Wills -2 Digest

Paula Conde v. Roman Abaya

recognized natural children or in connection with their rights. There is not a single

(G.R. No. 4275; March 23, 1909)

exception in its provisions.

Facts:

The right of action pertaining to the child to claim his legitimacy is in all respects superior

Casiano Abaya, unmarried, the son of Romualdo Abaya, died on April 6, 1899. Paula Conde,

to that of the child who claims acknowledgment as a natural child. And it is evident that the

as the mother of Jose and Teopista Conde claims that Casiano fathered the aforementioned.

right of action to claim his legitimacy is not one of those rights which the legitimate child

Paula moved for the settlement of the intestate estate of Casiano.

may transmit by inheritance to his heirs; it forms no part of the component rights of his

Roman Abaya opposed the appointment of an administrator and claimed it for himself as

inheritance. If it were so, there would have been no necessity to establish its

being the nearest relative of the deceased. Roman moved for the court to declare him to be

transmissibility to heirs as an exception in the terms and conditions of article 118 of the

the sole heir of Casiano Abaya, to the exclusion of all others, especially of Paula. The trial

code. So that, in order that it may constitute a portion of the child’s inheritance, it is

court rendered a decision in favor of Paula and declared her to be the only heir to the

necessary that the conditions and the terms contained in article 118 shall be present, since

property. Roman Abaya appealed directly to the SC.

without them, the right that the child held during his lifetime, being personal and exclusive

Issue:

in principle, and therefore, as a general rule not susceptible of transmission, would and

1. Whether in special proceedings for the administration and distribution of -an intestate

should have been extinguished by his death. Therefore, where no express provision like

estate, an action might be brought to enforce the acknowledgment of the natural child of

that of article 118 exists, the right of action for the acknowledgment of a natural child is, in

the person from whom the inheritance is derived. (Pimentel v. Palanca)

principle and without exception, extinguished by his death, and cannot be transmitted as a portion of the inheritance of the deceased child.

**2. whether or not the mother of a natural child now deceased, but who survived the person who, it is claimed, was his natural father, also deceased, may bring an action for the acknowledgment of the natural filiation in favor of such child in order to appear in his behalf to receive the inheritance from the person who is supposed to be his natural father. The power to transmit the right of such action by the natural child to his descendants cannot be sustained under the law, and still less to his mother. It is without any support in law because the rule laid down in the code is most positive, limiting in form, when establishing the exception for the exercise of such right of action after the death of the presumed parents, as is shown hereafter. It is not supported by any doctrine, because up to the present time no argument has been presented, upon which even an approximate conclusion could be based. Although the Civil Code considerably improved the condition of recognized natural children, granting them rights and actions that they did not possess under the former laws, they were not, however, placed upon the same plane as legitimate ones. The difference that separates these two classes of children is still great, as proven by so many articles dealing with the rights of the family and with succession in relation to the members thereof. It may be laid down as a legal maxim, that whatever the code does not grant to the legitimate children, or in connection with their rights, must still less be understood as granted to Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)

Teodoro Caneda v. CA

The attestation clause in question, on the other hand, is recited in the English language and

G.R. No. 103554; May 28, 1993

is likewise signed at the end thereof by the three attesting witnesses hereto.

Facts:

While it may be true that the attestation clause is indeed subscribed at the end thereof and

On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children, executed a last

at the left margin of each page by the three attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot be

will and testament at his residence in Talisay, Cebu before three attesting witnesses. The

conclusively inferred therefrom that the said witness affixed their respective signatures in

testator was duly assisted by his lawyer and a notary public in the preparation of that last

the presence of the testator and of each other since, as petitioners correctly observed, the

will. It was declared therein, among other things, that the testator was leaving by way of

presence of said signatures only establishes the fact that it was indeed signed, but it does

legacies and devises his real and personal properties to Presentacion Gaviola, Angel

not prove that the attesting witnesses did subscribe to the will in the presence of the

Abatayo, Rogelio Abatayo, Isabelito Abatayo, Benoni G. Cabrera and Marcosa Alcantara, all

testator and of each other. The execution of a will is supposed to be one act so that where

of whom do not appear to be related to the testator. Four months later, Mateo Caballero

the testator and the witnesses sign on various days or occasions and in various

himself filed a petition before the CFI of Cebu seeking the probate of his last will and

combinations, the will cannot be stamped with the imprimatur of effectivity.

testament. On May 29, 1980, the testator passed away before his petition could finally be

We stress once more that under Article 809, the defects and imperfections must only be

heard. On February 25, 1981, Benoni Cabrera, one of the legatees named in the will,

with respect to the form of the attestation or the language employed therein. Such defects

sought his appointment as special administrator of the testator's estate, and he was so

or imperfections would not render a will invalid should it be proved that the will was

appointed by the probate court in its order of March 6, 1981. Thereafter, herein

really executed and attested in compliance with Article 805. In this regard, however, the

petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a second petition.

manner of proving the due execution and attestation has been held to be limited to merely

Benoni Cabrera died on February 8, 1982 hence the probate court appointed William

an examination of the will itself without resorting to evidence aliunde, whether oral or

Cabrera as special administrator. In the course of the hearing, herein petitioners appeared

written.

as oppositors and objected to the allowance of the testator's will on the ground that on the alleged date of its execution, the testator was already in the poor state of health such that

The foregoing considerations do not apply where the attestation clause totally omits the

he could not have possibly executed the same. Petitioners likewise reiterated the issue as

fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the presence of

to the genuineness of the signature of the testator therein.

the testator and of each other. 35 In such a situation, the defect is not only in the form or

The probate court rendered a decision declaring the will in question as the last will and

language of the attestation clause but the total absence of a specific element required by

testament of the late Mateo Caballero. Petitioners elevated the case in the Court of Appeals.

Article 805 to be specifically stated in the attestation clause of a will. That is precisely the

The appellate court promulgated its decision affirming that of the trial court.

defect complained of in the present case since there is no plausible way by which we can

Issue:

read into the questioned attestation clause statement, or an implication thereof, that the

Validity of the attestation clause in the last will and testament.

attesting witness did actually bear witness to the signing by the testator of the will and all

Ruling:

of its pages and that said instrumental witnesses also signed the will and every page

Refer to Article 805.

thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

An examination of the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero shows that it is comprised of three sheets all of which have been numbered correlatively, with the left margin of each page thereof bearing the respective signatures of the testator and the three attesting witnesses. The part of the will containing the testamentary dispositions is expressed in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect and is signed at the foot thereof by the testator.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)

Cornelio Pamplona v. Vivencio Moreto

Since Flaviano Moreto was entitled to one-half pro-indiviso of the entire land area or 1,173

G.R. No. L-331187; March 31, 1980

sq. meters as his share, he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters

Facts:

of his share to the Pamplona spouses. Indeed, there was still a remainder of some 392 sq.

Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega were husband and wife. During their marriage, they

meters belonging to him at the time of the sale.

acquired adjacent lots nos. 1495, 4545, and 1496.

We reject respondent Court's ruling that the sale was valid as to one-half and invalid as to

More than six years after the death of Monica, Flaviano, without the consent of the heirs of

the other half for the very simple reason that Flaviano Moreto, the vendor, had the legal

his wife, and before any liquidation of the conjugal partnership, executed in favor of

right to more than 781 sq. meters of the communal estate, a title which he could dispose,

Geminiano Pamplona, a deed of absolute sale covering lot 1495 (781 sqm).

alienate in favor of the vendees-petitioners. The title may be pro-indiviso or inchoate but

After the execution of the deed, Geminiano and his wife constructed their house on the

the moment the co-owner as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the

eastern part of the lot. The son of the spouses also built his house within the lot. From

boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection, protest or

1956 to 1960, the spouses enlarged their house and even constructed a piggery. In 1956,

complaint by the other co-owners, on the contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such

Flaviano died intestate. In 1961, the plaintiffs demanded on the defendants to vacate the

alienation, occupation and possession, We rule that a factual partition or termination of the

premises. The spouses refused tp vacate. A suit was filed for the declaration of the nullity

co-ownership, although partial, was created, and barred not only the vendor, Flaviano

of the deed of sale. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The CA

Moreto, but also his heirs, the private respondents herein from asserting as against the

affirmed the judgment.

vendees-petitioners any right or title in derogation of the deed of sale executed by said vendor Flaiano Moreto.

Issue:

Under Article 776, New Civil Code, the inheritance which private respondents received

WON the pets are entitled to the full ownership of the property.

from their deceased parents and/or predecessors-in-interest included all the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death. And under Art.

Ruling:

1311, paragraph 1, New Civil Code, the contract of sale executed by the deceased Flaviano

Yes naman teh. At the time of the sale in 1952, the conjugal partnership was already

Moreto took effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs, who are the private

dissolved six years before and therefore, the estate became a co-ownership between

respondents herein. Accordingly, to the private respondents is transmitted the obligation

Flaviano Moreto, the surviving husband, and the heirs of his deceased wife, Monica

to deliver in full ownership the whole area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners (which was

Maniega. Article 493 of the New Civil Code is applicable and it provides a follows:

the original obligation of their predecessor Flaviano Moreto) and not only one-half thereof.

Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and

Private respondents must comply with said obligation.

benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involve. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the coownership. We agree with the petitioner that there was a partial partition of the co-ownership when at the time of the sale Flaviano Moreto pointed out the area and location of the 781 sq. meters sold by him to the petitioners-vendees on which the latter built their house and also that whereon Rafael, the son of petitioners likewise erected his house and an adjacent coral for piggery. Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)

Teopista Dolar v. Fidel Diancin

Gabriel Lao as guardian ad litem of said parties. The pets alleged that the will had not been

G.R. No. L-33365; December 20, 1930

authorized nor signed by the witnesses as the law prescribes; that the testator was not

Facts:

mentally capacitated to execute the will; that the signature was obtained through fraud

A will was allegedly executed by Paulino Diancin on November 13, 1927. A thumbmark

and illegal influence.

appears at the end of the will and on the left hand margin of each of its pages. The will was

They also claimed that the testator executed another will. The pets requested the court to

detailed in nature and disposed of an estate amounting to 50K.

annul and set aside the order, and to grant to said minors an opportunity to present new

A document of sale containing an admittedly genuine thumbmark of Paulino was

proof relating to the due execution of the will. The Judge granted the motion for rehearing.

presented. Photographs of the thumbmark were also offered in evidence. Carlos Jaena,

At the rehearing, a number of witnesses were examined.

attempted to qualify as an 'expert,' and thereafter gave his opinion that the thumbmarks

At the close of the rehearing, the court reached the conclusion that the will was the last

had not been made by the same person. Jose Villanueva likewise attempted to qualify that

will and testament of Tomasa and admitted it to probate.

the thumbmarks were authentic.

Issue:

Issue:

1. WON the will was duly executed in accordance with law.

1. Fingerprints

2. In the presence?

2. Proof?

Ruling:

Ruling:

1. Yes. . Several witnesses testified that they saw her write the name "Tomasa." One of the

1. Yes Admissible. The requirement of the statute that the will shall be "signed" is satisfied

witnesses testified that she had written her full name. We are of the opinion, and we think

not only the customary written signature but also by the testator's or testatrix' thumbmark

the law sustains our conclusion, that if Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong signed any portion of

.Expert testimony as to the identity of thumbmarks or fingerprints is of course admissible.

her name in the will, with the intention to sign the same, that it will amount to a signature.

The method of identification of fingerprints is a science requiring close study .Where

It has been held time and time again that one who makes a will may sign the same by using

thumb impressions are blurred and many of the characteristic marks far from clear, thus

a mark, the name having been written by others. If writing a mark simply upon a will is

rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated by experts as showing the identity

sufficient indication of the intention of the person to make and execute a will, then

or lack of identity of the impressions, the court is justified in refusing to accept the

certainly the writing of a portion or all of her name ought to be accepted as a clear

opinions of alleged experts and in substituting its own opinion that a distinct similarity in

indication of her intention to execute the will.

some respects between the admittedly genuine thumbmark and the questioned

2. Yes. An effort was made to show that the will was signed by the witnesses in one room

thumbmarks, is evident.

and by Tomasa in another. A plan of the room or rooms in which the will was signed was

2. Testimonies of witnesses.

presented as proof and it was shown that there was but one room; that one part of the

--

room was one or two steps below the floor of the other; that the table on which the

Yap Tua v. Yap Ca Kuan; G.R. No. 6845; September 1, 1914

witnesses signed the will was located upon the lower floor of the room. It was also shown

Facts:

that from the bed in which Tomasa was lying, it was possible for her to see the table on

Yap Tua presented a petition in the CFI of Manila, asking the will of Tomasa Elizaga Yap

which the witnesses signed the will. While the rule is absolute that one who makes a will

Caong be admitted to probate. Two witnesses were presented. After hearing the witnesses,

must sign the same in the presence of the witnesses and that the witnesses must sign in

Judge Crossfield ordered that the last will and testament be allowed and admitted to

the presence of each other, as well as in the presence of the one making the will, yet,

probate. The court further ordered that Yap Tua be appointed as executor.

nevertheless, the actual seeing of the signatures made is not necessary. It is sufficient if the

Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Lu appeared and presented a petition, alleging that they were

signatures are made where it is possible for each of the necessary parties, if they desire to

interested in the matters of the said will and desired to intervene. The court appointed

see, may see the signatures placed upon the will.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)

“RIGHT MARGIN”

It appears, however, that this point was not raised by the appellant in the lower court

Eutiquia Avera v. Marino Garcia

either upon the submission of the cause for determination in that court or upon the

G.R. No. 15566; September 14, 1921

occasion of the filing of the motion for a new trial. Accordingly it is insisted for the appellee

Facts:

that this question cannot now be raised for the first time in this court. We believe this

Avera filed a petition for the probate of the will of one Esteban Garcia. The petition was

point is well taken, and the first assignment of error must be declared not be well taken.

contested by Marino Garcia and Juan Rodriguez, the latter in the capacity of guardian for

2. It is true that the statute says that the testator and the instrumental witnesses shall sign

minors Jose and Cesar Garcia. The proponent of the will presented three attesting

their names on the left margin of each and every page; and it is undeniable that the general

witnesses. The witness was corroborated by the person who wrote the will at the request

doctrine is to the effect that all statutory requirements as to the execution of wills must be

of the testator. The opposition introduced a single witness who testified that at the time

fully complied with. The same doctrine is also deducible from cases heretofore decided by

the will was made, the testator was so debilitated as to unable to comprehend what he was

this court.

about. The trial court admitted the will to probate.

Still some details at times creep into legislative enactments which are so trivial it would be absurd to suppose that the Legislature could have attached any decisive importance to

Issues:

them. The provision to the effect that the signatures of the testator and witnesses shall be

1. WON a will can be admitted to probate, where opposition is made, upon proof of a single

written on the left margin of each page — rather than on the right margin — seems to be

attesting witness, without producing or accounting for the absence of the other two.

this character. So far as concerns the authentication of the will, and of every part thereof, it

2. WON the will in question is rendered invalid by reason that the signature of the testator

can make no possible difference whether the names appear on the left or no the right

and of the three attesting witnesses are written on hte right margin of each page of the will

margin, provided they are on one or the other.

instead of the left.

The instrument now before us contains the necessary signatures on every page, and the only point of deviation from the requirement of the statute is that these signatures appear

Ruling:

in the right margin instead of the left. By the mode of signing adopted every page and

1. No. However, the probable reason why only one witness was produced is found in the

provision of the will is authenticated and guarded from possible alteration in exactly the

fact that, although the petition for the probate of this will had been pending from

same degree that it would have been protected by being signed in the left margin; and the

December 21, 1917, until the date set for the hearing, which was April 5, 1919, no formal

resources of casuistry could be exhausted without discovering the slightest difference

contest was entered until the very day set for the hearing; and it is probable that the

between the consequences of affixing the signatures in one margin or the other.

attorney for the proponent, believing in good faith the probate would not be contested, repaired to the court with only one of the three attesting witnesses at hand, and upon finding that the will was contested, incautiously permitted the case to go to proof without asking for a postponement of the trial in order that he might produce all the attesting witnesses. Although this circumstance may explain why the three witnesses were not produced, it does not in itself supply any basis for changing the rule expounded in the case above referred to; and were it not for a fact now to be mentioned, this court would probably be compelled to reverse this case on the ground that the execution of the will had not been proved by a sufficient number of attesting witnesses.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)

Nayve v. Mojal

Testate Estate of Alipio Abada v. Abaja; G.R. No. 147145; January 31, 2005

G.R. No. L-21755; December 29, 1924

Abada and his wife died without legitimate children. Alipio Abaja filed with the CFI of

Facts:

Negros Occidental a petitition for the probate of the will of Abada. The latter allegedly

Filomena Nayve filed a petition for the probate of the will of his late husband, Antonio

named his children as his testamentary heirs. Eulogio is the son of Abada's child.

Mojal. The petition was opposed by Leona Mojal and Luciana Aguilar, sister and niece, of

Nicanor Caponong opposed the petition. The alleged intestate heirs of Abaja also filed their

the deacesed. The CFI of Albay admitted the will to probate. The will is composed of four

oppositions. The oppositors are the nephews, nieces and grandchildren of Abada and

sheets with written matter on only one side of each. The four sides or pages containing

Toray. Alipio filed another peition before the RTC of Kabankalan for hte probate of the will.

written matter are paged "Pag. 1," "Pag. 2," "Pag. 3," "Pag. 4," successively. Each of the first

Caponong filed a petition, praying for the issuance in his name of letters of administration.

two sides or pages, which was issued, was signed by the testator and the three witnesses

The RTC of Kabankalan admitted the probate of the will. MR was denied. During the

on the margin, left side of the reader. On the third page actually used, the signatures of the

proceedings, the presiding judge discovered that the former presiding judge had already

three witnesses appear also on the margin, left side of the reader, but the signature of the

submitted the case for decision. Will was allowed for probate. The RTC-Kabankalan ruled

testator is not on the margin, but about the middle of the page, at the end of the will and

on the only issue raised by the oppositors in their motions to dismiss the petition for

before the attestation clause. On the fourth page, the signatures of the witnesses do not

probate, that is, whether the will of Abada has an attestation clause as required by law. The

appear on the margin, but at the bottom of the attestation clause, it being the signature of

CA affirmed the resolution of the trial court.

the testator that is on the margin, left side of the reader.

Ruling:

Ruling:

ATTESTATION CLAUSE

1. Signed in middle - Yes. As to the signatures on the margin, it is true, as above stated, that

1. Caponong-Noble alleges that the attestation clause fails to state the number of pages on

the third page actually used was signed by the testator, not on the left margin, as it was by

which the will is written and that the attestation clause fails to state expressly that the

the witnesses, but about the middle of the page and the end of the will; and that the fourth

testator signed the will and its every page in the presence of three witnessesThe first

page was signed by the witnesses, not on the left margin, as it was by the testator, but

sentence of the attestation clause reads: "Subscribed and professed by the testator Alipio

about the middle of the page and at the end of the attestation clause. The document

Abada as his last will and testament in our presence, the testator having also signed it in

contained the necessary signatures on each page, whereby each page of the will was

our presence on the left margin of each and every one of the pages of the same." The

authenticated and safeguarded against any possible alteration. In that case, the validity of

attestation clause clearly states that Abada signed the will and its every page in the

the will was sustained, and consequently it was allowed to probate. Applying that doctrine

presence of the witnesses. Caponong-Noble is correct in saying that the attestation clause

of Avera the instant case, we hold that, as each and every page used of the will bears the

does not indicate the number of witnesses. On this point, the Court agrees with the

signatures of the testator and the witnesses, the fact that said signatures do not all appear

appellate court in applying the rule on substantial compliance. While the attestation clause

on the left margin of each page does not detract from the validity of the will.

does not state the number of witnesses, a close inspection of the will shows that three

2. Numbers not letters - Yes. Still within the spirit of the law.; 3. Attestation clause did not

witnesses signed it.

state # of pages - last paragraph of the will stated number of pages so the will is still valid.

EVIDENCE ALIUNDE

4. Signed in the presence of each other - Yes. in the attestation clause above set out it is

2. No. The question on the number of the witnesses is answered by an examination of the

said that the testator signed the will "in the presence of each of the witnesses" and the

will itself and without the need for presentation of evidence aliunde. They do not allow

latter signed "in the presence of each other and of the testator." So that, as to whether the

evidence aliunde to fill a void in any part of the document or supply missing details that

testator and the attesting witnesses saw each other sign the will, such a requirement was

should appear in the will itself. They only permit a probe into the will, an exploration

clearly and sufficiently complied with. What is not stated in this clause is whether the

within its confines, to ascertain its meaning or to determine the existence or absence of the

testator and the witnesses signed all the sheets of the will.

requisite formalities of law.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)

Teodoro Caneda v. Court of Appeals

subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of

G.R. No. 103554; May 28, 1993

each other.

Facts:

-->It is our considered view that the absence of that statement required by law is a fatal

Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children, executed a will beofre three witnesses.

defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is

It was declared that the testator was leaving his property to Gaviola, Abatayos, Cabrera

here sought to be admitted to probate. Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the

and Alcantara, all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator.

aforestated defect in the attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized as merely

MAteo Caballero himself filed a petition seeking the probate of his will. The testator passed

involving the form of the will or the language used therein which would warrant the

away before his petition could finally be heard. Cabrera, one of hte legatees named in the

application of the substantial compliance rule. READ ART. 809.

will sought his appointment as administrator of the estate.

While it may be true that the attestation clause is indeed subscribed at the end thereof and

Thereafter, petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a

at the left margin of each page by the three attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot be

second petition for intestate proceedings. Cabrera died, hence the court appointed

conclusively inferred therefrom that the said witness affixed their respective signatures in

William(son) as the administrator. Pets opposed the allowance of the testator's will. Pets

the presence of the testator and of each other since, as petitioners correctly observed, the

also raised the issue as to genuineness of the signature of hte testator. One of the attesting

presence of said signatures only establishes the fact that it was indeed signed, but it does

witnesses and the notary public testified that the will was duly executed and that the

not prove that the attesting witnesses did subscribe to the will in the presence of the

testator was of sound and disposing mind. The trial court allowed the probate of the will.

testator and of each other.

The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. MR denied

Ruling: An examination of the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero shows that it is comprised of three sheets all of which have been numbered correlatively, with the left margin of each page thereof bearing the respective signatures of the testator and the three attesting witnesses. The part of the will containing the testamentary dispositions is expressed in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect and is signed at the foot thereof by the testator. The attestation clause in question, on the other hand, is recited in the English language and is likewise signed at the end thereof by the three attesting witnesses hereto. It is contended by petitioners that the aforequoted attestation clause, in contravention of the express requirements of the third paragraph of Article 805 of the Civil Code for attestation clauses, fails to specifically state the fact that the attesting witnesses the testator sign the will and all its pages in their presence and that they, the witnesses, likewise signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. We agree. What is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation clause herein assailed is the fact that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)

Eugenia Codoy v. Evangeline Calugay

Spouses Ajero v. Court of Appeals

Calugay, Salcedo and Patigas, devisees and legatees of the holo will of the deceased Matilde

G.R. No. 106720; September 15, 1994

Seno filed with the RTC of Misamis Oriental, a petition for probate of the holo will of the

Facts:

deceased.Codoy and Ramonal filed an opposition ot the petition for probate, alleging that

The testator named as devisees petitioners Ajero, private respondents Sands and Arong.

the holographic will was a forgery. Petitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated

Petitioners instituted a petition for the allowance of the will. PRs opposed the petition on

or appearing on will after every disposition is out of the ordinary. If the deceased was the

the grounds that neither the testament's body nor the signature therein was in decedent's

one who executed the will, and was not forced, the dates and the signature should appear

handwriting; it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by

at the bottom after the dispositions, as regularly done and not after every disposition.

decedent; and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue

Pets filed a demurrer. The TC granted the demurrer. The CA reversed the TCs decision.

influence. The TC allowed the probate of the will. The CA reversed the decision. It held that

Issues:

the decedent did not comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code.

WON the provisions of Article 811 are permissive or mandatory. Ruling:

Ruling:

Yes. The word "shall" connotes a mandatory order. We have ruled that "shall" in a statute

839 enumeration is exclusive. These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to

commonly denote an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion

disallow a will. 5 Thus, in a petition to admit a holographic will to probate, the only issues

and that the presumption is that the word "shall," when used in a statute is mandatory.

to be resolved are: (1) whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last

 We cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document being adjudged as the will of the

will and testament; (2) whether said will was executed in accordance with the formalities

testator, which is why if the holographic will is contested, that law requires three

prescribed by law; (3) whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at

witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.

the time the will was executed; and, (4) whether the execution of the will and its signing

The will was found not in the personal belongings of the deceased but with one of the

were the voluntary acts of the decedent.

respondents, who kept it even before the death of the deceased.

In the case at bench, respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne Sand was not

There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the signature and the handwriting of

executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. It held that Articles 813 and

the deceased with other documents signed and executed by her during her lifetime. The

814 of the New Civil Code, ante, were not complied with, hence, it disallowed the probate

only chance at comparison was during the cross-examination of Ms. Binanay when the

of said will. This is erroneous. A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its

lawyer of petitioners asked Ms. Binanay to compare the documents which contained the

requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but

signature of the deceased with that of the holographic will and she is not a handwriting

not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is

expert. Even the former lawyer of the deceased expressed doubts as to the authenticity of

that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the

the signature in the holographic will. A visual examination of the holographic will convince

whole testament void. Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate,

us that the strokes are different when compared with other documents written by the

notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814.

testator. The signature of the testator in some of the disposition is not readable. There

Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the

were uneven strokes, retracing and erasures on the will.

date of the holographic will or on testator's signature, 9 their presence does not invalidate

Comparing the signature in the holographic will and the signatures in several documents

the will itself. 10 The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such

such as the application letter for pasture permit and a letter the strokes are different. In

changes. It is also proper to note that the requirements of authentication of changes and

the letters, there are continuous flows of the strokes, evidencing that there is no hesitation

signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and 814) separate

in writing unlike that of the holographic will. We, therefore, cannot be certain that ruling

from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic

holographic will was in the handwriting by the deceased.

will (Article 810).

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)

Federico Azaola v. Cesario Singson

Again, under Article 811, the resort to expert evidence is conditioned by the words "if the

G.R. No. L-14003; August 5, 1960

Court deem it necessary", which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the Court

Facts:

should be convinced of the will's authenticity. Where the prescribed number of witnesses

When Fortunata Vda de Yance died, Francisco Azaola filed a petition for the probate of the

is produced and the court is convinced by their testimony that the ill is genuine, it may

former's will, whereby Maria Milgaros Azaola was made the sole heir as against the

consider it unnecessary to call for expert evidence. On the other hand, if no competent

nephew of the deceased Cesario Singson. Francisco witnessed that one mointh before the

witness is available, or none of those produced is convincing, the Court may still, and in

death of the testator, the same was handed to him and his wife.

fact it should, resort to handwriting experts. The duty of the Court, in fine, is to exhaust all

The opposition to the probate was on the ground that (1) the execution of the will was

available lines of inquiry, for the state is as much interested as the proponent that the true

procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the petitioner and

intention of the testator be carried into effect.

his wife, and (2) that the testatrix did not seriously intend the instrument to be her last will, and that the same was actually written either on the 5th or 6th day of August 1957

2. the rule of the first paragraph of Article 811 of the Civil Code is merely directory and is

and not on November 20, 1956 as appears on the will.

not mandatory.

The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the Civil Code, the

Considering, however, that this is the first occasion in which this Court has been called

proponent must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature

upon to construe the import of said article, the interest of justice would be better served, in

are in the writing of the testatrix, the probate being contested.

our opinion, by giving the parties ample opportunity to adduce additional evidence,

Issues:

including expert witnesses, should the Court deem them necessary.

1. WON the proponent was bound to produce more than one witness. 2. WON 811 is mandatory Ruling: 1. No. Since the authenticity of the will was not being contested.but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 of our present Civil Code cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the probate denied. Since no witness may have been present at the execution of a holographic will, none being required by law (Art. 810, new Civil Code), it becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. It may be true that the rule of this article (requiring that three witnesses be presented if the will is contested and only one if no contest is had) was derived from the rule established for ordinary testaments. 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. Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)

Natividad Nazareno v. Court of Appeals; G.R. No. 131641; February 23, 2000

“DATE-LOCATION”

Natividad is the sole and absolute owner of a land located in Naic, Cavite. She contends that

Labrador v. Court of Appeals

her brother Romeo and his wife convinced her to lend them the TCT of the lot to be used as

G.R. No. 83843-44; April 5, 1990

a collateral for a loan(for the construction of a cinema). Natividad agreed on the condition

Facts:

that the property would be returned within one year from the completion of the cinema.

Melecio Labrador left behind a parcel of land. He executed a holo will. His son Sagrado filed

Thus, Natividad executed a DOS. The cinema was completed but the spouses refused to

a petition for the probate of hte alleged holo will of Melecio. Jesus and Gaudencio(also

return the title, instead, they had the property transferred to their name. The spouses

sons) filed an opposition to the petition on the gound that the will has been extinguished

averred that the property did not belong to Natividad and that it formed part of the estate

or revoked by implication of law, alleging that before Melecio's death, testator executed a

of the late Maximo Nazareno. According to Romeo, the property was his share in their

DOS, transferring and conveying in favor or oppositors the subject parcel of land. Jesus

inheritance. The trial court ruled in favor of the spouses. But the CA ruled otherwise.

sold hte land to Navat. Sagrado filed for the annulment of the sale. The court allowed the

Hence, the RD was ordered to restore the TCT in favor of Natividad. Natividad filed a

probate of the will and declaring null and void the DOS.The CA modified the judgment by

Manifestation and Motion with the RTC praying for the issuance of a writ of execution as

denying the allowance of the probate of the will for being undated.

well as a writ of possession. The spouses opposed the motion on the ground that Natividad

Issue: WON the will of Melecio Labrador is dated, in accordance with Art. 810 of the NCC.

never prayed that she be placed in possession of the subject premises. Neither did the CA

Ruling:

order the pet to be placed in possession of the property. The TC granted the writ prayed

Yes. The petition, which principally alleges that the holographic will is really dated,

for but denied the issuance of a writ of possession. MR denied.

although the date is not in its usual place, is impressed with merit.The will has been dated

Ruling:

in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with Article 810.

No. Lot 504-A-3 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51798 was owned by the

The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will.

appellant in her own right as vendee and not appellee's share in the estate of their

The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the

deceased father.The Court of Appeals categorically declared that the claim of spouses

testator. /Respondents claim that the date 17 March 1968 in the will was when the

Romeo and Eliza over the disputed lot has utterly no factual basis. Therefore, they have no

testator and his beneficiaries entered into an agreement among themselves about "the

reason to remain in possession of the property. But the same could not be said of the Naic

partitioning and assigning the respective assignments of the said fishpond," and was not

Cinema. The matter of ownership and possession of the Naic Cinema was never put in

the date of execution of the holographic will; hence, the will is more of an "agreement"

issue. Consequently, petitioner cannot ask for a writ of possession to place her in physical

between the testator and the beneficiaries thereof to the prejudice of other compulsory

occupancy of the Naic Cinema. Being declared owner of subject lot does not also mean that

heirs like the respondents. This was thus a failure to comply with Article 783 which

she is automatically entitled to possession of all the improvements therein. Otherwise, the

defines a will as "an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by

actual possessor would be deprived of his property without due process of law. Pet cannot

law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his

validly claim possession over the Naic Cinema since in her complaint and subsequent

death." Respondents are in error. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of the

pleadings, she has admitted not being the owner thereof. On the contrary, she claims that

execution of the will is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. As

the Naic Cinema belongs to the estate of her father. On the other hand, respondent spouses

aptly put by petitioner, the will was not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio

have asserted dominion over the Naic Cinema. Plainly, petitioner cannot wrest possession

Labrador who plainly knew that what he was executing was a will. The act of partitioning

of the moviehouse from respondent spouses through a mere writ of possession as she

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

herself even disclaims being the owner thereof. Ownership over the Naic Cinema must be

followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was fully aware of the nature of the estate property

threshed out in a proper proceeding. A mere prayer for the issuance of a writ of possession

to be disposed of and of the character of the testamentary act as a means to control the

will not suffice.

disposition of his estate.

Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)

Paz Samaniego-Celada v. Lucia Abena

consonance with the "doctrine of liberal interpretation" enunciated in Article 809 of the

G.R. No. 145545, June 30, 2008

Civil Code.

Facts:

The court also rejects the contention of the oppositors that the signatures of the testator

Paz Samaniego-Celada was the first cousin of decedent Margarita S. Mayores (Margarita)

were affixed on different occasions based on their observation that the signature on the

while respondent was the decedent's lifelong companion since 1929.Margarita died single

first page is allegedly different in size, texture and appearance as compared with the

and without any ascending nor descending heirs as her parents, grandparents and siblings

signatures in the succeeding pages. After examination of the signatures, the court does not

predeceased her. She was survived by her first cousins Catalina Samaniego-Bombay,

share the same observation as the oppositors. The picture presented as evidence shows

Manuelita Samaniego Sajonia, Feliza Samaniego, and petitioner.

that the testator was affixing her signature in the presence of the instrumental witnesses

Margarita executed a will where she bequeathed one-half of her undivided share of a real

and the notary. There is no evidence to show that the first signature was procured earlier

property to respondent, Isabelo Abena and Amanda Abena. Margarita also left all her

than February 2, 1987.

personal properties to respondent. Pet filed a petition for letters of administration of the estate. Respondent filed a pet for

2. Petitioner and her siblings are not compulsory heirs of the decedent under Article

probate of the will. The RTC rendered a decision declareing the will of Margarita probated

887[15] of the Civil Code and as the decedent validly disposed of her properties in a will

and respondent as the sole executor of the will. CA affirmed the RTC ruling.

duly executed and probated, petitioner has no legal right to claim any part of the decedent's estate.

Issues: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the will invalid for failure to comply with the formalities required by law (3) whether it erred in not declaring petitioner and her siblings as the legal heirs of Margarita, and in not issuing letters of administration to petitioner.

Ruling: --> Issues raised by petitioner concern pure questions of fact, which may not be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. Anent the contestants' submission that the will is fatally defective for the reason that its attestation clause states that the will is composed of three (3) pages while in truth and in fact, the will consists of two (2) pages only because the attestation is not a part of the notarial will, the same is not accurate. While it is true that the attestation clause is not a part of the will, the court, after examining the totality of the will, is of the considered opinion that error in the number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will. It must be noted that the subject instrument is consecutively lettered with pages A, B, and C which is a sufficient safeguard from the possibility of an omission of some of the pages. The error must have been brought about by the honest belief that the will is the whole instrument consisting of three (3) pages inclusive of the attestation clause and the acknowledgement. The position of the court is in Octaviano, Clarence ∑β(1932)