94. A.M. No. 2026. December 19, 1981.
After series of dismissal of different petition filed by Nenita
NENITA DE VERA SUROZA, complainant, vs. JUDGE
REYNALDO P. HONRADO of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Pasig Branch 25 and EVANGELISTA S. YUIPCO, Deputy
Clerk of Court, respondents.
Facts: Mauro Suroza, a corporal in the U.S. Army, married
Marcelina Salvador in 1923. They reared a boy named
Agapito who used the surname Suroza and who considered
them as his parents. Mauro died in 1942 and Marcelina
became a pensioner of the Federal Government. Agapito and
Nenita begot a child named Lilia. Agapito also became a
soldier. He was disabled and his wife Nenita was appointed
as his guardian. Arsenia de la Cruz, claiming to be Agapito’s
girlfriend wanted also to be his guardian in another
proceeding but this was dismissed.
On another note, Antonio Sy and Hermogena Talan begot a
child named Marilyn Sy, who, when a few days old, was
entrusted to Arsenia de la Cruz and who was later
delivered to Marcelina who brought her up as a supposed
daughter of Agapito and as her granddaughter. However, she
not legally adopted by Agapito.
Marcelina supposedly executed a notarial will in Manila on
July 23, 1973, when she was 73 years old. That will, which is
in English, was thumb marked by her. She was illiterate. Her
letters in English to the Veterans Administration were also
thumb marked by her. Marcelina allegedly bequeathed all
her estate to Marilyn.
After Marcelina’s demise, Marina Paje, alleged to be a
laundry woman of Marcelina and the executrix in her will
filed a petition for the probate of Marcelina's alleged will.
Afterwards, a series of orders were issued by Judge Reynaldo
P. Honrado of CFI of Pasig. This includes:
a. An order appointing Marina as administratrix;
b. 2 orders directing the Merchants Banking
Corporation and the Bank of America to allow
Marina to withdraw the sum of P10,000 from the
savings accounts of Marcelina and Marilyn and
requiring Corazon Castro, the custodian of the
passbooks, to deliver them to Marina;
c. An order instructing a deputy sheriff to eject the
occupants of the testratrix's house, among whom
was Nenita V. Suroza, and to place Marina in
possession thereof.
The latter order alerted Nenita to the existence of the
testamentary proceeding for the settlement of Marcelina's
estate. She filed on April 18 in the said proceedings a motion
to set aside the order ejecting them. She alleged that Agapito
was the sole heir of the deceased and that Marilyn was not
Agapito's daughter nor the decedent's granddaughter. In
spite of this, Judge Honrado issued an order probating the
subject will wherein Marilyn was the instituted heiress. On
her counter-petition, Nenita reiterated that Marilyn was a
stranger to Marcelina, that the will was not duly executed
and attested and was written in English which was not known
to the testatrix, that it was procured by means of undue
influence employed by Marina and Marilyn and that the
thumb marks of the testatrix were procured by fraud or trick.
and after noting that the executrix had delivered the estate
to Marilyn, and that the estate tax had been paid, Judge
Honrado closed the testamentary proceeding.
Nenita filed in the Court of Appeals against Judge Honrado a
petition for certiorari and prohibition wherein she prayed
that the will, the decree of probate and all the proceedings in
the probate case be declared void. Attached to the petition
was the affidavit of Domingo P. Aquino, who notarized the
will. He swore that the testatrix and the three attesting
witnesses did not appear before him and that he notarized
the will "just to accommodate a brother-lawyer on the
condition," that said lawyer would bring to the notary the
testatrix and the witnesses but the lawyer never complied
with his commitment.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because Nenita's
remedy was an appeal and her failure to do so did not entitle
her to resort to the special civil action of certiorari.
Issue: whether Judge Honrado committed negligence and
dereliction of duty in handling the testate case of Marcelina.
Ruling: yes.
The mandatory provision of Article 804 of the Civil Code
provides that every will must be executed in a language or
dialect known to the testator.
In this case, respondent judge, on perusing the will and
noting that it was written in English and was thumb marked
by an obviously illiterate testatrix, could have readily
perceived that the will is void. While the opening paragraph
of the will stated that English was a language "understood
and known" to the testatrix, it was stated in the same will
that its content was read to the testatrix and translated into
Filipino language. Such fact only indicates that the will was
written in a language not known to the illiterate testatrix.
Had respondent judge been careful and observant, he could
have noted not only the anomaly as to the language of the
will but also the hasty preparation of the will, naming
Marcelina as testator instead testatrix, the institution of
supposed granddaughter as sole heiress and giving nothing at
all to her supposed father who was still alive. He could have
also notice that the notary was not presented as a witness.
In spite of the absence of an opposition, respondent judge
should have personally conducted the hearing on the probate
of the will so that he could have ascertained whether the will
was validly executed. His negligence and dereliction of duty
was rendered inexcusable by the SC.
96. G.R. No. 6285. February 15, 1912.] testatrix is clearly established by the proofs in this case. Upon
PEDRO BARUT, petitioner-appellant, vs. FAUSTINO the facts, therefore, the will must be probated. As to the
CABACUNGAN ET AL., opponents-appellees. defense of a subsequent will, that is resolved in case No.
6284 of which we have already spoken. We there held that
Facts: Maria Salomon died on November 7, 1908, leaving a said later will was not the will of the deceased.
last will and testament wherein its terms said that Pedro
Barut received the larger part of decedent's property. Severo
Agayan, Timotea Inoselda, Catalino Ragasa, and A. M.
Jimenez are alleged to have been witnesses to the execution
thereof. Pedro filed an application for the probate of the
subject will.

This was opposed by a number of the relatives of the

deceased on various grounds, among them that a later will
had been executed by the deceased.

The probate court held that the will was not entitled to
probate upon the sole ground that the handwriting of the
person who it is alleged signed the name of the testatrix to
the will for and on her behalf looked more like the
handwriting of one of the other witnesses to the will than
that of the person whose handwriting it was alleged to be.

Issue: whether the person who writes the name of the

testator should also sign his own?

Ruling: With respect to the validity of a will, it is not

important that the person who writes the name of the
testator should also sign his own. The important thing is that
it should clearly appear that the name of the testator was
signed at his express direction, in the presence of three
witnesses, and in the presence of the testator and of each
other.

It is immaterial who writes the name of the testatrix provided

it is written at her request and in her presence and in the
presence of all the witnesses to the execution of the will.
Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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.

Mere dissimilarity in writing thus mentioned by the court is

sufficient to overcome the uncontradicted testimony of all
the witnesses to the will that the signature of the testatrix
was written by Severo Agayan at her request and in her
presence and in the presence of all of the witnesses to the
will. The main thing to be established in the execution of the
will is the signature of the testator. If that signature is
proved, whether it be written by himself or by another at his
request, it is none the less valid, and the fact of such
signature can be proved as perfectly and completely when
the person signing for the principal omits to sign his own
name as it can when he actually signs.

Aside from the presentation of an alleged subsequent will the

contestants in this case have set forth no reason whatever
why the will involved in the present litigation should not be
probated. The due and legal execution of the will by the
104. [GR No. 15025. March 15, 1920.] In the matter of the
estate of REMIGIA SAGUINSIN, deceased. ARCADIO DEL
ROSARIO, applicant-appellant, JOSE A. DEL PRADO, ET AL.,
legatees-appellants, vs. RUFINA SAGUINSIN, opponent-
appellee.

Facts: Arcadio filed a petition before the CFI of Manila for the
allowance of an instrument purported as the will of late
Remigia Saguinsin. The manuscript was allegedly signed by
the testatrix and three witnesses on October 3, 1918. These
signatures of three witnesses together with that of the
alleged testatrix are written also on the left margin of the first
page or folio and on the third page or second folio, but not
on the second page or reverse side of the first page where, as
is seen, the manuscript is continued, the second folio not
containing anything but the date and the end of the
manuscript. Under these conditions the instrument was
impugned by a sister of the alleged testatrix.

The probate court declared that the document attached to

the record could not be allowed as a will.

Issue: whether the will is extrinsically valid.

Ruling: no.

Section 618, as amended, says: "The attestation shall state

the number of sheets or pages used upon which the will is
written.

The concluding part of the will in the case at bar does not
express what that law requires. The second page
engenders the doubt whether what is written thereon was
ordered written by the alleged testatrix or was subsequently
added by the same hand that drew the first page and the
date that appears on the third.

Moreover, under Act No. 2645 provides: "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, on the left margin, and said
pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the
upper part of each sheet."

SC explained that two pages constitute one leaf. One page

represents only one-half of one leaf. The law requires that
the signature which guarantees the genuineness of the
testament shall be placed on the left hand margin of each
page and that each page should be numbered by letter in the
upper part. In the case at bar, this requirement is entirely
lacking on the second page that is, on the reverse side of the
first. Failure to comply with the law also vitiates the will and
invalidates it, as the second page is lacking in authenticity.
There is nothing which guarantees all the contents of page 2.
The margin of this page is absolutely blank. There is nothing
which gives the assurance that the testatrix ordered the
insertion of all the contents of page 2.

It is not enough that the signatures guaranteeing authenticity

should appear upon two folios or leaves; three pages having
been written, the authenticity of all three of them should be
guaranteed with the signatures of the alleged testatrix and
her witnesses.
111. [G.R. No. 47931. Junio 27, 1941.]
Testamentaria del finado Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil. ADRIANO
MENDOZA, solicitante-apelado, contra CALIXTO PILAPIL y
OTROS, opositores-apelantes.
(The whole case is written in Spanish. Used a roughly
translated version to digest the case)
Facts: Father Eleuterio Pilapil, a priest of the parish of
Mualboal of the Province of Cebu, died in the city of this
name on December 6, 1935. On February 6, 1939, his brother
Calixto filed a petition for the appointment of administrator
of the decedent’s estate. After publication of notice and
hearing, the petition was granted. Few days later, the
appellee in turn promoted the file No. 407 of which
aforementioned was made, to request the legalization as a
testament of the deceased P. Eleuterio Pilapil, of the Exhibit
A is the duplicate to the carbon of Exhibit C. The two
documents, exhibits A and C, consist of three pages; and on
the left margin of each of the first two, the signatures that
appear at the end of the main body of said documents and of
their testimony clause appear, and that are, according to the
evidence, signatures of the deceased P. Eleuterio Pilapil, and
witnesses Wenceslao Pilapil, Marcelo Pilapil and Eugenio K.
Pilapil.
Appellants opposed the legalization of Exhibits A and C on
different grounds, namely:
1. That they contain scrapes and alterations that the appellee
failed to explain;
2. That it has not been proven that the deceased, - apart
from what is stated in the aforementioned exhibits A and C -,
was of competent age to test;
3. That it has not been proven that the deceased possessed
knowledge in Spanish, which is the language in which the
aforementioned documents appear;
4. That in one of the clauses of said documents there is a
prohibition that they be aired in the Courts;
5. That neither of the two has been prepared, signed and
attested in accordance with the provisions of Article 618 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue: whether the purported will was extrinsically invalid.
Ruling: no, the will is not extrinsically valid.
The purpose of the law in establishing the formalities
required in a will, is undoubtedly to ensure and guarantee its
authenticity against bad faith and fraud, to prevent those
who have no right to succeed the testator, succeed him and
leave benefited with the legalization of it.
The wording of the testimony clause in a will is not
technically free of objections, but, it is substantially sufficient
compliance with the law. Strict compliance with the
substantive requirements of the will must be required to
ensure its authenticity, but, at the same time, defects should
not be taken into account in a way that can not affect this
purpose and that, on the other hand, if taken into account,
could frustrate the will of the testator.
In the present case, the Supreme Court ruled that The
scratches and alterations that are noticed in the exhibits A
and C did not vitiate said documents. It rather states the
facts that the deceased P. Eleuterio Pilapil was indeed a
parish priest in Mualboal, before being transferred to be
treated for his illness that caused his death, at Southern
Islands Hospital in Cebu. When preparing them, being in
Mualboal, it was not more than natural that he expressed in
the same ones that were prepared there, and left blank the
date but without forgetting to put the name of the month in
which they were made clean, that is, October 1935.
Regarding the age of the testator and as to whether he spoke
Spanish, which is the language in which the two exhibits are
written, or not, it must be said that being a priest and a priest
of the parish of Mualboal, Cebu, it must be presumed that he
was of the age competent to test, and who understood and
spoke Spanish, then, it is generally known that to be a priest
of a parish, one must be a priest, and to be a priest, many
years of study are necessary in seminars where Spanish is
spoken. A language as official as English. On the other hand, it
does not appear that it has been proven that the testator did
not understand said language.
The disposition of the testator that his "Will and Last Will not
be aired in the Court", can not deprive the Courts of his
authority to determine if his referred testament is legalizable
or not. The interested parties are not in one way or another
in a matter, which can confer or remove jurisdiction and
authority to the Courts to resolve and decide what the same
law wants to be resolved and decided. Furthermore, not
being a lawyer the testator, it is not surprising that he has
consigned in his testament the prohibition that, - using his
same words -, "be aired in the Court".
As to the argument that the pages of the will were not
numbered with letters and the clause of assurance failed to
state that they were signed by the three instrumental
witnesses, in the presence of the testator, the SC held that
fact that at the bottom of the first page there are in letters
the note that clearly says: " Go to the 2nd page ", at the
bottom of the second page, there is this other note: "Go to
the 3rd page", and the statement “consists of two articles,
contains sixteen provisions and is written in three pages” was
written on the 3rd page, constitutes substantial compliance
with the law.
118. [G.R. No. 122880. April 12, 2006.] FELIX AZUELA,
petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO
substituted by ERNESTO G. CASTILLO, respondents.
Facts: Eugenia E. Igsolo died on 16 December 1982 at the age
of 80. Petitioner Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the
notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo, which was notarized on 10
June 1981. Petitioner is the son of the cousin of the
decedent. The purported will consists of 2 pages and was
written in Pilipino. The three named witnesses to the will
affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages
of the will, but not at the bottom of the attestation clause.
The probate petition adverted to only two (2) heirs, legatees
and devisees of the decedent, namely: petitioner himself and
one Irene Lynn Igsolo, who was alleged to have resided
abroad. Petitioner prayed that the will be allowed, and that
letters testamentary be issued to the designated executor,
Vart Prague.
The petition was opposed by Geralda Castillo who
represented herself as the attorney-in-fact of "the 12
legitimate heirs" of the decedent. She claimed that the will is
a forgery, and that the true purpose of its emergence was so
it could be utilized as a defense in several court cases filed by
oppositor against petitioner, particularly for forcible entry
and usurpation of real property,all centering on petitioner's
right to occupy the properties of the decedent. She also
asserted that contrary to the representations of petitioner,
the decedent was actually survived by 12 legitimate heirs;
that the will was not executed and attested to in accordance
with law; that decedent's signature did not appear on the
second page of the will, and the will was not properly
acknowledged.
RTC admitted the will to probate.
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ordered the
dismissal of the petition for probate.
Issue: whether the will was extrinsically valid.
Ruling: no.
Art. 805. 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, and the fact that the testator signed
the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person
to write his name, under his express direction, in the
presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter
witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the
presence of the testator and of one another.
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the
witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them.
In the case at bar, the attestation clause fails to state the
number of pages of the will, a space having been allotted for
the insertion of the number of pages in the attestation
clause. Yet the blank was never filled in; hence, the requisite
was left uncomplied with. Also, the number of pages used in
the will is not stated in any part of the Will.
The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of
pages on which the will was written remains a fatal flaw,
despite Article 809. The purpose of the law in requiring the
clause to state the number of pages on which the will is
written is to safeguard against possible interpolation or
omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent any
increase or decrease in the pages. The failure to state the
number of pages equates with the absence of an averment
on the part of the instrumental witnesses as to how many
pages consisted the will, the execution of which they had
ostensibly just witnessed and subscribed to. In this case,
there could have been no substantial compliance with the
requirements under Article 805 since there is no statement in
the attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the
number of pages which comprise the will.
An examination of the will itself reveals a couple of even
more critical defects that should necessarily lead to its
rejection.
1. The attestation clause was not signed by the instrumental
witnesses. While the signatures of the instrumental witnesses
appear on the left-hand margin of the will, they do not
appear at the bottom of the attestation clause which after all
consists of their averments before the notary public.
The attestation clause is "a memorandum of the facts
attending the execution of the will" required by law to be
made by the attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear
their signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be
considered as an act of the witnesses, since the omission of
their signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their
participation.
The signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify,
among others, that the witnesses are aware that the page
they are signing forms part of the will. On the other hand, the
signatures to the attestation clause establish that the
witnesses are referring to the statements contained in the
attestation clause itself. An unsigned attestation clause
results in an unattested will.
2. The requirement under Article 806 that "every will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses" has also not been complied with. The non-
observance of Article 806 in this case is equally as critical as
the other cited flaws in compliance with Article 805, and
should be treated as of equivalent import.
The will does not present any textual proof, much less one
under oath, that the decedent and the instrumental
witnesses executed or signed the will as their own free act or
deed. The acknowledgment made in a will provides for
another all-important legal safeguard against spurious wills
or those made beyond the free consent of the testator. An
acknowledgement is not an empty meaningless act. A
notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public
by the testator and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if
it is subscribed and sworn to before a notary public

Note: A cautionary note was struck though by Justice J.B.L.

Reyes as to how Article 809 should be applied: The rule must
be limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied
by an examination of the will itself: whether all the pages
are consecutively numbered; whether the signatures appear
in each and every page; whether the subscribing witnesses
are three or the will was notarized. All these are facts that
the will itself can reveal, and defects or even omissions
concerning them in the attestation clause can be safely
disregarded. But the total number of pages, and whether all
persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other
must substantially appear in the attestation clause, being the
only check against perjury in the probate proceedings.
125. [G.R. No. 26135. March 3, 1927.] In re will of Eustaquio
Hagoriles. PETRONILO GUMBAN, petitioner-appellee, vs.
INOCENCIA GORECHO ET AL., opponents-appellants.

Facts: An appeal was made by the widow, Inocencia Gorecho,

and eighteen other opponents, from an order of the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo probating the document presented by
Petronilo Gumban as the last will and testament of the
deceased Eustaquio Hagoriles. Among the errors assigned is
included the finding of the trial court that the alleged will was
prepared in conformity with the law, notwithstanding it did
not contain an attestation clause stating that the testator and
the witnesses signed all the pages of the will.

Issue: whether the will is extrinsically valid.

Ruling: no.

The right to dispose of property by will is governed entirely

by statute. The law of the case is here found in section 618 of
the Code of Civil procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645,
and in section 634 of the same Code, as unamended. It is in
part provided in section 618, as amended, that "No will . . .
shall be valid . . . unless . . .."

It is further provided in the same section that "The

attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used,
upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator
signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other
person to write his name, under his express direction, in the
presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and
signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the
testator and of each other. "The will shall be disallowed if not
executed and attested as in this Act provided.

Note: SC stated that it would be impossible to reconcile the

Mojal and Quintana decisions. They are fundamentally at
variance. If we rely on one, we affirm the present case. If we
rely on the other, we reverse the present case.

Another note: It may not be said here that SC ruling is

predicated on technicality or injustice. The will in question
was formulated in a medley of three languages, Visayan,
English, and Spanish. Suspicious circumstances surrounded
the making of the will by the bedridden old man, who is
alleged to have signed it. However, no express
pronouncements on the two important questions relating to
the language of the will and the testamentary capacity of the
deceased are required.