Article 783
acknowledged only on 9 August 1983. The allowance to probate of this will was
Seangio vs. Reyes
FACTS:
Private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of
the late Segundo Seangio, and prayed for the appointment of PR Elisa as special
administrator and guardian ad litem of petitioner Dy Yieng. Petitioner opposed
the petition. One of the grounds was that Segundo left a holographic will
disinheriting one of the private respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for cause
(maltreatment). A petition for the probate of holographic will of Segundo was
filed. RTC dismissed the petition for probate.
Petitioner’s arguments:
 Holographic will disinheriting Alfredo as an heir
 Testate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings
Respondent’s arguments:
 Holographic will does not contain any disposition of estate
 Dismiss probate proceedings (intrinsic invalidity)
ISSUE:
Whether the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a
holographic will.
HELD:
YES. Segundo’s document, although it may initially come across as a mere
disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will
prescribed by law. It is written and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An
intent to dispose mortis cause can be clearly deduced from the terms of the
instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter’s
property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition
in itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the
property of the testator Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the
absence of Alfredo.
Moreover, the document, even if captioned as Kasulutan ng Pag-aalis ng Mana,
was intended by Segundo to be his last testamentary act and was executed by
him in accordance with law in the form of a holographic will. Unless the will is
probated, the disinheritance cannot be given effect.
Articles 799-800
Ortega vs. Valmonte
FACTS:
Two years after the arrival of Placido from the United States and at the age of 80
he wed Josefina who was then 28 years old. But in a little more than two years of
wedded bliss, Placido died. Placido executed a notarial last will and testament
written in English and consisting of 2 pages, and dated 15 June 1983¸but
opposed by Leticia, Placido’s sister. According to the notary public who notarized
the testator’s will, after the testator instructed him on the terms and dispositions
he wanted on the will, the notary public told them to come back on 15 August
1983 to give him time to prepare. The testator and his witnesses returned on the
appointed date but the notary public was out of town so they were instructed by
his wife to come back on 9 August 1983. The formal execution was actually on 9
August 1983. He reasoned he no longer changed the typewritten date of 15 June
1983 because he did not like the document to appear dirty.
Petitioner’s argument:
 At the time of the execution of the notarial will Placido was already 83
years old and was no longer of sound mind.
Respondent’s argument:
 Placido never suffered mental infirmity because despite his old age he
went alone to the market and cleaned the kitchen and sometimes if she
could not accompany him, even traveled to Manila alone to claim his
monthly pension.
ISSUE:
W/N Placido has testamentary capacity at the time he allegedly executed the will.
HELD:
YES. Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify accurately the kinds
of property he owned, the extent of his shares in them and even their location. As
regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient that he identified his
wife as sole beneficiary. The omission of some relatives from the will did not
affect its formal validity. There being no showing of fraud in its execution, intent in
its disposition becomes irrelevant.
Article 805
Ortega vs. Valmonte
FACTS:
Petitioner’s argument:
 Josefina conspired with the notary public and the 3 attesting witnesses
in deceiving Placido to sign it. Deception is allegedly reflected in the
varying dates of the execution and the attestation of the will.
ISSUE:
W/N the signature of Placido in the will was procured by fraud or trickery.
HELD:
NO. Fraud is a trick, secret devise, false statement, or pretense, by which the
subject of it is cheated. It may be of such character that the testator is misled or
deceived as to the nature or contents of the document which he executes, or it
may relate to some extrinsic fact, in consequence of the deception regarding
which the testator is led to make a certain will which, but for fraud, he would not
have made.
The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of fraud
at the time of its execution. The burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent
of the will only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud.
Omission of some relatives does not affect the due execution of a will. Moreover,
the conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the
document, “because the law does not even require that a notarial will be
executed and acknowledged on the same occasion. The variance in the
dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily
and persuasively explained by the notary public and instrumental witnesses.
Lee vs. Tambago
FACTS:
Manuel Lee charged Atty. Regino Tambago with violation of the Notarial Law and
the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing the spurious will and testament. In
the said will, the decedent Vicente Lee Sr. bequeathed his entire estate to his
wife, save for a parcel of land which he devised to Manuel Lee’s two half-siblings
Petitioner’s arguments:
 Residence certificate of the testator noted in the acknowledgment of the
will dated 5 January 1962
 Signature of the testator was not the same as his signature as donor in
the deed of donation. (“diametrically opposed”)
 No copy of such purported will was on file in the archives division of the
Records Management and Archives Office of NCCA
ISSUE:
W/N the will should have been admitted for probate.
HELD:
NO. A notarial will should be attested and subscribed by 3 or more credible
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The will was
attested by only 2 witnesses. On this circumstance alone, the will must be
considered void.
The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. An acknowledgement is an act
of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or
court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step
undertaken whereby the signatory actually declares to the notary public that the
same is his or her own free act and deed. A cursory examination of the
acknowledgment of the will in question shoes that this particular requirement was
neither strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the
conspicuous absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial
witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the acknowledgement. Similarly, the notation of
the testator’s old residence certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear
breach of law.
As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was required to
faithfully observe the formalities of a will and those of notarization. These
formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded. By having allowed
decedent to exhibit an expired residence certificate, respondent failed to comply
with the requirements of both the old Notarial Law and the Residence Tax Act.
Azuela vs. CA
FACTS:
The petition filed by Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the notarial will of
Eugenia Igsolo. Azuela is the son of the cousin of the decedent. The will consists
of 2 pages and written in the vernacular Pilipino. The 3 named witnesses to the
will affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of the will, but
not at the bottom of the attestation clause. The probate petition adverted to only
2 heirs, legatees and devisees of the decedent. The petition was opposed by
Geralda Castillo, who represented herself as the attorney-in-fact of “the 12
legitimate heirs” (grandchildren) of the decedent. RTC admitted the will to
probate on the ground of substantial compliance. CA reversed the order on the
ground that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in the
will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of probate.
Respondent’s arguments:
 Eugenia’s signature did not appear on the second page of the will, and
the will was not properly acknowledged.
ISSUE:
W/N the will should be admitted to probate.
HELD:
NO.
(1) The attestation clause failed to state the number of pages of the will.
There was an incomplete attempt to comply with this requisite, a space
having been allotted for the insertion of the number of pages in the
attestation clause. Yet, the blank was never filled in. The purpose of
requiring the number of sheets to be stated in the attestation clause is
obvious; the document might easily be so prepared that the removal
of a sheet would completely change the testamentary dispositions
of the will and in the absence of a statement of the total number of
sheets such removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and
changing the numbers at the top of the following sheets or pages.
The total number of pages, and whether all persons required to
sign did so in the presence of each other must substantially appear
in the attestation clause, being the only check against perjury in
the probate proceedings.
GENERAL RULE: Omission which can be supplied by an examination of the will
itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and
would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed.
EXCEPTION: Those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence
aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of
the will itself.
The failure of the attestation clause to state number of pages on which
the will was written remains a fatal flaw. The failure to state number of
pages equates with the absence of an averment on the part of the
instrumental witnesses as to how many pages consisted of the will, the
execution of which they had ostensibly just witnessed and subscribed to.
There is substantial compliance with this requirement if the will
states else where in it how many pages it is comprised of. However,
in this case, there could have been no substantial compliance since
there is no statement in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will
itself as to the number of pages which comprise the will.
(2) The attestation clause was not signed by the instrumental witnesses.
While the signatures of the instrumental witnesses appear on the left-
margin of the will, they do not appear at the bottom of the attestation
clause which after al consists of their averments before the notary
public. The attestation clause is “a memorandum of the facts
attending the execution of the will” required by law to be made by the
attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear their signatures. An
unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the
witnesses, since to omission of their signatures at the bottom
thereof negatives their participation. The signatures on the left-hand
corner of every page signify that the witnesses are aware that the page
they are signing forms part of the will. The signatures on the attestation
clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the statements
contained in the attestation clause itself. Indeed, the attestation clause is
separate and apart from the disposition of the will. An unsigned
attestation clause results in an unattested will. It is the witnesses,
not the testator, who are required under Article 805 to state the number
of pages used upon which the will is written. The only proof in the will
that the witnesses have stated these elemental facts would be their
signatures on the attestation clause.
(3) No proper acknowledgment by the notary public. An acknowledgement
is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some
competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It
involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares
to the notary that the executor has attested to the notary that the same
is his/her own free act and deed. A jurat is that part of an affidavit
where the notary certifies before him/her, the document was
subscribed and sworn to by the executor. Ordinarily, the language of
the jurat should avow that the document was subscribed and sworn
before the notary public, while in this case, the notary public averred that
he himself “signed and notarized” the document. Yet even if we consider
what was affixed by the notary public as a jurat, the will would
nonetheless remain invalid, as the express requirement of Article 806 is
that the will be “acknowledged,” and not merely subscribed and sworn
to. A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public
by the testator and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is
subscribed and sworn to before a notary public.
(4) Eugenia failed to sign both pages of the will on the left margin, her only
signature appearing at the so-called “logical end” of the will on its first
page.
(5) The will itself is not numbered correlatively in letters on each page, but
instead numbered with Arabic numerals.
Article 806
Guerrero vs. Bihis
FACTS:
Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner Bella Guerrero and
respondent Resurreccion Bihis, died. Petitioner filed a petition for the probate of
the last will and testament of the decedent. Respondent opposed her elder
sister’s petition on the ground that the will was not executed and attested as
required by law. RTC denied probate of the will since the will was
“acknowledged” by the testatrix and the witnesses at the testatrix’s residence at
Quezon City before Atty. Macario Directo who was commissioned notary public
for and in Caloocan City.
ISSUE:
Did the will “acknowledged” by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses
before a notary public acting outside the place of his commission satisfy the
requirement under Article 806?
HELD:
NO. This formal requirement is one of the indispensable requisites for the validity
of a will. A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for
probate. Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent officer, that is, a
lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public.
A notary’s public commission is the grant of authority in his favor to perform
notarial acts. It is issued “within and for” a particular territorial jurisdiction. A
notary public authorized to perform notarial acts, including the taking of
acknowledgement, within that territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the place of
his commission, he is bereft of power to perform any notarial act; he is not
a notary public. Any notarial act outside the limits of his jurisdiction has no force
and effect.