In Re Will of Siason

GR. L-4132, March 23, 1908

(Tracey, J.)
FACTS:
In this special proceedings for the legalization of a will, the Court of First Instance
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. A second objection is suggested on this appeal, that the signature to the
instrument is defective. It ends in this form:
At the request of Señora Maria Siason.
CATALINO GEVA.
T. SILVERIO. FRUCTUOSO G. MORIN.
RAFAEL ESPINOS.
ISSUE:
Is the will valid?
HELD:
Yes, it can be considered a valid signature, and the will is therefore valid, because
after all, in this case, the name immediately follows the statement itself, and precedes
names of the witnesses.
 Taboada v. Hon. Rosal
GR. L-36033, Nov. 5, 1982
Gutierrez, Jr., J.
FACTS:
A petition for probate was filed by Petitioner Apolonio Taboada before the Court
of First Instance, attaching therewith the last will and testament of Dorotea Perez. The
will, written in Cebuano-Visayan dialect, consisted of two (2) pages. The first page
contains the entire testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom of the page by
Dorotea alone, and at the left margin by three (3) witnesses. The second page contained
the attestation clause and acknowledgement is signed at the end of the attestation by three
(3) witnesses and at the left margin by Dorotea. Since no opposition was filed, the Court
allowed the presentation of evidence.
However, the Court, under Judge Ramon Pamitian, issued an order denying the
probate of the will of Dorotea and ordered the submission of names of the intestate heirs.
When a new judge was assigned in the case, Respondent Judge Avelino Rosal, the Court
again denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Apolonio because he failed to
comply with the order requiring him to submit the names of intestate heirs. It ruled that
Art. 805 of the Civil Code provides that for a notarial will to be valid, it is not enough
that only the testatrix signs at the end of the page, but also the subscribing witnesses in
the same place or at the end and of one another because attesting witnesses to a will attest
not merely the will itself but also the signature of testator.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Art. 805 of the Civil Code must be strictly construed in order for a
will to be valid.

HELD:
NO, the requirement of subscription was fully satisfied. Clearly, Art. 805 of the
Civil Code stated that the will must be subscribed or signed at its end by the testator, or
by testator’s name written by another person in his presence, or by his express direction,
and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the
testator and of one another. However, the signatures of the 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.
 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. Thus, the law is to be liberally construed in view of giving the testator more
freedom in expressing his last wishes but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to
prevent commission of fraud.
 Estate of Tampoy v. Alberstine
L-14322; Feb. 25, 1960
Bautista Angelo, J.
Facts:
This concerns the probate of a document which purports to be the last will and
testament of Petronila Tampoy. After the petition was published in accordance with law
and petitioner had presented oral and documentary evidence, the trial court denied the
petition on the ground that the left hand margin of the first page of the will does not bear
the thumbmark of the testatrix. Petitioners contend that the will expresses the true
intention of the testatrix to give the property to her whose claims remain undisputed. She
wishes to emphasize that no one has filed any opposition to the probate of the will and
that while the first page does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix, the second however
bears her thumbmark and both pages were signed by the three testimonial witnesses.
Moreover, despite the fact that the petition for probate is unopposed, the three testimonial
witnesses testified and manifested to the court that the document expresses the true and
voluntary will of the deceased. Petitioner appealed from this ruling but the Court of
Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involves purely a question of law.

Issue:
Petition to probate a will on the ground that the left hand margin of the first page
of the document does not bear the thumb mark of the testatrix.

Ruling:
Section 618 of Act 190, as amended, requires that the testator sign the will and
each and every page thereof in the presence of the witnesses, and that the latter sign the
will and each and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other,
which requirement should be expressed in the attestation clause. This requirement is
mandatory, for failure to comply with it is fatal to the validity of the will (Rodriguez vs.
Alcala, 55 Phil., 150). Thus, it has been held that "Statutes prescribing the formalities to
be observed in the execution of wills are very strictly construed. As stated in 40 Cyc., at
page 1097, 'A will must be executed in accordance with the statutory requirements;
otherwise it is entirely void.' All these requirements stand as of equal importance and
must be observed, and courts cannot supply the defective execution of a will. No power
or discretion is vested in them, either to supersede other conditions or dispense with those
enumerated in the statutes" (Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil., 405, 407; See also
Saño vs. Quintana, 48 Phil., 506; Gumban vs. Gorecho 50 Phil., 30; Quinto vs. Morata,
54 Phil., 481).Since the will in question suffers from the fatal defect that it does not bear
the thumbmark of the testatrix on its first page even if it bears the signature of the three
instrumental witnesses, the same still fails to comply with the law and therefore, cannot
be admitted to probate. The order appealed from is affirmed.