Succession: Case Digest Recit Ver (Arts. 804-809)
Art. 804.
Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.
Suroza vs Honrado, A.M. No. 2026-CFI, December 19, 1981 | Language
The complainant was the wife of the preterited heir. She filed an administrative complaint in the Supreme Court against the respondent Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado alleging that the Judge had probated a fraudulent will of Marcelina Salvador Suroza, which named a supposed granddaughter as the sole heir, leaving nothing for her supposed living son.
The will was written in English, a language not known to the illiterate testatrix, and it was suspected of being forged because the testatrix and attesting witnesses did not appear before the notary, as admitted by the notary himself.
The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Judge was guilty of inexcusable negligence and dereliction of duty for his unproper disposition of the testate case which might have resulted in a miscarriage of justice and imposed upon him a fine equivalent to his salary for one month.
Agustin Liboro opposed the probate of Don Sixto Lopez's will, citing defects including the lack of page numbering, an incapacitated witness, the use of a thumbmark instead of a signature, and the silence on the testator's understanding of Spanish language.
On Testator's Understanding of Spanish: 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.
Reyes vs. Vda. de Vidal, G.R. No. L-2862, April 21, 1952 | Language
Maria Zuñiga Vda. de Pando's last will and testament was opposed by her sister, Dolores Zuñiga Vda. de Vidal, who claimed it was invalid due to alleged discrepancies in signatures, language comprehension, and mental capacity. The trial court disallowed the will, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.
The expert witness used by the opposition was rebutted by another expert whose standards of comparison were more reliable and closer in time to the disputed signatures. Moreover, the testator's ability to speak Spanish was proven by her own letters and the attestation clause. Testimonies from witnesses indicated she was of sound mind and the differences in her signatures were only due to her age and state of health common in the writings of old people.
Art. 805.
Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page.
The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them.
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."
Agustin Liboro opposed the probate of Don Sixto Lopez's will, citing defects including the lack of page numbering, an incapacitated witness, the use of a thumbmark instead of a signature, and the silence on the testator's understanding of Spanish language.
On Affixing of Thumbmark: The testator was suffering from "partial paralysis." There is nothing suspicious in the fact that the testator chose the use of mark as the means of authenticating his will. A statute requiring a will to be "signed" is satisfied if the signature is made by the testator's mark.
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.
Balonan vs. Abellana, G.R. No. L-15153, August 31, 1960 | Subscription
Anacleta Abellana's Last Will and Testament contained the signature of Juan Bello, with a typewritten statement indicating that he signed on behalf of Anacleta Abellana.
The court ruled that when a testator cannot sign the will themselves, it shall be signed in the following manner: John Doe by the testator, Richard Doe; or in this form: "By the testator, John Doe, Richard Doe." Neither Anacleta Abellana nor Dr. Juan Abello wrote her name under the will as required by law. The important thing is that it clearly appears that the name of the testatrix was signed at her express direction; it is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of the testatrix signs his own or not.
Nera vs. Rimando, G.R. No. L-5971, February 27, 1911 | Presence
During the signing of Pedro Rimando's will, one witness was outside in a larger room separated by a curtain, making it impossible to see the signing. The main issue is whether the location of subscribing witness, specifically whether he was in the same room or outside, affects the validity of the execution of the will.
The court ruled that the true test of presence is whether the witnesses could have seen each other sign, not whether they actually did. Extending the doctrine further would open the possibility of fraud and undermine the purpose of the legal requirement for witnesses to be present during the execution of a will.
Taboada vs. Rosal, G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982 | Subscription
The petitioner filed a petition to probate the will of Dorotea Perez but was rejected for want of formality in its execution because the will was signed at the bottom of the page solely by the testatrix and at the left hand margin by three instrumental witnesses. The probate court believed that all three subscribing witnesses needed to sign at the same place or at the end of the will for it to be valid, as per Article 805 of the Civil Code.
However, the Supreme Court, disagreed with the trial court's interpretation. They found that the attestation and subscription requirements were satisfied when the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page containing the testamentary dispositions. Moreover, they concluded that the failure to mention the number of pages was not fatal since the will was actually composed of only two pages, both signed by the testatrix and her witnesses.
Icasiano vs. Icasiano, G.R. No. L-18979, June 30, 1964 | Lacking Signature
Josefa Villacorte executed a last will and testament, witnessed by three individuals and acknowledged by a Notary Public. The will consisted of an original and a duplicate, with missing signature of a witness on page three of the original.
The Court ruled that inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament due to simultaneous signing should not automatically bar probate, as it appears to be an oversight rather than deliberate. The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she had no control.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lopez vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 189984, November 12, 2012 | Lacking Attestation
Enrique S. Lopez passed away leaving behind a will naming his son, Richard B. Lopez, as executor. Richard filed a petition for the probate of the will, but it was opposed by his sisters Marybeth and Victoria, who claimed it was improperly executed. The RTC-Manila disallowed the probate of the will for not having been executed and attested in accordance with law. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.
The law mandates that the attestation clause must state the number of pages in the will to prevent tampering or omission of pages. The statement in the acknowledgment portion of the will did not substantially comply with the requirement, as it misstated the number of pages as seven instead of eight. This discrepancy could not be explained solely by examining the will itself.
Margarita S. Mayores left a will designating Lucia D. Abena as the executor and beneficiary of her personal properties, as well as dividing her real property shares among other individuals. The RTC upheld the validity of the will and appointed Lucia Abena as the executor, but Paz Samaniego-Celada contested the will, claiming it was influenced by undue pressure and that she and her siblings should be declared as Margarita's legal heirs.
The court finds that no pressure nor undue influence was exerted on the testator to execute the subject will. The court also finds that the testator was mentally capable of making the will at the time of its execution. Since, petitioner and her siblings are not compulsory heirs of the decedent under Article 887 of the Civil Code and as the decedent validly disposed of her properties in a will duly executed and probated, petitioner has no legal right to claim any part of the decedent’s estate
Anent the contestants’ submission that the will is fatally defective for the reason that its attestation clause states that the will is composed of three (3) pages while in truth and in fact, the will consists of two (2) pages only because the attestation is not a part of the notarial will, the same is not accurate. While it is true that the attestation clause is not a part of the will, the court, after examining the totality of the will, is of the considered opinion that error in the number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will. It must be noted that the subject instrument is consecutively lettered with pages A, B, and C which is a sufficient safeguard from the possibility of an omission of some of the pages. The error must have been brought about by the honest belief that the will is the whole instrument consisting of three (3) pages inclusive of the attestation clause and the acknowledgement.
Comments
Post a Comment