSTINO CABACUNGAN, ET
AL.
The late Maria Salomon left a will. By the terms of said
will Pedro Barut received the larger part of decedent's
property. She also stated in said will that being unable to
read or write, the same had been read to her and that she
had instructed Severo Agayan to sign her name to it as
testatrix. Pedro Barut filed an application to probate the
will.
The probate of the will was contested and opposed by a
number of the relatives of the deceased on grounds,
among others, that a later will had been executed by the
deceased. Proceeding for the probate of this later will
were pending at the time.
Issue: W/N Severo Agayan has to write and sign his
name to validate the will.
Ruling: With respect to the validity of the will, it is
unimportant whether the person who writes the name of
the testatrix signs his own or not. The important thing is
that it clearly appears that the name of the testatrix was
signed at her express direction in the presence of three
witnesses and that they attested and subscribed it in her
presence and in the presence of each other. That is all the
statute requires.
It may be wise as a practical matter that the one who signs
the testator's name signs also his own; but that it is not
 Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 23
Succession

essential to the validity of the will. Whether one parson or Anacleta Abellana . . ., Ciudad de Zamboanga," comply
another signed the name of the testatrix in this case is with the requirements of law prescribing the manner in
absolutely unimportant so far as the validity of her will is which a will shall be executed?
concerned.
Ruling: No. The present law, Article 805 of the Civil
There is no necessity whatever, so far as the validity of the Code, in part provides as follows:
instrument is concerned, for the person who writes the
name of the principal in the document to sign his own Every will, other than a holographic will, must be
name also. As a matter of policy it may be wise that he do subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by
so inasmuch as it would give such intimation as would the testator's name written by some other person in his
enable a person proving the document to demonstrate presence, and by his express direction, and attested and
more readily the execution by the principal. But as a subscribed by three or more credible witness in the
matter of essential validity of the document, it is presence of the testator and of one another.
unnecessary. The main thing to be established in the
Court said in the case of Arcenas: where the testator does
execution of the will is the signature of the testator. If that
not know how, or is unable, to sign, it will not be sufficient
signature is proved, whether it be written by himself or by
that one of the attesting witnesses signs the will but it is
another at his request, it is none the less valid, and the fact
necessary that the testator's name be written by the person
of such signature can be proved as perfectly and as
signing in his stead in the place where he could have
completely when the person signing for the principal
signed if he knew how or was able to do so, and this in the
omits to sign his own name as it can when he actually
testator's presence and by his express direction; so that a
signs. To hold a will invalid for the lack of the signature of
will signed in a manner different than that prescribed by
the person signing the name of the principal is, in the
law shall not be valid and will not be allowed to be
particular case, a complete abrogation of the law of wills,
probated.
as it rejects and destroys a will which the statute expressly
declares is valid. Where a testator does not know how, or is unable for any
reason, to sign the will himself, it shall be signed in the
30. In the Matter of the Summary Settlement of Estate of
following manner:
Anacleta Abellana, Balonan v. Abellana,
John Doe by the testator, Richard Doe; or in this form: "By
This case is about the probation of the will of one Anacleta
the testator, John Doe, Richard Doe." All this must be
Abellana.
written by the witness signing at the request of the
It appears on record that the last Will and Testament testator.
which is sought to be probated, is written in the Spanish
Therefore, under the law, the witness should have written
language and consists of two typewritten pages. The first
at the bottom of the will the full name of the testator and
page is signed by Juan Bello and under his name appears
his own name in one forms given above. Failure to comply
typewritten "Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana, residence
with the law is a substantial defect which affects the
Certificate A-1167629, Enero 20, 1951, Ciudad de
validity of the will and precludes its allowance,
Zamboanga', and on the second page appears the
notwithstanding the fact that no one appeared to oppose
signature of three (3) instrumental witnesses.
it.
On the first page on the left margin of the said instrument
In the case at bar the name of the testatrix, Anacleta
also appear the signatures of the instrumental witnesses.
Abellana, does not appear written under the will by said
On the second page, which is the last page of said last Will
Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan Abello. There is, therefore,
and Testament, also appears the signature of the three (3)
a failure to comply with the express requirement in the
instrumental witnesses and on that second page on the left
law that the testator must himself sign the will, or that his
margin appears the signature of Juan Bello under whose
name be affixed thereto by some other person in his
name appears handwritten the following phrase, "Por la
presence and by his express direction.
Testadora Anacleta Abellana'. The will is duly
acknowledged before Notary Public Attorney Timoteo de
31 DOMINGO CALUYA VS. LUCIA DOMINGO
los Santos.
The learned court below based its judgment upon three
Issue: Whether or not the signature of Dr. Juan A. Abello
grounds. The first one was that, although the testator had
above the typewritten statement "Por la Testadora
signed by mark, it nowhere appeared in the will who had

written the signature or that it had been written at his
request. The second, that the witness Antonino
Pandaraoan could not really have signed the attestation
clause because, at the time it was executed, he was
attending a session of the municipal council of Piddig as a
member thereof. Third: That as to the other witness,
Segundino Asis, the will mentioned and confirmed a sale
of land to him by the testator, and he being thereby an
interested party his testimony could not be believed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the probate of the will must be refused by
the failure to indicate who had written the signature or if
it had been written at the testator’s request.
HELD:
We do not believe that any of the objections are well
founded and the judgment refusing its probate must,
therefore, be reversed.
Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in
part:
"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 his express direction, and
attested and subscribed by three or more credible
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other.
* * *"
It is nowhere required, that, where the testator is unable to
write, the fact that his signature was written by some
other person, at his request and express direction, should
appear in the body of the will itself. In the case of Barut vs.
Cabacungan (21 Phil. Rep., 461, 463) we held the
following:
"From these provisions it is entirely clear that, with respect
to the validity of the will, it is unimportant whether the
person who writes the name of the testatrix signs his own
or not. The important thing is that it clearly appears that
the name of the testatrix was signed at her express
direction in the presence of three witnesses and that they
attested and subscribed it in her presence and in the
presence of each other. That is all the statute requires.
Whether one person or another signed the name of the
testatrix in this case is absolutely unimportant so far as the
validity of her will is concerned.”
The section above quoted also provides that "the
attestation clause shall state the fact that the testator
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 24
Succession
signed the will, or caused it to be signed by some other
person, at his express direction, in the presence of three
witnesses, and that they attested and subscribed it in his
presence and in the presence of each other. But the
absence of such form of attestation shall not render the
will invalid if it is proven that the will was in fact signed
and attested as in this section provided."
32. CANEDA vs, CA
On Dec 5, 1987, Mateo Caballero, a widower without
children executed a last will and testament before three
attesting witnesses, Labuca, Cabando and Teragosa, and
assisted by his lawyer, Atty Lumantod and a notary
public, Atty Manigos. The testator was leaving by way of
legacies and devises his real and personal properties to
Gaviola, Cabrera, and Abatayo (Angela, Rogelio and
Isabelito, all surnamed Abatayo), all of whom do not
appear to be related to the testator.
Mateo Caballero himself filed a petition seeking the
probate of his last will and testament. However, testator
passed away before his petition could finally be heard by
the probate court. Benoni Cabrera (later died and
substituted by William Cabrera), on of the legatees named
in the will, sough his appointment as special administrator
of the testator's estate, and he was so appointed by the
probate court through an order.
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 of the signature of the
testator therein.
On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses, Labuca,
and the notary public Atty. Manigos, testified that the
testator executed the will in question in their presence
while he was of sound and disposing mind and that,
contrary to the assertions of the oppositors, Mateo
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 probate hearing as the had died by then.
ISSUE: Whether or not the attestation in the last will of
Mateo Caballero is valid.
RULING: NO

It is undisputed that an examination of the last will and
testament of Mateo Caballero shows that it is comprised of
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 part of the will containing
the testamentary dispositions is expressed in the Cebuano-
Visayan dialect and is signed at the foot thereof by the
testator. The attestation clause in question, on the other
hand, is recited in the English language and is likewise
signed at the end thereof by the three attesting witnesses
hereto.
Nonetheless, 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 not expressly state therein the
circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their
respective signatures to the will in the presence of the
testator and of each other.
The phrase "and he has signed the same and every page
thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on
the left hand margin," obviously refers to the testator and
not the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately
preceded by the words "as his Last Will and Testament."
On the other hand, although the words "in the presence of
the testator and in the presence of each and all of us" may,
at first blush, appear to likewise signify and refer to the
witnesses, it must, however, be interpreted as referring
only to the testator signing in the presence of the
witnesses since said phrase immediately follows the
words "he has signed the same and every page thereof, on
the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand
margin." What is then clearly lacking, in the 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 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. Under Art 809 of the Civil Code:
“Art. 805. 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"
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 25
Succession
The manner of proving the due execution and attestation
has been held to be limited to merely an examination of
the will itself without resorting to evidence aliunde,
whether orl or written. Thus, defects must be remedied by
intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself.
In the case at bar, contrarily, proof of the acts required to
have been performed by the attesting witnesses can be
supplied by only extrinsic evidence thereof, since an
overall appreciation of the contents of the will yields no
basis whatsoever from with such facts may be plausibly
deduced. What private respondent insists on are the
testimonies of his witnesses alleging that they saw the
compliance with such requirements by the instrumental
witnesses, oblivious of the fact that he is thereby resorting
to extrinsic evidence to prove the same and would
accordingly be doing by the indirection what in law he
cannot do directly.
33. In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. De
Jesus and Bibiana Roxa de Jesus, Simeon R. ROXAS and
Pedro ROXAS de Jesus vs. Andres R. de JESUS, Jr.
After the death of spouses Andres and Bibiana de Jesus, a
special proceeding was instituted by Simeon, brother of
Bibiana. Simeon was then appointed administrator of the
estate and consequently, he delivered to the lower court a
document purporting to be the holographic will of Bibiana
which was then set for a hearing. Luz Henson, one of the
compulsory heirs filed an opposition to probate assailing
the purported holographic Will of Bibiana was not
executed in accordance with law. However, the lower
court issued an order allowing the probate which was
found to have been duly executed in accordance with law.
A motion for reconsideration was then filed by Luz
assailing that the alleged holographic will was not dated
as required by Article 810 of the Civil Code and
contending that 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 court then
reconsidered its earlier order and disallowed the probate
of the holographic will on the ground that the word
“dated” has generally been held to include the month,
day, and year.
ISSUE: Whether or not the date (FEB/61) appearing on
the holographic will of the deceased Bibian Roxas de Jesus
is a valid compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil
Code.
RULING:
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.
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.
34. Labrador vs. Court of Appeals
On June 10, 1972, Melecio Labrador died in the
Municipality of Iba, province of Zambales, where he was
residing, leaving behind a parcel of land. and the
following heirs, namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus,
Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all
surnamed Labrador, and a holographic will bearing the
date on the 2nd page of the will.
Subsequently, on September 30, 1975, Jesus Labrador (now
deceased but substituted by his heirs), and Gaudencio
Labrador filed an opposition to the petition on the ground
that the will has been extinguished or revoked by
implication of law, alleging therein that on September 30,
1971, that is, before Melecio’s death, for the consideration
of Six Thousand (P6,000) Pesos, testator Melecio executed
a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and
conveying in favor of oppositors Jesus and Gaudencio the
subject lot.
Respondents appealed the joint decision to the Court of
Appeals, denying the allowance of the probate of the will
for being undated and reversing the order of
reimbursement.
ISSUE: whether or not the alleged holographic will of one
Melecio Labrador is dated, as provided for in Article 8102
of the New Civil Code.
HELD: The law does not specify a particular location
where the date should be placed in the will. The only
requirements are that the date be in the will itself and
executed in the hand of the testator. These requirements
are present in the subject will.
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 26
Succession
35. Azaola v. Singson
Fortunata S. Vda. De Yance died in Quezon City on
September 9, 1957. Petitioner submitted for probate her
holographic will, in which Maria Azaola was made the
sole heir as against the nephew, who is the defendant.
Only one witness, Francisoco Azaola, was presented to
testify on the handwriting of the testatrix. He testified that
he had seen it one month, more or less, before the death of
the testatrix, as it was given to him and his wife; and that
it was in the testatrix’s handwriting. He presented the
mortgage, the special power of the attorney, and the
general power of attorney, and the deeds of sale including
an affidavit to reinforce his statement. Two residence
certificates showing the testatrix’s signature were also
exhibited for comparison purposes.
The probate was opposed on the ground that (1) the
execution of the will was procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence on the part of the
petitioner and his wife, and (2) that the testatrix did not
seriously intend the instrument to be her last will, and that
the same was actually written either on the 5th or 6th day
of August 1957 and not on November 20, 1956 as appears
on the will.
The probate was denied on the ground that under Article
811 of the Civil Code, 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
“did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was
written in the handwriting of the testatrix.”
Petitioner appealed, urging: first, that he was not bound to
produce more than one witness because the will’s
authenticity was not questioned; and second, that Article
811 does not mandatorily require the production of three
witnesses to identify the handwriting and signature of a
holographic will, even if its authenticity should be denied
by the adverse party.
ISSUE: W/N Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory
or permissive.
RULING:
Article 811 is merely permissive and not mandatory. Since
the authenticity of the will was not contested, petitioner
was not required to produce more than one witness; but
even if the genuineness of the holographic will were
contested, Article 811 can not be interpreted 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 witness 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”. There may be no
available witness of the testator’s hand; or even if so
familiarized, the witnesses may be unwilling to give a
positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1
of Article 811 may thus become an impossibility.
This is the reason why the 2nd paragraph of Article 811
allows the court to resort to expert evidence. The law
foresees the possibility that no qualified witness may be
found (or what amounts to the same thing, that no
competent witness may be willing to testify to the
authenticity of the will), and provides for resort to expert
evidence to supply the deficiency.
What the law deems essential is that the court should be
convinced of the will’s authenticity. Where the prescribed
number of witnesses is produced and the court is
convinced by their testimony that the will is genuine, it
may consider it unnecessary to call for expert evidence.
On the other hand, if no competent witness is available, or
none of those produced is convincing, the Court may still,
and in fact it should, resort to handwriting experts. The
duty of the Court, in fine, is to exhaust all available lines
of inquiry, for the state is as much interested as the
proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried
into effect.
36. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE
THE WILL OF RICARDO B. BONILLA deceased,
MARCELA RODELAS vs AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL.
On January 11, 1977, appellant filed a petition with the
Court of First Instance of Rizal for the probate of the
holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla which was was
opposed by the appellees Amparo Aranza Bonilla,
Wilferine Bonilla Treyes Expedita Bonilla Frias and
Ephraim Bonilla.
The original copy of the will referred herein was lost.
However, a photostatic copy thereof survived.
Thus, Amparo Aranza, et al. argued that the alleged
holographic will itself and not an alleged copy thereof,
must be produced, otherwise it would produce no effect;
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 27
Succession
and lost or destroyed holographic wills cannot be proved
by secondary evidence unlike ordinary wills.
Issue: Whether or not a holographic will which was lost or
cannot be found can be proved by means of a photostatic
copy.
Ruling: Yes, a holographic will which was lost or cannot
be found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy.
As a rule, 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.
37. KALAW VS RELOVA
In the holographic of Natividad Kalaw, Rosa Kalaw was
first written as Natividad’s sole heir. However, it was
altered substituting Gregorio Kalaw as the sole heir
instead. Such substitution was not authenticated by the
full signature of Natividad Kalaw.
ISSUE: WON the original unaltered text should be
probated with Rosa Kalaw as the sole heir
RULING: No. Ordinarily, when a number of erasures,
corrections, and interlineations made by the testator in a
holographic Will have not been noted under his signature,
x x x 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.

38. Salud Teodoro vda de Perez vs.Tolete
Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-
Cunanan, who became American citizens, established a
successful medical practice in New York. They had three
children. On August 23, 1979, Dr. Cunanan executed a last
will and testament, bequeathing to his wife "all the
remainder" of his real and personal property at the time of
his death "wheresoever situated". In the event he would
survive his wife, he bequeathed all his property to his
children and grandchildren, Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr.
was the trustee. Dr. Cunanan appointed his wife as
executrix of his last will and testament and Dr. Rafael G.
Cunanan, Jr. as substitute executor.
Four days later, Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan also executed her
own last will and testament. The two wills contained
similar provisions pertaining to the situation where the
spouses will die at the same time and under the same
circumstances that there is not sufficient evidence to
determine the order of their deaths, then it shall be
presumed that Dr. Cunanan predeceased his wife and
their estate shall be administered and distributed, in all
respects, in accordance with such presumption".
In 1982, Dr. Cunanan and his entire family perished when
they were trapped by fire that gutted their home.
Thereafter, Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Jr. as trustee and
substitute executor of the two wills, filed separate
proceedings for the probate thereof with the Surrogate
Court of the County of Onondaga, New York. The wills
were admitted to probate and letters testamentary were
issued in his favor.
Salud Teodoro Perez, the mother of Dr. Evelyn P.
Cunanan, and petitioner herein, filed for the reprobate of
the two wills ancillary to the probate proceedings in New
York.
The reprobate was not allowed because petitioner failed to
prove the of New York on procedure and allowance of
wills and the court had no way of telling whether the wills
were executed in accordance with the laws of New York.
In the absence of such evidence, the presumption is that
the law on succession of the foreign country is the same as
the law of the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has sufficiently
proved the laws of New York on the allowance of wills.
Ruling: Yes. The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses,
who were American citizens, will only be effective in this
country upon compliance with the following provisions of
the Civil Code of the Philippines:
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 28
Succession
"Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces
effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities
prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or
according to the formalities observed in his country, or in
conformity with those which this Code prescribes."
Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities
prescribed by New York laws or by Philippine laws is
imperative.
The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of
wills which have been probated outside of the Philippines
are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in
accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his
domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines;
(3) the will has been admitted to probate in such country;
(4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and
(5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure and
allowance of wills Except for the first and last
requirements, the petitioner submitted all the needed
evidence.
The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws
upon which the probate in the foreign country is based is
impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial
notice of them (Philippine Commercial and Industrial
Bank v. Escolin, 56 SCRA 266 [1974]).
Petitioner must have perceived this omission as in fact she
moved for more time to submit the pertinent procedural
and substantive New York laws but which request
respondent Judge just glossed over. While the probate of a
will is a special proceeding wherein courts should relax
the rules on evidence, the goal is to receive the best
evidence of which the matter is susceptible before a
purported will is probated or denied probate (Vda. de
Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 393 [1978]).
The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary
to petitioner's claim are entitled to notice of the time and
place for proving the wills. Under Section 4 of Rule 76 of
the Revised Rules of Court, the "court shall also cause
copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving
the will to be addressed to the designated or other known
heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator.
39. IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO
APPROVE THE WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS
Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a Filipino who became a
naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen in 2001, died single
and childless. In the last will and testament she executed
in California, she designated her brother, Sergio C.
Palaganas (Sergio), as the executor of her will for she had

left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S. Private
respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas (PR/Ernesto), another
brother of Ruperta, filed with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan
in 2003, a petition for the probate of Ruperta’s will and for
the former’s appointment as special administrator of her
estate. Petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas (Manuel) and
Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas (Benjamin), nephews of
Ruperta, opposed the petition on the ground that
Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines
but in the U.S. where she executed it. Manuel and
Benjamin added that, assuming Ruperta’s will could be
probated in the Philippines, it is invalid nonetheless for
having been executed under duress and Palaganas vs.
Palaganas without the testator’s full understanding of the
consequences of such act. Ernesto, they claimed, is also not
qualified to act as administrator of the estate. After the
RTC granted Ernesto’s motion for leave to take the
depositions of Ruperta’s foreign-based siblings, Gloria and
Sergio, said court admitted to probate Ruperta’s will and
appointed respondent Ernesto as special administrator at
the request of Sergio. Aggrieved, petitioner nephews
appealed to the CA, arguing that an unprobated will
executed by an American citizen in the U.S. cannot be
probated for the first time in the Philippines. The CA
affirmed the lower’s court decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not a will executed by a foreigner
abroad may be probated in the Philippines although it has
not been previously probated and allowed in the country
where it was executed.
RULING: YES. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of
wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same
have not as yet been probated and allowed in the
countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given
legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil
Code states that the will of an alien who is abroad
produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance
with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place
where he resides, or according to the formalities observed
in his country. Our rules require merely that the petition
for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to
the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional facts; (b) the names,
ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of
the testator or decedent; (c) the probable value and
character of the property of the estate; (d) the name of the
person for whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will has
not been delivered to the court, the name of the person
having custody of it. Jurisdictional facts refer to the fact of
death of the decedent, his residence at the time of his
death in the province where the probate court is sitting, or
if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left
in such province. The rules do not require proof that the
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 29
Succession
foreign will has already been allowed and probated in the
country of its execution.
40. In the matter of the estate of EMIL H. JOHNSON.
EBBA INGEBORG JOHNSON,
On February 4, 1916, Emil H. Johnson, a native of Sweden
and a naturalized citizen of the United States, died in the
city of Manila, leaving a will, dated September 9, 1915.
This document is a holographic instrument, being written
in the testator's own handwriting, and is signed by himself
and two witnesses only, instead of three witnesses
required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This will, therefore, was not executed in conformity with
the provisions of law generally applicable to wills
executed by inhabitants of these Islands.
However, a petition was presented in the Court of First
Instance of the city of Manila for the probate of this will,
on the ground that Johnson was at the time of his death a
citizen of the State of Illinois, United States of America;
that the will was duly executed in accordance with the
laws of that State; and hence could properly be probated
here pursuant to section 636 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
On March 16, 1916, the document was declared to be legal
and was admitted to probate.
On June 12, 1916, or about three months after the will had
been probated, the attorneys for Ebba Ingeborg Johnson
(Emil’s daughter with his first marriage) entered an
appearance in her behalf and noted an exception to the
order admitting the will to probate because the testator
was not a resident of the State of Illinois and the will was
not in conformity with the laws of that State. She further
suggested that Emil became a Filipino citizen and as a
legitimate heir of the testator, she cannot be deprived of
the legitime to which she is entitled under the law
governing testamentary successions in these Islands.
Issue: WON the will executed by the testator could
properly be probated under our laws.
Held: Yes. There is no law in force that Americans living
in the Philippine Islands loses their citizenship in the State
of their naturalization or nativity.; it was, therefore,
impossible for the testator, even if he had so desired, to
expatriate himself from the United States and change his
political status from a citizen of the United States to a
citizen of these Islands. This being true, it is to be
presumed that he retained his citizenship in the State of
Illinois along with his status as a citizen of the United
States.

Second paragraph of article 10 of the Civil Code, declared
that "legal and testamentary successions, with regard to
the order of succession, as well as to the amount of the
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of their
provisions, shall be regulated by the laws of the nation of
the person whose succession is in question, whatever may
be the nature of the property and the country where it
may be situate."
Furthermore, section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure
provides:
Will made here by alien. — A will made within the
Philippine Islands by a citizen or subject of another state
or country, which is executed in accordance with the law
of the state or country of which he is a citizen or subject,
and which might be proved and allowed by the law of his
own state or country, may be proved, allowed, and
recorded in the Philippine Islands, and shall have the
same effect as if executed according to the laws of these
Islands.
41. In re: Bilbao
Facts: The will in question was executed on October
6,1931, on a single page or sheet by the deceased Victor
Bilbao jointly with his Ramona M. Navarro.
The two testators in their testament directed that "all of
our respective private properties both real and personal,
and all of our conjugal properties, and any other property
belonging to either or both of us, be given and transmitted
to anyone or either of us, who may survive the other, or
who may remain the surviving spouse of the other."
The petition for probate was opposed by one Filemon
Abringe, a near relative of the deceased, among other
grounds, that the alleged will was executed by the
husband and wife for their reciprocal benefit and therefore
not valid, and that it was not executed and attested to as
required by law.
Issue: WON the single page or sheet executed by Victor
Bilbao with wife Ramona was valid and binding under the
present law.
Ruling: NO, Joint wills are prohibited under Philippine
Laws.
Under the 669 civil code (new civil code 818) two or more
persons cannot make a will jointly, or in the same
instrument, either for their reciprocal benefit or for the
benefit of a third person.
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 30
Succession
The will in question was executed on a single page or
sheet by the deceased Victor, jointly with his wife
Ramona. A joint and reciprocal will particularly between
husband and wife is invalid. When a will is made jointly
or in the same instrument, the spouse who is more
aggressive, stronger in will or character and dominant is
liable to dictate the terms of the will of his or her own
benefit or for that of third persons whom he or she desires
to favor. And, where the will is not only joint but
reciprocal, either one of the spouses who may happen to
be unscrupulous, wicked, faithless, or desperate, knowing
as he or she does the terms of the will whereby the whole
property of the spouses both conjugal and paraphernal
goes to the survivor, may be tempted to kill or dispose the
other.
42. Dacanay v. Florendo
• Isabel Florendo and Tirso Dacanay executed a joint and
reciprocal will on Oct. 20, 1940.
• Isabel died. In a special proceeding in the CFI of La
Union, Tirso sought to probate their joint and reciprocal
will, which provides that whoever of the spouses, joint
testators, shall survive the other, shall inherit all the
properties of the latter, with an agreement as to how the
surviving spouse shall dispose of the properties in case of
his or her demise.
• The relatives of the deceased Isabel V. Florendo opposed
the probate of said will on various statutory grounds.
• After receiving from counsels written arguments but
before hearing the evidence, the trial court issued an order
dismissing the petition on the ground that the will is null
and void ab initio for having been executed in violation of
Article 669 of the Civil Code (prohibition against the
execution of joint wills).
• Tirso Dacanay appealed. He argues thet Art. 669 of the
Civil Code is repealed by Act No. 190, Code of Civil
Procedure, which provides for and regulates the extrinsic
formalities of wills. Dacanay further contends that
whether two wills should be executed conjointly or
separately is but a matter of extrinsic formality.
Issue: WON the joint and reciprocal will executed by
Isabel Florence and Tirso Dacanay is null and void ab
initio?
Held: Yes

• The matter has already been decided in In re Will of
Victor Bilbao. Wherein the spouses Victor Bilbao and
Ramona Navarro executed a joint will, which provides
that all their respective private properties and conjugal
properties shall be transmitted to either of them, who may
survive the other. This will was denied probate by virtue
of Art. 669 of the Civil Code. Justice Montemayor of the
Supreme Court reasoned that Art. 669 is not repealed by
Section 614 and 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure
because a number of cases decided by the Court wherein
several articles of the Civil Code regarding wills have not
only been referred to but have also been applied side by
side with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Art. 669 has not been repealed expressly and it is not
incompatible with the Code of Civil Procedure.
• The reason for the prohibition on the execution of joint
wills, especially as regards husband and wife, is that when
a will is made jointly or in the same instrument, the
spouse who is more aggressive, stronger in will or
character and dominant is liable to dictate the terms of the
will for his or her own benefit or for that of third persons
whom he or she desires to favor.
• And, where the will is not only joint but reciprocal,
either one of the spouses who may happen to be
unscrupulous, wicked, faithless or desperate, knowing as
he or she does the terms of the will whereby the whole
property of the spouses both conjugal and paraphernal
goes to the survivor, may be tempted to kill or dispose of
the other.
• Several writers (Justice Willard, Sinco, Capistrano, Judge
Camus) is of the opinion that Art. 669 is still in force. It has
also been reproduced word for word in Art. 818 of the
New Civil Code. The implication is that the Philippine
Legislature that passed this Act and approved the New
Civil Code, including the members of the Code
Commission who prepared it, are of the opinion that the
provisions of Art. 669 of the old Civil Code are not
incompatible with those of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Notes: How is the prohibition on joint wills is an
exception to the application of foreign law?
Balane:
General Rule: Apply Article 17 (lex loci celebrecionis),
which provides that the forms and solemnities of wills is
governed by the laws of the country in which they are
executed.
Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 31
Succession
Exception: Article 818. Joint wills executed by Filipinos are
void, regardless of the place of execution. A joint
will is void, even when executed by Filipinos in a foreign
country, and such foreign country authorizes joint wills.
43 GONZALES VS CA
● On 1961, respondent Lutgarda Santiago filed a
petition with the court for the probate of a will alleged to
have been executed by the deceased Isabel Gabriel and
designating petitioner Gonzales as the principal
beneficiary and executrix.
● Petitioner and Private respondent are the nieces
of the deceased Gabriel who died a widow.
● The said will was typewritten, in Tagalog and
appeared to have been executed two months prior to the
death of Isabel.
● It consisted of 5 pages including the attestation
and acknowledgment, with the signature of testatrix on
page 4 and the left margin of all the pages.
● Lutgarda was named as the universal heir and
executor.
● The petitioner opposed the probate.
● Petitioner here contends that there was
absolutely no proof that the three instrumental witnesses
were credible witnesses.
● She argues that the requirement in Article 806,
Civil Code, that the witnesses must be credible is an
absolute requirement which must be complied with before
an alleged last will and testament may be admitted to
probate and that to be a credible witness.
● That there must be evidence on record that the
witness has a good standing in his community, or that he
is honest and upright, or reputed to be trustworthy and
reliable.
ISSUE: Whether or not the credibility of the subscribing
witnesses is material to the validity of a will.
RULING: NO.
The law requires only that witnesses possess the
qualifications under Art. 820 (NCC) and none of the
disqualifications of Art. 821.
 Case Digest/ Case Doctrines 32
Succession

Art. 820. Any person of sound mind and of the age of

eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf or dumb, and
able to read and write, may be a witness to the execution
of a will mentioned in article 806 of this Code.

Art. 821. The following are disqualified from being

witnesses to a will:

(1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines,

(2) Those who have been convicted of falsification of a

document, perjury or false testimony.

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.

Competency is distinguished from credibility, the former

being determined by Art. 820 while the latter does not
require evidence of such good standing. Credibility
depends on the convincing weight of his testimony in
court.