Case # 19 the requirement that the will should be read to the latter, not only once
but twice, by two different persons, and that the witnesses have to act
Rev. Father Lucio V. Garcia vs. Conrado M. Vasquez
Decided on: April 30, 1970
Two wills executed:
1. June 9, 1956 – consist of 12 pages and written in Spanish;
acknowledged before Notary Public
2. December 29, 1960 – consist of 1 page and written in
Tagalog; acknowledged before Notary Public
Gliceria Avelino del Rosario – testatrix, unmarried, no heir
September 2, 1965 - death of testatrix (City of Manila)
September 17, 1965 – Consuelo Gonzales vda. De Precilla (niece)
filed a petition for probate of the will and her appointment as
administratrix (opposed on the ground that she possesses interest
adverse to the estate) ; Alfonso Precilla (husband of Consuelo)
Estate valued at P100,000.00
On 25 August 1966 – court issued order admitting to probate the 1960
will.
The petition was opposed separately by several groups of alleged
heirs, one of them is the petitioner in this case Rev. Fr. Lucio V. Garcia,
a legatee named in an earlier will executed by Gliceria A. del Rosario
on 9 June 1956.
The oppositions invariably charged that the instrument executed in
1960 was not intended by the deceased to be her true will; that the
signature of the deceased appearing in the will was procured through
undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
beneficiaries and/or other persons; that the testatrix did not know the
object of her bounty; that the instrument itself reveals irregularities in
its execution, and that the formalities required by law for such
execution have not been complied with.
Foremost of the questions to be determined here concerns the cor-
rectness of the order allowing the probate of the 1960 will.
Oppositors maintain that on 29 December 1960 the eyesight
of Gliceria del Rosario was so poor and defective that she could not
have read the provisions of the will.
Dr. Jesus V. Tamesis – ophthalmologist has firsthand knowledge of the
actual condition of testatrix’ eyesight from August, 1960 up to 1963. He
fully establish the fact that notwithstanding the operation and removal
of the cataract in testatrix’ left eye and her being fitted
with aphakic lens (used by cataract patients), her vision remained
mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading print = the
signatures in the checks are written far above the printed base lines,
and the names of the payees as well as the amounts written do not
appear to be in the handwriting of the alleged testatrix, being in a much
firmer arid more fluid hand than hers. The record is thus convincing
that the supposed testatrix could not have physically read or
understood the alleged testament and that its admission to probate
was erroneous and should be reversed.
ISSUE: WON the will dated December 29, 1960 should be admitted for
probate.
RULING:
NO. For all intents and purposes of the rules on probate, the
deceased Gliceria del Rosario was, as appellant oppositors contend,
not unlike a blind testator, and the due execution of her will would have
required observance of the provisions of Article 808 of the Civil Code.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator
if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is
illiterate),[18] is to make the provisions thereof known to him, so that he
may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his
wishes. That the aim of the law is to insure that the dispositions of the
will are properly communicated to and understood by the handicapped
testator, thus making them truly reflective of his desire, is evidenced by
within the range of his (the testator's) other senses. There is nothing in
the records to show that the requisites under Art 808 have been
complied with.
The order of the court allowing to probate the alleged 1960 will
of Gliceria A. del Rosario is hereby reversed and set aside.
Case #20
In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of the
Deceased Brigido Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADO
Vs. HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA
Decided on: September 14, 1993
Brigido Alvarado – testator
Cesar Alvarado – illegitimate son of the testator who as disinherited
under the executed will (November 5, 1977)
November 5, 1977 – execution of a notarial will “Huling Habilin”
December 9, 1977 – holographic will of the testator was admitted to
probate; the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were unchanged.
January 3, 1979 - petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil
was filed upon the testator's death by the respondent.
An opposition was filed on the grounds : that the will sought to be
probated was not executed and attested as required by law; that the
testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapacitated to make a will
at the time of its execution due to senility and old age; that the will was
executed under duress, or influence of fear and threats; that it was
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of
the beneficiary who stands to get the lion's share of the testator's
estate; and lastly, that the signature of the testator was procured by
fraud or trick.
Brigido Alvarado was not totally blind at the time the will and codicil
were executed. However, his vision on both eyes was only of "counting
fingers at three (3) feet" by reason of the glaucoma which he had been
suffering from for several years.
Petitioner contends that although his father was not totally blind when
the will and codicil were executed, he can be so considered within the
scope of the term as it is used in Art. 808 (he could no longer read
either printed or handwritten matters.)
The main thrust of the appeal was that the deceased was blind within
the meaning of the law at the time his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil
attached thereto was executed; that since the reading required by Art.
808 of the Civil Code was admittedly not complied with, probate of the
deceased's last will and codicil should have been denied.
ISSUE: Was Brigido Alvarado blind for purpose of Art, 808 at the time
his "Huling Habilin" and its codicil were executed? If so, was the
double-reading requirement of said article complied with?
RULING:
Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to those who, for
one reason or another, are "incapable of reading the(ir) will(s)." Since
Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and
codicil on the separate occasions of their execution due to his "poor,"
"defective," or "blurred" vision, there can be no other course for us but
to conclude that Brigido Alvarado comes within the scope of the term
"blind" as it is used in Art. 808. Article 808 requires that in case of
testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be read twice; once, by
one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary public
before whom the will was acknowledged.
Art. 808 was not followed because instead of of the notary public and
an instrumental witness, it was the lawyer (private respondent) who
drafted the eight-paged will and the five-paged codicil who read the
same aloud to the testator, and read them only once, not twice as Art.
808 requires.

In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil
aloud in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses,
and the notary public. Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator
affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read corresponded with
his instructions. Only then did the signing and acknowledgement take
place.
The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not.
Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial
requirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of the will,
the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not
affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat
the testator's will.
Brigido Alvarado had expressed his last wishes in clear and
unmistakable terms in his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached
thereto.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
Case #21
The matter of the probate of the last will and testament of Jose
Venzon. Valentina Cuevas vs. Pilar Achacoso
Decided on: May 18, 1951
Two wills:
October 10, 1945 – 2nd will; executed in accordance with law
Jose Venzon – testator
January 19, 1946 – death of testator (Iba, Zambales)
Valentina Cuevas – widow (heir; executrix)
Rosario Venzon – daughter (heir)
February 1, 1946 – Valentine filed petition for probate of will.
May 10, 1946 - Pilar Achacoso (beneficiary in a previous will) filed an
alternative petition for the probate of a previous will executed by the
deceased praying therein that, if the will submitted by the widow be
rejected, the other will be admitted to probate in lieu thereof.
The main error assigned refers to the alleged lack of attestation clause
in the will, and that the same has not been signed by the instrumental
witnesses but by the testator himself.
ISSUE: WON the will is valid despite the error in the attestation clause.
RULING: Yes, the attestation clause substantially complies with the
requirements of the law. The only apparent anomaly is that it appears
to be an attestation made by the testator himself more than by the
instrumental witnesses however under the signature of the testator,
there appear the signatures of the three instrumental witnesses. In the
case of Aldaba vs. Roque, the court said “In reality it appears that it is
the testratrix who makes the declaration about the points in the last
paragraph of the will; however as the witnesses together with the
testratrix, have signed the said declaration, we are of the opinion and
so hold that the words above quoted of the testament constitute a
sufficient compliance with the requirements of Act No. 2645”. Also of
relevance is the provision under Art. 788: If a testamentary disposition
admits of different interpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation
by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred.
Case #22
Estate of the deceased Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza.
CONSORCIA DICHOSO DE TICSON vs. Marino De Gorostiza
Decided on: October 31, 1932
Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza – testatrix
The will was denied probate in the trial court, for the reason
that the attestation clause failed to state that the testatrix signed every
page of the will as required by section 618. "We the undersigned
attesting witnesses, whose residences are stated opposite our
respective names, do hereby certify that the testatrix, whose name is
signed hereinabove, has publish unto us the foregoing will consisting
of two pages as her Last Will and Testament and has signed the same
in our presence, and in witness whereof we have each signed the
same and each page thereof in the presence of said testatrix and in
the presence of each other."
ISSUE: WON the attestation clause is sufficient.
RULING: Yes.
We must reject as untenable the interpretation of the
appellant relative to the word "hereinabove", for this simply has
reference to the signature of the testatrix at the end of the will. We
must reject also as untenable the interpretation of the appellant that
the word "same" refers back to "pages" and not to "will", for such an
interpretation would be inconsistent with the language used further on
in the attestation clause where mention is made of the signing by the
witnesses of "the same and each page thereof", meaning the will and
each page thereof.
The legalistic formalities should not be permitted to obscure
the use of good sound common sense in the consideration of wills and
to frustrate the wishes of deceased persons solemnly expressed in
testaments, regarding the execution of which there is not even a hint of
bad faith or fraud. We find the attestation clause legally sufficient, and
order that the will of the deceased Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza be
admitted to probate.
Case #23
Jose Merza vs. Pedro Porras
Decided on: May 25, 1953
Pilar Montealegre – testatrix; survived by husband and collateral
relatives
The opposition to Exhibit A was predicated on alleged defects of the
attestation clause, that the clause did not state that the tetratrix and the
witnesses had signed each and every page of the will or that she had
signed the instrument in the presence of the witnesses.
ISSUE: Won the attestation clause is sufficient.
RULING: Yes, It must be admitted that the attestation clause was very
poor drawn, its language exceedingly ungrammatical to the point of
being difficult to understand; but from a close examination of the whole
context in relation to its purpose the implication seems clear that the
testatrix signed in the presence of the witnesses. Considering that the
witnesses' only business at hand was to sign and attest to the
testatrix's signing of the document, and that the only actors of the
proceeding were the maker and the witnesses acting and speaking
collectively and in the first person, the phrase "in our presence," used
as it was in connection with the process of signing, can not imply
anything but the testatrix signed before them. No other inference is
possible. The prepositional phrase "in our presence" denotes an active
verb and the verb a subject. The verb could not be other than signed
and the subject no other than the testatrix.
The use of the word "also" is no less enlightening. It denotes that, as
each of the witnesses sign in the presence of the testatrix and of one
another, so the testatrix sign in similar or like manner — in their
presence.
Case #24
Testate estate of Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap deceased. Fausto E.
Gan vs. Ildefonso Yap
Decided on: August 30, 1958
Felicidad Esguerra Alto-Yap – testatrix
Ildefonso Yap – husband of the testatrix
Properties: Pulilan, Bulacan, City of Manila
November 5, 1951 – execution of the holographic will
November 20, 1951 – death of testatrix
March 17, 1952 - Fausto E. Gan initiated probate of the will.
Opposing the petition, husband of the testatrix (Ildefonso Yap) asserted
that the deceased had not left any will, nor executed any testament
during her lifetime. According to the petitioner, the will as entrusted
contained in a purse, to Felina Esguerra (niece) a day before the
testatrix died. But a few hours later, Ildefonso Yap, her husband, asked
Felina for the purse: and being afraid of him by reason of his well-
known violent temper, she delivered it to him. Thereafter, in the same
day, Ildefonso Yap returned the purse to Felina, only to demand it the
next day shortly before the death of Felicidad. Again, Felina handed it
to him but not before she had taken the purse to the toilet, opened it
and read the will for the last time
The will itself was not presented. Petitioner tried to establish its
contents and due execution by the statements in open court of Felina
Esguerra, Primitivo Reyes, Socorro Olarte and Rosario Gan Jimenez.
Hon. Ramon R. San Jose, Judge, refused to probate the
alleged will. A seventy-page motion for reconsideration failed. Hence
this appeal.
ISSUE: May a holographic will be probated upon the testimony of
witnesses who have allegedly seen it and who declare that it was in
the handwriting of the testator?
RULING: NO. The experts can not testify, because there is no way to
compare the alleged testament with other documents admittedly, or
proven to be, in the testator's hand. The oppositor will, therefore, be
caught between the upper millstone of his lack of knowledge of the will
or the form thereof, and the nether millstone of his inability to prove its
falsity. Again the proponent's witnesses may be honest and truthful; but
they may have been shown a faked document, and having no interest
to check the authenticity thereof have taken no pains to examine and
compare. Or they may be perjurers boldly testifying, in the knowledge
that none could convict them of perjury, because no one could prove
that they have not "been shown" a document which they believed was
in the handwriting of the deceased. Of course, the competency of such
perjured witnesses to testify as to the handwriting could be tested by
exhibiting to them other writings sufficiently similar to those written by
the deceased; but what witness or lawyer would not foresee such a
move and prepare for it? His knowledge of the handwriting established,
the witness (or witnesses) could simply stick to his statement: he has
seen and read a document which he believed was in the deceased's
handwriting. And the court and the oppositor would practically be at the
mercy of such witness (or witnesses) not only as to the execution, but
also as to the contents of the will.
Whereas in the case of a lost holographic will, the witnesses would
testify as to their opinion of the handwriting which they allegedly saw,
an opinion which cannot be tested in court, nor directly contradicted by
the oppositors, because the handwriting itself is not at hand.
Case #25
Federico Azaola vs. Cesario Singson
Decided on: August 5, 1960
Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance – testatrix
Maria Azoala – sole heir
Cesario Singson – oppositor; nephew of the testatrix
September 9, 1957 – death of testatrix
Witness Francisco Azaola testified that he saw the holographic will one
month, more or less, before the death of the testatrix, as the same was
handed to him and his wife; the witness testified also that he
recognized all the signatures appearing in the holographic will as the
handwriting of the testatrix. (witness presented and compared it with
SPA; mortgage; deed of sale)
However, on page 16 on the same transcript of the stenographic notes,
when the same witness was asked by counsel if he was familiar with
the penmanship and handwriting of the deceased Fortunata Vda. de
Yance, he answered positively in the affirmative and when he was
asked again whether the penmanship referred to in the previous
answer as appearing in the holographic will (Exh. C) was hers
(testatrix'), he answered, "I would definitely say it is hers.
The opposition to the probate was on the ground that (1) the execution
of the will was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence
on the part of the petitioner and his wife, and (2) that the testatrix did
not seriously intend the instrument to be her last will, and that the
same was actually written either on the 5th or 6th day of August 1957
and not on November 20, 1956 as appears on the will.
The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the
Civil Code, the proponent must present three witnesses who could
declare that the will and the signature are in the writing of the testatrix,
the probate being contested; and because the lone witness presented
by the proponent "did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was
written in the handwriting of the testatrix."
ISSUE: W/N Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory or permissive.
The rule of the first paragraph of Article 811 of the Civil Code is merely
directory and is not mandatory. Since the authenticity of the will was
not contested, petitioner was not required to produce more than one
witness; but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were
contested, Article 811 cannot be interpreted to require the compulsory
presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the
testator, under penalty of having the probate denied. Since no witness
may have been present at the execution of a holographic will, none
being required by law (Art. 810, new Civil Code), it becomes obvious
that the existence of witness possessing the requisite qualifications is a
matter beyond the control of the proponent. For it is not merely a
question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be
witnesses “who know the handwriting and signature of the testator”
and who can declare (truthfully, of course, even if the law does not so
express) “that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the
testator”. There may be no available witness of the testator’s hand; or
even if so familiarized, the witnesses may be unwilling to give a
positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811
may thus become an impossibility.
For it is not merely a question of finding and producing any three
witnesses; they must be witnesses "who know the handwriting and
signature of the testator" and who can declare (truthfully, of course,
even if the law does not so express) "that the will and the signature are
in the handwriting of the testator".
Where the will is holographic, no witness need be present (Art. 10),
and the rule requiring production of three witnesses must be deemed
merely permissive if absurd results are to be avoided.
Case #26
In the matter of the petition to approve the will of Ricardo B.
Bonilla deceased, Marcela Rodelas vs. Amparo Aranza, et al
Decided on: December 7, 1982
Ricardo B. Bonilla – testator
January 25, 1962 – execution of the holographic will
May 13, 1976 – death of the testator
January 11, 1977 - Marcela Rodelas filed petition for probate of a
holographic will and the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor.
Opposition was filed on the following ground:
a. The alleged copy of the alleged holographic will did not
contain a disposition of property after death and was
not intended to take effect after death, and therefore it
was not a will.
 b. The alleged holographic will itself, and not an alleged
copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it would
produce no effect.

CA: It is our considered opinion that once the original copy of the
holographic will is lost, a copy thereof cannot stand in lieu of the
original.

ISSUE: Whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found

can be proved by means of a photostatic copy.

RULING: Yes.

If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is
available, the will cannot be probated because the best and only
evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary
that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of
the testator and the handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox
copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can
be made with the standard writings of the testator. Evidently, the
photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may
be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the
deceased can be determined by the probate court.