Taboada vs. Rosal GR L-36033.

November 5, 1982
FACTS Petitioner Apolonio Taboada filed a petition for probate of the will of the late
Dorotea perez. The will consisted of two pages, the first page containing all the
testamentary dispositions of the testator and was signed at the end or bottom of
the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the three
instrumental witnesses. The second page consisted of the attestation clause and
the acknowledgment was signed at the end of the attestation clause by the three
witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix. The trial court disallowed the
will for want of formality in its execution because the will was signed at the bottom
of the page solely by the testatrix, while the three witnesses only signed at the left
hand margin of the page. The judge opined that compliance with the formalities of
the law required that the witnesses also sign at the end of the will because the
witnesses attest not only the will itself but the signature of the testatrix. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE Was the object of attestation and subscription fully when the instrumental
witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page which contains all the
testamentary dispositions?
HELD
(SHORT RULING)
On certiorari, the Supreme Court held a) that the objects of attestation and
subscription were fully met and satisfied in the present case when the instrumental
witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page which contains all the
testamentary dispositions, especially so when the will was properly identified by a
subscribing witness to be the same will executed by the testatrix; and b) that the
failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages used in writing the will
would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that it is really and actually
composed of only two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her instrumental
witnesses.
(LONG RULING [VERBATIM])
Undoubtedly, under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will must be subscribed or
signed at its end by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by
another person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and
of one another.
It must be noted that the law uses the terms attested and subscribed. Attestation
consists in witnessing the testator's execution of the will in order to see and take
note mentally that those things are done which the statute requires for the
execution of a will and that the signature of the testator exists as a fact. On the

other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names upon the same
paper for the purpose of identification of such paper as the will which was executed
by the testator. (Ragsdale v. Hill, 269 SW 2d 911).

The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of
the will attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but
also the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause.
While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure
from the usual forms should be ignored, especially where the authenticity of the will
is not assailed. (Gonzales v. Gonzales, 90 Phil. 444, 449).
The law is to be liberally construed, "the underlying and fundamental objective
permeating the provisions on the law on wills in this project consists in the
liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving the
testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes but with sufficient safeguards
and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and
improper pressure and influence upon the testator. This objective is in accord with
the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the execution of a will" (Report
of the Code Commission, p. 103).
The objects of attestation and of subscription were fully met and satisfied in the
present case when the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole
page which contains all the testamentary dispositions, especially so when the will
was properly identified by subscribing witness Vicente Timkang to be the same will
executed by the testatrix. There was no question of fraud or substitution behind the
questioned order.

Testate Estate of Cagro v. Cagro Digest

Testate Estate of Cagro vs. Cagro
G.R. L-5826

Facts:
1. The case is an appeal interposed by the oppositors from a decision of the CFI of
Samar which admitted to probate a will allegedly executed by Vicente Cagro who
died in Pambujan, Samar on Feb. 14, 1949.

2. The appellants insisted that the will is defective because the attestation was not
signed by the witnesses at the bottom although the page containing the same was
signed by the witnesses on the left hand margin.

3. Petitioner contended that the signatures of the 3 witnesses on the left hand
margin conform substantially to law and may be deemed as their signatures to the
attestation clause.

Issue: Whether or not the will is valid

HELD: Will is not valid. The attestation clause is a memorandum of the facts
attending the execution of the will. It is required by law to be made by the attesting
witnesses and it must necessarily bear their signatures.
An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses
since the omission of their signatures at the bottom negatives their participation.

Moreover, the signatures affixed on the let hand margin is not substantial
conformance to the law. The said signatures were merely in conformance with the
requirement that the will must be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages. If
the attestation clause is unsigned by the 3 witnesses at the bottom, it would be
easier to add clauses to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of the
testator and any or all of the witnesses.

The probate of the will is denied.

- See more at: http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2013/01/cagro-v-cagrodigest.html#sthash.Lo9fjFeT.dpuf

Case # 28

Icasiano vs. Icasiano

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOSEFA VILLACORTE. CELSO
ICASIANO,
petitioner-appellee, vs.
NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO,
oppositors-appellants. Notes: (from business dictionary)
Definition of duplicate copy
The two classifications are: (1) copies produced for information purposes only and
which may be destroyed after use, and (2) copies that
have administrative, fiscal, legal, or historical value.
Definition of duplicate original
A copy that has all the essential aspects of the original, including signatures.
Notes
A duplicate original of a letter may be created and sent by different routes to
increase the likelihood that at least one original copy arrives to the addressee.
FACTS: 1. JosefaVillacorta executed her last will and testament in duplicate on June
2, 1956 and she died on Sept. 12, 1958. The will was: * attested by three
instrumental witnesses- Justo Torres Jr., Jose Natividad and VinicioDy *
acknowledged by the testatrix and the three instrumental witnesses on the same
date before Atty. Ong, Notary Public * the will was actually prepared by Atty.
Samson who was present during the execution
and signing of the decedents last will and testament.
* pages of the original and duplicate were duly numbered * the attestation clause
contains all the facts required by law to be recited therein and signed by the
attesting witnesses * will is written in the language known to and spoken by the
testatrix (Tagalog) * will was executed in one single occasion in duplicate copies *
both original and duplicate copies were duly acknowledged before the Notary Public
on the same date. 2.

The will consisted of five pages and while signed at the end and in every page, it
does not contain the signature of one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose Natividad
on page 3 thereof;

but the duplicate copy attached was signed by the testatrix and the three attesting
witnesses in each and every page. ISSUE: Does the failure of one of the attesting
witnesses to sign on one page of the original invalidate the will, and hence, denial of
the probate? HELD: NO. 1. The inadvertent failure of one of the witnesses to affix his
signature to one page of a testament, due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages
in the course of signing, is not per se sufficient to justify the denial of the probate.
The impossibility of substituting this page is cured since the testatrix and two other
witnesses signed the defective page, and that the document bears the imprint of
the seal of the notary public before whom the testament was ratified by the
testatrix and all three witnesses. 2. The law should not be strictly and literally
interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single
witness over whose conduct she has no control, where the purpose of the law to
guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently
attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation existence, and the evidence on
record attests to the full observance of the statutory requisites. 3. Despite the literal
tenor of the law, the Court has held that in other cases that; a. a testament with the
only page signed at its foot by the testator and witnesses but not in the left margin
could be probated(Abangan vs. Abangan) b. despite the requirement of correlative
lettering of the pages of a will, the failure to make the first page either by letters or
numbers is not a fatal defect (Lopez vs. Liboro).

These precedents exemplify the Courts policy to require satisfaction of the legal
requirements in
order to guard against fraud and bad faith, but without undue or unnecessary
curtailment of the testamentary privilege. 4. The appellants also argued that since
the original of the will is in existence and available, the duplicate is not entitled to
probate. Since they opposed the probate of the original because of the lacking
signature on page 3, it is easily discerned that the oppositors-appellants run into a
dilemma. If the original is defective and invalid, then in the law, there is no other
will but the duly signed carbon duplicate, and the same is probatable. If the original
is valid and can be probated, then the objection to the signed duplicate need not
be considered, being superfluous and irrelevant. At any rate, said duplicate, serves
to prove that the omission of one signature in the third page of the original
testament was inadvertent and not intentional.

Guison v. Concepcion, 5 Phil. 551

/---!e-library! 6.0 Philippines Copyright 2000 by Sony Valdez---\

[1906V30] TOMAS GUISON, petitioner-appellant, vs. MARIA CONCEPCION,

respondent.1906 Jan 19En BancG.R. No. 2586D E C I S I O N

WILLARD, J.:

Jacoba Concepcion Salcedo made her will in Manila, on January 3, 1904. The last
part of the will is as follows:

"Asi lo otorgo ante los testigos Seores Ambrosio Reyes, Mariano de Leon y Felix
Polintan, de Manila, Islas Filipinas, y por no yo poder firmar, firma a mi ruego el
mismo Feliciano Maglaqui, en mi presencia y de los mencionados testigos, quienes
tambien suscriben, cada uno de ellos en presencia de los otros y la mia.

"(Firmado)----FELICIANO MAGLAQUI.
"(Firmado)----AMBROSIO REYES.
"(Firmado)----MARIANO DE LEON.
"(Firmado)----FELIX POLINTAN.

"Nosotros Ambrosio Reyes, Mariano de Leon y Felix Polintan, atestiguamos que

Filiciano Maglaqui, a ruego de la Sra. Jacoba Concepcion Salcedo y en presencia de
la misma y la nuestra, firmo el testamento que antecede; y que cada uno de
nosotros lo firmo en presencia de los otros y de dicha testadora.
"Manila, tres de Enero de mil novecientos cuatro.

"(Firmado)----AMBROSIO REYES.
"(Firmado)----MARIANO DE LEON.
"(Firmado)----FELIX POLINTAN."

It will be seen that the witness Feliciano Maglaqui, instead of writing the name of
the testatrix on the will, wrote his own. Probate of the will was refused in the court
below on the ground that the name of the testatrix was not signed thereto, and the
petitioner has appealed. The question presented has been decided adversely to the
appellant in the following cases: Ex parte Pedro Arcenas et al., 1 No. 1708, August
24, 1905 (4 Off. Gaz., 568); Ex parte Nemesio Delfin Santiago, 2 No. 2002, August
18, 1905 (4 Off. Gaz., 507.)

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against
the appellant, and after the expiration of twenty days judgment should be entered
in accordance herewith and the case remanded to the court below for execution. So
ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

---------------

Footnotes

1. 4 Phil. Rep., 700.

2. 4 Phil. Rep., 692.

\---!e-library! 6.0 Philippines Copyright 2000 by Sony Valdez---/

([1906V30] TOMAS GUISON, petitioner-appellant, vs. MARIA CONCEPCION,

respondent., G.R. No. 2586, 1906 Jan 19, En Banc)