Acop vs.

Piraso
G.R. No. L-28946, January 16, 1929

FACTS:

This appeal was taken from the judgment of the CFI of Benguet, denying the probate of the instrument as
the last will and testament of the deceased Piraso. The deceased Piraso did not know English, in which
language the instrument alleged to be his will, is drawn. The evidence shows that Piraso knew how to
speak the Ilocano dialect, although imperfectly, and could make himself understood in that dialect, and
the court is of the opinion that his will should have been written in that dialect.

ISSUE:

WON the last will and testament of Piraso is valid.

HELD:

No.

Section 628 of the Code of Civil Procedure, strictly provides that: "No will, except as provides in the
preceding section" (as to wills executed by a Spaniard or a resident of the Philippine Islands, before the
present Code of Civil Procedure went into effect), "shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, nor
charge or affect the same, unless it be written in the language or dialect known by the testator," etc. Nor
can the presumption in favor of the will established by this court in Abangan vs. Abangan (40 Phil., 476),
to the effect that the testator is presumed to know the dialect of the locality where he resides, unless
there is proof to the contrary, even he invoked in support of the probate of said document as a will,
because, in the instant case, not only is it not proven that English is the language of the City of Baguio
where the deceased Piraso lived and where the instrument was drawn, but that the record contains
positive proof that said Piraso knew no other language than the Igorrote dialect, with a smattering of
Ilocano; that is, he did not know the English language in which the instrument is written. So that even if
such a presumption could have been raised in this case it would have been wholly contradicted and
destroyed.

The instrument in question could not be probated as the last will and testament of the deceased Piraso,
having been written in the English language with which the latter.

The fact is that it is quite certain that the instrument was written in English which the supposed testator
Piraso did not know, and this is sufficient to invalidate said will according to the clear and positive
provisions of the law, and inevitably prevents its probate.
Taboada vs Rosal
G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982

Facts:
Dorotea Perez left a will. The will has two pages. On the first page, which contains the entire testamentary
dispositions, were the signatures of the three instrumental witnesses and that of Dorotea Perez. The
signatures of the three instrumental witnesses were on the left margin while Perez’ signature was on the
bottom. On the second page, which contains the attestation clause and the acknowledgement, were the
signatures of the three attesting witnesses and that of Dorotea Perez. The attestation clause failed to
state the number of pages used in the will. Taboada petitioned for the admission to probate of the said
will. The Judge Pamatian denied the petition. Taboada filed a motion for reconsideration but Pamatian
was not able to act on it because he was transferred to another jurisdiction. The case was inherited by
Judge Rosal who also denied the MFR on the grounds that a) that the testator and the instrumental
witnesses did not all sign on the left margin of the page as prescribed by law; that the testator and the
witnesses should have placed their signature in the same place b) that the attestation clause failed to
state the number of pages used in writing the will – this, according to Judge Rosal violated the requirement
that the attestation clause shall state the number of pages or sheets upon which the will is written, which
requirement has been held to be mandatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of
interpolation or omission of some of the pages of the will to the prejudice of the heirs to whom the
property is intended to be bequeathed.

Issue:
Whether or not the will should be admitted to probate.

Held:
Yes. The law must be interpreted liberally.
Further, there is substantial compliance with the law. It would be absurd that the legislature intended to
place so heavy an import on the space or particular location where the signatures are to be found as long
as this space or particular location wherein the signatures are found is consistent with good faith.

The failure to include in the attestation clause of the number of pages used in writing the will would have
been a fatal defect. But then again, the matter should be approached liberally. There were only two pages
in the will left by Perez. The first page contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions and signed
by the testatrix at the end or at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin.
The other page which is marked as “Pagina dos” comprises the attestation clause and the
acknowledgment. Further, the acknowledgment itself states that “This Last Will and Testament consists
of two pages including this page.”
Nera v. Rimando
G.R. L-5971, February 27, 1911

Facts:
When a certain will was being signed, it was alleged that the testator and some subscribing witnesses
were in the inner room while the other subscribing witnesses were in the outer room. What separates the
inner room from the outer room was a curtain.

The trial court did not consider the determination of the issue as to the position of the witness as of vital
importance in determining the case. It agreed with the ruling in the case of Jaboneta v. Gustillo that the
alleged fact being that one of the subscribing witnesses was in the outer room while the signing occurred
in the inner room, would not be sufficient to invalidate the execution of the will. The CA affirmed the
validity of the will

Issue:
WON the will passed the true test of the presence of the testator and the witness in the execution thereof.

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court, in this case, determined that all the parties were in the same small room when
each other signed. Hence, they were in each other’s presence (though the facts of the case didn’t
elaborate – the SC just ruled so). The SC ruled that if some of the witnesses were really in the outer room
(a fact which was not established according to the SC) separated by a curtain, then the will is invalid, the
attaching of those signatures under circumstances not being done “in the presence” of the witness in the
outer room.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the
execution of a will is not whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they might have seen
each other sign, had they chosen to do so, considering their mental and physical condition and position
with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each signature.

The position of the parties with relation to each other at the moment of the subscription of each signature,
must be such that they may see each other sign if they choose to do so.