Lopez vs Liboro

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1948/aug1948/gr_l-1787_1948.html
Facts:
Agustin Liboro filed a case opposing the last will and testament of Sixto Lopez. He questioned
the validity of the will stating the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.

The first sheet, which is also the first page is not paged either in letters or in Arabic numerals;
Witnesses to the will provided contradictory statements;
Decedent used thumbmark to sign the will;
No indication in the will that the language used therein is known by decedent

Issue:
WON will is valid
Held:
The SC held the will to be valid.
In regards to the failure to page the first sheet, the court held that the purpose of the law in
prescribing the paging of wills is guard against fraud, and to afford means of preventing the
substitution or of defecting the loss of any of its pages. In the present case, the omission to put a page
number on the first sheet is not necessary, if it is supplied by other forms of identification more
trustworthy than the conventional numerical words or characters. The unnumbered page is clearly
identified as the first page by the internal sense of its contents considered in relation to the contents of
the second page. By their meaning and coherence, the first and second lines on the second page are
undeniably a continuation of the last sentence of the testament, before the attestation clause, which
starts at the bottom of the preceding page. Furthermore, the unnumbered page contains the caption
"TESTAMENTO," the invocation of the Almighty, and a recital that the testator was in full use of his
testamentary faculty, all of which, in the logical order of sequence, precede the direction for the
disposition of the marker's property. Again, as page two contains only the two lines above mentioned,
the attestation clause, the mark of the testator and the signatures of the witnesses, the other sheet
can not by any possibility be taken for other than page one.
In regards to witnesses providing contradictory statements, the court held that in the field of
experimental psychology, it shows that the contradictions of witnesses far from being an evidence of
falsehood constitute a demonstration of good faith. Inasmuch as not all those who witness can be
supposed to have perceived, or to recall in the same order in which they occurred.
In regards to using thumbmark as a signature, the SC deemed it valid, since the decedent was
suffering from partial paralysis. While another in the testators place might have directed another to
sign for him, there is nothing curious or suspicious in the fact that the testator chose the use of a mark
to authenticate his will. It was a matter of taste and preference. Both ways are good. Hence, a statute
requiring a will to be signed is satisfied if the signature is made by the testator's mark.
In regards to non-indication in the will of language used by decedent, the court held that there
is no statutory requirement that such knowledge be expressly stated in the will. It is a matter that may
be established by proof aliunde.
Note: The Latin aliunde means from another source; from elsewhere; from outside. It is often used to
refer to evidence given aliunde when meaning cannot be derived from a document or instrument itself.
In certain cases, a written instrument may be explained by evidence aliunde e.g. the testimony of a

witness in conversations, admissions or preliminary negotiations. It is often used to refer to evidence

given aliunde when meaning cannot be derived from a document or instrument itself.
Suroza vs Honrado
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1981/dec1981/am_2026_1981.html
Facts:
Marcelina Suroza allegedly executed a will bequeathing all her properties to Marilyn Suroza,
the supposed daughter of Agapito. At the time of her death, it was stated in the alleged will that Marina
Paje, laundrywoman of decedent, would be named executrix of the estate of Marcelina. Paje
petitioned that the will be admitted to probate, of which, judge Honrado assigned as administratrix.
Thereafter, the judge issued an ejectment order against the occupant, Nenita Suroza, wife of Agapito,
ordering her to vacate the house.
Nenita, upon knowledge of the ejectment order opposed the probate of the will on the following
grounds:
1. The instituted heir therein, Marilyn Suroza, is actually Marilyn Sy and she is a stranger to
Marcelina;
2. The only son, Agapito, is still alive and is the compulsory heir;
3. Will is written in english which was not known by the testator because the latter was so illiterate
that she merely thumbmarked the will;
4. Notary Public who notarized the will admitted that Marcelina never appeared before him and
that he notarized the will merely to accommodate the request of a lawyer friend with the
understanding that Marcelina should later appear before him but did not.
Despite such knowledge, Honrado still continued the probate until testamentary proceedings closed
and property transferred to Marilyn Sy, hence, this administrative case filed by Nenita to the SC.
Issue:
WON Honrado is guilty for admitting into probate a void will.
Held:
Yes. He is liable for disciplinary action for his improper disposition of the case which would
have caused miscarriage of justice because the decedent's legal heirs and not the instituted heiress in
the void will should have inherited the decedent's estate. In the case at bar, despite the valid claim by
Nenita, he still continued probation of the void will, this showed his wrongful intent.
Furthermore, the will is written in English and was thumb marked by an obviously illiterate. This
could have readily been perceived by Honrado that the will is void. 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 of the Civil Code
that every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. Had Honrado been
careful and observant, he could have noted not only the anomaly as to the language of the will but
also that there was something wrong in instituting Marilyn Sy as sole heiress and giving nothing at all
to Agapito her supposed father and son of Marcelina.

Abangan vs Abangan
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1919/nov1919/gr_l-13431_1919.html
Facts:
The CFI of Cebu admitted to probate the will of Ana Abangan. It is from this decision that the
opponent appealed. It is alleged that the pages of the will were not signed by the testatrix and 3
witnesses on the left margin; and that the records do not show that the testatrix knew the dialect the
will was written.
Issue:
WON the will is valid.
Held:
Yes. The will is valid.
In regards to the fact that pages were not signed in the left margin, the SC held that in 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. 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 primordal 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. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other
interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary,
useless and frustative of the testator's last will, must be disregarded.
In regards to the will not showing that decedent knew the dialect of the will, it was held that the
circumstances that it was executed in the city of Cebu and in the dialect of the locality where the
testatrix resides, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, the presumption is that she knew the
dialect in which the will is written.

Balonan vs Abellana
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1960/aug1960/gr_l-15153_1960.html
Facts:
Anacleta Abellana left a will. In said will, she let a certain Juan Bello sign the will for her. The
will consists of two pages. The first page is signed by Juan Abello and under his name appears
typewritten Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana. On the second page, appears the signature of Juan
Bello under whose name appears the phrase, Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana this time, the
phrase is handwritten.
Issue:
WON the signature of Bello appearing above the typewritten phrase Por la testadora Anacleta
Abellana comply with the requirements of the law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be
executed.
Held:
No. Article 805 of the Civil Code provides that:
Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator
himself or by the testators 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.
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 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.
Note that the phrase Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana was typewritten and above it was the
signature of Abello so in effect, when Abello only signed his name without writing that he is doing so
for Anacleta, he actually omitted the name of the testatrix. This is a substantial violation of the law and
would render the will invalid.

Garcia vs Lacuesta
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1951/nov1951/gr_l-4067_1951.html
Facts:
Apparently before Antero Mercado died, a will had been caused to be made. The will was
signed by Atty Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero Mercado followed by A reugo del
testator and the name of Florentino Javier. Antero is alleged to have written a cross mark immediately
after his name. Upon appeal to the CA, it held that the attestation clause failed to include that Javier
was signing on behalf of the decedent; that after Javier signed the name at the decedent's request,
testator had written a cross after his name and on the left margin of the pages of the will; that the 3
witnesses signed the will in all pages thereon and in the presence of the testator and each other.
Hence, the petition in the SC.
Issue:
WON the will is valid
Held:
No. It was held by the court that the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to specify
that Antero caused Javier to write the testator's name under his direction. Furthermore, it is not here
pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the usual signature of Antero Mercado or even one of
the ways by which he signed his name. After mature reflection, the SC held that it is not prepared to
liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark, and the reason is obvious. The cross cannot and
does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-13431

November 12, 1919

In re will of Ana Abangan.

GERTRUDIS ABANGAN, executrix-appellee,
vs.
ANASTACIA ABANGAN, ET AL., opponents-appellants.
Filemon Sotto for appellants.
M. Jesus Cuenco for appellee.

AVANCEA, J.:
On September 19, 1917, the Court of First Instance of Cebu admitted to probate Ana Abangan's will
executed July, 1916. From this decision the opponent's appealed.
Said document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's will, consists of two sheets, the first of which contains all
of the disposition of the testatrix, duly signed at the bottom by Martin Montalban (in the name and under the
direction of the testatrix) and by three witnesses. The following sheet contains only the attestation clause
duly signed at the bottom by the three instrumental witnesses. Neither of these sheets is signed on the left
margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses, nor numbered by letters; and these omissions, according
to appellants' contention, are defects whereby the probate of the will should have been denied. We are of
the opinion that the will was duly admitted to probate.
In requiring that each and every sheet of the will should also be signed on the left margin by the testator
and three witnesses in the presence of each other, Act No. 2645 (which is the one applicable in the case)
evidently has for its object (referring to the body of the will itself) to avoid the substitution of any of said
sheets, thereby changing the testator's dispositions. But when these dispositions are wholly written on only
one sheet signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses (as the instant case), their signatures
on the left margin of said sheet would be completely purposeless. In requiring this signature on the margin,
the statute took into consideration, undoubtedly, the case of a will written on several sheets and must have
referred to the sheets which the testator and the witnesses do not have to sign at the bottom. A different
interpretation would assume that the statute requires that this sheet, already signed at the bottom, be
signed twice. We cannot attribute to the statute such an intention. As these signatures must be written by
the testator and the witnesses in the presence of each other, it appears that, if the signatures at the bottom
of the sheet guaranties its authenticity, another signature on its left margin would be unneccessary; and if
they do not guaranty, same signatures, affixed on another part of same sheet, would add nothing. We
cannot assume that the statute regards of such importance the place where the testator and the witnesses
must sign on the sheet that it would consider that their signatures written on the bottom do not guaranty the
authenticity of the sheet but, if repeated on the margin, give sufficient security.
In requiring that each and every page of a will must be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the
upper part of the sheet, it is likewise clear that the object of Act No. 2645 is to know whether any sheet of
the will has been removed. But, when all the dispositive parts of a will are written on one sheet only, the
object of the statute disappears because the removal of this single sheet, although unnumbered, cannot be
hidden.

What has been said is also applicable to the attestation clause. Wherefore, without considering whether or
not this clause is an essential part of the will, we hold that in the one accompanying the will in question, the
signatures of the testatrix and of the three witnesses on the margin and the numbering of the pages of the
sheet are formalities not required by the statute. Moreover, referring specially to the signature of the
testatrix, we can add that same is not necessary in the attestation clause because this, as its name implies,
appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator since the latter does not attest, but executes, the
will.
Synthesizing our opinion, we hold that in 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.
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 primordal 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. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any
other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary,
useless and frustative of the testator's last will, must be disregarded.
lawphil.net

As another ground for this appeal, it is alleged the records do not show that the testarix knew the dialect in
which the will is written. But the circumstance appearing in the will itself that same was executed in the city
of Cebu and in the dialect of this locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is enough, in the absence of
any proof to the contrary, to presume that she knew this dialect in which this will is written.
For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against the
appellants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15153

August 31, 1960

In the Matter of the summary settlement of the Estate of the deceased

ANACLETA ABELLANA. LUCIO BALONAN, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
EUSEBIA ABELLANA, et al., oppositors-appellants.
T. de los Santos for appellee.
Climaco and Climaco for appellants.
LABARADOR, J.:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City admitting to probate the will of one
Anacleta Abellana. The case was originally appealed to the Court of Appeals where the following
assignment of error is made:
The appellants respectfully submit that the Trial Court erred in holding that the supposed testament,
Exh. "A", was signed in accordance with law; and in admitting the will to probate.
In view of the fact that the appeal involves a question of law the said court has certified the case to us.
The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:
It appears on record that the last Will and Testament (Exhibit "A"), which is sought to be probated,
is written in the Spanish language and consists of two (2) typewritten pages (pages 4 and 5 of the
record) double space. The first page is signed by Juan Bello and under his name appears
typewritten "Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana, residence Certificate A-1167629, Enero 20, 1951,
Ciudad de Zamboanga', and on the second page appears the signature of three (3) instrumental
witnesses Blas Sebastian, Faustino Macaso and Rafael Ignacio, at the bottom of which appears
the signature of T. de los Santos and below his signature is his official designation as the notary
public who notarized the said testament. On the first page on the left margin of the said instrument
also appear the signatures of the instrumental witnesses. On the second page, which is the last
page of said last Will and Testament, also appears the signature of the three (3) instrumental
witnesses and on that second page on the left margin appears the signature of Juan Bello under
whose name appears handwritten the following phrase, "Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana'. The
will is duly acknowledged before Notary Public Attorney Timoteo de los Santos. (Emphasis
supplied)
The appeal squarely presents the following issue: Does the signature of Dr. Juan A. Abello above the
typewritten statement "Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana . . ., Ciudad de Zamboanga," comply with the
requirements of law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be executed?
The present law, Article 805 of the Civil Code, in part provides as follows:
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 witness in the presence of the
testator and of one another. (Emphasis supplied.)

The clause "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," is practically the same as the
provisions of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) which reads as follows:
No will, except as provided in the preceding section shall be valid to pass any estate, real or
personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be in writing and signed by the testator, or by the
testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and
attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of
each other. . . . (Emphasis supplied).
Note that the old law as well as the new require that the testator himself sign the will, or if he cannot do so,
the testator's name must be written by some other person in his presence and by his express direction.
Applying this provision this Court said in the case of Ex Parte Pedro Arcenas, et al., Phil., 700:
It will be noticed from the above-quoted section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure that where the
testator does not know how, or is unable, to sign, it will not be sufficient that one of the attesting
witnesses signs the will at the testator's request, the notary certifying thereto as provided in Article
695 of the Civil Code, which, in this respect, was modified by section 618 above referred to, but it is
necessary that the testator's name be written by the person signing in his stead in the place where
he could have signed if he knew how or was able to do so, and this in the testator's presence and
by his express direction; so that a will signed in a manner different than that prescribed by law shall
not be valid and will not be allowed to be probated.
Where a testator does not know how, or is unable for any reason, to sign the will himself, it shall be
signed in the following manner:
John Doe by the testator, Richard Doe; or in this form: "By the testator, John Doe, Richard Doe." All
this must be written by the witness signing at the request of the testator.
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.
The same ruling was laid down in the case of Cuison vs. Concepcion, 5 Phil., 552. In the case of Barut vs.
Cabacungan, 21 Phil., 461, we held that the important thing is that it clearly appears that the name of the
testatrix was signed at her express direction; it is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of
the testatrix signs his own or not. Cases of the same import areas follows: (Ex Parte Juan Ondevilla, 13
Phil., 479, Caluya vs.Domingo, 27 Phil., 330; Garcia vs. Lacuesta, 90 Phil., 489).
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.
It appearing that the above provision of the law has not been complied with, we are constrained to declare
that the said will of the deceased Anacleta Abellana may not be admitted to probate.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside and the petition for the probate of the will
denied. With costs against petitioner.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-4067

November 29, 1951

In the Matter of the will of ANTERO MERCADO, deceased. ROSARIO GARCIA, petitioner,
vs.
JULIANA LACUESTA, ET AL., respondents.
Elviro L. Peralta and Hermenegildo A. Prieto for petitioner.
Faustino B. Tobia, Juan I. Ines and Federico Tacason for respondents.
PARAS, C.J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals disallowing the will of Antero Mercado dated
January 3, 1943. The will is written in the Ilocano dialect and contains the following attestation clause:
We, the undersigned, by these presents to declare that the foregoing testament of Antero Mercado
was signed by himself and also by us below his name and of this attestation clause and that of the
left margin of the three pages thereof. Page three the continuation of this attestation clause; this will
is written in Ilocano dialect which is spoken and understood by the testator, and it bears the
corresponding number in letter which compose of three pages and all them were signed in the
presence of the testator and witnesses, and the witnesses in the presence of the testator and all
and each and every one of us witnesses.
In testimony, whereof, we sign this statement, this the third day of January, one thousand nine
hundred forty three, (1943) A.D.
(Sgd.) NUMERIANO EVANGELISTA

(Sgd.) "ROSENDA CORTES

(Sgd.) BIBIANA ILLEGIBLE

The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero Mercado,
followed below by "A reugo del testator" and the name of Florentino Javier. Antero Mercado is alleged to
have written a cross immediately after his name. The Court of Appeals, reversing the judgement of the
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, ruled that the attestation clause failed (1) to certify that the will was
signed on all the left margins of the three pages and at the end of the will by Atty. Florentino Javier at the
express request of the testator in the presence of the testator and each and every one of the witnesses; (2)
to certify that after the signing of the name of the testator by Atty. Javier at the former's request said
testator has written a cross at the end of his name and on the left margin of the three pages of which the
will consists and at the end thereof; (3) to certify that the three witnesses signed the will in all the pages
thereon in the presence of the testator and of each other.
In our opinion, the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero Mercado caused Atty.
Florentino Javier to write the testator's name under his express direction, as required by section 618 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The herein petitioner (who is appealing by way of certiorari from the decision of
the Court of Appeals) 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. Florentino 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 in the cases of De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil., 104;
Dolar vs. Diancin, 55 Phil., 479; Payad vs. Tolentino, 62 Phil., 848; Neyra vs. Neyra, 76 Phil., 296 and
Lopez vs. Liboro, 81 Phil., 429.

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.
What has been said makes it unnecessary for us to determine there is a sufficient recital in the attestation
clause as to the signing of the will by the testator in the presence of the witnesses, and by the latter in the
presence of the testator and of each other.
Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with against the petitioner. So ordered.
Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.