Garciav.

Lacuesta
G.R.L4067November29,1951
Ponente:Paras,C.J.
Facts:
1.TheCAdisallowedtheprobateofthewillofAnteroMercadodatedJan1943.Thesaidwillwaswrittenin
Ilocanodialect.
2.ThewillappearstohavebeensignedbyAtty.FlorentinoJavierwhowrotethenameofthetestatorfollowed
belowby'Aruegodeltestador'andthenameofFlorentinoJavier.Ineffect,itwassignedbyanotheralthough
undertheexpressdirectionofthetestator.Thisfacthoweverwasnotrecitedintheattestationclause.Mercado
alsoaffixedacrossonthewill.
3.ThelowercourtadmittedthewilltoprobatebutthisorderwasreversedbytheCourtofAppealsontheground
thattheattestationfailedtorecitethefactssurroundingthesigningofthetestatorandthewitnesses.
Issue:Whetherornottheattestationclauseinthewillisvalid
HELD:NOtheattestationisfatallydefectiveforitsfailuretostatethatAnteroorthetestatorcausedAtty.Javier
towritetheformer'snameunderhisexpressdirectionasrequiredbySec.618oftheCivilProcedure.Finally,on
thecrossaffixedonthewillbythetestator,theCourtheldthatitisnotpreparedtolikenthemeresignofacross
toathumbmarkforobviousreasonsthecrossdoesnothavethetrustworthinessofathumbmarksoitisnot
consideredasavalidsignature.

Balonanvs.Abellana
AnacletaAbellanaleftawill.Insaidwill,sheletacertainJuanBellosignthewillforher.Thewillconsistsoftwo
pages.ThefirstpageissignedbyJuanAbelloandunderhisnameappearstypewrittenPorlatestadoraAnacleta
Abellana.Onthesecondpage,appearsthesignatureofJuanBellounderwhosenameappearsthephrase,Por
laTestadoraAnacletaAbellanathistime,thephraseishandwritten.
ISSUE:WhetherornotthesignatureofBelloappearingabovethetypewrittenphrasePorlatestadora
AnacletaAbellanacomplywiththerequirementsofthelawprescribingthemannerinwhichawillshall
beexecuted.
HELD:No.Article805oftheCivilCodeprovidesthat:
Everywill,otherthanaholographicwill,mustbesubscribedattheendthereofbythetestatorhimselforbythe
testatorsnamewrittenbysomeotherpersoninhispresence,andbyhisexpressdirection,andattestedand
subscribedbythreeormorecrediblewitnessesinthepresenceofthetestatorandofoneanother.
Inthecaseatbarthenameofthetestatrix,AnacletaAbellana,doesnotappearwrittenunderthewillbysaid
Abellanaherself,orbyJuanAbello.Thereis,therefore,afailuretocomplywiththeexpressrequirementinthe
lawthatthetestatormusthimselfsignthewill,orthathisnamebeaffixedtheretobysomeotherpersoninhis
presenceandbyhisexpressdirection.
NotethatthephrasePorlatestadoraAnacletaAbellanawastypewrittenandaboveitwasthesignatureof
Abellosoineffect,whenAbelloonlysignedhisnamewithoutwritingthatheisdoingsoforAnacleta,he
actuallyomittedthenameofthetestatrix.Thisisasubstantialviolationofthelawandwouldrenderthewill
invalid.

Nerav.Rimando
G.R.L5971February27,1911
Ponente:Carson,J.:
'TestofPresence'
Facts:
1.Atthetimethewillwasexecuted,inalargeroomconnectingwithasmallerroombyadoorwaywherea
curtainhangsacross,oneofthewitnesseswasintheoutsideroomwhentheotherwitnesseswereattachingtheir
signaturestotheinstrument.
2.Thetrialcourtdidnotconsiderthedeterminationoftheissueastothepositionofthewitnessasofvital
importanceindeterminingthecase.ItagreedwiththerulinginthecaseofJabonetav.Gustillothatthealleged
factbeingthatoneofthesubscribingwitnesseswasintheouterroomwhilethesigningoccurredintheinner
room,wouldnotbesufficienttoinvalidatetheexecutionofthewill.
3.TheCAdeemedthewillvalid.
Issue:Whetherornotthesubscribingwitnesswasabletoseethetestatorandotherwitnessesintheactof
affixingtheirsignatures.
HELD:YES
TheCourtisunanimousinitsopinionthathadthewitnessesbeenproventobeintheouterroomwhenthe
testatorandotherwitnessessignedthewillintheinnerroom,itwouldhaveinvalidatedthewillsincethe
attachingofthesignaturesunderthecircumstanceswasnotdone'inthepresence'ofthewitnessesintheouter
room.Thelineofvisionofthewitnesstothetestatorandotherwitnesseswasblockedbythecurtainseparating
therooms.
Thepositionofthepartiesmustbesuchthatwithrelationtoeachotheratthemomentoftheattachingthe
signatures,theymayseeeachothersigniftheychoseto.
IntheJabonetacase,thetruetestofpresenceisnotwhetherornottheyactualysaweachothersignbutwhether
theymighthaveseeneachothersigniftheychosetodosoconsideringtheirphysical,mentalconditionand
positioninrelationtoeachotheratthemomentoftheinscriptionofthesignature.

Taboadavs.Rosal
DoroteaPerezleft a will.The willhas two pages. Onthefirstpage, which containstheentiretestamentary
dispositions,werethesignaturesofthethreeinstrumentalwitnessesandthatofDoroteaPerez.Thesignaturesof
thethreeinstrumentalwitnesseswereonthe leftmarginwhilePerezsignaturewasonthebottom.Onthesecond
page,whichcontainstheattestationclauseandtheacknowledgement,werethesignaturesofthethreeattesting
witnessesandthatofDoroteaPerez.Theattestationclausefailedtostatethenumberofpagesusedinthewill.
Taboadapetitionedfortheadmissiontoprobateofthesaidwill.ThejudgewhohandledthepetitionwasJudge
RamonPamatian.Hedeniedthepetition.TaboadafiledamotionforreconsiderationbutPamatianwasnotable
toactonitbecausehewastransferredtoanotherjurisdiction.ThecasewasinheritedbyJudgeRosalwhoalso
deniedtheMFRonthegroundsthata)thatthetestatorandtheinstrumentalwitnessesdidnotallsignonthe
leftmargin of the page as prescribed by law; that the testator and the witnesses should have placed their
signatureinthesameplaceb)thattheattestationclausefailedtostatethenumberofpagesusedinwritingthe
willthis,accordingtoJudgeRosalviolatedtherequirementthattheattestationclauseshallstatethenumberof
pagesorsheetsuponwhichthewilliswritten,whichrequirementhasbeenheldtobemandatoryasaneffective
safeguardagainstthepossibilityofinterpolationoromissionofsomeofthepagesofthewilltotheprejudiceof
theheirstowhomthepropertyisintendedtobebequeathed.

ISSUE:Whetherornotthewillshouldbeadmittedtoprobate.

HELD:Yes.Thelawmustbeinterpretedliberally.
Further,thereissubstantialcompliancewiththelaw.Itwouldbeabsurdthatthelegislatureintendedtoplaceso
heavyanimportonthespaceorparticularlocationwherethesignaturesaretobefoundaslongasthisspaceor
particularlocationwhereinthesignaturesarefoundisconsistentwithgoodfaith.
Thefailuretoincludeintheattestationclauseofthenumberofpagesusedinwritingthewillwouldhavebeena
fataldefect.Butthenagain,themattershouldbeapproachedliberally.Therewereonlytwopagesinthewillleft
byPerez.Thefirstpagecontainstheentiretyofthetestamentarydispositionsandsignedbythetestatrixatthe
endoratthebottomwhiletheinstrumentalwitnessessignedattheleftmargin.Theotherpagewhichismarked
asPaginadoscomprisestheattestationclauseandtheacknowledgment.Further,theacknowledgmentitself
statesthatThisLastWillandTestamentconsistsoftwopagesincludingthispage.

ECHAVEZ,v.DOZENCONSTRUCTIONANDDEVELOPMENTCORPORATIONetal.
G.R.No.192916:October11,2010
Facts:VicenteEchavezwastheabsoluteownerofseverallotsinCebuCity,whichhedonatedtopetitioner
ManuelEchavez(Manuel)throughaDeedofDonationMortisCausa.InMarch1986,VicenteexecutedaContract
toSelloverthesamelotsinfavorofDozenConstructionandDevelopmentCorporation(DozenCorporation).In
October1986,theyexecutedtwoDeedsofAbsoluteSaleoverthesamepropertiescoveredbytheprevious
ContracttoSell.OnNovember6,1986,Vicentedied.EmilianoCabanig,Vicentesnephew,filedapetitionforthe
settlementofVicentesintestateestate.Ontheotherhand,ManuelfiledapetitiontoapproveVicentesdonation
mortiscausainhisfavorandanactiontoannulthecontractsofsaleVicenteexecutedinfavorofDozen
Corporation.Thesecaseswerejointlyheard.
TheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)dismissedManuelspetitiontoapprovethedonationandhisactionforannulment
ofthecontractsofsale.TheCourtofAppeals(CA)affirmedtheRTCsdecision.TheCAheldthatsincethe
donationinfavorofManuelwasadonationmortiscausa,compliancewiththeformalitiesforthevalidityofwills
shouldhavebeenobserved.TheCAfoundthatthedeedofdonationdidnotcontainanattestationclauseandwas
thereforevoid.BeingunsatisfiedwiththedecisionoftheCA,ManuelfiledapetitionforreviewonCertiorari
beforetheSC.
Held:TheCAcorrectlydeclaredthatadonationmortiscausamustcomplywiththeformalitiesprescribedbylaw
forthevalidityofwills,c"otherwise,thedonationisvoidandwouldproducenoeffect."wArticles805and806of
theCivilCodeshouldhavebeenapplied.Thattherequirementsofattestationandacknowledgmentareembodied
intwoseparateprovisionsoftheCivilCode(Articles805and806,respectively)indicatesthatthelaw
contemplatestwodistinctactsthatservedifferentpurposes.Anacknowledgmentismadebyoneexecutinga
deed,declaringbeforeacompetentofficerorcourtthatthedeedoractishisown.Ontheotherhand,the
attestationofawillreferstotheactoftheinstrumentalwitnessesthemselveswhocertifytotheexecutionofthe
instrumentbeforethemandtothemannerofitsexecution.hAlthoughthewitnessesinthepresentcase
acknowledgedtheexecutionoftheDeedofDonationMortisCausabeforethenotarypublic,thisisnottheavowal
thelawrequiresfromtheinstrumentalwitnessestotheexecutionofadecedentswill.Anattestationmuststate
allthedetailsthethirdparagraphofArticle805requires.Intheabsenceoftherequiredavowalbythewitnesses
themselves,noattestationclausecanbedeemedembodiedintheAcknowledgementoftheDeedofDonation
MortisCausa.

Icasianovs.Icasiano
G.R.No.L18979June30,1964
Facts:
1.CelsoIcasiano,filedapetitionfortheprobateofthewillofJosefaVillacorteandforhisappointmentas
executorthereof.ItappearsfromtheevidencethatthetestatrixdiedonSeptember12,1958.Sheexecutedawill
inTagalog,andthroughthehelpofherlawyer,itwaspreparedinduplicates,anoriginalandacarboncopy.
2.Onthedaythatitwassubscribedandattested,thelawyeronlybroughttheoriginalcopyofthewillwhilethe
carbonduplicate(unsigned)wasleftinBulacan.Oneofthewitnessesfailedtosignoneofthepagesinthe
originalcopybutadmittedhemayhavelifted2pagessimultaneouslyinsteadwhenhesignedthewill.
Nevertheless,heaffirmedthatthewillwassignedbythetestatorandotherwitnessesinhispresence.
Issue:Whetherornotthefailureofoneofthesubscribingwitnessestoaffixhissignaturetoapageis
sufficienttodenyprobateofthewill
RULING:No,thefailuretosignwasentirelythroughpureoversightormereinadvertence.Sincetheduplicated
boretherequiredsignatures,thisprovesthattheomissionwasnotintentional.Eveniftheoriginalisinexistence,
aduplicatemaystillbeadmittedtoprobatesincetheoriginalisdeemedtobedefective,theninlaw,thereisno
otherwillbuthedulysignedcarbonduplicateandthesamecanbeprobated.
Thelawshouldnotbestrictlyandliterallyinterpretedastopenalizethetestatrixonaccountoftheinadvertence
ofasinglewitnessoverwhoseconductshehasnocontrolof.Wherethepurposeofthelawistoguaranteethe
identityofthetestamentanditscomponentpages,andthereisnointentionalordeliberatedeviationexisted.
Notethatthisrulingshouldnotbetakenasadeparturefromtherulesthatthewillshouldbesignedbythe
witnessesoneverypage.Thecarboncopyduplicatewasregularinallrespects.

Cruzv.Villasor
G.R.L32213November26,1973

Ponente:Esguerra,J.:
Facts:
1.TheCFIofCebuallowedtheprobateofthelastwillandtestamentofthelateValentiCruz.However,the
petitioneropposedtheallowanceofthewillallegingthatitwasexecutedthroughfraud,deceit,
misrepresentation,andundueinfluence.Hefurtherallegedthattheinstrumentwasexecutedwithoutthetestator
havingbeeninformedofitscontentsandfinally,thatitwasnotexecutedinaccordancewithlaw.
2.Oneofthewitnesses,AngelTevelJr.wasalsothenotarybeforewhomthewillwasacknowledged.Despitethe
objection,thelowercourtadmittedthewilltoprobateonthegroundthatthereissubstantialcompliancewith
thelegalrequirementsofhavingatleast3witnessesevenifthenotarypublicwasoneofthem.
Issue:WhetherornotthewillisvalidinaccordancewithArt.805and806oftheNCC
HELD:NO.
Thewillisnotvalid.Thenotarypubliccannotbeconsideredasthethirdinstrumentalwitnesssincehecannot
acknowledgebeforehimselfhishavingsignedthesaidwill.Anacknowledgingofficercannotserveaswitnessat
thesametime.
Toacknowledgebeforemeanstoavow,ortoownasgenuine,toassent,admit,and'before'meansinfrontofor
precedinginspaceoraheadof.Thenotarycannotsplithispersonalityintotwosothatonewillappearbeforethe
othertoacknowledgehisparticipationinthemakingofthewill.Topermitsuchsituationwouldbeabsurd.
Finally,thefunctionofanotaryamongothersistoguardagainstanyillegalorimmoralarrangements,afunction
defeatedifheweretobeoneoftheattestingorinstrumentalwitnesses.Hewouldbeinterestedinsustainingthe
validityofthewillasitdirectlyinvolveshimselfandthevalidityofhisownact.hewouldbeinaninconsistent
position,thwartingtheverypurposeoftheacknowledgment,whichistominimizefraud.

Gabucanvs.Manta
G.R.No.L51546;January28,1980]

TOPIC:Effectoffailuretoattachstamptotaxabledocument,instrumentorpaper.
DOCTRINE:
Ataxableinstrument,documentorpaperwhichdoesnotbearthestampshallnotberecorded,norshallitorany
copythereoforanyrecordoftransferofthesamebeadmittedorusedinevidenceinanycourt.Thenon
admissibilityofthedocument,whichdoesnotbeartherequisitedocumentarystamp,subsistsonly"untilthe
requisitestamporstampsshallhavebeenaffixedtheretoandcancelled."(Sec.201NIRC)
FACTS:
TheCFIdismissedtheprobateproceedingsforthewillofthelateRogacianoGabucan.Theproceedingwas
dismissedbecausetherequisitedocumentarystampwasnotaffixedtothenotarialacknowledgmentinthewill
and,hence,accordingtotheCFI,itwasnotadmissibleinevidence,citingsection238oftheTaxCode,now
section201NIRC1997.
ISSUE:Whetherornottheproceedingshouldbedismissedbecausethewillwasnotdulystamped.
HELD:
No.TheCFIdismissedthecaseandeventhemotionforreconsiderationwhereinpetitionerwasalready
manifestingthathehadalreadyattachedthestamptotheoriginalofthewill.TheCFIerredindeclaringthat,
becausenodocumentarystampwasaffixedtothewill,therewas"nowillandtestamenttoprobate"and,
consequently,thealleged"actionmustofnecessitybedismissed".Instead,thecourtshouldhaveallowedthe
petitionertotenderthestampinordertocorrectthedeficiency.Thenonadmissibilityofthedocument,which
doesnotbeartherequisitedocumentarystamp,subsistsonly"untiltherequisitestamporstampsshallhavebeen
affixedtheretoandcancelled."

Javellanavs.Ledesma
G.R.No.L7179
Facts:

1.TheCFIofIloiloadmittedtoprobateawillandcodicilexecutedbythedeceasedApolinariaLedesmainJuly
1953.ThistestamentwasdeemedexecutedonMay1950andMay1952.Thecontestantwasthesisterand
nearestsurvivingrelativeofthedeceased.Sheappealedfromthisdecisionallegingthatthewillwerenot
executedinaccordancewithlaw.
2.Thetestamentwasexecutedatthehouseofthetestatrix.Onetheotherhand,thecodicilwasexecutedafter
theenactmentoftheNewCivilCode(NCC),andthereforehadtobeacknowledgedbeforeanotarypublic.Now,
thecontestant,whohappenstobeoneoftheinstrumentalwitnessesassertedthatafterthecodicilwassigned
andattestedattheSanPablohospital,thatGimotea(thenotary)signedandsealeditonthesameoccasion.
Gimotea,however,saidthathedidnotdoso,andthattheactofsigningandsealingwasdoneafterwards.
2.Oneoftheallegationswasthatthecertificateofacknowledgementtothecodicilwassignedsomewhereelseor
intheofficeofthenotary.Theixandthewitnessesatthehospital,wassignedandsealedbythenotaryonly
whenhebroughtitinhisoffice.
Issue:Whetherornotthesigningandsealingofthewillorcodicilintheabsenceofthetestatorand
witnessesaffectsthevalidityofthewill
RULING:NO.UnlikeintheOldCivilCodeof1899,theNCCdoesnotrequirethatthesigningofthetestator,the
witnessesandthenotarybeaccomplishedinonesingleact.Allthatisrequiredisthateverywillmustbe
acknowledgedbeforeanotarypublicbythetestatorandwitnesses.Thesubsequentsigningandsealingisnotpart
oftheacknowledgementitselfnorofthetestamentaryact.Theirseparateexecutionoutofthepresenceofthe
testatorandthewitnessescannotbeaviolationoftherulethattestamentsshouldbecompletedwithout
interruption.

Kalawv.Relova
G.R.No.L40207September28,1984
MelencioHerrera,J.(Ponente)

Facts:
1.GregorioKalaw,theprivaterespondent,claimingtobethesoleheirofsisterNatividad,filedapeitionfor
probateofthelatter'sholographicwillin1968.Thewillcontained2alterations:a)Rosa'sname,designatedas
thesoleheirwascrossedoutandinstead"Rosario"waswrittenaboveit.Suchwasnotinitialed,b)Rosa'sname
wascrossedoutassoleexecutrixandGregorio'sma,ewaswrittenaboveit.Thisalterationwasinitialedbythe
testator.
2.Rosacontendedthatthewillasfirstwrittenshouldbegiveneffectsothatshewouldbethesoleheir.The
lowercourtdeniedtheprobateduetotheunauthenticatedalterationsandadditions.
Issue:Whetherornotthewillisvalid
RULING:No,thewillisvoidedorrevokedsincenothingremainsinthewillwhichcouldremainvalidasthere
wasonlyonedispositioninit.Suchwasalteredbythesubstitutionoftheoriginalheirwithanother.Torulethat
thefirstwillshouldbegiveneffectistodisregardthetestatrix'changeofmind.However,thischangeofmind
cannotbegiveneffecteitherasshefailedtoauthenticateitinaccordancewithArt.814,orbyaffixingherfull
signature.