GRAY → IN THE BOOK, NOT IN THE LIST

RED → DON'T READ // NEXT SET OF CASES

LIST BOOK REMEMBER
1. GORDON v. PORTLAND TRUST BANK Proceeds amounted to 26, 352.75 USD
Deceased Albert Gordon left behind proceeds of - No actual decision as to what rights beneficiary
15 policies of life insurance; said insurance that has-- whether vested, expectant, or contingent.
he delivered to the bank in a written instrument - The rights of the beneficiary are actually the
and executed with Albert as trustor and bank as primary rights in a life insurance, and the rights
trustee. Leotta Belle, executrix, contests that it of the insured are secondary.
is a testamentary disposition/last will & - The trust is upheld. Mr. Gordon intended to,
testament, which was revoked by virtue of Albert and did, transfer to the bank a present interest
executing a will four days later, in which he in the insurance policies and the contention that
appointed Leotta Belle as executrix. it was a testamentary will must fail.
2. REYES ET. AL v. CA Deceased: TORCUATOR J. REYES
In his will, Torcuator gave all his shares of 3 witnesses for will
personal property and ½ of his real estate in Executor: Juilo Vivares, respondent
Misamis Oriental to his WIFE, ASUNCION REYES THE ONLY ISSUES TO BE TAKEN UP IN A
- Asuncion was never married to Torcuator, so PROBATE (EXTRINSIC VALIDITY ONLY):
the RTC invalidated the provisions. But the CA 1. whether or not the testator had animus
validated them anent a showing that the testandi
marriage between them was void. The Reyeses 2. whether or not the vices of consent attented
contend that Asuncion was a relative of the execution of will
Torcuator up to the 4th civil degree. 3. whether formalities had been complied with
In previous case Nepomuceno v. CA, the testator
himself admitted IN THE WILL that the
relationship was adulterous. In here there is
none, as the will only states that he donated it to
his wife.
3. Dizon v. Rivera-Dizon - DISCUSSED
4. Parish Priest - DISCUSSED
5. IN RE: ESTATE OF RUSSELL - DISCUSSED
6. WILL OF WALKER (Wisconsin, US) - Take note of the use of great nephew/niece in
Testatrix had this residuary clause in her will order to indicate grand nephew/niece
- The remainder of will is held in trust until the - she was survived by 2 nephews, and 7 grand
youngest of my great nephews and nieces is 50 nephews/nieces, aged 17-41
years old - will was made in 1924; she died in 1947
- Interest from it to be deivided among them
every year ISSUE: Whether the trust is CONDITIONED upon
- At the time the YOUNGEST of the great the survival of said grandnephews/nieces until
nephews/nieces is 50, residue is to be divided the date of distribution – YES; thus if they die,
among them all share and share alike their heirs will not get anything
- testatrix clearly wanted a long term trust; the
Probate court: court said the gift was to a class will also lacks provisions regarding heirs, so it
which would include those born AFTER the death must apply only to the grandnephews/nieces,
of the testator, but before the time fixed for and not their heirs; partiularly, it might pass on
distribution (i.e. when the youngest turns 50) – to heirs not of the testatrix's bloodline, and
1952 – the residue was assigned to the trustee property law has a preference for keeping
1956 – One of the grandnieces, Mrs. Louise Crow property among blood relatives
died → trial court ruled that the heirs will not get
share in Walker's will, because the will limited
distribution to grandnephews/nieces
7. IN RE: LATIMER'S WILL

8. GOLDBERGER v. GOLDBERGER SINCE both SAUL and FRANCES were succeeded

The testator stated in Item Second of his will by heirs, will their shares be affected by these
that: his two children, Saul Harold Golberger and contingent clauses? → NO
Frances Estelle Shore, are to share in his estate The dominant purpose was to give to his two
- IF either on dies with issue (heir?) the share children a fee simple estate. His attempt to
goes to his/her issue provide a gift over (substitute either) was
- IF either dies without issue, the share goes to subordinate to the main purpose, and was to
the survivor (of the two children) take effect ONLY in the event of the death of
the first takes, DURING THE LIFETIME OF
THE TESTATOR.
9. BELLIS v. BELLIS – Texas citizen with 2 wives
and fil children
10. BAGTAS v. PAGUIO – the paralytic
11. IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF BONJEAN
-DISCUSSED
12. BARNES v. MARSHALL - DISCUSSED
13. GILMER v. BROWN - The appointment of a guardian or a committee
Rosa Belle Gilmer, sister of Mary Thomas, signed for the person and property of another is NOT
and swore a petition for the appointment of a conclusive evidence as to the mental capacity of
committee for her sister. Mary was between 60- such person to execute a deed; the mere fact
80 years of age, and appeared to be unable to that a person is under guardianship does NOT
manage her property. This proceeding in the deprive him of the power to make a will; mental
Circuit Court of Albemarle County adjudged that weakness is NOT inconsistent with testamentary
her infirmities did not require her to be capacity
committed to a guardian BUT since she is 2 different testimonies:
incapable of taking care of her property, and in DR JOHNSON – said that she was insane w/o
handling and managing the estate, for some lucid intervals, and she was in this condition until
years already. her death. But he did not say how often he
- ON SAME DAY: Mary Thomas executed a will in saw/treated Mary
the presence of 2 witnesses. She left all her DR STRATTON – said that he examined Mary in
property to Rosa Belle upon certain conditions, April 1939 at the request of Rosa Belle. Mary was
and provided gifts over to her two nieces. This mentally sound and told him of her relatives,
will was unrevoked until her death. → HEIRS referred to them by name and said that they
CONTEST HER TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY – trial neglected her and contributed nothing to her
court ruled for the heirs. happiness.
 - Though Mary was of advanced age and
infirmities, and had reached the state of mental
deterioration that it was expedient to appoint a
committee to manage her property, BUT she had
not reached the stage of mental deterioration as
to deprive her of her testamentary capacity.

14. IN RE: HONIGMAN'S WILL - DISCUSSED

15. BALTAZAR v. LAXA - Of the original witnesses, only Dra. Limpin was
Pacencia was 78 yr old when she made her last able to testify, since Judge Limpin & Faustino
will in the Pampango dialect in 1981. It was were no longer capable of testifying in court, and
made in the house of Judge Limpin, as notary, Francisco was dead
with Dra. Limpin, Francisco Garcia, and Faustino - RTC ruled that Pacencia was no longer of
Mercado; which will was read to her 2x and sufficient reason or strength of mind to have
signed by Pacencia at the end, and the margins testamentary capacity when she made the will;
of pg 1,2, & 4. Undisputedly she had a nephew, but the CA ruled that the state of being forgetful
Lorenzo LAXA, who she treated like her own son. does not make a person mentally unsound so as
Pacencia's will left everything to him and his to render unfit for executing a will.
family. In the application for probate, Antonio - Apart from the testimony that she is magulyan
Baltazar and et. al. alleged that the properties or forgetful, there is no other substantial
subject of Pacencia's Will belonged to another evidence to show that the testatrix was in fact,
person; hence the will was void because not of testamentary capacity. Thus, the
ownership had not transferred to Pacencia before presumption of sanity exists and it was the
her death. Additionally, Antonio said that burden of those alleging insanity to prove it thus.
Pacencia thought that the will was a lease of her
ricelands, and he himself informed her of them.
16. LOPEZ v. LIBORO - Original issues were:
The last will and testament of Don Sixto Lopez, 1. deceased never executed the alleged will
died at 83 at Balayan, Batangas, on 2 March 2. signature appearing in will was forged
1947, is being contested. 3. no testamentary/mental capacity
ISSUES: 4. will not executed and attested as required by
1. page number: (the will only had 2 un- law, procured by vices of consent
numbered pages) 5. signature procured by fraud or trick
- the requirement of page numbers is guard
against fraud. But in the absence thereof, the
contents may be relied upon instead. In this
case, the word TESTAMENTO, an invocation of
the Almighty and the recital of the testamentary
faculty of the testator-- logically, this is the
opening of a will.
2. thumbmark instead of signature: this is
because of partial paralysis. A testator can use
either mark or signature.
3. extrinsic evidence to prove knowledge of
Spanish by the testator:
- It is within the discretion of the court to accept
such extra evidence. Besides, there is no
requirement that the will itself must state that
the testator knew Spanish.
17. SUROZA v. HONRADO - Judge Honrado dismissed all of Nenita Suroza's
Marcelina Suroza executed a notarial will in attempts to oppose the probate; even when she
Manila on July 23, 1973, when she was 73 years filed a petition to annul the proceedings, the
old; such will is disputed because it bears her case went to the same judge who just dismissed
thumbmark and is in English, but Marcelina is it (as it was a case against him).
known to be illiterate. She bequeathed all of her
property to a Marilyn Sy, who Marcelina brought - On its face, the will was void. In the opening
up as her granddaughter, supposedly. Probate paragraph of the will, it said that English was a
was applied for and opposed by Nenita, wife of language “understood and known to the
Marcelina's adopted son (who was placed under testator,” but in the concluding paragraph it was
her guardianship); despite knowing this, the stated that the will was read to the testatrix “and
judge allowed for probate of the will. translated into Filipino language.” Clearly, the will
was written in a language not known to the
testatrix.
18. BALONAN v. ABELLANA - ISSUE, does the signature of Dr. Juan Bello
The case is an appeal of decision from CFI above the typewritten statement comply with the
Zamboanga City admiting to probate the will of reqs of the law? – NO.
Anacleta Abellana - It should have been signed: 'John Doe by the
- Typewritten, double space, in Spanish testator, Richard Roe' or 'By the testator, John
- On the first page, signed by Juan Bello and Doe, Richard Roe' as elucidated by the Court in
under his name typewritten: por la testadora the case of Ex Parte Pedro Arcenas et. al.
Anacleta Abellana, residence cert.. Enero 20, - IN the case at bar, Anacleta's name does NOT
1951, Ciudad de Zamboanga. appear written under the will by Anacleta herself,
- On the 2nd page, left margin: signature of Juan or by Dr. Juan Bello, There is a failure to comply
Bello, and under his name typewritten: Por la with the express requirement, that the testator
Testadora Anacleta Abellana. himself sign the will or have his name affixed
thereto by some other person in his presence
and by his express direction (e wala nga yung
pangalan ni teh girl)
19. GARCIA v. LACUESTA - Attestation clause is fatally defective for failing
Appeal from decision of CA disallowing the will of to state that Antero Mercado caused Atty. Javier
Antero Mercado, dated 3 JAN 1943, written in to write the testator's name under his express
Ilocano, with an attestation clause. direction. → Petitioner Garcia contends that this
- The will was signed by Atty. Florentino Javier is no longer needed since Antero signed anyway
who wrote the name of Antero Mercado, followed (the cross), and a cross is much a signature as a
below by “A ruego del testador.” Allegedly, thumbmark.
Antero Mercado wrote a cross immediately - They did not prove that the cross is the
after his name. customary signature of Antero.
- Cross cannot be likened and does not have the
trustworthiness of a thumbmark.
20. NERA v. RIMANDO - trial judge did not think it important to rule on
Appeal from CFI La Union, admitting to probate this in the lower court. If the witness had been in
the last will and testament of Pedro Rimando. the big room it would have been invalid since the
ISSUE: Where was one of the subscribing signing was not done in the presence of all the
witnesses? witnesses.
- SMALL ROOM: where the will was executed at - The true test of presence of the testator and
the time when testator and other witnesses the witnesses in the execution of a will is NOT
attached signatures whether they actually saw each other sign, but
- BIG ROOM: some 8-10 ft. away, connected to whether they MIGHT have seen each other sign,
the smaller room by a doorway which had a had they chosen to do so, by merely casting
curtain, where it was impossible to see through their eyes in the proper direction.
(to the small room).
21. IN RE: ESTATE OF WEBER - transaction took place for an hour and half,
Henry Weber died at 73 on 21 November 1960. after which Weber drove unaccompanied to the
He was lawfully married to Rosa Weber, an Riley County Hospital, where earlier admittance
incompetent and hospitalized on account thereof. arrangements were made, where he died 5 days
A few days before he died, Henry, accompanied later.
by his neighbor, Ben Heer, sought help from - Holmes DID NOT put the name of the wife
Pres. Holmes of the Riley State Bank in in the will.
preparation of his will. What happened: - Trial court concluded that it was a valid will ,
1. Weber stayed in car & Holmes went out to complying with the reqs of the statute→ appealed
meet him there. Weber told him he wanted half by RR Bennett, guardian of the person/estate of
to be given to his wife, Rosa, and half to his Rosa Weber.
niece, Lillian. THE STATUTE relied upon by the trial court
2. Holmes noted these and went back to the contained the ff. Elements:
bank to prepare the will. 1. will must be attested and subscribed by 2
3. 3 bank employees were instructed to stand by competent witnesses in the presence of testator
a closed window in order to become witnesses to 2. witnesses must have either SEEN the testator
the signing of the will. They were approx. 8-10 subscribe or HEARD him acknowledge the will
feet away from the car. → statute required presence AND sight/hearing.
4. Holmes went back to the car and gave Weber Only one will not suffice.
a clipboard. He pointed out the witnesses, to
whom Weber waved at, and then the witnesses The statute sought to avoid the substitution of a
waved back. surreptitious will. The testator must be able to
5. Weber placed the clipboard on the steering see the witnesses attest the will; or their relative
wheel so it could be seen by the bank position to him at the time they are subscribing
employees, and signed it. their names as witnesses such that he may see
6. Clipboard taken back to bank employees to be them and satisfy himself by actual view that they
signed, which Weber saw, but not the pen or the are witnessing the very paper he signed to be his
paper being used at the time. last will.
* No communication between bank employees - Facts disclose that the proximity between
and Weber other than the waving. Weber never witnesses and testator was not enough to
entered the building, employees never left. establish “presence.” The will does not meet the
reqs.

22 YAP TUA v. YAP CA KUAN Several witnesses testified that they saw her write the
- 23 AUG 1909: Perfecto Gabriel (IN BEHALF OF name "Tomasa." One of the witnesses testified that
YAP TUA) presented a petition in the CFI Manila, she had written her full name. We are of the opinion,
and we think the law sustains our conclusion, that if
asking that the last will and testament of Tomasa
Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong signed any portion of her
Elizaga Yap Caong be admitted. She died 11 AUG
name in the will, with the intention to sign the same,
1909. The will appeared to be signed by the that it will amount to a signature. It has been held
deceased, as well as Anselmo Zacarias, Severo time and time again that one who makes a will may
Tabora, and Timoteo Paez. sign the same by using a mark, the name having been
→ PAEZ & a Pablo AGUSTIN were declared written by others. If writing a mark simply upon a will
witnesses, and after hearing them, Judge is sufficient indication of the intention of the person to
Crossfield ordered the probate of the will on 29 make and execute a will, then certainly the writing of
AUG 1909. a portion or all of her name ought to be accepted as a
clear indication of her intention to execute the will.
- 28 FEB 1910: YAP CA KUAN and YAP CA LLU
- An effort was made to show that the will was signed
appeared and presented a petition, alleging
by the witnesses in one room and by Tomasa in
interest in the will and asked a guardian ad litem another. A plan of the room or rooms in which the will
be appointed → Gabriel La O appointed was signed was presented as proof and it was shown
→ Gabriel La O alleged that the will admitted to that there was but one room; that one part of the
probate was NULL because: room was one or two steps below the floor of the
1. Not authorized or signed by witnesses as other; that the table on which the witnesses signed
required by law the will was located upon the lower floor of the room.
2. Tomasa was mentally incapacitated at the It was also shown that from the bed in which Tomasa
time she executed the will, due to her sickness was lying, it was possible for her to see the table on
which the witnesses signed the will. While the rule is
3. Tomasa's signature was obtained through
absolute that one who makes a will must sign the
fraud and illegal influence same in the presence of the witnesses and that the
4. There was another will that Tomasa executed witnesses must sign in the presence of each other, as
after, on 6 AUG 1909 → presented, along with well as in the presence of the one making the will, yet,
affidavits of Severo TABORA, Clotilde and nevertheless, the actual seeing of the signatures made
Cornelia SERRANO is not necessary. It is sufficient if the signatures are
5. YAP CA KUAN & CA LLU were minors who made where it is possible for each of the necessary
were unable to oppose on account of their age, parties, if they desire to see, may see the signatures
which should be excusable. placed upon the will.

→ RTC RULED IN FAVOR OF YAP TUA camp

23 BURNS v. ADAMSON - while substantial compliance has been allowed
- 3 FEB 1992: Nettie FROST signed a will in her in past cases, it has never been expanded to
hospital room in Memphis, Tennessee. She died allow a witness to attest to a will BEFORE the
4 FEB, the next day. testator signs, and in fact NEVER sees the
- Larry BURNS filed petition for probate as sole testator sign.
beneficiary, while other nephews and a niece - in the cited case of Anthony v. College of the
contested said will. Ozarks, the witness never categorically stated
- 12nn 3 FEB 1992: Jewell Burns was asked to that the signature of the testator was not there.
sign the will by FROST, but FROST's signature Thus the presumption is that it was already
was not on the will yet. Jewell never saw signed.
FROST sign, much less saw her alive again after
this encounter.
- 5pm 3 FEB 1992: Faye Burns (Larry's wife) &
Ethel Pettus visited FROST, who signed the will in
their presence.
- After, Ms. Pettus signed the will as witness in
the presence of FROST. Faye did NOT sign the
will as a will. Jewell Burns was NOT present.
TRIAL COURT RULED THAT THE WILL WAS
INVALID.
24 TABOADA v. ROSAL
- ALREADY DISCUSSED
25 CAGRO v. CAGRO We are of the opinion that the position taken by the appellant is
- Vicente Cagro died 14 FEB 1949 in Laoangan, correct. The attestation clause is 'a memorandum of the facts
attending the execution of the will' required by law to be made by
Samar.
the attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear their signatures.
- Contesting the fact that the signatures of the An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the
wintesses in the attestation clause do not appear witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at the bottom
at the END of the document, but rather are on thereof negatives their participation.
the LEFT HAND MARGIN. The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three
witnesses on the left-hand margin conform substantially to the law
and may be deemed as their signatures to the attestation clause. This
is untenable, because said signatures are in compliance with the legal
mandate that the will be signed on the left-hand margin of all its
pages. If an attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at the
bottom thereof, be admitted as sufficient, it would be easy to add
such clause to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of
the testator and any or all of the witnesses.

26 ABANGAN v. ABANGAN - But when these dispositions are wholly written on

- CFI Cebu: will executed JUL 1916 only one sheet signed at the bottom by the testator
- ANA ABANGAN – testator and three witnesses (as the instant case), their
signatures on the left margin of said sheet would be
- Will has 2 sheets: FIRST PAGE has all the
completely purposeless. In requiring this signature on
disposition of ANA signed at the bottom by
the margin, the statute took into consideration,
Martin Montalban (in the name and under the undoubtedly, the case of a will written on several
direction of the testator) and 3 witnesses sheets and must have referred to the sheets which the
SECOND PAGE: attestation clause, signed at the testator and the witnesses do not have to sign at the
bottom by 3 witnesses bottom. A different interpretation would assume that
- no signatures on the left margin the statute requires that this sheet, already signed at
- no numbering the bottom, be signed twice.
- In requiring that each and every page of a will must
Synthesizing our opinion, we hold that in a will be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the
consisting of two sheets the first of which contains all upper part of the sheet, it is likewise clear that the
the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the object is to know whether any sheet of the will has
bottom by the testator and three witnesses and the been removed. But, when all the dispositive parts of a
second contains only the attestation clause and is will are written on one sheet only, the object of the
signed also at the bottom by the three witnesses, it is statute disappears because the removal of this single
not necessary that both sheets be further signed on sheet, although unnumbered, cannot be hidden.
their margins by the testator and the witnesses, or be
paged.
27 VDA. DE RAMOS v. CA Was the will and the codicil valid?? YES
- Eugenia Danila died 21 MAY 1966; she - presumption of regularity as the will was
allegedly left behind a will and testament executed with the assistance of 2 lawyers
dated 9 MARCH 1963 and a codicil 18 APR - even if there was a photo of only the 2
1963 (CODICIL: an addition or supplement that witnesses, it was not enough to overcome this
explains, modifies, or revokes a will or part of presumption of regularity
one.) - As a rule, if any or all of the submitting witness
- 2 JUN 1996: Adelaida NISTA, claiming to be an testify against the due execution of the will, or do not
instituted heir, filed for probate of the will remember having attested to it, or are otherwise of
- Buenaventura and Marcelina GUERRA opposed, doubtful ability, the will may, nevertheless, be allowed
if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other
saying they were the legally adopted son and
witness and from all the evidence presented that the
daughter of Florentino Guerra and Eugenia will was executed and attested in the manner by
Danila. → also alleged that the will being law. 8 Accordingly, although the subscribing witnesses
presented was procured thru fraud/undue to a contested will are the best witness in connection
with its due execution, to deserve full credit, their
influence; that EUGENIA's will was executed 5
testimony must be reasonable, and unbiased; if
NOV 1951 and was duly probated, and not
otherwise it may be overcome by any competent
revoked or annulled during her lifetime evidence, direct or circumstantial.
- We find here that the failure to imprint in
- 4 NOV 1968: entered into compromise photographs all the stages in the execution of the win
agreement does not serve any persuasive effect nor have any
- 16 NOV 1968: de Ramos et. al. Intervened, evidentiary value to prove that one vital and
alleging interests as instituted heirs and devisees indispensable requisite has not been acted on. Much
– RTC nonetheless allowed the probate of the will less can it defeat, by any ordinary or special reason,
- CA reversed the presentation of other competent evidence
intended to confirm a fact otherwise existent but not
- SC reinstates RTC
confirmed by the photographic evidence.
28 AZUELA v. CA #1 A will whose attestation clause does not contain
- EUGENIA IGSOLO died 16 DEC 1982, at the the number of pages on which the will is written
age of 80. is fatally defective. A will whose attestation
clause is not signed by the instrumental
- will allegedly notarized 10 JUN 1981; it has 2
witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps most
pages and is written in Pilipino. The 3 witnesses
importantly, a will which does not contain an
signed at the left margin of both pages, but not acknowledgment, but a mere jur , is fatally
at the end for the attestation clause. defective. Any one of these defects is sufficient
- Felix AZUELA filed for probate 10 APR 1984, a to deny probate. A notarial will with all three
nephew of the decedent. → OPPOSED by defects is just aching for judicial rejection.
GERALDA CASTILLO, allegedly the lawyer of the
“12 legitimate heirs of the decedent,” claiming → as previously decided, that the signatures of the
that the will is a forgery witnesses were on the left margin and not at the end
- ISSUES: of the attestation clause IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL
COMPLIANCE AND MAKES THE WILL UNATTESTED
1.) No signature of the testator on the 2nd page
AND INVALID
of the will → that it was not numbered correlatively is of no issue.
2.) Will NOT properly acknowledged The will only has 2 pages. BUT → The failure of the
attestation clause to state the number of pages on
RTC allowed the probate of the will which the will was written remains a fatal flaw, despite
Article 809, as in this case.
- In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public,
Petronio Y. Bautista, wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario
ko ngayon 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa
Lungsod ng Maynila." By no manner of contemplation
can those words 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.
→ EVEN IF THIS COULD BE CONSTRUED AS A JURAT,
THE LAW REQUIRES AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
29 ENRIQUEZ v. ABADIA - The validity of a will is to be judged not by the
- Probate for will of Fr. Sancho Abadia of Talisay, law in force at the time of the testator's death or
Cebu, who died 14 Jan 1943. Petition for probate at the time the supposed will is presented in
of the will was commenced but opposed by court for probate or when the petition is decided
cousins and nephews who would inherit by the court but at the time the instrument was
intestate. executed.
- Attesting witness testified that Fr. Sancho - although the will operates upon and after the
wrote out in longhand the will in Spanish, and death of the testator, the wishes of the testator
signed on the left margin, numbered with arabic about the disposition of his estate among his
numerals, signed his name at the end, all in the heirs and among the legatees is given solemn
presence of the 3 attesting witnesses after expression at the time the will is executed, and
saying it was his last will, and they signed too. in reality, the. legacy or bequest then becomes a
- Trial Court admitted the will to probate because completed act.
at the time of the hearing the new Civil Code - The general rule is that the Legislature can not
was in force which permitted execution of validate void wills.
holographic wills.
30 JABONETA v. GUSTILO = The fact that Jena was still in the room when
FACTS: Macario Jaboneta executed under the he saw Javellana moving his hand and pen in the
following circumstances the document in act of affixing his signature to the will, taken
question, which has been presented for probate together with the testimony of the remaining
as his will. witnesses which shows that Javellana did in fact
- in the house of Arcadio Jarandilla there and then sign his name to the will,
- called Julio Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and convinces us that the signature was affixed in
Isabelo Jena to be witnesses the presence of Jena. The fact that he was in the
- all in the same room as Jaboneta, who signed act of leaving, and that his back was turned
first; Isabelo Jena, then Aniceto Jalbuena, then, while a portion of the name of the witness was
moment Isabelo Jena, being in a hurry to leave, being written, is of no importance.
took his hat and left the room. As he was leaving - It is sufficient if the witnesses are together for
the house Julio Javellana took the pen in his the purpose of witnessing the execution of the
hand and put himself in position to sign the will will, and in a position to actually see the testator
as a witness, but did not sign in the presence of write, if they choose to do so;
Isabelo Jena. - the true test of vision is not whether the
testator actually saw the witness sign, but
whether he might have seen him sign,
considering his mental and physical
condition and position at the time of the
subscription.
AZUELA v. CA #2
CRUZ v. VILLASOR To acknowledge before means to avow; to own as
Wife contested the allowing of probate proceedings in genuine, to assent, to admit; and "before" means in
her late husband, Valente Cruz's estate. Allegedly, the front or preceding in space or ahead of.
will was executed through fraud, misrepresentation, - IF the third witness were the notary public
and undue influence himself, he would have to avow assent, or admit
- THE NOTARY PUBLIC WAS ALSO ONE OF THE his having signed the will infront of himself. This
THREE WITNESSES-- Angel Tevel Jr. cannot be done because he cannot split his
- CFI allowed probate because notary public could be personality into two so that one will appear
considered as the 3rd witness. before the other to acknowledge his
HELD: NO. The notary public before whom the will participation in the making of the will. To permit
was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third such a situation to obtain would be sanctioning a
instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge sheer absurdity. Furthermore, the function of a
before himself his having signed the will. notary public is, among others, to guard against any
illegal or immoral arrangement. That function would
JURAT v. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT defeated if the notary public were one of the attesting
An acknowledgment is the act of one who has instrumental witnesses. For them he would be
interested sustaining the validity of the will as it
executed a deed in going before some
directly involves him and the validity of his own act. It
competent officer or court and declaring it to be would place him in inconsistent position and the very
his act or deed; while a jurat is that part of an purpose of acknowledgment, which is to minimize
affidavit where the officer certifies that the same fraud. Decision Reversed.
was sworn before him.
GARCIA v. GATCHALIAN HELD: YES. An examination of the document
FACTS: Gregorio Gatchalian, died 71 yrs old in Pasig, (Exhibit "C") shows that the same was
Rizal, leaving no forced heirs. acknowledged before a notary public by the
Appellees opposed the petition on the ground, among testator but not by the instrumental witnesses.
others, that the will was procured by fraud; that the
A will must be acknowledged before a
deceased did not intend the instrument signed by him
notary public by the testator and also by
to be as his will
- and that the deceased was physically and the witnesses is indispensable for its
mentally incapable of making a will at the time validity
of the alleged execution of said will. After due
trial, the court rendered the appealed decision finding
the document Exhibit "C" to be the authentic last will
of the deceased but disallowing it for failure to comply
with the mandatory requirement of Article 806 of the
New Civil Code — that the will must be acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses.
ISSUE: Whether or not a will must be acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and also
by the witnesses
GARCIA v. VASQUEZ ISSUE: Whether or not the decedent was blind, given
FACTS: Gliceria Avelino del Rosario died unmarried, her defective eye sight and Article 808
leaving no descendents, ascendants, brother or sister. should govern
Consuelo S. Gonzales Vda. de Precilla, a niece of the HELD: YES. That Doña Gliceria should be able to
deceased, petitioned the Court of First Instance of greet her guests on her birthday, arrange
Manila for probate of the alleged last will and flowers and attend to kitchen tasks shortly prior
testament of Gliceria A. del Rosario. The petition was to the alleged execution of the testament, as
opposed separately by several groups of alleged heirs. appears from the photographs, in no way
The Court issued an order admitting to probate the proves; that she was able to read a closely typed
1960 will of Gliceria A. del Rosario. The records of the page, since the acts shown do not require vision
probate proceeding fully establish the fact that the at close range. It must be remembered that with the
testatrix, Gliceria A. del Rosario, during her lifetime, natural lenses removed, her eyes had lost the power
executed two wills: one on 9 June 1956 consisting of of adjustment to near vision, the substituted glass
12 pages and written in Spanish, a language that she lenses being rigid and uncontrollable by her. Neither is
knew and spoke, witnessed by Messrs. Antonio the signing of checks by her indicative of ability to see
Cabrera, Jesus Y. Ayala and Valentin Marquez, and at normal reading distances. Writing or signing of
acknowledged before notary public Jose Ayala; and one’s name, when sufficiently practiced, becomes
another dated 29 December 1960, consisting of 1 automatic, so that one need only to have a rough
page and written in Tagalog, witnessed by Messrs. indication of the place where the signature is to be
Vicente Rosales, Francisco Decena, and Francisco affixed in order to be able to write it. Indeed, a close
Lopez and acknowledged before notary public Remigio examination of the checks, amplified in the
M. Tividad. Dr. Jesus V. Tamesis, whose expertise was photograph, et seq., reinforces the contention of
admitted by both parties, testified, among other oppositors that the alleged testatrix could not see at
things, that when Doña Gliceria del Rosario saw him normal reading distance: the signatures in the checks
for consultation on 11 March 1960 he found her left are written far above the printed base, lines, and the
eye to have cataract (opaque lens), 15 and that it was names of the payees as well as the amounts written
"above normal in pressure", denoting a possible do not appear to be in the handwriting of the alleged
glaucoma, a disease that leads to blindness 16 As to testatrix, being in a much firmer and more fluid hand
the conditions of her right eye. than hers.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading
the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable
of reading the will himself (as when he is
illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof
known to him, so that he may be able to object if
they are not in accordance with his wishes. That
the aim of the law is to insure that the
dispositions of the will are properly
communicated to and understood by the
handicapped testator, thus making them truly
reflective of his desire, is evidenced by the
requirement that the will should be read to the
latter, not only once but twice, by two different
persons, and that the witnesses have to act
within the range of his (the testator’s) other
senses.
In connection with the will here in question, there is
nothing in the records to show that the above
requisites have been complied with. Clearly, as already
stated, the 1960 will sought to be probated
suffers from infirmity that affects its due execution.
The order of the court below allowing to probate the
alleged 1960 will of Gliceria A. del Rosario is
hereby reversed and set aside.
ALVARADO v. GAVIOLA The rationale behind the requirement of reading
- 5 NOV 1977: 79 yr old Brigido ALVARADO the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable
executed a notarial will “Huling Habilin” where he of reading the will himself (as when he is
illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof
disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner CESAR
known to him, so that he may be able to object if
ALVARADO) and revoked a previously executed
they are not in accordance with his wishes. Clear
holographic will that was pending probate in RTC from the foregoing is that Art. 808 applies not only to
Sta. Cruz, Laguna → testator did not read the blind testators but also to those who, for one reason
final draft of the will himself. Atty. Bayani or another, are "incapable of reading the(ir) will(s)."
Ma. Rino, who drafted it, read it aloud to Since Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the
the testator, the 3 witnesses, and the final drafts of his will and codicil on the separate
notary public. The 4 others were following occasions of their execution due to his "poor,"
the reading as they had their own copies. "defective," or "blurred" vision, there can be no other
- 9 DEC 1977: holographic will admitted to course for us but to conclude that Brigido Alvarado
comes within the scope of the term "blind" as it is
probate
used in Art. 808. Unless the contents were read to
- 29 DEC 1977: CODICIL was executed him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the
 changing some dispositions, in order to generate lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so
funds for the testator's eye operation, as he was conformably with his instructions. Hence, to consider
suffering from glaucoma. his will as validly executed and entitled to probate, it
is essential that we ascertain whether Art. 808 had
– AGAIN, testator did not read the final
been complied with. Substantial compliance is
draft of the codicil himself, Atty. Bayani Ma.
acceptable where the purpose of the law has
Rino, read it aloud to the testator, the 3 been satisfied, the reason being that the
witnesses, and the notary public. solemnities surrounding the execution of wills
- 3 JAN 1979: testator died. On the same day, a are intended to protect the testator from all
petition for probate was filed by Atty. Bayani in kinds of fraud and trickery but are never
RTC Siniloan, Laguna → CESAR ALVARADO intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to
OPPOSED THIS. → failed to substantiate, probate destroy the testamentary privilege. Brigido
of the will was ordered; appealed to CA Alvarado had expressed his last wishes in clear and
- CA ruled that while Brigido was not totally unmistakable terms in his "Huling Habilin" and the
codicil attached thereto. We are unwilling to cast
blind, Art 808 was substantially complied with.
these aside fro the mere reason that a legal
requirement intended for his protection was not
followed strictly when 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.
CANEDA v. CA
CAPONONG-NOBLE v. ABADA
SEBASTIAN v. PANGANIBAN
GIL v. MURCIANO
GAN v. YAP
RODELAS v. ARANZA
IN RE: ESTATE OF MURDER
ROXAS v. DE JESUS
LABRADOR v. CA