TOPIC CASE TITLE

RODRIGUEZ vs. BORJA (17 SCRA 41)

BALANAY, JR. vs. MARTINEZ (64 SCRA 452)
MONTINOLA vs. HERBOSA (CA Reports No. 23033-
R February 14, 1963)

MERZA vs. PORRAS (93 PHIL 142)

VITUG vs. CA (183 SCRA 755)

CASTANEDA vs. ALEMANY (3 PHIL 426)

DIZON-RIVERA vs. DIZON (33 SCRA 554)

VDA. DE VILLANUEVA vs. JUICO (4 SCRA 550)

ESTATE OF RIGOR vs. RIGOR (89 SCRA 493)

DEL ROSARIO v. DEL ROSARIO (2 PHIL 321)

YAMBAO vs. GONZALES (1 SCRA 1157)

IN RE: WILL OF RIOSA (39 PHIL 23)

ENRIQUEZ vs. ABADIA (August 9, 1954)

ESTATE OF ABADA vs. ABAJA (January 31, 2005)

MICIANO vs. BRIMO (50 PHIL 867)

BELLIS vs. BELLIS (June 6, 1967)
TESTATE ESTATE OF CHRISTENSEN (January 31,
1963)
CAYETANO vs. LEONIDAS (May 30, 1984)
PCIB vs. ESCOLIN (56 SCRA 266)

IN RE: ESTATE OF JOHNSON (November 16, 1918)

MALANG vs. MOSON (August 22, 2000)

LLORENTE vs. CA (November 23, 2000)

Testamentary Capacity and Intent

art 799 ALBORNOZ VS. ALBORNOZ (71 PHIL 414)
Art 799 NEYRA VS. NEYRA (76 PHIL 333)
ART799
800 TORRES VS. LOPEZ DE BUENO (48 PHIL 772)
 SAMSON VS. CORRALES TAN (44 PHIL 573)

ART 799 TORRES VS. LOPEZ DE BUENO (48 PHIL 772)

800

SANCHO VS. ABELLA (58 PHIL 728)

ALSUA-BETTS VS. CA (JULY 30, 1979)

AVELINO VS. DELA CRUZ (21 PHIL 521)

JOCSON VS. JOCSON (46 PHIL 701),
CUYUGAN VS. BARON
CAGUIOA VS. CALDERON (20 PHIL 400)
YAP TUA VS. YAP CA KUAN (27 PHIL 579)

SAMSON VS. CORRALES TAN QUINTIN (44 PHIL

573)
GALVEZ VS. GALVEZ (26 PHIL 243)
BAGTAS VS. PAGUIO
CARILIO VS. JAOJOCO (46 PHIL 957)
HERNAEZ VS. HERNAEZ (1 PHIL 683)

NEYRA VS. NEYRA (76 PHIL 333)

BUGNAO VS. UBAG (14 PHIL 163)

de guzman v benitez
baltazar vs laxa
 CASE DIGEST

FACTS: On march 4, 1963, a purported last will and testament fo Fr. Rodriguez was delivered to the Clerk of court of
and Adelaida; that on March 8, 1963, On march 12, 1963, Rodriguez filed before the CFI of Rizal a petition for settlem
Rodriguez alleging among other things that Fr. Rodriguez died without leaving a will; and that on the same date, Apo
for probation of the will in CFI bulacan delivered by them on march 4, 1963.

the movants contend that since the intestate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Rizal was filed at 8:00 A.M
petition for probate was filed in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan at 11:00 A.M. on the same date, the latter Cou
the petition for probate

HELD: The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan became vested upon the delivery thereto of the will o
March 4, 1963, even if no petition for its allowance was filed until later, because upon the will being deposited the c
taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will, and issued the corresponding notices conformably to what
of the Revised Rules of Court (Section 3, Rule 77, of the old Rules):

SEC. 3.Court to appoint time for proving will. Notice thereof to be published. — When a will is delivered to, or a peti
filed in, the Court having jurisdiction, such Court shall fix a time and place for proving the will when all concerned m
thereof, and shall cause notice of such time and place to be published three (3) weeks successively, previous to the
general circulation in the province.
But no newspaper publication shall be made where the petition for probate has been filed by the testator himself.
The use of the disjunctive in the words "when a will is delivered to OR a petition for the allowance of a will is filed" p
act upon the mere deposit therein of a decedent's testament, even if no petition for its allowance is as yet filed. Wh
made after the deposit of the will, the petition is deemed to relate back to the time when the will was delivered. Sin
was submitted and delivered to the Court of Bulacan on March 4, while petitioners initiated intestate proceedings in
only on March 12, eight days later, the precedence and exclusive jurisdiction of the Bulacan court is incontestable.

The other reason is that, in our system of civil law,intestate succession is only subsidiary or subordinate to the tes
place in the absence of a valid operative will. "only after final decision as to the nullity of testate succession could
instituted in the form of pre-established action".
FACTS: Leodegaria Julian died. She was survived by her husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and six legitimate children.
Felix Balanay, Jr. filed a petition for the probate of his mother‘s notarial will, which was written in English. In that wi
her desire her properties should not be divided among her heirs during her husband's lifetime and that their legitim
fruits of her properties. She devised and partitioned the conjugal lands as if they were all owned by her. She dispose
half share of the conjugal assets.
Felix Balanay, Sr. and Avelina B. Antonio opposed the probate of the will.
Thereafter, Felix Balanay, Sr. signed an instrument waiving and renouncing his right in Leodegaria‘s estate in favor o

ISSUE: Whether or not the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will, before ruling on its a
declaring it void.

RULING: The trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had
will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void.

In the instant case there is no doubt that the testatrix and her husband intended to partition the conjugal estate in t
of her will. It is true that she could dispose of by will only her half of the conjugal estate but since the husband, after
partnership, had assented to her testamentary partition of the conjugal estate, such partition has become valid, ass
probated. Felix Balanay, Sr. signed an instrument captioned "Conformation of Division and Renunciation of Heredita
that out of respect for his wife's will he "waived and renounced' his hereditary rights in her estate in favor of their s
he confirmed the agreement, which he and his wife had perfected before her death, that their conjugal properties w
indicated in her will.

It should be stressed that by reason of the surviving husband's conformity to his wife's will and his renunciation of h
conjugal share became a part of his deceased wife's estate. His conformity had the effect of validating the partition
without prejudice, of course, to the rights of the creditors and the legitimes of the compulsory heirs.

Save in an extreme case where the will on its face is intrinsically void, it is the probate court's duty to pass first upon
Generally, the probate of the will is mandatory To give effect to the intention and wishes of the testatrix is the first a
testaments. Testacy is preferable to intestacy. An interpretation that will render a testamentary disposition operativ
construction that will nullify a provision of the will.
Testacy is favored. Doubts are resolved in favor of testacy especially where the will evinces an intention on the pa
practically his whole estate. So compelling is the principle that intestacy should be avoided and that the wishes of th
sometimes the language of the will can be varied for the purpose of giving it effect.
FACTS: Montinola filed an action against the heirs of Dr. Jose Rizal for recovery of possession of personal property (t
him by Doña Trinidad Rizal. The trial court held that neither party is entitled to the possession of such property, rely
Rizal's Mi Ultimo Adios, there is a line where Rizal bequeathed all his property to the Filipino people. The court argu
Rizal constitutes a holographic will giving the State all his property.

ISSUE: Does Mi Ultimo Adios constitute a last will?

HELD: No. An instrument which merely expresses a last wish as a thought or advice but does not contain a dispositio
without Animus Standi cannot be legally considered a will. Rizal's Mi Ultimo Adios is but a literary piece of work, and
considered a will in a grammatical sense but not in a legal or juridical sense. Moreover, it also lacks the requirement
statement of the year month and day of its execution and his signature.

The poem of Dr. Jose Rizal Mi Ultimo Adios is NOT a will even with the passage, ―to you, I give all of my parents, kin
following reasons:
i. He did not have animus testandi.
ii. The line merely expresses a thought of parting and not of bequeathing. It was just his last farewell.
iii. Besides, Rizal did not have any known property.
iv. The English version is an erroneous translation of the original poem in Spanish. The property translation should b

FACTS: Pilar Montealegre died leaving a will (Exhibit A) and a so-called codicil (Exhibit B), disinheriting her husband P
relatives. The two documents were submitted to probate but were denied by the trial court, upon the grounds such
clause on Exh. A and that Exh. cannot be considered a codicil for it was executed by the testator a day before Exhibi
the probate proceedings.

ISSUE: Should a document, expressly disinheriting certain heirs, executed by the testator prior to a supposed last wi

HELD: Yes. The trial court and the CA is correct that Exhibit B having been executed one day before Exhibit A could n
"because a codicil, as the word implies, is only an addition to, or modification of, the will." The Court of Appeals add
are couched in the language ordinarily used in a simple affidavit and as such, may not have the legal effect and force
However, Exhibit B does partake of the nature of a will. A will is defined in article 667 of the Civil code of Spain as "t
of all his property or a portion of it," and in article 783 of the new Civil Code as "an act whereby a person is permitte
by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death. Exhibit B comes wit
FACTS
Dolores Vitug, deceased, during her lifetime together with her husband Romarico Vitug, executed a survivorship agr
that after the death of either of them, the fund shall belong exclusively to the survivor.
ISSUES: WON the survivorship agreement is a will. WON it is valid.

RULING: the survivorship agreement is NOT a will. A will must purport to deliver ones separate properties in favor
wife have a joint savings account and they merely agree in an instrument that when either of them dies, the balance
belong to the one who survives; this is NOT A WILL because the account is their joint holding, so naturally the cash w
or conjugal property. When the spouses opened savings account, they merely put what rightly belonged to them in
not dispose of it in favor of the other.
Here, the disposition cannot be considered a testamentary disposition because the subject matter is not the spouse
joint savings account. Therefore, there is no requirement that it must comply with the formalities of the wills. The su
effect.

FACTS
The evidence in this case shows to the satisfaction of the court that the will of Doña Juana Moreno was duly signed
witnesses, who signed it as witnesses in the presence of the testratrix and of each other. It was therefore executed

Issue: Whether or not the last will and testament was executed in accordance with the requirements of the law.

RULING: YES. The court held that there is nothing in the language of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure whic
appellants that the will must be written by the testator himself or by someone else in his presence and under his ex
requires (1) that the will be in writing and (2) either that the testator sign it himself or, if he does sign it, that it be si
and by his express direction. Who does the mechanical work of writing the will is a matter of indifference. The fact t
office of the lawyer for the testratrix is of no consequence.
FACTS: In her will, the testatrix ―commanded that her property be divided‖ in accordance with her testamentary d
AND BEQUEATHED specific real properties comprising practically the entire bulk of her estate among her 6 children

ISSUE: Whether the persons mentioned in the will are referred to as heirs or as devisees/legatees because of the re
bequeath‖.

RULING: The SC ruled that he persons mentioned in the will are referred to as HEIRS and not as devisees or legatees
bequeath" in her testamentary dispositions acquire no legal significance, such as to convert the same into devises to
half disposable portion of the estate. Furthermore, the testatrix' intent that her testamentary dispositions were by w
beneficiaries as heirs and not as mere devisees, and that said dispositions were therefore on account of the respecti
heirs is expressly borne out in the fourth paragraph of her will, immediately following her testamentary adjudication
wise: "FOURTH: I likewise command that in case any of those I named as my heirs in this testament any of them sha
under the law enforced at the time of my death shall inherit the properties I bequeath to said deceased."

The issues raised present a matter of determining the avowed intention of the testatrix which is "the life and soul of
our Civil Code included the new provisions found in Articles 788 and 791 thereof that "(I)f a testamentary dispositio
interpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred" a
receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of t
two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be
preferred which will prevent intestacy.

FACTS:
In the will of the testator, he bequeathed in favor of his wife 1⁄2 of certain properties for her ―use and possession w
a second marriage. Otherwise, the properties shall pass to the testator‘s grandniece‖. It was contended that the title
absolutely vested in the estate of the widow upon her death, on account of the fact that she never remarried.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner is entitled to the ownership of the properties upon the death of Dona Faustina.
HELD: The grandniece can get the property, despite the fact that the widow never remarried. It would have been di
properties been given to the widow. In such a case, since there was no remarriage, the grandniece cannot inherit. H
had been granted to the widow were only the “use and possession” of the properties “while living,” the clear inten
her a life interest or usufructuary interest — an interest which could have ceased even during her lifetime had she re
requires that each word of the will be given some effect.
FACTS:Father Pascual Rigor died. In his will he devised 44-hectares of Riceland to his nearest male relative who wou
Inasmuch as no nearest male relative of the testator claimed the devise, the parish priest of Victoria claimed the Ric

ISSUE: How should you interpret the statement in the will, should it refer only to the nearest male relative at the tim
should it be construed to mean all nearest male relative who would study for priesthood and you have to wait forev

RULING: It should be construed to refer to the nearest male relative living at the moment of death of the decedent bec
transmission occurs. You cannot wait until the nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood occurs lon
reasonable construction is the nearest male relative living at the time of the death of the testator.

FACTS: Don Nicolas del Rosario made a will giving HIS LEGACY to to his nephews Enrique Gloria y Rosario and Ramon
brother Clemente del Rosario, notwithstanding the fact that they purport to be the issue of the marriage of Escolasti
successively. .
ISSUE: WON, In case THE NEPHEWS does not, or cannot present proof that he is the natural child of testator's broth

HELD: Yes. If a legatee is pointed out by name in the will, the fact that he is referred to as the natural son of a third p
the legacy conditional upon proof of such relationship, the reference being descriptive merely. Of course, had it clea
the answer would have been different.

FACTS: Appellant filed an action against appellees that the latter employ the former as tenant during his lifetime on
appellees. The lower court ruled that the provisions of the will relied upon by the appellant merely amount to a sug
morally bound are not legally compelled to follow said suggestion because the word ―pahintulutan‖ employed wit
appellant on the lands only means to permit or to allow but not to direct appellees to appoint appellant as tenant.

HELD: Lower court is wrong. The real import of the wish of the testatrix for her will contains a clear directive to em
from the words preceding the word ―pahintulutan‖ which say: ―Dapat din naman malaman ng dalawa kong tagap
tungkulin o gampanan gaya ng mga sumusunod..‖ the words ―tungkulin o gampanan ―mean to do or to carry out
having reference to the word pahintulutan, can convey no other meaning than to impose a duty upon the appellees

FACTS: The testator executed a will in 1908 in accordance with the laws enforced at that time wherein there was no
attestation of the will. In 1917 the testator died wherein the laws enforced at that time already required that the wi
and attested.
HELD: It does not matter that when he died, the laws required signing and attestation because the extrinsic validit
the laws enforced at the time of the execution of the will not at the time of the death of the testator. So the legislatu
cannot invalidate a will validly made at the time when the testator executed his will.
FACTS: In September 6, 1923, when holographic wills were not allowed, Abadia executed a holographic will. It was p
court allowed the will on the ground that under the new Civil Code, holographic wills are now allowed.

HELD: The formal validity of a will depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made, not by the
testator‘s death, or at the time the supposed will is presented in court for probate, or when the petition is decided b
validity of the will is not affected by the subsequent amendment of the law with respect to formalities after the exe
or after the death of the testator.
Where a will was void for failure to observe certain formalities under the law then in force, a subsequent law lessen
formalities cannot be applied so as to validate the void will. Thus, the fact that the New Civil code allows a holograp
made before its effectivity and void under the prevailing law.
Since Holographic was not yet allowed in 1932 which is at the time the will was made, it is VOID; notwithstanding th
time of the eharing or probate of the will was had, it will not validate the will because the extrinsic validity of will m
required by law AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF WILL.

FACTS: Abada executed his NOTARIAL WILL on June 4, 1932 but he died when the New Civil code took effect; will no
public.

ISSUE: Is the will valid?

HELD:YES. The laws in force at that time are the Civil Code of 1889 or the Old Civil Code and Act. No. 190 or the Cod
the execution of will before the enactment of the New civil code. The Code of Civil Procedure repealed Article 685 o
Code of civil Procedure, the intervention of a notary is not necessary in the execution of any will. Therefore, Abadia‘
acknowledgment before a notary public.
Under Article 795, the validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it

FACTS: A will of an Turkish testator provided that his estate should be disposed of in accordance with the Philippine
that whoever would oppose his wishes that his estate should be distributed in accordance with Philippine laws wou

ISSUE: Does the doctrine of processual presumption apply?

Is the condition in the will valid?

HELD: With respect to foreign law on the formalities of wills: in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed
of will are the same as those prescribed under Philippine laws. This is the DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION

With respect to the condition provided by the testator that ―whoever would oppose his wishes that his estate shou
with Philippine laws would forfeit their inheritance‖ however is void. The fact is that the said condition is void, being
contrary to law because it expressly ignores the testator's national law when, according to article 10 of the civil Cod
of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary dispositions. Even if the testator‘s wishes must be given param
the testator contravene a specific provision of law, then that provision in a will should not be given effect. The SC he
not forfeit their inheritance because that provision is not legal.
Nationality: Texan national
Resident at time of his death: Texas
Real properties location: Philippines

FACTS:
Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. He had five legitimate children with his fi
legitimate children with his second wife (who survived him) and, finally, three illegitimate children.

6 years prior Amos Bellis’ death, he executed two(2) wills, apportioning the remainder of his estate and properties t
appellants filed their oppositions to the project of partition claiming that they have been deprived of their legitimes
according to the Philippine law. Appellants argued that the deceased wanted his Philippine estate to be governed b
creation of two separate wills.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the case in the determination of the illegitimate children’s successio

RULING:
Court ruled that provision in a foreigner’s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with
national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in view of those matters that Article 10 — now
states said national law should govern.
Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will should be governed
law does not require legitimes, then his will, which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid.

The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes under the texas law, which is
FACTS: Christensen is a US citizen and a citizen of California but was domiciled in the Philippines. In his will, he gave
by him. The rest of his estate was to be given to his daughter Lucy. Helen contended that she is deprived of her leg
child as decreed by the US Court. The California Civil Code requires that the domicile of the deced
ISSUE: Which law should govern?

HELD: Philippine law should govern.

The law that governs the validity of his testamentary dispositions is defined in Article 16 of the Civil Code of the
ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amoun
intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession
may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country where said property may

Here, The national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the California C
reference of the question to the law of the testator‘s domicile. But Since the conflicts of law rule of California
Philippines, being place of domicile of the deceased, our courts have no alternative but to accept the referring b
otherwise and throw back the matter to California, the problem would be tossed back ad forth between estat
international football. (renvoi doctrine)
FACTS
The testatrix was an American citizen at the time of her death and was a permanent resident of Pennsylvania, U.S.A
while temporarily residing with her sister; that during her lifetime, the testatrix made her last will and testament ac
U.S.A.; that after the testatrix death, her last will and testament was presented, probated, allowed, and registered w
County of Philadelphia, U.S.A. An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by herein petitioner alleging amon
provisions of the will are null and void. The petitioner maintains that since the respondent judge allowed the reprob
Hermogenes C. Campos was divested of his legitime which was reserved by the law for him.

ISSUES
[1]Whether or not the Philippine law will apply to determine the intrinsic validity of a will executed by an undispute
[2] Whether or not Philippine law will apply to determine the capacity to succeed of Adoracion’s heirs.

RULING
[1] NO. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, as provided for by Article 1
the national law of the decedent must apply. This was squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis (20 SCRA 358).“I
public policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the
nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent’s natio
prevail over general ones.”

[2] NO. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent. (Article 1039, Civil Code) The law w
will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent. Although the parties admit that the
for legitimes and that all the estate may be given away by the testatrix to a complete stranger, the petitioner argues
because it would be contrary to the sound and established public policy and would run counter to the specific provi

On the ISSUE OF PUBLIC POLICY:

is therefore evident
that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our System of legitimes, Congress has not intende
succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, t
Specific provisions must prevail over general ones
FACTS: Linnie Jane Hodges died giving her testamentary provisions toher husband. At the time of her death, she was
however domiciled in the Philippines. To seewhether the testamentary provisions are valid, it is apparentand neces
applied.

ISSUE:Whether or not laws of Texas is applicable

HELD: The distribution of her estate should be governed by the laws of Texas.

It is necessary that the Texas law be ascertained. Here it mustbe proven whether a renvoi will happen or whether Te
provisions valid. In line with Texaslaw, that which should be proven is the law enforced duringthe death of Hodges a

Foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice and have to be proven like any other fact in dispute between the parti
exception in instances when said laws are already within the actual knowledge of the court.
The question of what is the foreign law governing the matter in issue is one of fact and not of law. Foreign laws may
has to be proven like any other fact in dispute between the parties in any proceeding except
1. when the said laws are already within the actual knowledge
of the court such as when they are well and generally
known, or
2. They have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it
and none of the parties concerned do not claim otherwise.

Facts. Johnson created a will using a standard blank will form. The only provisions in his own handwriting that were,
beneficiaries’ names and addresses, and the phrase “To John M. Johnson 1/8 of my Estate.” The trial court held that
holographic will.
Issue. Whether an instrument constitutes a valid holographic will if the words essential to proving testamentary inte
handwriting.

Held. No. The handwritten portions of the will without the printed words did not express testamentary intent becau
did not require that a disposition be made at death. Though the testator used the word, “estate”, the definition of t
one’s interest in land or property or it can also signify the assets and liabilities left by a person at death.

Discussion. A document may not be admitted to probate as a holographic will if the handwritten portions alone do n
distributed at death. The fact that the printed words may express testamentary intent is not enough to probate a ho
FACTS: Abdula contracted marriage with Aida and had 3 sons with her. Adbula then married for a second time with
of that marriage. Abdula divorced Aida. Abdula then married Nayo and they also had no child. Thereafter, he contra
and had a daughter with her. Not long after, Abdula married 3 other Muslim women but eventually divorced them.
Neng, excluding the wives he divorced. They were childless. Abdula died without leaving a will.

ISSUE: WHICH CODE WILL APPLY?

HELD: Abdula died intestate on December 1993. It is the Muslim Code which should determine the identification o
succession and the respective shares of the heirs. The Muslim Code took effect on February 4, 1977. If a Muslim die
Muslim Code, the order of succession shall be governed by the Civil Code.
The status and capacity to succeed on the part of the individual parties who entered into each and every marriage c
in force at the time of the performance of the marriage rite. If the Muslim marriage took place during the effectivity
effectivity of the Muslim Code, he cannot marry again because under the Civil Code, only one marriage is valid. But w
the Muslim Code has taken effect, subsequent marriages are allowed and valid. The right of the spouses to inherit w
have been validly married. If they are not validly married, then they do not have successional rights over their partn

The status and capacity to succeed of the children will depend upon the law in force at the time of conception or
As to property relations, it is the Civil Code that determines and governs the property relations of the marriages i
the time of the celebration of the marriages in question, the Civil Code was the only on marriage relations, including
spouses, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

FACTS: Llorente, enlisted as a serviceman of the US navy, was married to a Filipina. He was later on admitted as a US
the Philippines, he filed for divorce since he found out that his wife was having an adulterous relationship with his b
2nd wife. In 1981, Lorenzo executed a will and bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their 3 children.

HELD: When we say ―national law of decedent‖, it is his national law AT THE TIME OF DEATH. Here, he was just a n
he made a will when he was still a Filipino but subsequently, he was naturalized and died as American citizen, in so f
is concerned, the American law must govern. Questions governing the intrinsic validity of his will must be governed

 INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF WILLS IS DETERMINED BY THE NATIONAL LAW OF THE DECEDENT

FACTS:
Perpetua A. Vda. de Soriano executed a will. The will was presented by Alfonzo and Dolores Albornoz for probate bu
First Instance of Ilocos Norte and ruled that Perpetua A. Vda. de Soriano had no mental capacity when she executed
Perpertua died on June 25, 1936, in the municipality of Laoag of the Province of Ilocos Norte, then she was 68 years
and enteritis with complications of myocarditis from June 3, 1936 until the time of her death. On June 22, 1936, Per
and if she spoke, her words were incoherent. And on June 23, 1936, she completely lost speech, and although her e
move. In these circumstances, it was physically impossible for her to execute her will considering that the documen
executed at 6 am on June 24, 1936.
Dolorez Albornoz, for her part, stated that the late Perpetua in executing her will, was with complete freedom, bein
faculties and in the presence of witnesses whose names and signatures are mentioned and appear in the testimony

ISSUE: Does Perpetua A. Vda. de Soriano have the mental capacity to execute her will?
RULING: NO.
The deceased was not poor and did not lack the means to procure domestic services: she did not live alone or was a
ill; and in fact, the deceased had nine servants at her service. The deceased was never without company in her room
especially during her last days, because she required continuous care. Therefore, it is incredible that Adriano Ruiz
witnesses of the alleged testament of June 24, 1936 could enter inside the room of the deceased or even inside her
noticed by anyone. The granting of the will in question could not be done in a short moment; it had to take a long ti
house to realize that there were strangers in it, at a time when it is not customary to visit.

Additionally, the calligraphy expert Arcadio Laperal, who made a thorough study of the signatures "PERPETUA A. VD
will comparing them with the authentic ones of the deceased and those that appear in the testament and in the cod
which were not discussed, express the opinion that they could not have been written by the same person, helped o
in all respects.
We believe that the opinion of the aforementioned expert is based on the facts, especially considering that the dec
one of the testament witnesses said, and yet the signatures are written with great symmetry, rightly, and keeping
the same distance. And even if the decedent had been helped by another to stamp these signatures, they would no
appear in the expressed document.
FACTS:
Encarnacion Neyra and her sister, Trinidad Neyra had a litigation in the Court of First Instance regarding the properti
During the course of the litigation, Encarnacion Neyra had been suffering from Addison’s disease and on the day bef
Trinidad reconciled and had a long and cordial conversation, in the course of which they talked about the properties
litigations which had reached the Court of Appeals, they then agreed to have the latter dismissed, on the condition t
should be given exclusively to Trinidad Neyra, that the latter should waive her share in the rents of said property col
On November 3, 1942, Attorney Panis prepared a document of compromise embodying their agreement and prepar
testament.
On November 4, 1942, Encarnacion unexpectedly died allegedly from heart attack, as a consequence of Addison’s d
Atty. Lucio Javillonar, claiming to represent Encarnacion Neyra, and other relatives of hers, filed a petition claiming t
agreement could not have been understood by Encarnacion Neyra, as she was already then at the threshold of deat
died the following day.

ISSUE: Was Encarnacion Neyra of sound mental condition at the time of the execution of the compromise and of he

RULING: YES.
Encarnacion Neyra was of sound mental condition at the time of the execution of the compromise and of her last w
Presentacion Blanco, niece of Encarnacion, in the course of her cross- examination, frankly admitted that, in the mo
the afternoon of November 3, 1942, Encarnacion Neyra talked to her that they understood each other clearly, thus
really of sound mind, at the time of signing and execution of the agreement and will in question.
It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that the mental faculties of persons suffering from Addison's disease, lik
unimpaired, partly due to the fact that, on account of the sleep they enjoy, they necessarily receive the benefit of p
like patients suffering from tuberculosis, insomnia or diabetes, they preserve their mental faculties until the momen
The logical conclusion is that Encarnacion Neyra was of sound mind and possessed the necessary testamentary and
the execution of the agreement and will.
FACTS: Tomas Rodriguez died in the City of Manila on February 25, 1924, leaving a considerable estate. Shortly ther
executors named in the will asked that the will of Rodriguez be allowed. Opposition was entered by Margarita Lopez
on the grounds: (1) That the testator lacked mental capacity because at the time of senile dementia and was under
influence had been exercised by the persons benefited in the document in conjunction with others who acted in the
of Tomas Rodriguez to the document was obtained through fraud and deceit.

ISSUE: Did Tomas Rodriguez possessed the sufficient mentality to make a will which would meet the legal test regar

HELD: YES.
Tomas Rodriguez has testamentary capacity to constitute a will. 2 DOCTORS claimed that testator had full understan
and that they were witnesses in the said signing of the will. As to his mental state the result of the different tests to
that his intellectual faculties are sound, except that his memory is weak, which is almost a loss for recent facts, or ev
due to his physical condition and old age.

Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the testator is engaged
property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed to have claims upon the testator, and
which the instrument will distribute his property among the objects of his bounty.

Tomas Rodriguez may have been of advanced years, may have been physically decrepit, may have been weak in inte
memory, may have had a guardian and may have a been extremely eccentric, but he still possessed the spark of rea
mind to form a fixed intention and to summon his enfeebled thoughts to enforce that intention, which the law term
effect is the definite opinion which we reach after an exhaustive and exhausting study of a tedious record, after wei
oppositors, and after giving to the case the serious consideration which it deserves.

As to undue influence and deceit, that men of the standing of Judge Mina, Doctors Calderon, Domingo, Herrera, and
demean themselves and so fully their characters and reputation as to participate in a scheme having for its purpose
in his age, rather named was acting according to the best of his ability to assist in a legitimate act in a legitimate man
attitude of Tomas Rodriguez toward Margarita Lopez and her husband and his apparent enmity toward them, it see
will had been made in previous years when Rodriguez was more nearly in his prime, he would have prepared somew
FACTS: Deceased Mariano Corrales Tan executed a will. It was alleged by the attending physician, as a witness for th
was suffering from diabetes and that he had been in comatose for several days prior to his death. It was argued that
unconsciousness and that the testator therefore could not at that time, have executed a will.

Maximina Ong, the wife of the opponent, the only other witness for the opposition, states that on December 26th t
not recognize anyone. But all the witnesses presented by the petitioner, five in number, testify that the deceased w
understand what was said to him and was able to indicate his desires. Four of these witnesses state that he could sp
the deceased only moved his head in answer to questions.

HELD: The professional speculations of a physician as to mental capacity of the testator cannot prevail over the posi
credible witnesses whose testimony does not in itself seem unreasonable. Tan was of sound mind, which renders th

That the deceased was in an exceedingly feeble condition at the time the will was executed is evident, but if the wit
petition told the truth there can be no doubt that he was of sound mind and capable of making his will. And we see
witnesses; the discrepancies found between their respective versions of what took place at the execution of the doc
unimportant and so far from weakening their testimony rather lend strength to it by indicating the absence of any c

There are varying degrees of comatose. In its lighter forms, the patient may be aroused and have lucid intervals. Suc
The testimony of the doctor was not given credit because he was not present when the will was executed.

balik
FACTS: After executing a holographic will which was later probated during his lifetime, the deceased executed anoth
not submit to the court for probate while still alive.

HELD: The fact of non-submission to probate during his lifetime of the second will does not indicate any defect in th
Besides, a will is revocable at any time by the testator was still alive.
FACTS: Don Jesus Alsua and his wife, DoNA FORENTINA Rella entered into a duly notarized agreement, Escritura de
ña Forentina Rella, and their four children. The said agreement specifically partitioned one-half of the
properties of the spouses to their legitimate heirs of their respective shares, while they reserved for themselves (the
not disposed of to the said legitimate heirs, and they mutually and reciprocally bequeathed unto each other their pa
properties which they might be acquired subsequently.
In comformity and in implementation of the extrajudicial partition, spouses Don Jesus and Doña Florentina execute
as well as codicils, separately. Upon the death of Doña Tinay, Don Jesus cancelled his holographic will and instructed
which was duly signed by him and his attesting witnesses. The notarial will and testament had essential features, on
children as legatees/devisees of certain specific properties, and as to the rest of the properties and whatever may b
future, before his death, were to be given to Francisca and Pablo, naming Francisca as executrix to serve without a b

When Don Jesus died, Fransisca, as executrix, filed a petition for theprobate of the new will of Don Jesus. Pablo, Am
of their contention was that Don Jesus was not of sound anddisposing mind at the time of the execution of the alleg
mental faculties or his possession of the same had been diminished considering that when the will was executed, he
view of his weakness and advanced age, the actual administration of his properties had been left to his assistant Ma
instructions from Francisca and her husband.

ISSUE: Were the weakness of mind and advanced age of Don Jesus renders him incapable of making a will?
HELD: The weakness of mind and advanced age of Don Jesus does not render unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered
him incapable of making a will.
The described behavior of Don Jesus is not that of a mentally incapacitated person nor one suffering from "senile de
Amparo and Fernando. From these accepted facts, We find that: (a) it was Don Jesus himself who gave detailed inst
wanted to divide his properties among his children by means of a list of his properties should pertain; (b) the semi-fi
prepared by his lawyer was even corrected by Don Jesus; (c) on the day of the signing of the will at his house in Liga
lively spirits ..., leading in the conversation which ran from problems of farming and the merits of French-made wine
Don Jesus and his attesting witnesses was made after a statement from Don Jesus of the purpose of their meeting o
knew exactly what his actions were and the fun implications thereof.

FACTS: It was contended that the will of Pacual Dela Cruz should not have been validated because at the time of the
was blind for a number of years beforehand and thus was incompetent to make the will in question.
Against this contention of the opponent, all of the witnesses who signed the will were called as witnesses, and each
sound mind at the time said will was made and fully understood its contents and signed the same in their presence
in the presence of each other, as well as in the presence of the deceased.

HELD: A blind testator may be competent to make a will. Mere fact of blindness does not render him incompetent
arise from the mere fact that he was blind. The only requirement of the law as to the capacity to make a will is that
sound mind and memory. Blind persons are prohibited from acting as witnesses in the execution of wills, but no lim
capacity, except age and soundness of mind.
FACTS:On June 10, 19120, Rafael Jocson, Cirilo Manlaque, and Filomena Goza presented a petition in the court for t
as the last will and testament of the deceased Marcelo Jocson. This petitioner was opposed by Rosauro, Asuncion, a
(a) The supposed will was not the last will of the deceased, and the signatures appearing thereon, and which are sai
authentic; (b) the testator, that is, the deceased, was not of sound mind and was seriously ill at the time of its execu
not executed in accordance with the law.

The will was admitted to probated by the trial court. For all of the foregoing reasons the court finds that some hours
the execution of his will, Marcelo Jocson was of sound mind; that he dictated his will in Visaya, his own dialect; that
of three witnesses at the bottom, and on each of the left margins of the three sheets in which it was written; that sa
in
the presence of the testator and of each other, all of which requirements make the documents Exhibit A a valid will
of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue: WON, the will should be admitted.

HELD: YES. While a number of contradictions in the testimony of alleged subscribing witnesses to a will as to the circ
executed, and although certain cases justify the conclusion that the alleged witnesses were not present, together, a
was executed, a mere lapse of memory on the part of one of these witnesses as to the precise details of an unimpor
attention was not directed, does not necessarily put in doubt the truth and veracity of the testimony in support of th

As to the mental capacity of the testator at the time of executing his will, the finding of the trial court that the testa
ofdictating and signing his will is supported by the evidence. Whether or not the witnesses signed the will in the pre
or not they signed in the presence of each other, are questions of fact that must be decided in accordance with the
this case and saw and heard the witnesses while testifying, held that these solemnities were complied with at the ex
we find no reason for altering his conclusions.
Failure of memory is not sufficient unless it be total or extends to the immediate family or property.
FACTS: Silvestra Baron died on January 30, 1933, leaving an estate exceeding in value the sum of P80,000 which she
December 17, 1932. She died single without forced heirs. The will appointed Vivencio Cuyugan, her nephew, as exec
recites that on the date of the execution of said will on December 17, 1932, the said testatrix was about 80 years old
disposing mind, and not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, and was in every respect compete
Guillermo Baron, brother of the deceased, and Faustina Baron, sister of the deceased, allege, that at the time of the
Silvestra Baron was mentally and physically incapacitated for the execution of a will; and, second, that her signature
will was obtained and the attorney who prepared the document and the witnesses who affixed their signatures ther
ISSUE: Did the testator possess testamentary capacity at the time of the making of the will?
RULING:NO. Silvestra was not of sound mind at the time of the execution of the will.
An instrument purporting to be a will executed and witnessed in accordance with the formalities required by the sta
of regularity. But the burden of the evidence passed to the proponent when the oppositors submit credible evidenc
supposed testator did not possess testamentary capacity at the time or that the document was not the free and vol
testator or that the will, for any other reason, is void in law.
Standing at her bedside was the attorney with three witnesses and the chief beneficiary, Vivencio Cuyugan, and yet
word was exchanged between any of them and the suffering old woman. We don't know what drug the doctor adm
the evidence that in her dazed physical and mental condition she had no adequate understanding of what she was d
even sign her name to the original will properly or correctly, and when this defect was noted by one of the astute su
that they have her sign another copy (t.s.n. page 109) which was done.
She never saw the alleged will at any time again prior to her death which occurred forty-four days later. It was imme
who kept it in his possession alleging that she had instructed him to keep it secret. There is, however, credible evide
death she had denied to several persons that she made any will.
This belief on her part that she had not made any will explains her failure to do any act of revocation in the forty-fou
this life. The doctrine that where the testator has had an opportunity to revoke his will subsequent to the operation
upon him but makes no change in it, the courts will consider this fact as weighing heavily against the testimony of u
to cases in which there has been an initial lack of testamentary capacity.
Since Cuyugan failed in affirmatively establishing the testamentary capacity of the deceased, then, the latter was no
execution of the will as approved by the oppositor.
FACTS:
Caguioa presented a petition in the CFI of the Province of Pangasinan, praying for the probation of the last will and t
deceased, in conformity with section 630 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions.
Due notice of said petition was given in accordance with law, and the hearing for the probation of said will was fixed
Calderon appeared, by her attorney, and opposed the probation of said will upon one of the following grounds:
“That the said Emigdio Zarate was mentally incapacitated at the time he authorized and signed his will.”
Caguioa prays the court to annul the will alleged to have been executed by Zarate, and to order that its probate be d
overruled the opposition, sustained the petition, and held that the same is legal in all its parts as the last will and tes

ISSUE: Was Emigdio Zarate in the full possession of his mental faculties at the time of the execution of his will?

HELD:
Two of the witnesses who signed the will, as well as others who were present in the house at the time the said will w
opinion Emigdio Zarate was of sound mind and memory at the time he signed the said will.

The two doctors who appeared in court testifies that insomnias tended to destroy thye mental capacity of a person.
overcomed by the direct testimony of the witnesses who were present at the time of the execution of the will in qu
the trail ofn the case shows a large preponderance that Zarate was in full posession of his mental faculties.
Insomnia by itself if not indicative that the testator was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the will.
FACTS: Tomasa Yap Caong died and her will was admitted on probate. Yap Tua was appointed as executor. Yap Ca K
and presented petition and asked to intervene, but still minors, henece Gabriel La O was appointed guardin ad litem
Tomasa was not mentally capacitated to execute a will due to her sickness, as she was already really weak from her

Rufino R. Papa, was called as a witness for the purpose of supporting the allegation that Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong w
the will declared that he was a physician; that he knew Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong; that he had treated her in the mo
several times, and that on the first visit he found the sick woman completely weak – very weak from her sickness, in
that she was lying in bed; that on the first visit he found her with but little sense, the second day also, and on the th
intelligence; that she died on the 11th of August; tat he was requested to issue the death certificate; that when he a
was feeling any pain or anything of that kind, she did not answer at all; that she was in a condition of stupor, induce
uraemia from which she was suffering.
ISSUE: Is Tomasa of unsound mind at the execution of the will?

RULING: No, While the testimony of Dr. Papa is very strong relating to the mental condition of Tomasa Elizaga Yap C
testimony related to a time perhaps twenty-four hours before the execution of the will in question (Exhibit A). Seve
at the time the will was presented to her for her signature, she was of sound mind and memory and asked for a pen
possession for ten or fifteen minutes and finally signed it. The lower court found that there was a preponderance of
that Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong was of sound mind and memory and in the possession of her faculties at the time sh

TUBERCOLOSIS by itself is not indicative that the testator was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the

balik
"FACTS: FACTS:
This case deals with the probate of the second will executed by Victor Galvez and signed in his presence by the witn
Galvez, and J. Leoquinco, and, as the testator was no longer able to sign on account of his sickness, Lorenzo Galvez,
signature to the instrument, for him and below his written name.

The other will was presented during the proceedings; it was the first one the testator executed on the same date, an
error contained in this first will, he executed another will, the second, which is the one exhibited for probate.
Canuta Galvez, the testator’s daughter, opposed on the probate of the will alleging that her father, owing to his very
lacked the intellectual capacity and clear judgment requisite for making a
will.
ISSUE: Was the testator at the sound mind?

HELD: No.
The record sufficiently proved that the subscribing witnesses to the will affirmed under oath that they were present
his house, stated to them that the document read before them by Lorenzo Galvez contained his last will and testam
no longer able to sign, he charged his nephew Lorenzo to do so in his stead, which the latter did by affixing his own s
having written at the foot of the same the name and surname of the testator, Victor Galvez, who, as these witnesse
in the full enjoyment of his mental faculties; he talked intelligently and with perfect knowledge of what was taking p
they all, including Lorenzo Galvez, signed the will in the presence of the testator, Victor Galvez, who was at the time

While it may be true that in majority of cases, cholera patients became incapacitated. but, judng from the testimony
communicated witht he patient Victor Galvez at the time he executed his will, he demonstrated that he had sufficie
execute his will. "

Although the testator was ill with CHOLERA, since he demonstrated that he had sufficient energy and clear intellige
accordance with the requirements of the law, his case must be an exception to the general rule that cholera patient
incapacitated.
FACTS: The last will and testament executed by Pioquinto Paguio who died a year and five months from the executio
executrix, Juliana Bagtas, widow of Paguio. However, Paguio’s son and several grandchildren by a former marriage o
Paguio was not in the full of enjoyment and use of his mental faculties and was without the mental capacity necessa
to them, Paguio suffered from a paralysis of the left side of his body. This resulted to the impairment of his hearing,
uncontrolled saliva discharge. Despite the paralysis, Paguio retained the use of his right hand and was able to write
indicate his wishes to his wife and to the other members of his family,through the medium of signs.

ISSUE:
Is paralysis a ground to establish mental incapacity that would disqualify the testator to execute a valid will?

RULING:
No. The mere weakness of mind and body, induced by age and disease do not render a person incapable of makin
that a person shall continue in the full enjoyment and use of his pristine physical and mental powers in order to exe
of mind is not essential to testamentary capacity. A testator may be afflicted with a variety of mental weaknesses, d
capable in law of executing a valid will.
In the case at bar, at the time of the execution of the will, it does not appear that Pioquinto’s conduct was irrational
comprehended clearly what the nature of the business was in which he was engaged. The evidence show that the w
occupied a period several hours and that the testator was present during all this time, taking an active part in all the
case at bar is perfectly reasonable and its dispositions are those of a rational person.

xxxx
It is not necessary that a person must be in full possession of his mental and reasoning faculties to be able to be c
necessary that his mind be unbroken, unshattered by disease, injury or other cause.
"FACTS:
Nov. 13, 1918 – Adriana is confined in Hospital de San Juan de Dios for cerebral hemorrhage with hemiplegia.(stroke
Jaojoco and his father Justiniano, defendant- appellees, nephew and brother-in-law, respectively to the deceased, w
hospital and cared for her.
Dec. 18, 1918 – Adriana left the hospital and called a notary public to execute the sale of land (11 parcels of land in t
municipality of Carmona, province of Cavite at the price of P4000) to Marcos Jaojoco. Nine days later , he was decla
dies, and Miguela was appointed judicial administratrix of said estate.
Miguella Carillo now, brings this action for annulment of said contract of sale. (Miguela was the surety of her sister
her husband in January 1917.)
ISSUE: WON Adriano was incapacitated at the time of the execution of sale.

HELD: No. The plaintiff’s attempt to prove that Adriana was mentally deranged was insufficient. Being confined in a
Her doctor testified that her sickness did not affect her head but only 1⁄2 of her body. Documents produced before th
the document of sale, shows complex tasks done by Adriana which couldn’t be done by a mentally incapacitated pe
It must likewise be noted that the other witnesses of the plaintiff, who testified to the incapacity of Adriana Carrillo,
precisely at the time, when according to them, she was mentally incapacitated. In view of all of this, which is proven
of witnesses completely disinterested in the case, it cannot be held that on December 9, 1918, when Adriana Carrill
mentally incapacitated.

The fact that nine days after the execution of the contract, Adriana Carrillo was declared mentally incapacitated by t
she was so when she executed the contract. After all, this can perfectly be explained by saying that her disease beca
Our conclusion is that prior to the execution of the document in question the usual state of Adriana Carrillo was tha
consequently the burden of proof that she was mentally incapacitated at a specified time is upon him who affirms s
to this effect is presented, her capacity must be presumed.
Juana Espinoza executed a will, this was sought to be annuled due to the fact that she was incapacitated arguing tha
she was so ill that 3 days after she died. Priori thereto, she gave contradictrpry orders as a result of her senile disabi

Plaintiff presented oral testimony and expert evidence to prove the mental incapacity of the testatrix:
o Oral testimony was for the purpose of proving that testatrix was so old she
could not speak; that by reason of her age she gave contradictory orders
o The priest who administered the sacraments to her said that he scarcely
understood what she said
o Expert witnesses testified that her age and the pathological condition of hers
brought about by her age is not conclusive proof of her losing her mental
faculties, that it varies from person to person
ISSUES: WON Juana is of unsound mind?

RULING: No, being an old woman and giving contradictory orders does not defeat the presumption of mental sound
The oral testimonies and witnesses failed to prove that the testatrix was deprived of her mental faculties when she
o The circumstances presented by the witnesses could not lead the court to establish a conclusion contrary to th
testatrix
 The court ruled that as a general rule, soundness of mind is always presumed with respect to a person who has no
until the contrary is proven
 The will executed by Juana Espinosa was declared by the court valid and efficacious

balik
This is an appeal admitting to probate a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Domingo Ubag, de
propounded by his widow, Catalina Bugnao, the sole beneficiary. The probate was contested by brothers and sisters
contend that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the execution of the alleged will in the manner and form pre
it is alleged that the will was executed, Ubag was not of sound mind and memory, and was physically and mentally i
was extremely ill, in an advanced stage of tuberculosis complicated with severe intermittent attacks of asthma; that
from his bed; that he needed assistance even to rise himself to a sitting position; and that during the paroxysms of a
could not speak

ISSUE: Does physical weakness of a testator establishes his mental incapacity or a lack of testamentary capacity?

RULING: No.Evidence of physical weakness in no wise establishes mental incapacity or a lack of testamentary capaci
weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from the disease of body, or from age, will not render a person incapable of
minded person may make a valid will, provided he has understanding memory sufficient to enable him to know wha
he is disposing of his property"; that, "To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind sh
unshattered by disease or otherwise"; that "it has not been understood that a testator must possess these qualities
memory) in the highest degree.

In this case, the evidence of the subscribing witnesses as to the aid furnished them by the testator, Ubag, in prepari
recollection of the boundaries and physical description of the various parcels of land set out therein, taken together
give to the person who wrote the will clear and explicit instructions as to his desires touching the disposition of his p
testamentary capacity.
HELD: The following requisite must be present for
one to be able to be considered as having
soundness of mind or having testamentary capacity:
1. Know the nature of the estate to be disposed of
2. The proper objects of his bounty
3. He must know the character of the testamentary
act.
It is true that the testimony discloses the fact that
the
testator at that time of execution of the will was
extremely ill, in an advanced stage of tuberculosis
complicated with severe attacks of asthma. But all
the evidence of physical weakness in no wise
establishes his mental incapacity or a lack of
testamentary capacity. Mere weakness of mind or
partial imbecility from disease of body, or from age,
will not render a person incapable of making a will,
a weak or feeble minded person may make a valid
will, provided he has understanding and memory
sufficient to enable him to know what it is about
and how or to whom he is disposing of his property.
Art 815-817 MICIANO vs. BRIMO (November 1, 1924)

Art 815-817 TESTATE ESTATE OF SUNTAY (July 31, 1954)

Art 804 TESTATE ESTATE OF ABADA vs. ABAJA (Januar

Art 804 LOPEZ vs. LIBORO (August 27, 1948)

Art 804 ACOP vs. PIRASO (January 16, 1929)

Art 804 REYES vs. VIDAL (April 21, 1952)

 TESTATE ESTATE OF JAVELLANA vs.
JAVELLANA (January 30,
1960)
Art 804

REFER to the case digest compiled

Art 804 SUROZA vs. HONRADO (December 19, 1981)

Art 805-806 ABANGAN vs. ABANGAN (November 12, 1919)

Art 805-806 ICASIANO vs. ICASIANO (June 30, 1964)

Art 805-806 BARUT vs. CAGACUNGAN (June 30, 1964)
Art 805-806 IN RE: WILL OF TAN DUICO (March 19, 1924)

Art 805-806 LEANO vs. LEANO (March 31, 1915)

Art 805-806 GARCIA vs. LACUESTA (November 29, 1951)

Art 805-806 BALONAN vs. ABELLANA (August 31, 1960)

Art 805-806 ABAYA vs. ZALAMERO (March 12, 1908)

Art 805-806 JABONETA vs. GUSTILO (January 19, 1906)

Art 805-806 NERA vs. RIMANDO (February 27, 1911)

Art 805-806 MARAVILLA vs. MARAVILLA (February 27, 1971)

Art 805-806 GABRIEL vs. MATEO (December 16, 1927)

Art 805-806 GONZALES vs. CA (May 25, 1979)

Art 805-806 NAYVE vs. MOJAL (December 29, 1924)
Art 805-806 IN RE: ESTATE OF SAGUINSIN (March 15, 1920)
Art 805-806 AVERA vs. GARCIA (September 14, 1921)
Art 805-806 ESTATE OF TAMPOY vs. ALBERASTINE (February 25, 1960)
Art 805-806 UNSON vs. ABELLA (December 29, 1924)
Art 805-806 ALDABA vs. ROQUE (May 22, 1922)
Art 805-806 IN RE: PILAPIL (June 27, 1941)
Art 805-806 FERNANDEZ vs. DE DIOS (February 25, 1924)
Art 805-806 LOPEZ vs. LIBORO (February 25, 1924)
Art 805-806 TENAFRANCIA vs. ABAJA (November 12, 1919)
Art 805-806 LEYNEZ vs. LEYNEZ (October 18, 1939)
Art 805-806 TABOADA vs. ROSAL (November 5, 1982)
Art 805-806 GARCIA vs. LACUESTA (November 29, 1951)
Art 805-806 PAYAD vs. TOLENTINO (January 15, 1936)
Art 805-806 JALLORES vs. ENTERINO (L- 42463)
Art 805-806 UY COQUE vs. SIOCA (May 31, 1922)
Art 805-806 SAÑO vs. QUINTANA (December 18, 1925)
Art 805-806 GUMBAN vs. GOROCHE (March 3, 1927)
Art 805-806 QUINTO vs. MORATA (March 3, 1927)
Art 805-806 CANEDA vs. CA (May 28, 1993)
Art 805-806 CAGRO vs. CAGRO (April 29, 1953)
Art 805-806 LIM vs. CA (February 28, 1996)
Art 805-806 MAGLASANG vs. CABATINGAN (April 24, 2003)
Art 805-806 GARCIA vs. GATCHALIAN (November 25, 1967)
Art 805-806 JAVELLANA vs. LEDESMA (97 PHIL 258)
Art 805-806 CRUZ vs. VILLASOR (November 26, 1973)
Art 805-806 GONZALES vs. CA (May 25, 1979)
Art 805-806 GABUCAN vs. CA (January 28, 1980)
 TESTATE ESTATE OF LEDESMA vs. LEDESMA (June
Art 805-806 30, 1955
ART 808 ALVARADO vs. GAVIOLA (September 14, 1993)
ART 808 GARCIA vs. VASQUEZ (32 SCRA 490)

ART 809 ALVARADO vs. GAVIOLA (September 14, 199

ART 809 CANEDA vs. CA (May 28, 1993)
ART 809 CAGRO vs. CAGRO (April 29, 1953)
ART 809 TABOADA vs. ROSAL (November 5, 1983)

ART 809 VILLAFLOR vs. TOBIAS (53 PHIL 714)

ART 810-814 ROXAS vs. DE JESUS, JR. (January 28, 1985)

ART 810-814 LABRADOR vs. CA (April 5, 1990)

ART 814 KALAW vs. RELOVA (January 15, 1990)

ART 814 AJERO vs. CA (September 15, 1994)
ART 811 AZAOLA vs. SINGSON (August 5, 1960)
ART 811 CODOY vs. CALUGAY (August 12, 1999)
ART 811 ICASIANO vs. ICASIANO (June 30, 1964)
ART 811 RODELAS vs. ARANZA (December 7, 1982)
ART 811 RIVERA vs. CA (December 7, 1982)

ART 818-819 DELA CERNA vs. POTOT (December 23, 1964)

ART 820-824 CRUZ vs. VILLASOR (November 26, 1973

CALUYA vs. DOMINGO (March 27, 1914
FACTS:
Juan Miciano was the judicial administrator of the estate of Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen. Miciano filed a scheme
brothers of the deceased (Joseph Brimo) opposed Miciano’s participation in the inheritance and that said scheme o
Turkish laws. However, in the second part of the will of Joseph Brimo, he specifically indicated that the distribution
with the Philippine laws and not his national law, which is Turkish.
ISSUE:
Is the Philippine law will be the basis on the distribution of Joseph Brimo’s estates and not the Turkish law?
RUILING: NO.
Though the last part of the second clause of the will expressly said that “it be made and disposed of in accordance w
Island”, this condition, described as impossible conditions, shall be considered as not imposed and shall not prejudic
whatsoever, even should the testator otherwise provide. Impossible conditions are further defined as those contrar
law of the testator shall govern in his testamentary dispositions.
Further, Andre Brimo failed to prove that the scheme of partition being filed violated the Turkish law. Hence, the co
submitted by the judicial administrator, in such manner as to include Andre Brimo, as one of the legatees.

FACTS:
Sometime in 1934, Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines, diedin Amoy, China. He left rea
Philippines and a house inAmoy. During his lifetime, he married twice, the first wife was Manuela Cruz, with whom
marriage was with Maria Natividad Lim Brillian, with whom he had a son, herein petitioner,SilvinoSuntay. An intesta
heirs from the first marriage. Whilethe second wife, the surviving widow who remained in Amoy China, filed a petiti
testament of the deceased which was claimed to havebeen executed and signed in the Philippines on November 19
loss of the will before the hearing thereof.
After the Pacific War, Silvino, claimed to have found among the records of his father, a last will
and testament in Chinese characters executed and signed by Suntay on January 1931 and probated in the Amoy Dis
intestate proceedings for the probate of the will executed in the Philippines on November 1929 or the will executed

ISSUE: Is the will executed in Amoy, China can still be validly probated in the Philippines?
RUILING: NO
To have the will execute in Amoy, China be validly probated in the Philippines, the following must be proved: (a.) th
of Amoy, China is a probate court; (b.)the law of China on procedure in the probate or allowance of wills; (c.) Esta
legal requirements for the execution of the will in China in 1931. Herein case, there is no proof on these points.
Moreover, it appears that all the proceedings had in theMunicipalDistrictCourtof Amoywere for the purpose of takin
witnesses to the will and that the order of the said courtdoes not purport to probate the will.The order of the Munic
does not purport toprobate or allow the will which was the subject of the proceedings. In view thereof, thewill and
said to have been done in accordancewith the accepted basic andfundamental concepts and principles followed in t
Consequently, the authenticated transcript ofproceedings held
inthe Municipal District Court of Amoy, China, cannot be deemed andaccepted as proceedings leading to the probat
thewill referred to therein cannot be allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court in the Philippines.
On 13 September 1968, Alipio C. Abaja ("Alipio") filed with the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (no
probate of the last will and testament ("will") of Abada. Abada allegedly named as his testamentary heirs his natura
Rosario Cordova. Alipio is the son of Eulogio.
NicanorCaponong ("Caponong") opposed the petition on the ground that Abada left no will when he died in 1940. C
if Abada really executed it, should be disallowed for the following reasons: (1) it was not executed and attested as re
as the last will of the testator; and (3) it was procured by
undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries. Citing the same grounds invoked by Ca
Abada, namely, Joel, Julian, Paz, Evangeline, Geronimo, Humberto, Teodora and Elena Abada ("Joel Abada, et al."), a
Hernani and Carmela Tronco ("Levi Tronco, et al."), also opposed the petition. The oppositors are the nephews, niec
Toray.

The Lower Court rendered an order that There having been sufficient notice to the heirs as required by law; that the
formalities of a Will as the law directs and that the petitioner through his testimony and the deposition of Felix Galli
regularity of the execution of the said Will and further, there being no evidence of bad faith and fraud, or substitutio
Testament of AlipioAbada dated June 4, 1932 is admitted and allowed probate.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the will of Abada should be admitted to probate?
RULING:
Yes. Abada executed his will on 4 June 1932. The laws in force at that time are the Civil Code of 1889 or the Old Civil
Civil Procedurewhich governed the execution of wills before the enactment of the New CivilCode.
The matter in dispute in the present case is the attestation clause in the will of Abada. Section 618 of the Code of Civ
2645, governs the form of the attestation clause of Abada's will.

Caponong-Noble asserts that the will of Abada does not indicate that it is written in a language or dialect known to t
that the will is not acknowledged before a notary public. She cites in particular Articles 804 and 805 of the OldCivil C
Art. 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in [a] language or dialect known to the testator.
Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. xxx

Witnesses authenticating a will without the attendance of a notary, in cases falling under Articles 700 and 701, are a
testator.However, the Code of Civil Procedure repealed Article 685 of the Old Civil Code. Under the Code of Civil Pro
not necessary in the execution of any will. Therefore, Abada's will does not require acknowledgment before a notar
Caponong-Noble points out that nowhere in the will can one discern that Abada knew the Spanish language. She all
result in the disallowance of the will. On this issue, the Court of Appeals held that the matter was not raised in the m
late to raise the issue on appeal. We agree with Caponong-Noble that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply in pro
language used in the will is part of the requisites under Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Court dee
Nevertheless, Caponong-Noble's contention must still fail. There is no statutory requirement to state in the will itsel
or dialect used in the will. This is a matter that a party may establish by proof aliunde. Caponong-Noble further argu
failed, among others, to show that Abada knew or understood the contents of the will and the Spanish language use
thatAbada used to gather Spanish-speaking people in their place. In these gatherings, Abada and his companions wo
sufficiently
FACTS:In theproves
Courtthat Abada
of First speaks(CFI),
Instance the Spanish language.
Agustin Liboro opposed the probate of what purports to be the last will an
We rule
died to apply
at the age ofthe
83 liberal construction
in Balayan, Batangas, inon
theMarch
probate of Abada's
3, 1947, will.
almost sixAbada's
months will
afterclearly shows four
the document in signatures:
question was th
persons.ofItthe
validity is reasonable
will based to
onconclude that there
five (5) grounds. Oneare
ofthree
the 5 witnesses to the
grounds was thatwill.
thereThewas
question on the in
no indication number
the willofthat
the tw
examination
therein of the
is known bywill
Donitself
Sixtoand without the need for presentation of evidence aliunde.
Lopez.

ISSUE:Is the will valid?

RULING:YES, the will is valid.
There is no statutory requirement that such knowledge be expressly stated in the will itself. It is a matter that may b
Court so impliedly ruled in Gonzales vs. Laurel, 46 Phil., 781, in which the probate of a will written in Tagalog was or
testator knew that idiom. In fact, there was not even extraneous proof on the subject other than the fact that the te
from which the court said "a presumption arises that said Maria
Tapia knew the Tagalog dialect.
FACTS:The Court of First Instance of Benguet denied the probate of the last will and testament of the deceased Pira
will sought to be probated was written in English which the latter did not know.
Evidence shows that Piraso knew how to speak the Ilocano dialect, although imperfectly, and could make himself un
is of the opinion that his will should have been written in that dialect.
Sixto Acop alleged that the lower court erred in not holding that the testator did not know the Ilocano dialect well e
in said dialect.
ISSUE:Can the presumption that the testator knew the language used in the will applicable in this case?

RULING:NO, the presumption that the testator knew the language used in the will is not applicable in this case.
"No will, except as provides in the preceding section" (as to wills executed by a Spaniard or a resident of the Philipp
Civil Procedure went into effect), "shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, nor charge or affect the same, u
dialect known by the testator," etc. Nor can the presumption in favor of the will established by this court in Abangan
effect that the testator is presumed to know the dialect of the locality where he resides, unless there is proof to t

Even he invoked in support of the probate of said document since in the instant case, not only is it not proven that
Baguio where the deceased Piraso lived and where the will was drawn, but that the record contains positive proof t
than the Igorrote dialect, with a smattering of Ilocano hence, he did not know the English language in which the will
presumption could have been raised in this case it would have been wholly contradicted and destroyed.

FACTS:This concerns the admission to probate of a document claimed to

be the last will and testament of Maria Zuñiga Vda. de Pando who died in the City of Manila on October 29, 1945.
On November 6, 1945, a petition for the probate of said will was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. On De
de Vidal, sister of the deceased, filed an opposition based on several grounds. And, after several days of trial, at whi
respective evidence, the court rendered its decision disallowing the wil. One of the grounds that the lower court ba
failure of the Dolores to prove that the testratrix knew and spoke the language in which the will in question appears
the lower court, the law requires that the will should be written in the dialect or language known to the testator and
probate of the will must fail. And the wall was disallowed.
ISSUE:Is there evidence to show that the testatrix knew the language in which the will was written?

RULING:YES. There is indeed nothing in the testimony of the witnesses presented by the petitioner which would ind
the Spanish language used in the preparation of the will in question. But, in our opinion, this failure alone does not i
important requirement of the law has not been complied with, it appearing that there is enough evidence on record
omission. In the first place, we have the undisputed fact that the
deceased was a mestiza española, was married to a Spaniard, Recaredo
Pando, and made several trips to Spain. In the second place, we have the very letters submitted as evidence by the o
deceased possessed the Spanish language, oppositor cannot now be allowed to allege the contrary. These facts give
testatrix knew the language in which the testament has been written, which presumption should stand unless the co
Abangan, 40 Phil., 476; Gonzales vs. Laurel, 46 Phil. 750). And this presumption has not been overcome. And finally,
the will which states that the testatrix knew and
had brought the "testamento" and urge her to go to attorney Tabiana's office to sign it; that Da. Apolinaria manifest
was not feeling well; and that upon Yap's insistence that the will had to be signed in the attorney's office and not els
and signed it in the presence of Yap alone, and returned it with the statement that no one would question it becaus
hers.
ISSUE: Will the signing of the will by the testator in the absence of the notary public affects the validity of the will?
RULING: No. Our examination of the testimony on record discloses no grounds for reversing the trial Court's rejectio
witnesses. It is squarely contradicted by the concordant testimony of the instrumental witnesses, Vicente Yap, Atty.
Montinola, who asserted under oath that the testament was executed by testatrix and witnesses in the presence of
decedent on General Hughes St., Iloilo City, on March 30, 1950. And it is highly unlikely, and contrary to usage, that
insisted that Da. Apolinaria, an infirm lady then over 80 years old, should leave her own house in order to execute h
have easily repaired thither for the purpose.
Upon the other hand, the discrepancies in the testimony of the instrumental witnesses urged upon us by the conte
presence or absence of Aurelio Montinola at the signing of the testament or of the codicil, and the identity of the pe
are not material and are largely imaginary, since the witness Mrs. Tabiana confessed inability to remember all the d
we impressed by the argument that the use of some Spanish terms in
the codicil and testament (like legado, partes iguales, plena propiedad) is
proof that its contents were not understood by the testatrix, it appearing in
evidence that those terms are of common use even in the vernacular, and
that the deceased was a woman of wide business interests. The most important variation noted by the contestants
of acknowledgment (in Spanish) appended to the Codicil in Visayan, Exhibit E. Unlike the testament, this codicil was
new Civil Code, and, therefore, had to
be acknowledged before a notary public (Art. 806). Now, the instrumental
witnesses (who happen to be the same ones who attested the will of 1950) asserted that after the codicil had been
witnesses at the San Pablo Hospital, the same was signed and sealed by notary public Gimotea on the same occasio
affirmed that he did not do so, but brought the codicil to his office, and signed and sealed it there. The variance doe
perversion of truth on the part of the witnesses, but appears rather due to a well-established phenomenon, the ten
events, to substitute the usual and habitual for what differs slightly from it.
At any rate, as observed by the Court below, whether or not the notary
signed the certification of acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix
and the witnesses, does not affect the validity of the codicil. Unlike the
Code of 1889 (Art. 699), the new Civil Code does not require that the
signing of the testator, witnesses and notary should be accomplished in
one single act. A comparison of Articles 805 and 806 of the new Civil Code

FACTS: Marcelina‘s will was written in English and thumbmarked by her. She was illiterate. It was contended that th
was illiterate as shown by the fact that she affixed her thumbmark to the will and that she did not know English, the
written.
In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a language ―understood and known‖ to the test
it was stated that the will was read to the testatrix ―and translated into Filipino language.

HELD: Probate denied. The fact that the English-written will had to be translated to the testatrix could only mean
not known to the illiterate testatrix, and therefore, it is void because of the mandatory provision of Article 804 of t
executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. Testator must know or at least understand the language. Th
by interpretation or explanation of the contents to the testator.
FACTS: Abangan‘s will was admitted to probate. The will consists of two sheets:
1. The first contains all of the disposition of the testatrix, duly signed at the bottom by Martin, in the name and unde
3 other witnesses.
2. The second contains only the attestation clause duly signed at the bottom by the 3 instrumental witnesses.
Neither of these sheets is signed on the left margin by the testatrix and 3 witnesses, nor numbered by letters; and th
oppositors‘ contention, are defects whereby the probate of the will should be denied.
HELD: Such lack of signature and numbering do not make the will invalid.
When the dispositions are wholly written on only 1 sheet signed at the bottom by the testator and 3 witnesses, th
said sheet would be completely purposeless. The purpose of such requirement is to avoid substitution of any of sai
testator‘s disposition.
As to the numbering of every page, the object is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution
authenticity. But, when all the dispositive parts of a will are written on 1 sheet only, the object of the statute disapp
sheet, although unnumbered cannot be hidden.
As to the signature of the testator on the attestation clause, such is not necessary because said clause appertains on
testator since the latter does not attest, but executes, the will.

FACTS:
Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of Josefa Villacorte and for his appointment as executor the
that the testatrix died on September 12, 1958. She executed a will in Tagalog, and through the help of her lawyer, it
and a carbon copy.
On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only brought the original copy of the will while the carbo
Bulacan. One of the witnesses failed to sign one of the pages in the original copy but admitted he may have lifted 2
signed the will. Nevertheless, he affirmed that the will was signed by the testator and other witnesses in his presenc

ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a page is sufficient to

RULING:
No, the failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or mere inadvertence. Since the duplicated bore the requ
omission was not intentional. Even if the original is in existence, a duplicate may still be admitted to probate since th
then in law, there is no other will but the duly signed carbon duplicate and the same can be probated.
The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of
she has no control of. Where the purpose of the law is to guarantee the identity of the testament and its componen
deliberate deviation existed.
Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the rules that the will should be signed by the witness
duplicate was regular in all respects.
FACTS: The signature of the testatrix was written by Severo at the request of the testatrix and in her presence and in
witnesses to the will.
The probate of the will was contended on the ground that the handwriting of Severo looked more like the handwriti
witnesses to the will.

ISSUE:Was the difference in the handwriting of the person tasked to write in behalf of the testator a sufficient groun

RULING: NO.
We do not believe that the mere dissimilarity in writing thus mentioned by the court is sufficient to overcome the u
witnesses to the will that the signature of the testatrix was written by Severo Agayan at her request and in her prese
witnesses to the will. It is immaterial who writes the name of the testatrix provided it is written at her request and i
presence and in the presence of all the witnesses to the execution of the will.
It is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of the testatrix signs his own or not. The important thing
name of the testatrix was signed at her express direction in the presence of three witnesses and that they attested a
in the presence of each other. That is all the statute requires.
Whether one person or another signed the name of the testatrix in this case is absolutely unimportant so far as t
is because there were 4 witnesses to the will of the decedent and the law requires only 3 attesting witnesses to th
It is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of the testatrix signs his own name or not. The importan
the name of the testatrix was signed at her express direction in the presence of 3 witnesses and that they attested a
the presence of each. That is all the law requires.
It may be wise as a practical matter that the one who signs the testator‘s name signs also his own; but that is not es
FACTS: There were 4 witnesses to the will. The decedent‘s name was signed in his behalf upon his request by one of
was questioned on the ground that it was not signed by 3 instrumental witnesses.

HELD: Even if one of the subscribing witnesses signs in behalf of the testator when so requested, the requirement o
complied with. In this case, there were 4 subscribing witnesses to the will.
But if there were only 3 witnesses to the will, one of them cannot sign to the will because it would fall short of the
The 3 witnesses who signed the will are the ones who must also sign the attestation clause.
An instrumental witness is one who takes part in the execution of an instrument or writing.
The will thus have been prepared and before it is signed by the testator or the person acting in his stead, or the one
(in which case the name of the testator is written before that of the signer), in order that said document may have th
1. The testator gathers 3 or more credible witnesses and tells them that the contents of said document is his will, w
and
2. The testator or the person directed by him to do so signs it in the presence of the testator and of each other, and
3. The testator or the person acting in his stead, as well as the 3 witnesses sign on the left margin of each page or sh
correlatively in letters on the upper part of the page.

The law does not say that said witnesses must be different form those who signed the attestation clause. It follows t
the left margin of each page of the document presented by the testator to them as his will, must be the ones who sh
inasmuch as they alone can certify the facts to be stated in said clause, for having taken a direct part therein, as the
person requested by him to sign all the sheets of the will.

FACTS: Cristina Valdes, deceased, placed her cross against her name attached by some other person to the instrume
to be her last will and testament, in the presence of the three witnesses whose names are attached to the attesting
subscribed the instrument in her presence and in the presence of each other.
ISSUE: Is the cross sufficient compliance?
RULING: YES. The placing of the cross opposite her name at the conclusion of the instrument was a sufficient compli
618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes that except where wills are signed by some other person than t
therein indicated, a valid will must be signed by the testator. The right of a testator to sign his will by mark, execute
sustained by the courts of last resort of the United States in construing statutory provisions prescribing the mode of
with, or substantially similar to that found in section 618 of our code, which was taken from section 2349 of the Cod
FACTS: Antero died leaving behind a will, which appears to have been signed by Atty. Javier who wrote the name of
del testador‖ and the name of Javier. Antero is alleged to have written a cross immediately after his name.
It was alleged that the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero caused Atty. Javier to writ
express direction.
The proponent theorized that the cross is as much a signature as a thumb mark.

HELD: The will is invalid.

A testator cannot sign a will by only marking a cross against his name if it is not his customary signature. It is not her
on the will is the usual signature of Antero or even one of the ways by which he signed his name. The mere sign of a
mark. The cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumb mark.
When the testator expressly caused another to sign the former’s name, this fact must be recited in the attestation c
defective and cannot be probated.

FACTS: The last Will and Testament is written in the Spanish language and consists of two (2) typewritten pages dou
Juan Bello and under his name appears typewritten ‘Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana, residence Certificate A-116
Zamboanga’, and on the second page appears the signature of the three (3) instrumental witnesses Blas Sebastian, F
the bottom of which appears the signature of T. de los Santos and below his signature is his official designation as th
testament. On the first page on the left margin of the said instrument also appear the signatures of the instrumenta
which is the last page of the said last Will and Testament, also appears the signature of the three (3) instrumental w
the left margin appears the signature of Juan Bello under whose name appears handwritten the following phrase, ‘P
The will is duly acknowledged before Notary Public, Attorney Timoteo de los Santos.

ISSUE: Does the signature of Dr. Juan A. Abello above the typewritten statement "Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellan
the law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be executed?
RULING: NO. The present law, Article 805 of the Civil Code, in part provides as follows: "Every will, other than a holo
end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator’s name written by some other person in his presence, and by
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another."
The clause "must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator’s name written by some
his express direction," is practically the same as the provisions of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No
except as provided in the preceding section shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, nor charge or affect th
signed by the testator, or by the testator’s name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express d
by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. . . ."
Article 618 of the Old Civil Code as well as Article 805 of the New Civil Code require that the testator himself sign th
testator’s name must be written by some other person in his presence and by his express direction.
Here, the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written under the will by said Abellana herself,
therefore, a failure to comply with the express requirement in the law that the testator must himself sign the will, o
some other person in his presence and by his express direction.
FACTS: Roman Abaya filed a petition with the CFI-Laguna, for the allowance of the will executed by Juan Zalamero, a
province, on the 29th of October, 1905, and produced in court the said will, which was written in Tagalog dialect. Do
alleging that the will had been executed under pressure and unlawful and improper influence on the part of those w
had not been executed and signed in accordance with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

ISSUE: Was the will executed in accordance with the law?

RULING: YES. It is true that the witness Mariano Zaguirre, who was requested by the testator to write his name and
affix his own signature immediately below the name and surname of Juan Zalamero and below the cross placed by t
the testator Juan Zalamero;" but in the said will are clearly stated the reason why it was not signed by the testator h
the witness Zaguirre, and a repetition thereof was not necessary; further, that this same witness, upon being reques
name and surname of the testator, who afterwards placed the cross between them, stating that it was his statemen
after the said name and surname of the testator and the cross made by him, and the same was subscribed by the th
by law.
The essential requisites prescribed by the above-mentioned section 618 of the law have been complied with, namel
at the execution of the will of Juan Zalamero at the date mentioned therein; that they heard his statement that the
under his direction, contained his last will; that they saw and witnessed when, at the express request of the testator
Mariano Zaguirre, wrote at the foot of the will the name and surname of Juan Zalamero, and when the latter put the
surname, each of the witnesses subscribing it at the time and in the presence of each other.

FACTS: The last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta, deceased, was denied because the lower court was of the o
the hearing that Julio Javellana, one of the witnesses, did not attach his signature thereto in the presence of Isabelo
required by the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before Jena left, he saw that last witness Ja
signature was not yet completed when the former turned his back and left the room.

ISSUE: Should the will be admitted to probate?

RULING: YES. The fact that Jena was still in the room when he saw Javellana moving his hand and pen in the act of a
together with the testimony of the remaining witnesses which shows that Javellana did in fact there and then sign h
the signature was affixed in the presence of Jena. The fact that he was in the act of leaving, and that his back was tu
the witness was being written, is of no importance. He, with the other witnesses and the testator, had assembled fo
testament, and were together in the same room for that purpose, and at the moment when the witness Javellana si
and physically present and in such position with relation to Javellana that he could see everything which took place
proper direction, and without any physical obstruction to prevent his doing so, therefore we are of opinion that the
finally left the room.
FACTS:
One of the subscribing witnesses was some eight or ten feet away, in a large room connecting with the smaller room
subscribing witnesses were, by a doorway, across which was hung a curtain which made it impossible for one in the
the other subscribing witnesses in the act of attaching their signatures to the instrument.
The trial judge does not appear to have considered the determination of this question of fact of vital importance in
was of opinion that under the doctrine laid down in the case of Jaboneta vs. Gustilo the alleged fact that one of the
room when the testator and the other describing witnesses signed the instrument in the inner room, had it been pr
to invalidate the execution of the will.
ISSUE: Should the witness who was outside the room when the testator and other subscribing witnesses attached th
considered as present during the said act?

RULING: NO.
Once this subscribing witness is proven to have been in the outer room at the time when the testator and the other
attached their signatures to the instrument in the inner room, it would have been invalid as a will, the attaching of t
not being done "in the presence" of the witness in the outer room. This because the line of vision from this witness
subscribing witnesses would necessarily have been impeded by the curtain separating the inner from the outer one
signature."

Herminio Maravilla’s petition for probate was opposed by the appellees Pedro, Asuncion and Regina, all surnamed "
brother and sisters of the deceased Digna Maravilla, in an amended opposition filed in the course of the trial in the
deceased the alleged testatrix and the instrumental witnesses did not sign the alleged will, each and every page the
That Digna affixed her signature on the will under undue and improper pressure and she was not of sound mind. Th
revoked by the deceased.
Only one of the witnesses is alive during the petition for probate. The trial court ruled that Mansueto did not actual
because of the fact that while Mansueto positively identified his own signature, he did not identify that of the testat
the signature of Mrs. Maravilla".
ISSUE: Should the court give credit to the testimony of Atty. Manuel Villanueva?

RULING: Yes.
HELD: It was but natural that witness Mansueto should be positive about his own signature, since he was familiar w
Digna Maravilla's signature since he could not be closely acquainted with the same.
Records show that the signing of the will was the only occasion that he saw her sign. He had no opportunity to study
execution of the will. He witnessed Digna's signing not less than 14 years previously. To demand that in identifying D
display a positiveness equal to the certainty shown by him in recognizing his own, exceeds the bounds of the reason
used by the witness is the best evidence that he was being candid and careful, and it is a clear badge of truthfulness
A will may be allowed even if some witnesses not remember having attested it, if other evidence satisfactorily sho
witness to identify his signature does not bar probate.
The tests is not whether a witness did see the signing of the will but whether he was in a position to see if he chose
February 25, 1960)
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo admitted to probate the documents in the Visayan dialect, marked Exhibits D and
executed by the deceased Da. Apolinaria Ledesma Vda. de Javellana... respectively, with Ramon Tabiana, Gloria Mon
witnesses. The contestant, Da. Matea Ledesma, sister and nearest surviving relative of said deceased, appealed from
exhibits were not executed in... conformity with law. The appeal was made directly to this Court because the value o
two hundred thousand pesos.
The contestant argues that the Court below erred in refusing credence to her witnesses Maria Paderogao and Vidal
of the deceased Apolinaria Ledesma.

Issues:

(1) whether the testament of 1950 was executed by the testatrix in the presence of the instrumental witnesses; (2)
was signed and the notarial seal affixed by the notary without the presence of the testatrix and the... witnesses; and
thereby rendered invalid and ineffective. These questions are the same ones presented to us for resolution.
Ruling:

discloses no grounds for reversing the trial Court's rejection of the improbable story of these witnesses. It is squarel
testimony of the instrumental witnesses, Vicente Yap, Atty. Ramon C. Tabiana,... and his wife Gloria Montinola, who
testament was executed by testatrix and witnesses in the presence of each other, at the house of the decedent on G
March 30, 1950.
Unlike the testament, this codicil was executed after the enactment of the new Civil Code, and,... therefore, had to b
public (Art. 806). Now, the instrumental witnesses (who happen to be the same ones who attested the will of 1950)
been signed by the testratrix and the witnesses at San Pablo Hospital, the same... was signed and sealed by notary p
On the other hand, Gimotea afirmed that he dfd not do so, but brought the codicil to his office, and signed and seale
necessarily imply conscious perversion of truth on the part... of the witnesses, but appears rather due to a well-esta
the mind, in recalling past events, to substitute the usual and habitual for what differs slightly from it... whether or n
of acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses, does not affect the validity of the codicil. Unl
new Civil Code does not... require that the signing of the testator, witnesses and notary should be accomplished in o
805 and 806 of the new Civil Code reveals that while testator and witnesses must sign in the presence of each other
"every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses" (Art. 806); i.e., that the
officer the authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of their actions in executing the... testamentary dis
before us.
Cesar Alvarado, and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate before th
According to Bayani Ma. Rino, private respondent, he was present when the said notarial will was executed, togethe
and the notary public, where the testator did not read the will himself, suffering as he did from glaucoma.
Rino, a lawyer, drafted the eight-page document and read the same aloud before the testator, the three instrument
latter four following the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them.
Thereafter, a codicil entitled “Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na May P
Alvarado” was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the testator’s eye opera
Said codicil was likewise not read by Brigido Alvarado and was read in the same manner as with the previously exec
When the notarial will was submitted to the court for probate, Cesar Alvarado filed his opposition as he said that th
required by law; that the testator was insane or mentally incapacitated due to senility and old age; that the will was
fear or threats; that it was procured by undue pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary; and that the sig
fraud or trick.

ISSUE:

W/N notarial will of Brigido Alvarado should be admitted to probate despite allegations of defects in the execution a
allegedly blind at the time of execution and the double-reading requirement under Art. 808 of the NCC was not com

HELD:

YES. The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there should be strict compliance wit
in order to insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not a
taken into account, may only defeat the testator’s will.
Cesar Alvardo was correct in asserting that his father was not totally blind (of counting fingers at 3 feet) when the w
can be so considered for purposes of Art. 808.
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil.
However, in the case at bar, there was substantial compliance where the purpose of the law has been satisfied: that
the testator who is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate) and enabling him to object
Rino read the testator’s will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and
Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read corresponded with h
Only then did the signing and acknowledgment take place.
There is no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil were not sufficiently made known and communica
With four persons, mostly known to the testator, following the reading word for word with their own copies, it can
was reasonably assured that what was read to him were the terms actually appearing on the typewritten document
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the wil
FACTS:

This is a petition for appeal from the CFI of Manila admitting to probate the will of Gliceria Avelino del Rosario (“Glic
is also an appeal to remove the current administrator, Consuelo Gonzales-Precilla( “Consuelo”) as special administra
Consuelo possesses interest adverse to the estate and to order the RD of Manila to annotate on the registered land
When Gliceria died she had no descendants, ascendants, bros or sisses and 90 yrs old. After which, her niece, Consu
administratrix of the properties. The court approved this because Consuelo has been was already managing the pro
lifetime. What the respondents allege is that in the last years of the deceased, Consuelo sought the transfer of certa
sale price of 30k to her husband Alfonso through fraud and intimidation. In addition, the oppositors presented evide
issue new Certificates of Titles to certain parcels of land for the purpose of preparing the inventory to be used in the
TCTs were issued by the RD for certain lands of the deceased after Consuelo asked for the old TCTs.
At the end of the probate proceedings, the court ruled that Counsuelo should be made the administrator, and that t
these reasons: NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED to establish that the deceased was not of sound mind, that even
deceased prepared another will in 1956 (12pages), the latter is not prevented from executing another will in 1960 (1
testimonies of the witnesses prove their truthfulness.

ISSUE:

Was the will in 1960 (1 page) duly/properly executed?

HELD:

NO. Provision of Article 808 mandatory. Therefore, For all intents and purposes of the rules on probate, the testatrix
execution of her will would have required observance of Article 808. The rationale behind the requirement of readin
or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate) , is to make the provisions thereof known to him, so
are not in accordance with his wishes. Likewise, the 1970 will was done in Tagalog which the deceased is not well ve
as to the due execution of the will and as well as the typographical errors contain therein which show the haste in p
to the 12 page will created in 1956 written in Spanish. ALSO, as to the blindness, there was proof given by the testim
could not read at near distances because of cataracts. (Testatrix’s vision was mainly for viewing distant objects and
proof that it was read to the deceased twice, the will was NOT duly executed.
ALSO, Consuelo should be removed as administrator because she is not expected to sue her own husband to reconv
have been transferred by the deceased to her own husband.
The notice of lis pendens is also not proper where the issue is not an action in rem, affecting real property or the titl

SEE ABOVE
A will has been defined as a species of conveyance whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed b
the disposition of his estate after his death.

there are two kinds of wills which a testator may execute.

The first kind is the ordinary or attested will, the execution of which is governed by Articles 804 to 809 of the Code.

The other kind of will is the holographic will, which Article 810 defines as one that is entirely written, dated, and sign
himself.

This kind of will, unlike the ordinary type, requires no attestation by witnesses.

in the case of an ordinary or attested will, its attestation clause need not be written in a language or dialect known t
part of the testamentary disposition.
The last paragraph of Article 805 merely requires that, in such a case, the attestation clause shall be interpreted to s

An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses certify that the instrume
and to the manner of the execution of the same.
It is a separate... memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the
fact that compliance with the essential formalities required by law has been observed.

Under the third paragraph of Article 805, such a clause, the complete lack of which would result in the invalidity of t
of pages used upon which the will is written; (2) that the... testator signed, or expressly caused another to sign, the
presence of the attesting witnesses; and (3) that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the
witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which the will is written is to safegua
omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages;... whereas the subscripti
and the attesting witnesses is made for the purpose of authentication and identification, and thus indicates that the
executed by the testator and... attested to by the witnesses.

The attestation clause, therefore, provides strong legal guaranties for... the due execution of a will and to insure the
FACTS:

· Vicente Cagro died in Samar on February 14, 1949. Cagro left a will, which was allowed to be probated by the
oppositors that the will was fatally defective.

· The oppositors alleged that the attestation clause of the will was not signed by the attesting witnesses. It was
the three witnesses to the will do not in fact appear at the bottom of the attestation clause, although the page cont
witnesses on the left-hand margin.

· The estate was contending that despite the absence of the witnesses' signatures at the bottom of the attestati
hand margin conform substantially to the law and may be deemed as their signatures to the attestation clause.

ISSUE Whether there is substantial compliance when the witnesses to a will signed on the left hand margin but not a
of the same page. – NO.
RULING:

Petition denied. Probation of the will in question denied.

· The attestation clause is 'a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will' required by law to be
it must necessarily bear their signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witne
signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their participation.

· If an attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at the bottom thereof, be admitted as sufficient, it w
will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses.
FACTS
A petition for probate was filed by Petitioner Apolonio Taboada before the Court of First Instance, attaching therew
Dorotea Perez. The will, written in Cebuano-Visayan dialect, consisted of two (2) pages. The first page contains the e
signed at the bottom of the page by Dorotea alone, and at the left margin by three (3) witnesses. The second page c
acknowledgement is signed at the end of the attestation by three (3) witnesses and at the left margin by Dorotea. Si
allowed the presentation of evidence.

However, the Court, under Judge Ramon Pamitian, issued an order denying the probate of the will of Dorotea and o
intestate heirs. When a new judge was assigned in the case, Respondent Judge Avelino Rosal, the Court again denie
by Apolonio because he failed to comply with the order requiring him to submit the names of intestate heirs. It rule
provides that for a notarial will to be valid, it is not enough that only the testatrix signs at the end of the page, but a
same place or at the end and of one another because attesting witnesses to a will attest not merely the will itself bu

ISSUE
Whether or not Art. 805 of the Civil Code must be strictly construed in order for a will to be valid.

HELD
NO, the requirement of subscription was fully satisfied. Clearly, Art. 805 of the Civil Code stated that the will must b
testator, or by testator’s name written by another person in his presence, or by his express direction, and attested a
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. However, the signatures of the witnesses on
will attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of the will as em

While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be
authenticity of the will is not assailed. Thus, the law is to be liberally construed in view of giving the testator more fr
but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent commission of fraud.

RULING
Petition is GRANTED. Ordes issued by the Court of First Instance are

VILLAFLOR vs. TOBIAS 53 PHIL 714 FACTS: The Will was questioned because the attestation clause was written on a s
very big space at the bottom of the last page of the will. At the end of the disposition, there was still a large space. H
written on a separate sheet. HELD: Liberal interpretation is applied since these are only defects in form. The will is c
may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himsel
may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed. (678, 688a) ROXAS vs. DE JESUS, JR. January 2
"FEB./61" and states: "This is my will which I want to be respected although it is not written by a lawyer. . . " HELD: T
should prevail. As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should include the day, month, and year of its exec
bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is esta
or not the date "FEB./61" appearing on the holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil Code,
be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance
er 23, 1964)
DOCTRINE: The national law of the
testator shall govern in the
disposition of the testator’s
properties; impossible conditions in
the will shall be considered as not
imposed.

DOCTRINE: Wills executed and

probated in a foreign country must be
proven before the Philippine court to
obtain similar validity/effectivity.
DOCTRINE:
The facts and circumstances of record
are to be considered in the
application of any given rule. If the
surrounding circumstances point to a
regular execution of the will, and the
instrument appears to have been
executed substantially in accordance
with the requirements of the law, the
inclination should, in the absence of
any suggestion of bad faith, forgery or
fraud, lean towards its admission to
probate, although the document may
suffer from some imperfection of
language, or other non-essential
defect.
Precision of language in the drafting
of an attestation clause is desirable.
However, it is not imperative that a
parrot-like copy of the words of the
statute be made. It is sufficient if
from the language employed it can
reasonably be deduced that the
attestation clause fulfills what the law
expects of it.

DOCTRINE:There is no statutory
requirement that such knowledge be
expressly stated in the will itself. It is
a matter that may be established by
proof aliunde
DOCTRINE:The presumption that the
testator is presumed to know the
dialect of the locality where he
resides can be overcome by the
presentation of evidence and facts as
in this case.

DOCTRINE:The failure of the

witnesses to testify that the testatrix
knew and spoke the language used in
a will does not itself alone suffice to
conclude that this requirement of law
has not been complied with when
there is enough evidence of record
which supplies this technical omission
DOCTRINE: The new Civil Code does
not require that the signing of the
testator, witnesses and notary should
be accomplished in one single act.
DOCTRINE: 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 of. Where the purpose of the
law is to guarantee the identity of the
testament and its component pages,
and there is no intentional or
deliberate deviation existed.
DOCTRINE: It is unimportant whether
the person who writes the name of
the testatrix signs his own or not for a
will to be valid.
DOCTRINE: A cross is sufficient to be
considered as signature or mark as
long as it is customary.
DOCTRINE: a cross seen after the
name of the testator shall not be
considered as sufficient signature if it
is not the usual signature of the
testator.

DOCTRINE: A will subscribed at the

end thereof by some person other
than the testator in such manner that
the signature of said person appears
above the typewritten statement "Por
la Testadora Anacleta Abellana . . .
Ciudad de Zamboanga," may not be
admitted to probate for failure to
comply with the express requirement
of the law that the testator must
himself sign the will or that his name
be affixed thereto by some other
person in his presence and by his
express direction.
DOCTRINE: Where it appears in a will
that the testator has stated that by
reason of his inability to sign his name
he requested one of the three
witnesses present to do so, and that
as a matter of fact, the said witness
wrote the name and surname of the
testator who, stating that the
instrument executed by him
contained his last will, put the sign of
the cross between his said name and
surname, all of which details are set
forth in a note which the witnesses
forthwith subscribed in the presence
of the testator and of each other, said
will may be probated.

DOCTRINE: The true test of vision is

not whether the testator actually saw
the witness sign, but whether he
might have seen him sign, considering
his mental and physical condition and
position at the time of the
subscription.
DOCTRINE: The presence of each
other does not depend upon proof of
the fact that their eyes were actually
cast upon the paper at the moment
of its subscription by each of them,
but that at that moment existing
conditions and their position with
relation to each other were such that
by merely casting the eyes in the
proper direction they could have seen
each other sign..

DOCTRINE: In weighing the testimony

of the attesting witnesses to a will,
the statements of a competent
attorney, who has been charged with
the responsibility of seeing to the
proper execution of the instrument, is
entitled to greater weight than the
testimony of a person casually called
to participate in the act, supposing of
course that no motive is revealed that
should induce the attorney to
prevaricate. The reason is that the
mind of the attorney, being
conversant with the requisites of
proper execution of the instrument, is
more likely to become fixed on
details, and he is more likely than
other persons to retain those
incidents in his memory
DOCTRINE:Over the
testimony of experts, we have
the categorical and positive
declaration of veracious
witnesses who affirm that
these signatures were written
by the testatrix herself.