1 MAGPATOC, PRINCESS F.

JD 301 SUCCESSION

1. What are After-Acquired Properties? What is the Rule on After-Acquired Properties? What are its
exceptions? Will Article 793 be applicable to institution of heirs in general?

After-Acquired Properties are those which are acquired by the testator after he/she executed the will and
before his/her death.

The rule on After-Acquired Properties is that it will only pass to the instituted heirs as if the testator had
already possessed or owned it at the time of the execution of his will, if it expressly appears that it was
the testator’s intention.

With regards to the application of Art. 793, said article should be made to apply only to legacies and
devices and not to the institution of heirs in general because to apply it to the latter case would create a
conflict with the concept of inheritance under 776 and 781 of the Civil Code which includes all property,
rights, and obligations of person which are not extinguished by a person’s death.

2. Who can make a will? What are the requisites so that a person can make a will?

Only a natural person may make a will. A testator must at least be 18 years of age at the time of the
execution of his will. Additionally, a person must be possessed of a sound mind at the time of the making
of the will.

“Does a convict serving a penalty that carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction have testamentary
capacity?”

Yes, a convict under civil interdiction is allowed to make a will. This is because civil interdiction prohibits a
disposition of property inter vivos, not mortis causa.

“Can a person under guardianship write a will? Can a guardian write a will on behalf of his ward?”

Yes, a person under guardianship may write a will since the law does not disqualify them, it is believed
that spendthrifts or prodigals, even if under guardianship, can make a will provided they are at least
18 years old and are of sound mind.

“Who among the following have testamentary capacity – a chronically absent-minded person, an
imbecile, a person suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease, or a person with Down Syndrome?”

A chronically absent-minded person may execute a will. In the case of Baltazar V. Laxa, the Supreme Court
held that being a forgetful person does not necessarily make a person mentally unsound as to render him
unfit. Under the law, a person is deemed of sound mind if he knows the nature of the estate to be
disposed of; the proper objects of his bounty; and the character of the testamentary act at the time of the
execution of the will. A person may be forgetful but he would still be able to know the consequences of
his actions.

On the other hand an imbecile and person suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease and Down Syndrome may
not have the testamentary capacity. In the case of a person with Alzheimer, he may become unable to
make some decisions for themselves. When this happens, the person is said to lack the 'mental capacity'
to make the specific decision at that time thereby making him unfit to make a will. The same holds true
for an imbecile and a person with Down Syndrome for they have the mental capacity of a child prone to
undue influences by people around them. As a result, the execution of a will being a personal act will not
be satisfied. Therefore, said persons above-mentioned should not be deemed to have testamentary
capacity.

3. What is meant by soundness of mind? What is the presumption of law as to this? Who has the burden
of proving that Testator was not of sound mind at the time of making the will?

Under the law, a person is deemed of sound mind if he knows the nature of the estate to be disposed of;
the proper objects of his bounty; and the character of the testamentary act at the time of the execution of
the will. It is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of his reasoning faculties, or that his
mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease or other cause.

The law presumes that every person is of sound mind and anyone who alleges that the testator is of
unsound mind at the time of the execution of the will has the burden of proving the same. However, this
burden or onus shifts to the proponent of the will if one month or less prior to the execution of the will,
the testator was publicly known to be insane.
2 MAGPATOC, PRINCESS F.
JD 301 SUCCESSION

4. Does the law recognize oral or noncupative wills in our jurisdiction? What are the formalities of a will in
the Philippines?

No. Philippine law recognizes written wills only which may either be notarial wills or holographic wills. A
notarial will is one which is subscribed, attested and acknowledged before a notary public. While a
holographic will is one which must be entirely written, dated and signed by the testator’s hand and which
need not be witnessed or acknowledged before a notary public.

5. Should the attestation clause be in a language or dialect known to the witnesses of the will?

No, the attestation clause need not to be in a language or dialect known to the witnesses of the will.
What is important is that it will be interpreted to them.

6. What is the difference between Subscription and Attestation? What are the contents of the attestation
clause?

Subscription is the act of the hand pertaining to the mechanical act. To subscribe a paper published as a
will is only to write on the same paper the names of the witnesses, for the sole purpose of identification.
On the other hand, attestation is the act of senses, it is mental. To attest a will is to know that it was
published as such, and to certify the facts required to constitute an actual and legal publication.

7. The will in question comprises two pages, each of which is written on one side of a separate sheet. The
first sheet is not paged either in letters or in Arabic numerals. This, the appellant Liboro believes, is a fatal
defect. Is appellant correct? Explain.

No. The purpose of the law in prescribing the paging of wills is to prevent fraud and the substitution or of
defecting the loss of any of its page. Absent any proof that the execution of the will was made with fraud,
such omission of page numbers of the will shall not be treated as a fatal defect to the validity thereof.
Thus, the Supreme Court in the Liboro case ruled that the omission to put a page number in the first
sheet, if that be necessary, is supplied by other forms of identification more trustworthy than the
conventional numerical words or characters. The unnumbered pages is clearly identified as the first page
by the internal sense of its contents considered in relation to the contents of the second page.

8. The Testator affixed his Thumbmark in his will instead of signing his name. The reason for this was that
Testator was suffering from “partial paralysis”. Is the will valid? Explain.

Yes. Because when the law said that the will shall be ‘signed’ by the testator or testatrix, the law is fulfilled
not only by the customary written signature but by the testator or testatrix’ thumb mark. The
construction put upon the word ‘signed’ by most courts is the original meaning of a signum or sign, rather
than the derivative meaning of a sign manual or handwriting. The Supreme Court ruled in De Gala v.
Gonzales and Ona that a statute requiring a will to be ‘signed’ is satisfied if the signature is made by the
testator’s mark.

9. The will shows an unexplained cross instead of the signature of Testator. Is the will valid? Explain.

No. While it’s true that under the law the construction put upon the word ‘signed’ by most courts is the
original meaning of a signum or sign, rather than the derivative meaning of a sign manual or handwriting,
said rule is not applicable to a cross. The Court ruled in the case of Garcia v La Cuesta, that an unexplained
cross not being the testator’s usual signature was insufficient. The court added that it is not prepared to
liken the mere sign of a cross to a thumbmark, for the reason that a cross does not have the
trustworthiness of a thumbmark.

10. One of the witnesses to the will was in the act of leaving, and his back was turned while a portion of
the name of another witness was being written. Is the will valid? Explain using the true test of vision.

The will is valid. The true test of vision is not whether the testator actually saw the witness sign, but
whether he might have seen him sign considering his mental and physical condition and position at the
time of the subscription. In the case at bar, said witness was only in the act of leaving, and his back was
turned while a portion of the name of another witness was being written. It is sufficient that the witnesses
are together for such purpose and in the position to witness each other writing and attesting to the
execution of the will.

11. The Testator and witnesses signed on the right margin of each page other than the last page of the
will. Is the will valid? Explain using the rule on marginal signatures.

Yes. The law requires that there must be marginal signatures on each and every page of the notarila will
as a safeguard that there will be no substitution or deletion of page. However, In the case of Avera v.
Garcia, the Supreme Court ruled that where the signatures of the testator and witnesses shall be written
on the left margin of each page rather than on the right margin will not affect the validity of the will
insofar as concerns the authentication of the will, and of every part thereof. It can make no possible
3 MAGPATOC, PRINCESS F.
JD 301 SUCCESSION

difference whether the names appear on the left or no the right margin, provided they are on one or the
other. The will of the testator contains the necessary signatures on every page, and the only point of
deviation from the requirement of the statute is that these signatures appear in the right margin instead
of the left.

12. The will consists of five pages and while signed at the end and in every page, it failed to contain the
signature of one of the attesting witnesses on page 3 thereof, BUT the duplicate copy attached was signed
by the Testator and the witnesses in each and every page. Is the will valid? Explain.

Yes, the will is valid. The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix
on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she had no control, where the
purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently
attained. Absent any intentional or deliberate deviation, the will should not be invalidated for an omission
which was purely an oversight.

13. Is attestation the same as acknowledgment? Explain.

No. In Tabaoda v Rosal, the court clarified that an attestation consists in the 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, an acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed, attesting the deed to be his own
before some competent officer. Too, the notary declares that the executor of the document has
personally attested before him or her the same to be the executor's free act.

14. Does the Civil Code require that the signing of the Testator, witnesses and notary public be
accomplished in one single occasion? Explain.

No. The Civil Code does not require that the signing of the testator, witnesses and notary should be
accomplished in one single act. What the law requires is that every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. So long as the testator and the witnesses signed the will
in the presence of each other even if it would be acknowledged before a notary public later in time, still in
the presence of each other, then the will is valid.

15. Is notarial will a public instrument? Explain.

No. A notarial will, even if acknowledged before a notary public, is not a public instrument because the
notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the Office of the Clerk
of Court. Acknowledgement is done to allow criminal prosecution of persons who participate in the
execution of spurious wills, or those executed without the free consent of the testator.

16. Can a notary public be an attesting witness? Explain.

No. To allow the notary public to act as third witness or one of the witnesses who will attest the will and
at the same time acknowledge the same will have the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the
will which would be in contravention of the provisions of law that there must be at least 3 witnesses.

17. What are the special rules for Deaf, Deaf-Mute and Blind?

In case of a deaf, deaf-mute, and blind testator, the law requires that if he is not able to personally read
the will, he must designate two persons to read and communicate the contents thereof to him in some
practicable manner.

As for a blind testator, the will must be read to him twice. First, by one of the subscribing witnesses and
second, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged.

18. Explain the substantial compliance rule under Article 809 of the Civil Code.

Under Article 809, the substantial compliance rule or the doctrine of liberal interpretation provides that in
the absence of bad faith, forgery, fraud and undue influence, the defects and imperfections either in
forms of the attestation clause, or in the language thereof shall not invalidate the will provided that it was
executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements od Article 805.

19. What is a holographic will? Is the will containing the date “Feb./61” in a holographic will valid? Explain.

A holographic will is one executed by the testator himself by writing, dating, and signing it by his own
hand without the need of attestation and acknowledgement.

As a general rule, a complete date is required to provided against contingencies as that of two competing
wills executed on the same day, or of a testator becoming insane on the day on which a will was made.
However, It was ruled in the case of Roxas de Jesus V. de Jesus, a will containing the date “Feb./61” is
4 MAGPATOC, PRINCESS F.
JD 301 SUCCESSION

sufficient compliance when there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, or undue influence. The court held
the will as valid taking into account the rule provided in Article 810.

20. Is a witness required in the execution of a holographic will? What about in the probate of a
holographic will? Explain.

No. A witness in the execution of a holographic will is not required. However, in the probate of a
holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness will be present who knows the handwriting
and signature of the testator. In case the probate of the will is contested, the three-witness rule shall be
applied.