Abangan v Abangan

a will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains all the
testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom by the testator
and three witnesses and the second contains only the attestation
clause and is signed also at the bottom by the three witnesses, it is
not necessary that both sheets be further signed on their margins by
the testator and the witnesses, or be paged.
Purpose is to avoid bad faith and fraud, when application of the law
satisfies this purpose there would be no need to burden the right of
the dead to the manner of disposal of his properties left behind. It is
not the object of the law to curtail or restrain such rights.
Suroza v Hondrado
In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a
language "understood and known" to the
testatrix. But in its concluding paragraph, it was stated that the will
was read to the testatrix "and translated into Filipino language". That
could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to
the illiterate testatrix and, therefore, it is void because of the
mandatory provision of article 804 hat every will must be executed in
a language or dialect known to the testator. Thus, a will written in
English, which was not known to the Igorot testator, is void and was
disallowed
Furthermore, after the hearing conducted by respondent deputy clerk
of court, respondent judge could have noticed that the notary was not
presented as a witness.
Matias
Finally, the contestant urges that the fingermark of the testatrix can
not be regarded as her valid signature
since it does not show distinct identifying ridge lines; and thence, that
the attestation clause, transcribed earlier in this opinion, should be
held defective because it fails to state that Lourdes Samonte signed
for the testator. This Court has repeatedly held that the legal requisite
that the will should be signed by the testator is satisfied by a
thumbprint or other mark affixed by him and that where such mark is
affixed by the decedent, it is unnecessary to state in the attestation
clause that another person wrote the testators name at his request.
While in some of these cases the signing by mark was described in
the will or in the attestation clause, it does not appear that the Court
ever held that the absence of such description is a fatal defect.
this Court denied probate where a will signed with a cross written
after the testators name is not a sufficient signature. But in that case
no showing was made that the cross mark was the testators habitual
signature nor was any explanation given why he should use a cross

when he knew how to sign. In this case that the illness that afflicted
the right arm of testatrix made writing a difficult and painful act,
evidently discourage attempts to sign again.
As to the clarity of the ridge impressions, it is so dependent on
aleatory circumstances (consistency of the ink, over inking, slipping of
the finger, etc.) as to require a dexterity that can be expected of very
few persons; and we do not believe testators should be required to
possess the skill of trained officers. It is to be conceded that where a
testator employs an unfamiliar way of signing, and both the
attestation clause and the will are silent on the matter, such silence is
a factor to be considered against the authenticity of the testament;
but the failure to describe the unusual signature by itself alone is not
sufficient to refuse probate when the evidence for the proponent fully
satisfies the court (as it does satisfy us in this case) that the will was
executed and witnessed as required by law.
Mercado
the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero
Mercado caused Atty. Javier to write the testator's name under his
express direction, as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Petitioner argues, however, that there is no need for such
recital because the cross written by the testator after his name is a
sufficient signature and the signature of Atty. Javier is a surplusage.
Petitioner's theory is that the cross is as much a signature as a
thumbmark, the latter having been held sufficient by this Court . 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, we are 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.
Abada V Abaja
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the intervention of a notary is not
necessary in the execution of any will. Abadas will does not require
acknowledgment before a notary public.
doctrine of estoppel does not apply in probate proceedings.
There is no statutory requirement to state in the will itself that the
testator knew the language or dialect used in the will. This is a matter
that a party may establish by proof aliunde. In these gatherings,
Abada and his companions would talk Spanish, this proves that she
speaks the Spanish
in the left margin of each and every one of the two pages consisting
of the same" shows that the will consists of two pages. | verified on
the face of the will

However, Caponong-Noble is correct in saying that the attestation

clause does not indicate the number of witnesses. On this point, the
Court agrees with the appellate court in applying the rule on
substantial compliance in determining the number of witnesses. While
the attestation clause does not state the number of witnesses, a close
inspection of the will shows that three witnesses signed it.
Attestation clause is made for the purpose of preserving, in
permanent form, a record of the facts attending the execution of the
will, so that in case of failure of the memory of the subscribing
witnesses, or other casualty, they may still be proved.
The will clearly shows 4 signatures. It is reasonable to conclude that
there are three witnesses to. The question on the number of the
witnesses is answered by an examination of the will itself and without
the need for presentation of evidence aliunde.
The phrase "in our presence" coupled with the signatures appearing
on the will itself and after the attestation clause could only mean : (1)
Abada subscribed to and professed before the 3 witnesses that the
document was his last will, and (2) he signed the will and the left
margin of each page of the will in the presence of these three
witnesses.
Precision of language in the drafting of an attestation clause is
desirable. However, it is not imperative that a parrotlike copy of the
words of the statute be made. It is sufficient if from the language
employed it can reasonably be deduced that the attestation clause
fulfills what the law expects of it.
"in its witness, every one of us also signed in our presence and of
the testator." clearly shows that the attesting witnesses witnessed
the signing by testator, and that each witness signed the will in the
presence of one another and of the testator.
AZUELA Vs CA
A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages
on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will whose attestation
clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally defective.
And perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain an
acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of
these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial will with all three
defects is just aching for judicial rejection.
The ratio decidendi of these cases seems to be that the attestation
clause must contain a statement of the number of sheets or pages
composing the will and that if this is missing or is omitted, it will have
the effect of invalidating the will if the deficiency cannot be supplied,
not by evidence aliunde, but by a consideration or examination of the
will itself. But here the situation is different. While the attestation
1

clause does not state the number of sheets or pages upon which the
will is written, however, the last part of the body of the will contains a
statement that it is composed of eight pages, which circumstance in
our opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of construction and
places it within the realm of similar cases where a broad and more
liberal view has been adopted to prevent the will of the testator from
being defeated by purely technical considerations."
We have examined the will in question and noticed that the
attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in writing
the will. This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact
that, 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.
However, in this case, the number of pages used in the will is not
stated in any part of the Will. The will does not even contain any
notarial acknowledgment wherein the number of pages of the will
should be stated.
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
Caneda suggested: "[I]t may thus be stated that the rule, as it now
stands, is that omission which can be supplied by an examination of
the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will
not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to
probate of the will being assailed. However, those omissions which
cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the
invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will
itself."31 Thus, a failure by the attestation clause to state that the
testator signed every page can be liberally construed, since that fact
can be checked by a visual examination; while a failure by the
attestation clause to state that the witnesses signed in one anothers
presence should be considered a fatal flaw since the attestation is the
only textual guarantee of compliance.
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.

the attestation clause was not signed by the instrumental witnesses.

While the signatures 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.
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 respective intents behind these two classes of signature are
distinct from each other. 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. Indeed, the attestation clause is separate and apart from the
disposition of the will. An unsigned attestation clause results in an
unattested will.
The Court may be more charitably disposed had the witnesses in this
case signed the attestation clause itself, but not the left-hand margin
of the page containing such clause.
In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public, wrote "Nilagdaan
ko at ninotario ko ngayong10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa
Lungsod ng Maynila.". those words cant be construed as an
acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has
executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and
declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step undertaken
whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that the executor of
a document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own
free act and deed
Yet even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as a
jurat, the will would nonetheless remain invalid, as the express
requirement of Article 806 is that the will be "acknowledged", and not
merely subscribed and sworn to. 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.

testator and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed

and sworn to before a notary public.
BARUT V Cabacungan
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
Abellana V Abellana
Therefore, 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 forms given above. He did not do
so, however, and this is 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.
In the case at bar the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana, does
not appear written under the will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr.
Juan Abello. There is, therefore, a failure to comply with the express
requirement in the law that the testator must himself sign the will, or
that his name be affixed thereto by some other person in his
presence and by his express direction.

Nera V Rimando - room with view, curtain, still can see

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 been 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.
Taboada V Rosal - signed at the end

An acknowledgment is not an empty meaningless act. The

acknowledgment coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses
to declare before an officer of the law that they had executed and
subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed. Such declaration
is under oath, It also provides degree of assurance that the testator is
of certain mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to those
persons he/she had designated in the will.

law uses the terms attested and subscribed 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. While, 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.

A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the

The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the

2

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.
Villacorte v Icasiano

participation in the making of the will.

The inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to one

page of a testament, due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages in
the course of signing, is not per se sufficient to justify
denial of probate. Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured
not only the fact that the testatrix and two other witnesses did sign the
defective page, but also by its bearing the coincident imprint of the
seal of the notary public before whom the testament was ratified by
testatrix and all three witnesses.

Gabucan V Manta - no 30 centavo documentary stamp

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, no intentional or deliberate
deviation existed, and the evidence on record attests to the full
observance of the statutory requisites. Otherwise, a witnesses may
sabotage the will by muddling or bungling it or the attestation clause.

whether or not the notary signed the certification of acknowledgment

in the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses, does not affect the
validity of the codicil. Unlike the Code of 1889 (Art. 699), the new Civil
Code does not require that the signing of the testator, witnesses and
notary should be accomplished in one single act.

At any rate, said duplicate, Exhibit A-1, serves to prove that the
omission of one signature in the third page of the original testament
was inadvertent and not intentional
Cagro V Cagro
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.
Cruz V Villasor - 2 witness, notary was a witness as well
the last will and testament in question was not executed in
accordance with law. 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; "before" means in front or preceding in space or
ahead of.
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

the non-admissibility of the document, which does not bear the

requisite documentary stamp, subsists only "until the requisite stamp
or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled."
Ledesma V Ledesma - saw, but signed later at the office.

A comparison of Articles 805 and 806 of the new Civil Code reveals
that while testator and witnesses sign in the presence of each other,
all that is thereafter required is that "every will must be acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses" (Art. 806);
that the latter should avow to the certifying officer the authenticity of
their signatures and the voluntariness of their actions in executing the
testamentary disposition. This was done in the case before us.

Ortega V Valmonte - pensionado 80 v 20 years old; dates

The law favors the probate of a will. Upon those who oppose it rests
the burden of showing why it should not be allowed.
The fact that public policy favors the probate of a will does not
necessarily mean that every will presented for
probate should be allowed. The law lays down the procedures and
requisites that must be satisfied for the probate of a will.
Moreover, as correctly ruled by the appellate court, the conflict
between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the
document, "because the law does not even require that a [notarial]
will x x x be executed and acknowledged on the same occasion."18
More important, the will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as
by three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the
presence of the testator and of one another. Furthermore, the testator
and the witnesses must acknowledge the will before a notary public.
The variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed execution and
attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained by the notary
public and the instrumental witnesses.

The subsequent signing and sealing by the notary of his certification

that the testament was duly acknowledged by the participants therein
is no part of the acknowledgment itself nor of the testamentary act.

Article 799. To be of sound 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 shattered by disease, injury or other
cause.

Hence their separate execution out of the presence of the testatrix

and her witnesses can not be said to violate the rule that testaments
should be completed without interruption.

"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.

It is noteworthy that Article 806 of the new Civil Code does not
contain words requiring that the testator and the witnesses should
acknowledge the testament on the same day or occasion that it was
executed.

Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in
the absence of proof to the contrary.

Guerrero V Bihis - notary public outside of his notarial jurisdiction

(1) the nature of the estate to be disposed of,

(2) the proper objects of the testators bounty,
(3) the character of the testamentary act.

Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent officer, that

is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public.
A notary public is authorized to perform notarial acts, including the
taking of acknowledgments, within that territorial jurisdiction only.
Outside theplace of his commission, he is bereft of power to perform
any notarial act; he is not a notary public. Any notarial act outside the
limits of his jurisdiction has no force and effect

three things that the testator must have the ability to know to be
considered of sound mind are as follows:

but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was
publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of
the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval.

such compliance had been rendered unnecessary by the fact that

the purpose of the law, i.e., to make known to the incapacitated
testator the contents of the draft of his will, had already been
accomplished. To reiterate, substantial compliance suffices where the
purpose has been served.
Garcia V Vasquez - eyesight poor, not able to read will
Against the background of defective eyesight of the alleged testatrix,
the appearance of the will, acquires striking significance. The
testamentary provisions, the attestation clause and acknowledgment
were crammed together into a single sheet of paper, to much so that
the words had to be written very close on the top, bottom and two
sides of the paper, leaving no margin whatsoever; the word "and" had
to be written by the symbol" &", apparently to save on space. Plainly,
the testament was not prepared with any regard for the defective
vision of Doa Gliceria.
the deceased was not unlike a blind testator, and the due execution
of her will would have required observance of the provisions of Article
808 of the Civil Code.
"ART. 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice;
once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and
again, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged."

GIL V MURCIANO - did not sign attestation clause

There is no reason why wills should not be executed by complying
substantially with the clear requisites of the law, leaving it to the
courts to supply essential elements. The right to dispose of property
by will is not natural but statutory, and statutory requirements should
be satisfied.
It will be noted that the attestation clause above quoted does not
state that the alleged testor signed the will. It declares only that it was
signed by the witnesses. This is a fatal defect, for the precise purpose
of the attestation clause is to certify that the testator signed the will,
this being the most essential element of the clause. Without it there is
no attestation at all.
An attestation clause which does not recite that the witnesses signed
the will and each and every page thereof on the left margin in the
presence of the testator is defective, and such a defect annuls the
will.

Alvarado V Gaviola
Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to those who, for
one reason or another, are "incapable of reading the(ir) will(s)." Since
Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will
and codicil on the separate occasions of their execution due to his
"poor," "defective," or "blurred" vision, there can be no other course
for us but to conclude that Brigido Alvarado comes within the scope of
the term "blind" as it is used in Art. 808.
substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law
has been satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding
the execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all
kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and
inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.
With four persons following the reading word for word with their own
copies, it can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably
assured that what was read to him (those which he affirmed were in
accordance with his instructions), were the terms actually appearing
on the typewritten documents. This is especially true when we
consider the fact that the three instrumental witnesses were
persons known to the testator.
We are unwilling to cast these aside fro the mere reason that a legal
requirement intended for his protection was not followed strictly when

mental, the latter mechanical, and 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; but 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.
While it may be true that the attestation clause is indeed subscribed
at the end thereof and at the left margin of each page by the three
attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot be conclusively inferred
therefrom that the said witness affixed their respective signatures in
the presence of the testator and of each other since, as petitioners
correctly observed, the presence of said signatures only establishes
the fact that it was indeed signed, but it does not prove that the
attesting witnesses did subscribe to the will in the presence of the
testator and of each other.
The foregoing considerations do not apply where the attestation
clause totally omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each
and every page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each
other.
It may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that omissions
which can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the
need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and,
correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the
will being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be
supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of
the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself

CANEDA VS CA
in the case of an ordinary or attested will, its attestation clause need
not be written in a language or dialect known to the testator since it
does not form part of the testamentary disposition. Furthermore, the
language used in the attestation clause likewise need not even be
known to the attesting witnesses. 18 The last paragraph of Article 805
merely requires that, in such a case, the attestation clause shall be
interpreted to said witnesses.
An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby
the attesting witnesses certify that the instrument has been executed
before them and to the manner of the execution the same. 19 It is a
separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct
of execution and once signed by the witnesses, it gives affirmation to
the fact that compliance with the essential formalities required by law
has been observed. It is made for the purpose of preserving in a
permanent form a record of the facts that attended the execution of a
particular will, so that in case of failure of the memory of the attesting
witnesses, or other casualty, such facts may still be proved
Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest and subscribe
to the will in the presence of the testator and of one another.
"Attestation" and "subscription" differ in meaning. Attestation is the
act of senses, while subscription is the act of the hand. The former is

Calde- ballpen black and blue

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 petitioners 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 decedents thumbmarking
thereof, to the alleged signing of the instrumental witnesses thereto in
consecutive order. Nonetheless, nowhere in Judge Toletes testimony
is there any kind of explanation for the different-colored signatures on
the testaments.
Cuevas V Achacocho
The only apparent anomaly we find is that it appears to be an
4

attestation made by the testator himself more than by the

instrumental witnesses. This apparent anomaly, as to affect the
validity of the will, it appearing that right under the signature of the
testator, there appear the signatures of the three instrumental
witnesses. The fact that the 3 instrumental witnesses have signed
the will immediately under the signature of the testator, shows that
they have in fact attested not only to the genuineness of his signature
but also to the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation
clause.
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, We reject petitioner's contention that it
must first be established in the record the good standing of the
witness in the community, his reputation for trustworthiness because
such attributes are presumed of the witness unless the contrary is
proved otherwise by the opposing party.
In probate proceedings, the instrumental witnesses are not character
witnesses for they merely attest the execution of a will or testament
and affirm the formalities attendant to said execution.
The competency of a person to be an instrumental witness to a will is
determined by the statute,that is Art. 820 and 821, Civil Code,
whereas his credibility depends On the appreciation of his testimony
and arises from the belief and conclusion of the Court that said
witness is telling the truth
In fine, We state the rule that the instrumental witnesses in Order to
be competent must be shown to have the qualifications under 820
and none of the disqualifications under 821 .
and for their testimony to be credible, that is worthy of belief and
entitled to credence, it is not mandatory that evidence be first
established on record that the witnesses have a good standing in the
community or that they are honest and upright or reputed to be
trustworthy and reliable, for a person is presumed to be such unless

the contrary is established otherwise.

making a will, at the time of its execution;

The attestation clause which Matilde Orobia signed is the best

evidence as to the date of signing because it preserves in permanent
form a recital of all the material facts attending the execution of the
will. This is the very purpose of the attestation clause which is made
for the preserving in permanent form a record of the facts attending
the execution of the will, so that in case of failure in the memory of
the subscribing witnesses, or other casualty they may still be proved.
Roxas De jesus V De Jesus - feb 1961, purpose substantial

(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence

of fear, or threats;

A complete date is required to provide against such contingencies as

that of two competing Wills executed on the same day, or of a testator
becoming insane on the day on which a Will was executed. There is
no such contingency in this case. We have carefully reviewed the
records of this case and found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in
its execution nor was there any substitution of Wins and Testaments.
There is no question that the holographic Will of the deceased was
entirely written, dated, and signed by the testatrix herself and in a
language known to her. There is also no question as to its
genuineness and due execution. All the children of the testatrix agree
on the genuineness of the holographic Will of their mother and that
she had the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of said
Will. The objection interposed by the oppositor- is that the
holographic Will is fatally defective because the date "FEB./61 " is not
sufficient compliance with 810. This objection is too technical to be
entertained.

Kalaw - erasures, alterations

Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and
interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will litem not
been noted under his signature, ... the Will is not thereby invalidated
as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased,
corrected or interlined.
However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had
only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the
original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the
requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the
effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple
reason that nothing remains in the Will after that which could remain
valid.
Ajero
Art. 839: The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases;
(1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;
(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of

(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence,

on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person;
(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;
(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the
instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his
signature thereto
A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its
requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the
holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and
date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions
cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the
whole testament void.
Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or
insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on
testator's signature, their presence does not invalidate the will itself.
The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such
changes.
It is also proper to note that the requirements of authentication of
changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions
(Articles 813 and 814) separate from that which provides for the
necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article
810).
This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that
only the requirements of Article 810 of the New Civil Code and not
those found in Articles 813 and 814 of the same Code are
essential to the probate of a holographic will.
Labrado V CA - Labrador | where to put a date
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.
The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the execution of
the will is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the
paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will was not an agreement
but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who plainly knew that what he
was executing was a will. The act of partitioning and the declaration
5

that such partitioning as the testator's instruction or decision to be

followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of the nature of
the estate property to be disposed of and of the character of the
testamentary act as a means to control the disposition of his estate.

the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will

may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of
the deceased can be determined by the probate court

under Art. 811, the resort to expert evidence is conditioned by the

words "if the court deem it necessary", which reveal that 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.
based on the language used, that Article 811 of the Civil Code is
mandatory. The word "shall" connotes a mandatory order.

Alto-Yap V Yap
In the matter of holographic wills, no such guaranties of truth and
veracity are demanded, since as stated, theyneed no witnesses;
provided however, that they are "entirely written, dated, and signed
by the hand of the testator himself."
The law, it is reasonable to suppose, regards the document itself as
material proof of authenticity, and as its own safeguard, since it could
at any time, be demonstrated to be or not to be in the hands of
the testator himself. "In the probate of a holographic will" says the
New Civil Code, "it shall be necessary that at least one witness who
knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare
that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If
the will is contested, at least three such witnesses shall be required.
In the absence of any such witnesses, (familiar with decedent's
handwriting) and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may
be resorted to."
unlike holographic wills, ordinary wills may be proved by testimonial
evidence when lost or destroyed. The difference lies in the nature of
the wills. In the first, the only guarantee of authenticity is the
handwriting itself; in the second, the testimony of the subscribing or
instrumental witnesses (and of the notary, now). The loss of the
holographic will entails the loss of the only medium of proof; if the
ordinary will is lost, the subscribing witnesses are available to
authenticate.
Bonilla V Aranza- photocopy
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.
Footnote in Gam V Yap

Azaola V Singson - 3 witness if contested, merely permissive

We agree with the appellant that since the authenticity of the will was
not contested, he was not required to produce more than one
witness; but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were
contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 can not be
interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three
witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator. Since no witness
may have been present at the execution of a holographic will, none
being required by law. 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. That is evidently the reason why the second paragraph
of Article 811 prescribes that in the absence of any competent
witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court
deems it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.
But it can not be ignored that the requirement can be considered
mandatory only in the case of ordinary testaments, precisely because
the presence of at least three witnesses at the execution of ordinary
wills is made by law essential to their validity (Art. 805). Where the
will is holographic, no witness need be present (Art. 10), and the rule
requiring production of three witnesses must be deemed merely
permissive if absurd results are to be avoided.
the first paragraph of Article 811 of the Civil Code is merely directory
and is not mandatory.

We have ruled that "shall" in a statute commonly denotes an

imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion
and that the presumption is that the word "shall," when used in a
statute is mandatory
From the testimonies of these witnesses, the Court of Appeals
allowed the will to probate and disregard the requirement of three
witnesses in case of contested holographic will, citing the decision in
Azaola vs. Singson,ruling that the requirement is merely directory and
not mandatory.
In the case of Ajero vs. Court of Appeals,32 we said that "the object
of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the
door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore, the
laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain
these primordial ends. But on the other hand, also one must not lose
sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and
curtail the exercise of the right to make a will.
However, we cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document
being adjudged as the will of the testator, which is why if the
holographic will is contested, that law requires three witnesses to
declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.
The will was found not in the personal belongings of the deceased
but with one of the respondents, who kept it even before the death of
the deceased.
In the testimony of Ms. Binanay, she revealed that the will was in her
possession as early as 1985, or five years before the death of the
deceased. There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the
signature and the handwriting of the deceased with other documents
signed and executed by her during her lifetime. The only chance at
comparison was during the cross examination of Ms. Binanay when
the lawyer of petitioners asked Ms. Binanay to compare the
documents which contained the signature of the deceased with that
of the holographic will and she is not a handwriting expert. Even the
former lawyer of the deceased expressed doubts as to the
authenticity of the signature in the holographic will.

Cudoy V Calugay
6