Based from the syllabus of Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare, CPA LLM, ESQ.

| 3rd Year- Sanchez Roman | 2020-2021

CANEDA VS. CA (3) That the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the
GR No. 103554 (May 28, 1993) testator of the will and all its pages, and that said witnesses
FACTS: In 1978, Mateo Caballero executed a last will and also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of
testament before three attesting witnesses. The said testator the testator and of one another.
was duly assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Lumontad, and a notary
public, Atty. Manigos, in the preparation of that last will. In the case at bar
An examination of the last will and testament of Mateo
In 1979, Caballero himself filed a petition seeking the probate Caballero shows that it is comprised of three sheets all of
of his last will and testament. However, the testator passed which have been numbered correlatively, with the left margin
away before his petition could finally be heard by the probate of each page thereof bearing the respective signatures of the
court. testator and the three attesting witnesses. The part of the will
containing the testamentary dispositions is expressed in the
Herein petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the Cebuano-Visayan dialect and is signed at the foot thereof by
testator, instituted a petition for intestate proceedings which the testator. The attestation clause in question, on the other
was however consolidated with testate proceeding. They hand, is recited in the English language and is likewise signed
objected to the allowance of the testator's will on the ground
at the end thereof by the three attesting witnesses hereto.
that on the alleged date of its execution, the testator was
already in the poor state of health such that he could not Attestation Clause
have possibly executed the same. We, the undersigned attesting Witnesses, whose Residences
and postal addresses appear on the Opposite of our respective
Ruling of the Probate Court names, we do hereby certify that the Testament was read by
The probate court declared the will in question as the last will him and the testator, MATEO CABALLERO; has published unto
and testament of the late Mateo Caballero, on the ground us the foregoing Will consisting of THREE PAGES, including the
that: Acknowledgment, each page numbered correlatively in the
letters on the upper part of each page, as his Last Will and
1. The self-serving testimony of the two witnesses of the Testament and he has the same and every page thereof, on
oppositors cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand
Atty. Manigos and Labuca who clearly told the Court that margin, in the presence of the said testator and in the
presence of each and all of us.
indeed Mateo Caballero executed the Last Will and
Testament.
What is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the
2. The fact that it was Mateo Caballero who initiated the attestation clause herein assailed is the fact that while it
probate of his Will during his lifetime clearly underscores recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its
the fact that it was indeed his Last Will. pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and
states as well the number of pages that were used, the same
Petitioners elevated the case in the Court of Appeals, does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said
asserting that the will in question is null and void for the witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in
reason that its attestation clause is fatally defective the presence of the testator and of each other.
since it fails to specifically state that the instrumental
witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the The phrase "and he has signed the same and every page
will in their presence and that they also signed the will
thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the
and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator
left hand margin," obviously refers to the testator and not the
and of one another.
instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the
Ruling of the Court of Appeals words "as his Last Will and Testament."
CA ruled that the attestation clause in the last will of Mateo
Caballero substantially complies with Article 805 of the Civil On the other hand, although the words "in the presence of the
Code. testator and in the presence of each and all of us" may, at
first blush, appear to likewise signify and refer to the
ISSUE #1: WON the attestation clause is fatally defective – witnesses, it must, however, be interpreted as referring only
YES. to the testator signing in the presence of the witnesses since
said phrase immediately follows the words "he has signed the
RULING: Under the Civil Code, there are two kinds of wills same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his
which a testator may execute. The first kind is the ordinary or signature and on the left hand margin."
attested will, the execution of which is governed by Articles
804 to 809 of the Code.
What is then clearly lacking, in the final logical
Requirements under Article 805 analysis, is the statement that the witnesses signed the
Under the third paragraph of Article 805, the attestation will and every page thereof in the presence of the
clause, the complete lack of which would result in the testator and of one another.
invalidity of the will, should state:
The absence of that statement required by law is a fatal
(1) The number of the pages used upon which the will is defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in
written; the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be
admitted to probate.
(2) That the testator signed, or expressly caused another to
sign, the will and every page thereof in the presence of the ISSUE #2: WON the rule on substantial compliance is
attesting witnesses; and applicable – NO.

1
Digested by: Ampog | Ballos | Ebuen | Mahusay | Malicay | Paclibar | Peñamante | Picot | Sinsuat | Sosoban | Teng 
 Based from the syllabus of Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare, CPA LLM, ESQ. | 3rd Year- Sanchez Roman | 2020-2021

pages; whereas the subscription of the signature of the

RULING: Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the testator and the attesting witnesses is made for the purpose
defect in the attestation clause obviously cannot be of authentication and identification, and thus indicates that
characterized as merely involving the form of the will or the the will is the very same instrument executed by the testator
language used therein which would warrant the application of and attested to by the witnesses.
the substantial compliance rule, as contemplated in the
pertinent provision thereon in the Civil Code. Further, by attesting and subscribing to the will, the witnesses
thereby declare the due execution of the will as embodied in
While it may be true that the attestation clause is indeed the attestation clause. The attestation clause, therefore,
subscribed at the end thereof and at the left margin of each provide strong legal guaranties for the due execution of a will
page by the three attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot be and to insure the authenticity thereof. As it appertains only to
conclusively inferred therefrom that the said witness affixed the witnesses and not to the testator, it need be signed only
their respective signatures in the presence of the testator and by them. Where it is left unsigned, it would result in the
of each other since the presence of said signatures only invalidation of the will as it would be possible and easy to add
establishes the fact that it was indeed signed, but it the clause on a subsequent occasion in the absence of the
does not prove that the attesting witnesses did testator and its witnesses.
subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and
of each other. Attestation v. Subscription
It will be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness
Under Article 809, the defects or imperfections must only be should both attest and subscribe to the will in the presence of
with respect to the form of the attestation or the language the testator and of one another. "Attestation" and
employed therein. The foregoing considerations do not apply "subscription" differ in meaning. Attestation is the act of
where there are omissions in the attestation clause, as in this senses, while subscription is the act of the hand. The former
case. In such a situation, the defect is the total absence of a is mental, the latter mechanical, and to attest a will is to
specific element required by Article 805. know that it was published as such, and to certify the facts
required to constitute an actual and legal publication; but to
Also, the rule on substantial compliance in Article 809 subscribe a paper published as a will is only to write on the
cannot be revoked or relied on by respondents since it same paper the names of the witnesses, for the sole purpose
presupposes that the defects in the attestation clause can be of identification.
cured or supplied by the text of the will or a consideration of
matters apparent therefrom which would provide the data not In Taboada vs. Rizal, we clarified that attestation consists in
expressed in the attestation clause or from which it may witnessing the testator's execution of the will in order to see
necessarily be gleaned or clearly inferred that the acts not and take note mentally that those things are done which the
stated in the omitted textual requirements were actually statute requires for the execution of a will and that the
complied within the execution of the will. In other words, signature of the testator exists as a fact. On the other hand,
defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names upon the
the will itself. same paper for the purpose of identification of such paper as
the will which was executed by the testator. As it involves a
In the case at bar mental act, there would be no means, therefore, of
Proof of the acts required to have been performed by the ascertaining by a physical examination of the will whether the
attesting witnesses can be supplied by only extrinsic evidence witnesses had indeed signed in the presence of the testator
thereof, since an overall appreciation of the contents of the and of each other unless this is substantially expressed in the
will yields no basis whatsoever. What respondent insists on attestation.
are the testimonies of his witnesses alleging that they saw the
compliance with such requirements by the instrumental Caution in Applying Substantial Compliance Rule
witnesses, oblivious of the fact that he is thereby resorting to (Justice J.B.L. Reyes)
extrinsic evidence to prove the same and would accordingly We believe that the further comment of former Justice J.B.L.
be doing by the indirection what in law he cannot do directly. Reyes regarding Article 809, wherein he urged caution in the
application of the substantial compliance rule therein, is
It may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that
correct and should be applied in the case under consideration,
omissions which can be supplied by an examination of
as well as to future cases with similar questions:
the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic
evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would
The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that
not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being
can be supplied by an examination of the will itself: whether
assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be supplied
all the pages are consecutively numbered; whether the
except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of
signatures appear in each and every page; whether the
the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself.
subscribing witnesses are three or the will was notarized. All
these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or
even omissions concerning them in the attestation clause can
In case Ma’am will ask:
be safely disregarded. But the total number of pages, and
Purpose of the Formalities
whether all persons required to sign did so in the presence of
The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the
each other must substantially appear in the attestation
number of pages on which the will is written is to safeguard
clause, being the only check against perjury in the probate
against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of
proceedings.
its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in the
2
Digested by: Ampog | Ballos | Ebuen | Mahusay | Malicay | Paclibar | Peñamante | Picot | Sinsuat | Sosoban | Teng 
 Based from the syllabus of Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare, CPA LLM, ESQ. | 3rd Year- Sanchez Roman | 2020-2021

Manner of Interpretation
Prior to the advent of the Civil Code on August 30, 1950,
there was a divergence of views as to which manner of
interpretation should be followed in resolving issues centering
on compliance with the legal formalities required in the
execution of wills.

One view advance the liberal or substantial compliance rule.

This was first laid down in the case of Abangan vs. Abangan,
where it was held that the object of the solemnities
surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against
bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.
Therefore, the laws on this subject should be interpreted in
such a way as to attain these primordial ends. Nonetheless, it
was also emphasized that one must not lose sight of the fact
that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the
exercise of the right to make a will, hence when an
interpretation already given assures such ends, any other
interpretation whatsoever that adds nothing but demands
more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative
of the testator's last will, must be disregarded.

The other view advocated the rule that statutes which

prescribe the formalities to be observed in the execution of
wills are mandatory in nature and are to be strictly construed
was followed.

The Code Commission, cognizant of such a conflicting welter

of views and of the undeniable inclination towards a liberal
construction, recommended the codification of the substantial
compliance rule, as it believed this rule to be in accord with
the modern tendency to give a liberal approach to the
interpretation of wills. Said rule thus became what is now
Article 809 of the Civil Code.

The so-called liberal rule, the Court said in Gil vs. Murciano,
"does not offer any puzzle or difficulty, nor does it open the
door to serious consequences. The later decisions do tell us
when and where to stop; they draw the dividing line with
precision. They do not allow evidence aliunde to fill a void in
any part of the document or supply missing details that
should appear in the will itself. They only permit a probe into
the will, an exploration into its confines, to ascertain its
meaning or to determine the existence or absence of the
requisite formalities of law. This clear, sharp limitation
eliminates uncertainty and ought to banish any fear of dire
results."

3
Digested by: Ampog | Ballos | Ebuen | Mahusay | Malicay | Paclibar | Peñamante | Picot | Sinsuat | Sosoban | Teng