cases in legal forms

8/13/2019 Cases in Legal Forms

1/3

Tedoro CANEDA, et al.,petitioners

vs.Hon. COURT OF APPEALSand William CABRERA, as SpecialAdministratorof the Estate ofMateo Caballero,respondents.FACTS:On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children, already in the twilight yearsof his lifeexecuted a last will and testament before three attesting witnesses and he was duly assistedby his lawyerand a notary public. It was declared therein that, among other things that the testator

was leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to specific persons, all ofwhom do not appear to be related to Mateo. Not long after, he himself filed a petition before the CFIseeking the probate of his last will and testament but the scheduled hearings were postponed, until the

testator passed away before his petition could finally be heard by the probate court. Benoni Cabrera,one of the legatees named in the will, sought his appointment as special administrator of thetestators estate but due to his death, he was succeeded by William Cabrera, who was appointedby RTC which is already the probate court.CONTENTIONS:

PETITIONERS:The petitioners assail to the allowance of the testator's will on the ground that it was not executed inaccordance with all the requisites of law since the testator was already in a poor state of health suchthat he could not have possibly executed the same. Petitioners likewise contend that the will is nulland void because its attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that theinstrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and thatthey also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.RESPONDENTS:The respondent, on the other hand, argue that Mateo was of sound and disposing mind and in goodhealth when he executed his will. Further, they also contend that the witnesses attested and signed thewill in the presence of the testator and of each other.ISSUES:1. Whether or not the attestation clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero is fatally defective such thatwhether or not it affects the validity of thewill.2. Whether or not the attestation clause complies with

the substantial compliance pursuant to Article 809 of the Civil Code.RULING:An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses certify thatthe instrument has been executed before the demand to the manner of the execution of the same. It is aseparate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signedby the witnesses; it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities requiredby law has been observed. Under the 3rdparagraph of Article 805,such a clause, the complete lack of which would result in the invalidity of the will,should state:1. The number of pages used upon which the will is written;2. That the testator signed, orexpressly cause another to sign, the will and every page thereof in the presence of the attesting

witnesses; and3. That the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator ofthe will and all itspages, and that the said witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of thetestator and of one another.It will be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness should both attestand subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of one another.Attestation and subscription differ in meaning. Attestation is the act of sense,while subscription is the act of the hand. The attestation clause herein assailed is that while it recitesthat the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnessesand states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does not expressly state therein thecircumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence ofthe testator and of each other. What is then clearly lacking is the statement that the witnesses signed

the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.


2/3

The absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarilyresult in the disallowance of the will that is here sought tobe admitted to probate. Petitioners arecorrect in pointing out that the defect in the attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized asmerely involving the form of the will or the language used therein which would warrant theapplication of the substantial compliance rule, as contemplated in Article 809 of the Civil Code:

In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud or undue and improper pressure and influence, defectsand imperfection in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the willinvalid if it is not proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance withall the requirements of Article 805.The defects and imperfection must only be with respect to the form of the attestation or the languageemployed therein. Such defects or imperfection would not render a will invalid should it be provedthat the will was really executed and attested in compliance with Article 805. These considerations donot apply where the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed eachand every page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. In such a situation, thedefect is not only in the form or language of the attestation clause but the total absence of a specific

element required by Article805 to be specifically stated in the attestation clause of a will. That isprecisely the defect complained of in the present case since there is no plausible way by which it can beread into the questioned attestation clause statement, or an implication thereof, that the attestingwitness did actually bear witness to the signing by the testator of the will and all of its pages and thatsaid instrumental witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testatorand of one another

ATTY RONEY JONE P GANDEZA - PROFESSORAgapita N. CRUZ,

petitionervs.Hon. Judge Guillermo P. VILLASOR and Manuel LUGAY,respondents.FACTS:Agapita Cruz is the surviving spouse of the deceased Valente Cruz. Agapita filed before the CFI anopposition for the allowance of the will of his late husband alleging that the will was executed throughfraud, deceit, misrepresentation and undue influence because the said instrument was executedwithout the testator having been fully informed of the content thereof, particularly as to whatproperties he was disposing and that the decision, Agapita appealed by certiorari before the SupremeCourt.ISSUE:

Whether or not the supposed last will and testament was executed in accordance with law.RULING:

Of the three instrumental witnesses, one of them is at the same time the Notary Public before whomthe will was supposed to have been acknowledged. The Supreme Court is inclined to sustain the lastwill and testament in question was not executed in accordance with law. The notary public beforewhom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since hecannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. To acknowledge before means toavow. Consequently, if the third witness were the notary public himself, he would have to avow

assent, or admit his having signed the will in front of himself. This cannot be done because he cannotsplith is personality into two. To allow the notary public to act as third witness, or one of the attestingand acknowledging witnesses, would have the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the willwhich would be in contravention of the provisions of Article805 requiring at least three crediblewitnesses to act as such and of Article 806which requires that the testator and the required number ofwitnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the will. The result would be thatonly two witnesses appeared before the notary public for or that purpose. In the circumstance, the lawwould not be duly observed. The judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the probate of thelastwill and testament of Valente Z. is declared not valid and hereby set aside.cha


3/3

cases in legal forms

Documents