Abangan vs.

Abangan

Facts: In September 1917, the CFI of Cebu admitted to probate Ana Abangan's will executed on July
1916. It is from this decision which the opponent appealed. It is alleged that the records do not show
the testatrix knew the dialect in which the will was written.

Issue: Whether or not the will was validly probated

HELD: YES. But the circumstance appearing in the will itself that same was executed in the city of Cebu
and in the dialect of this locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is enough, in the absence of any
proof to the contrary, to presume that she knew this dialect in which this will is written.

REYES vs. Vda. De VIDAL

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.

A petition for the probate of said will was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Dolores Zuñiga Vda. de Vidal, sister of the deceased, filed an opposition based on several grounds. And,
after several days of trial, at which both parties presented their respective evidence, the court rendered
its decision disallowing the will on the ground that it was not proven that the deceased knew the
Spanish language in which it was written. From this decision petitioner appealed to this Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is evidence to show that the testatrix knew the language in which the will was
written; YES.

HELD: The will may be admitted. The decision appealed from is hereby reversed. The Court admits the
will to probate, and remands these case to the lower court for further proceedings, with costs against
the appellee.

RATIO:

The failure of the petitioner’s witnesses to testify that the testatrix knew and 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.
Where the evidence of the oppositor to the probate of a will shows that the testatrix possessed the
Spanish language, the oppositor cannot later on be allowed to allege the contrary.

The fact that the testatrix was a mestiza española, was married to a Spaniard, made several trip to Spain
and some of her letters submitted as evidence by the oppositor were written in Spanish by the testatrix
in her own writing give rise to the presumption that the testatrix knew the language in which the
testament has been written, which presumption should stand unless the contrary is proven.

Where the attestation clause of the will states that the testatrix knew and possessed the Spanish
language though this matter is not required to be stated in the attestation clause, its inclusion can only
mean that the instrumental witnesses wanted to make it of record that the deceased knew the language
in which the will was written.

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ALIPIO ABADA vs. ALIPIO ABAJA

Facts of the Case:

Abada died sometime in May 1940. Abada allegedly named as his testamentary heirs his natural children
Eulogio Abaja and Rosario Cordova. Alipio is the son of Eulogio. The oppositors are the nephews, nieces
and grandchildren of Abada and Toray.

Oppositor asserts that the will of Abada does not indicate that it is written in a language or dialect
known to the testator. Further, she maintains that the will is not acknowledged before a notary public.
She points out that nowhere in the will can one discern that Abada knew the Spanish language. She
alleges that such defect is fatal and must result in the disallowance of the will.

Issues of the Case:

Whether the will should be disallowed for not complying with the formalities required by law.

Ruling of the Court:

The will should be allowed for having complied with the formalities required by law.

Nevertheless, the contention must still fail. There is no statutory requirement to state in the will itself
that the testator knew the language or dialect used in the will. This is a matter that a party may establish
by proof aliunde. Oppositor further argues that Alipio, in his testimony, has failed, among others, to
show that Abada knew or understood the contents of the will and the Spanish language used in the will.
However, Alipio testified that Abada used to gather Spanish-speaking people in their place. In these
gatherings, Abada and his companions would talk in the Spanish language. This sufficiently proves that
Abada speaks the Spanish language.

ACOP vs PIRASO

FACTS:
 This appeal was taken from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Benguet, denying the
probate of the instrument, as the last will and testament of the deceased Piraso. The proponent-
appellant assigns the following as alleged errors of the lower court:

1. In holding that in order to be valid the will in question should have been drawn up in their Ilocano
dialect.

2. In not holding that the testator Piraso did not know the Ilocano dialect well enough to understand a
will drawn up in said dialect.

3. In refusing to admit the will in question to probate.

Part of the judgment reads: “The evidence shows that Piraso knew how to speak the Ilocano
dialect, although imperfectly, and could make himself understood in that dialect, and the court is of the
opinion that his will should have been written in that dialect.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not the last will and testament of the deceased Piraso is valid. (NO)

RULING:

NO. The fact is the instrument was written in English, which the supposed testator Piraso did
not know, and this is sufficient to invalidate said will according to the clear and positive provisions of the
law, and inevitably prevents its probate.

Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, strictly provides that: "No will, except as provided in
the preceding section" (as to wills executed by a Spaniard or a resident of the Philippine Islands, before
the present Code of Civil Procedure went into effect), "shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal,
nor charge or affect the same, unless it be written in the language or dialect known by the testator.”

Nor can the presumption in favor of a will (Abangan vs. Abangan) to the effect that the testator
is presumed to know the dialect of the locality where he resides even be invoked because not only is it
not proven that English is the language of the City of Baguio, where the deceased Piraso lived and where
the instrument was drawn, but that the record contains positive proof that Piraso knew no other
language than the Igorrote dialect, with a smattering of Ilocano. He did not know the English language in
which the will is written.

JAVELLANA vs JAVELLANA

FACTS: On June 29, 1957, a petition to probate the alleged last will and testament of Jose J. Javellana,
who died on May 24 of the same year, was presented in the Court of First Instance by Vda. de Javellana
and Benjamin Javellana, widow and brother respectively of the deceased, alleging that the aforesaid
Jose J. Javellana, at the time of his death, left porperties with an approximate value of P400,000.00; that
he also left a will which was delivered to the court; that Oscar Ledesma, therein named executor, had
agreed to act as such.

Jose Javellana y Azaola and Jose Javellana, Jr. (Pepito) filed separate opposiytions, both claiming that the
alleged will of Jose J. Javellana deposited by peittioners with the clerk of court was null and void, the
same not having been executed "in accordance with the formalities required by law" and that "the legal
requirements necessary for its validit" had not been complied with.

the oppositor presented their evidence two letters in the Visayan dialect allegedly written by the
deceased.

The court allowed the probate of the will. From this order, oppositors appealed to this Court charging
the lower court of committing an error in allowing oprobate of the will, Exhibit C, on the ground that
petitioners failed to prove that the will was written in a language known to the testator.

ISSUE: WoN the will is valid

HELD: NO.

With respect to the second ground, there is some merit in appellant's contention that the language
requirement of the law on wills has not been satisfactorily complied with in this case. Admittedly, there
is want of expression in the body of the will itself or in its attestation clause that the testator knew
Spanish, the language in which it is written. It is true that there is no statutory provision requiring this
and that proof thereof may be established by evidence aliunde. 2 But here, there is absolutely no such
evidence presented by the petitioners-appellees. Not even the petition for probate contains any
allegation to this effect. No reference to it whatsoever is made in the appealed
order.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In some cases, it is true, this lack of evidence was considered cured by presumptioin of knowledge of the
language or dialect used in the will, as where the will is executed in a certain province or locality, in the
dialect currently used in such provimnce or locality in which the testator is a native or resident, the
presumption arises that the testator knew the dialect so used, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary; 3 or where the will is in Spanish, the fact that the testratrix was a "mestiza espa �ola", was
married to a Spaniard, made several trips to Spain, and some of her letters in her own handwriting
submitted as evidence by the oppositor, are in Spanish, give rise to the presumption that she knew the
language in which the will was written, in the absence of proof to the contrary. 4 chanrobles virtual law
library

In the case before us, no such or similar circumstances exist. On the contrary, there is evidence that the
testator is a Visayan although residing in San Juan, Rizal at the time of his death. The will was executed
in the City of Manila. Undoubtedly, it cannot be said, and there is no evidence, that Spaniards is the
language currently used either in San Juan, Rizal, or Manila. It follows, therefore, that no presumption
can rise that the testator knew the Spanish Language.
SUROZA vs. HONRADO

FACTS: In 1973, Marcelina Suroza supposedly executed a notarial will bequeathing her house and lot to
a certain Marilyn Suroza. In 1974, Marcelina died. Marina Paje was named as the executrix in the said
will and she petitioned before CFI Rizal that the will be admitted to probate. The presiding judge,
Honrado admitted the will to probate and assigned Paje as the administratrix. Honrado also issued an
ejectment order against the occupants of the house and lot subject of the will.

Nenita Suroza, daughter in law of Marcelina (her husband, son of Marcelina was confined in the
Veteran’s Hospital), learned of the probate proceeding when she received the ejectment order (as she
was residing in said house and lot).

Nenita opposed the probate proceeding. She alleged that the said notarial will is void because (a) the
instituted heir therein Marilyn Suroza is actually Marilyn Sy and she is a stranger to Marcelina, (b) the
only son of Marcelina, Agapito Suroza, is still alive and is the compulsory heir, (c) the notarial will is
written in English a language not known to Marcelina because the latter was illiterate so much so that
she merely thumbmarked the will, (d) the notary public who notarized will admitted that Marcelina
never appeared before him and that he notarized the said will merely to accommodate the request of a
lawyer friend but with the understanding that Marcelina should later appear before him but that never
happened.

Honrado still continued with the probate despite the opposition until testamentary proceeding closed
and the property transferred to Marilyn Sy. Nenita then filed this administrative case against Honrado
on the ground of misconduct.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the will is valid

RULING:

No. Despite the valid claim raised by Nenita, he still continued with the testamentary proceeding, which
showed his wrongful intent. He may even be criminally liable for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment or interlocutory order or rendering a manifestly unjust judgment or interlocutory order by
reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
The will is written in English and was thumb marked by an obviously illiterate Marcelina. This could have
readily been perceived by Honrado that that the will is void. In the opening paragraph of the will, it was
stated that English was a language “understood and known” to the testatrix. But in its concluding
paragraph, it was stated that the will was read to the testatrix “and translated into Filipino language.”
That could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate testatrix and,
therefore, it is void because of the mandatory provision of Article 804 of the Civil Code that every will
must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.

Had Honrado been careful and observant, he could have noted not only the anomaly as to the language
of the will but also that there was something wrong in instituting to Marilyn Sy as sole heiress and giving
nothing at all to Agapito who was still alive.

Honrado was fined by the Supreme Court.

LOPEZ vs. LIBORO

FACTS:

The will of Don Sixto Lopez was submitted for probate by Jose Lopez and Clemencia Lopez, the Don’s
sister. The probate was opposed by Agustin Liboro who contended that the will is not valid due to the
following grounds:

(1) that the deceased never executed the alleged will; 2) that his signature appearing in said will was a
forgery; (3) that at the time of the execution of the will, he was wanting in testamentary as well as
mental capacity due to advanced age; (4) that, if he did ever execute said will, it was not executed and
attested as required by law, and one of the alleged instrumental witnesses was incapacitated to act as
such; and it was procured by duress, influence of fear and threats and undue and improper pressure and
influence on the part of the beneficiaries instituted therein, principally the testator's sister, Clemencia
Lopez, and the herein proponent, Jose S. Lopez; and (5) that the signature of the testator was procured
by fraud or trick.

Liboro pointed out that the first page of the will, which was contained in two pages in all, was not
numbered in letters or Arabic numbers as what should have been required by law. It was also argued
that the testator should have signed the will with his signature and not only with his thumb print if he
indeed had the capacity to execute the will. Furthermore, the will did not expressly state that the
language used is a language which the Don understood; in this case, it was in Spanish.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was substantial compliance to qualify the will for probate.

RULING:

There has been substantial compliance even in the presence of the averred irregularities.

The purpose of the law in prescribing the paging of wills is guard against fraud, and to afford means of
preventing the substitution or of defecting the loss of any of its pages. In the present case, the omission
to put a page number on the first sheet, if that be necessary, is supplied by other forms of identification
more trustworthy than the conventional numerical words or characters. The unnumbered page is clearly
identified as the first page by the internal sense of its contents considered in relation to the contents of
the second page. By their meaning and coherence, the first and second lines on the second page are
undeniably a continuation of the last sentence of the testament, before the attestation clause, which
starts at the bottom of the preceding page. Furthermore, the unnumbered page contains the caption
"TESTAMENTO," the invocation of the Almighty, and a recital that the testator was in full use of his
testamentary faculty, — all of which, in the logical order of sequence, precede the direction for the
disposition of the marker's property. Again, as page two contains only the two lines above mentioned,
the attestation clause, the mark of the testator and the signatures of the witnesses, the other sheet can
not by any possibility be taken for other than page one. 

The testator affixed his thumbmark to the instrument instead of signing his name. The reason for this
was that the testator was suffering from "partial paralysis." While another in testator's place might have
directed someone else to sign for him, as appellant contends should have been done, there is nothing
curious or suspicious in the fact that the testator chose the use of mark as the means of authenticating
his will. It was a matter of taste or preference. Both ways are good. A statute requiring a will to be
"signed" is satisfied if the signature is made by the testator's mark.

As for the question on the language of the will, 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.

The will may therefore be submitted for probate.

ART. 805

BARUT vs. CABACUNGAN

FACTS: Barut applied for the probate of the will of deceased, Maria Salomon. The testatrix stated in the
will that being unable to read or write, the will was read to her by Ciriaco Concepcion and Timotea
Inoselda and that she had instructed Severo Agayan to sign her name to it as testatrix. The probate was
contested by a number of the relatives of the deceased on various grounds.

The probate court found that the will was not entitled to probate because “the handwriting of the
person who it is alleged signed the name of the testatrix to the will for and on her behalf looked more
like the handwriting of one of the other witnesses to the will than to the person whose handwriting it
was alleged to be.

The court seems , by inference at least, to have had in mind that under the law relating to the execution
of a will it is necessary that the person who signs the name of the testatrix must afterwards sign his own
name; and that, in view of the fact that, in the case at bar, the name signed below that of the testatrix as
the person who signed her name, being, from its appearance, not the same handwriting as that
constituting the name of the testatrix, the will is accordingly invalid, such fact indicating that the person
who signed the name of the testatrix failed to sign his own.

ISSUE:
Was the dissimilarity in handwriting sufficient to deny probate of the will?

HELD:

No. The name of a person who is unable to write may be signed by another by express direction to any
instrument known to the law. There is no necessity whatever, so far as the validity of the instrument is
concerned, for the person who writes the name of the principal in the document to sign his own name
also.

As a matter of policy it may be wise that he do so inasmuch as it would give such intimation as would
enable a person proving the document to demonstrate more readily the execution by the principal.

But as a matter of essential validity of the document, it is unnecessary. The main thing to be established
in the execution of the will is the signature of the testator. If that signature is proved, whether it be
written by himself or by another at his request, it is none the less valid, and the fact of such signature
can be proved as perfectly and as completely when the person signing for the principal omits to sign his
own name as it can when he actually signs.

To hold a will invalid for the lack of the signature of the person signing the name of the principal is, in
the particular case, a complete abrogation of the law of wills, as it rejects and destroys a will which the
statute expressly declares is valid.

ICASIANO vs. ICASIANO

FACTS: 1. Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of Josefa Villacorte and for his
appointment as executor thereof. It appears from the evidence that the testatrix died on September 12,
1958. She executed a will in Tagalog, and through the help of her lawyer, it was prepared in duplicates,
an original and a carbon copy.

2. On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only brought the original copy of the will
while the carbon duplicate (unsigned) was left in Bulacan. One of the witnesses failed to sign one of the
pages in the original copy but admitted he may have lifted 2 pages simultaneously instead when he
signed the will. Nevertheless, he affirmed that the will was signed by the testator and other witnesses in
his presence.

Issue: Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a page is
sufficient to deny probate of the will
RULING: No, the failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or mere inadvertence. Since the
duplicated bore the required signatures, this proves that the omission was not intentional. Even if the
original is in existence, a duplicate may still be admitted to probate since the original is deemed to be
defective, then in law, there is no other will bu 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 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.

Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the rules that the will should be signed by
the witnesses on every page. The carbon copy duplicate was regular in all respects.

IN RE: WILL OF TAN DUICO

FACTS: Mamerta Base filed this petition for the probate of the will executed by the Chinaman Tan Duico.
The latter died on December 8, 1920.

There were 4 witnesses to the will. The decedent‘s name was signed in his behalf upon his request by
one of the subscribing witnesses. The will was questioned on the ground that it was not signed by 3
instrumental witnesses.

The document was signed by Simplicio Sala by the order of the testator, whose name is before the said
signature, by reason of the latter’s incapacity on account of his weakness and the trembling of his hand,
the testator also stating that he directed Simplicio Sala to sign it in his name and in the presence of the 3
witnesses who also signed with him at the bottom of the document, and on the left margin of each of its
3 pages correlatvely numbered in the letters by Sala in the name of Tan Duico and by witnesses:
Maturan, Fenomeno and Peñaredondo. to wit:

We, the undersigned witnesses to the forgoing will, do hereby state that the testator signed this will and
each of its sheets in the presence of all and each of us, and we and each of us likewise did sign this will
and all of its sheets in the presence of the testator and each of us, witnesses.

Tan Duico

By Simplicio Sala

Fenomeno

Maturan

Peñaredondo

The probate was denied by the CFI of Leyte it was not signed by three instrumental

witnesses beside the signature of the testator and before the attestation clause.
ISSUE: Is the will valid?

HELD: YES. Even if one of the subscribing witnesses signs in behalf of the testator when so requested,
the requirement of the law of at least 3 witnesses is still 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 requirement of 3 witnesses. 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 directed by him to sign it in his name (in whichcase the name of the testator is written before
that of the signer), in order that said document may have the character of a valid will:

1. The testator gathers 3 or more credible witnesses and tells them that the contents of said document
is his will, without informing them of its contents, 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 sheet, which must be numbered 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 that the same witnesses who signed on the left margin of each page of the document
presented by the testator to them as his will, must be the ones who should sign the attestation clause,
inasmuch as they alone can certify the facts to be stated in said clause, for having taken a direct part
therein, as they saw the testator signthe will, or the person requested by him to sign all the sheets of
the will.

Marciano Leano vs Leano

Facts: Cristina Valdes, deceased, placed her cross against her name, attached by some other person to
the instrument purported to be her last will and testament, in the presence of three witnesses whose
names are attached to the attesting clause, and that they attested and subscribed the instrument in her
presence and in the presence of each other.

The trial judge declined to admit the instrument to probate as the last will and testament of the
decedent.

ISSUE: WoN the will is valid.

HELD: YES. We are of the opinion that the placing of the cross opposite her name at the construction of
the instrument was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which prescribes that except where wills are signed by some other person than the testator
in the manner and from herein indicated, a valid will must be signed by the testator. The right of a
testator to sign his will by mark, executed animo testandi has been uniformly sustained by the courts of
last resort of the United States in construing statutory provisions prescribing the mode of execution of
wills in language identical with, or substantially similar to that found in section 618 of our code, which
was taken from section 2349 of the Code of Vermont. (Page on Wills, par. 173, and the cases there cited
in support of the doctrine just announced.)

GARCIA vs LACUESTA

FACTS: The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero
Mercado, followed below by “A reugo del testator” and the name of Florentino Javier. Antero Mercado
is alleged to have written a cross immediately after his name. The attestation clause failed to state that
the testator caused another person to write the testator’s name under his express direction. The herein
petitioner argues, however, that there is no need for such recital because the cross written by the
testator after his name is a sufficient signature and the signature of Atty. Florentino Javier is a
surplusage.

ISSUE

Whether or not the will is void on the ground that it failed to state that the testator caused another
person to write the testator’s name under his express direction.

RULING

YES. 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, as required by section 618 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the usual
signature of Antero Mercado or even one of the ways by which he signed his name. After mature
reflection, [the Court is] not prepared to liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark, and the
reason is obvious. The cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.

BALONAN vs ABELLANA

FACTS: The last Will and Testament sought to be probated is written in the Spanish language. Said
instrument was signed by Juan Bello and under his name appears typewritten 'Por la testadora Anacleta
Abellana, residence Certificate A-1167629, Enero 20, 1951, Ciudad de Zamboanga', and on the second
page appears the signature of the three (3) instrumental witnesses

ISSUE: Whether the signature of Dr. Juan A. Abello above the typewritten statement "Por la Testadora
Anacleta Abellana * * *, Ciudad de Zamboanga," comply with the requirements of the law.

RULING: NO. The old law as well as the new require that the testator himself sign the will, or if he cannot
do so, the testator's name must be written by some other person in his presence and by his express
direction. In the case of Barut vs. Cabacungan, 21 Phil., 461, we held that 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. In the case at bar the
name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written under the will by said Abellana
herself, or by Dr. Juan Abello. There is, therefore, a failure to comply with the express requirement in
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.

ABAYA vs ZALAMERO

FACTS: It was found out that Mariano, who was requested by the testator to write his name and
surname at the end of his will, did not affix his own signature below the name and surname of the
testator and below the cross placed by the latter and did not write the words ―by request of the
testator‖.

ISSUE: WoN the will is valid

HELD: The will should be admitted to probate. The said will already clearly stated the reasons why it was
not signed by the testator himself and the fact that he made a request to the witness to do the signing
for him. A repetition thereof  by writing “by request of the testator” was not necessary.

FERNANDEZ vs. DE DIOS

FACTS:

SAGUINSIN vs. SAGUINSIN

FACTS: There was presented in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila for allowance an
instrument which the petitioner calls the will of Remigia Saguinsin. It is a manuscript signed by the
alleged testatrix and three witnesses on October 3, 1918, these three signature together with
that of the alleged testatrix are written also on the left margin of the first page or folio and on
the third page or second folio, but not on the second page or reverse side of the first page
where, as is seen, the manuscript is continued, the second folio not containing anything but the
date and the and of the manuscript. Under these, conditions the instrument was impugned by a
sister of the alleged testatrix and after the taking of the declaration of the authors of the
signatures which appear three times and in different parts of the manuscript, the court declared
that the document attached to the record could not be allowed as a will. Certain person who
allege themselves to be legatees appealed jointly with the lawyer for the petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not the making of the will complied with the requirements prescribed by law.

HELD: No, Two pages constitute one leaf. One page represents only one-half of one leaf. The
English text requires that the signature which guarantees the genuineness of the testament shall
be placed on the left hand margin of each page and that each page should be numbered by
letter in the upper part This requirement is entirely lacking on the second page that is, on the
reverse side of the first. The first folio and the reverse side, should have been stated, and the
second page would then have been included in the citation. By the failure to comply with this
requisite the law has been obviously violated. This failure to comply with the law also vitiates
the will and invalidates it, as the second page is lacking in authenticity. It may very well be that
it was subsequently added thereby substituting the will of the testatrix, a result for the
prevention of which this manner of authenticity by affixing the signature on each page and not
merely on each folio was provided for by law. This defect is radical and totally vitiates the
testament. It is not enough that the signatures guaranteeing authenticity should appear upon
two folios or leaves; three pages having been written, the authenticity of all three of them
should be guaranteed with the signature of the alleged testatrix and her witnesses.

AVERA vs GARCIA

Eutiquia Avera filed a petition for the probate of the will of one Esteban Garcia. Marino Garcia and Juan
Rodriguez, the latter in the capacity of guardian for the minors Jose Garcia and Cesar Garcia contested
the probate. One of the attesting witnesses testified that the will was executed with all necessary
external formalities, and that the testator was at the time in full possession of disposing faculties. Upon
the latter point the witness was corroborated by the person who wrote the will at the request of the
testator. Two of the attesting witnesses were not introduced, nor was their absence accounted for by
the proponent of the will.

ISSUES: Is the will rendered invalid by the fact that the signature of the testator and of the three
attesting witnesses are written on the right margin of each page of the will instead of the left margin?

HELD: NO.

The instrument now before us contains the necessary signatures on every page, and the only point of
deviation from the requirement of the statute is that these signatures appear in the right margin instead
of the left. By the mode of signing adopted every page and provision of the will is authenticated and
guarded from possible alteration in exactly the same degree that it would have been protected by being
signed in the left margin; and the resources of casuistry could be exhausted without discovering the
slightest difference between the consequences of affixing the signatures in one margin or the other.

The controlling considerations on the point now before us were well stated In Re will of Abangan (40
Phil., 476, 479), where the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Avanceña, in a case where the signatures
were placed at the bottom of the page and not in the margin, said:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith
and fraud, to avoid substitution o will and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.
Therefore the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial
ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law
to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given
assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites
entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be disregarded.

In the case before us, where ingenuity could not suggest any possible prejudice to any person, as
attendant upon the actual deviation from the letter of the law, such deviation must be considered too
trivial to invalidate the instrument.