Succession: Case Digest Recit Ver 2 (Arts. 804-809)

Garcia vs. Lacuesta, G.R. No L-4067, November 29, 1957 | Cross

Antero Mercado created a will. Atty. Florentino Javier appeared to have signed the will on behalf of Antero Mercado, followed by the phrase "A reugo del testator" and his own name. Antero Mercado allegedly marked a cross after his name. 

The petitioner argues that the cross written by the testator could be considered a valid signature, similar to a thumbmark. The court ruled that the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero Mercado caused Atty. Florentino Javier to write the testator's name under his express direction. The court also held that the cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.

Cagro vs. Cagro, G.R. No. L-5826, April 29, 1953 | Unsigned Attestation

Vicente Cagro executed a will. The signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause, although the page containing the same is signed by the witnesses on the left-hand margin.

The Court said that an unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses, since the omission of their 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 would be easy to add such clause to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses.

Azuela vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006 | Lacking Attestation

Eugenia E. Igsolo executed a will before her death. Felix Azuela filed for probate of the will but Geralda Aida Castillo, representing 12 legitimate heirs, opposed, alleging forgery. The RTC admitted the will, citing modern tendencies in formalities, but the CA reversed the decision, deeming the will void due to the absence of the number of pages in the attestation clause.

The Supreme Court ruled that will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial will with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection.

Ortega vs. Valmonte, G.R. No. 157451, December 16, 2005 | Date

After retiring, 80-year-old Placido Valmonte married 28-year-old Josefina Cabansag. He executed a notarial will leaving properties to his wife and appointing her as the sole executrix. Leticia Valmonte-Ortega, a relative, opposed probate, alleging non-compliance with legal formalities and Placido's mental incapacity. 

The law favors the probate of a will. Upon those who oppose it rests the burden of showing why it should not be allowed. In the present case, petitioner has failed to discharge this burden satisfactorily. 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."

Vda. de Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. G.R. No. L-40804, January 31, 1978 | Lawyers

Eugenia Danila executed a will and codicil. After her death, Adelaida Nista petitioned for probate, which was opposed by adopted children Buenaventura and Marcelina Guerra. A compromise was reached in 1968, recognizing the them as heirs. Later, intervenors sought probate.

The CFI-Laguna allowed probate, relying on Notary Public Atty. Ricardo Barcenas' testimony, despite the testimonies of two witnesses that they did not see the testatrix sign the will. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

The Supreme Court held the will and codicil were executed in accordance with the law. The court emphasized the involvement of lawyers in the execution. In weighing the testimony of the attesting witnesses to a will, the Notary Public's testimony is given more weight due to his professional responsibilities. Lack of a photograph of the testatrix signing doesn't negate other competent evidence presented.

Guerrero vs. Bihis, G.R. No. 211972, July 22, 2015

In 1960, Felisa transferred ownership of the subject property to her daughter Bella, married to Delfin, Sr., and Felimon, Sr., to assist them in securing a loan from GSIS. 

Upon Felisa's death in 1994, the Bihis Family, her other heirs who had been residing in the property, placed an adverse claim on the property. This claim was cancelled on January 22, 1997. The next day, the Heirs of Felimon, Sr. executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of his estate, resulting in title being replaced in the names of Bella, et al. Subsequently, the property was sold to Wilson and Peter.

The Court determined that an express trust existed between Felisa and Bella, Delfin, Sr., and Felimon, Sr. The action for reconveyance had not yet prescribed, and Wilson and Peter were not considered purchasers in good faith.

Cruz vs. Villasor, G.R. No. L-32213, November 16, 1973 | Acknowledged by Witness

Agapita N. Cruz, the surviving spouse of the deceased Valente Z. Cruz, opposed the probate of his will. Of the three witnesses, one of them, the notary public Angel H. Teves, Jr., was also the one before whom the will was supposed to have been acknowledged.

The court held that the notary public could not act as both the attesting and acknowledging witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself having signed the will. Allowing the notary public to be the third witness would mean only two witnesses appeared before him, contrary to the legal requirement of having at least three credible witnesses.

Garcia vs. Gatchalian, G.R. No. G.R. No. L-20357, November 25, 1967 | Acknowledged

Gregorio Gatchalian, died leaving no forced heirs. Pedro Reyes Garcia filed a petition before for the probate of the alleged will, wherein he was instituted as sole heir.

An examination of the document shows that the same was acknowledged before a notary public by the testator but not by the instrumental witnesses. A will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and also by the witnesses is for its validity. 

Garcia vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. L-26808, March 28, 1969

Petitioner contested the payment of docket fees in the amount of P940.00 for the probate of a will of the decedent. He believed he should be exempt from this fee since a previous will of the same deceased had already been filed for probate with the fee paid.

The Court ruled that when a petition for the probate of a will is filed, the corresponding docket fee must be paid. The Court emphasized that the Rules of Court require the payment of docket fees for clerical services in the allowance of a will.

 Alvarado vs. Gaviola, G.R. No. 74695, September 14, 1993 | Blind

Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled "Huling Habilin" disinheriting his illegitimate son Cesar Alvarado, with the document read aloud by his lawyer. The testator was 79 years old and suffered from glaucoma at the time of the will's execution.

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. There is no evidence, and petitioner does not so allege, that the contents of the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator.