1. Suroza v.

Honrado
2. Abangan v. Abangan (Short)

The will was TWO SHEETS ONLY. It is not necessary that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator and
the witnesses, or be paged. The testators signature is NOT necessary in the attestation clause because this, as its name
implies, appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator. Dialect w/c will was writen was in Cebuano.

3. Gonzales v. Laurel (Short)

Maria Tapia was a resident of the Province of Batangas, a Tagalog region. It is presumed that she knows Tagalog dialect
and it is now conclusive to the SC since it has not bee rebutted in the lower courts. The preponderance of evidence shos
that Maria Tapia executed the will without any undue influence and mentally capaciatated.
Gabina Raquel left no decendants. She bequeathed her estate to Aurea Matias. A fingerprint can be regarded as a valid
signature and if such mark is affixed by the decedent, it is unecessary to state in the attestation clause that another person
write the testators name at his request. Because of the herpes zoster, it made writing hard for the decedent.

4. Matias v. Salud

5. Garcia v. Lacuesta (Short)

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 has not been
proved that the cross was the usual signature of Antero Mercado. The cross cannot be likened to a thumbmark.

6. Yap Tua v. Yap CaKuan

7. Barut v. Cabacungan

The will of Maria Salomon, which was presented to probate by Pedro Barut, was challenged on the ground that the
handwriting of the person who was instructed by Maria to affix her name was not his. SC said that the dissimilarity of
handwriting does not overcome the uncontradicted testimony of all the witnesses. It is immaterial who writes the name of
the testator so long as it is written at her request and in her presence & of the witnesses. Section 618 Code of CP.

8. Balonan v. Abellana (Short)

Will is written in Spanish and consists in 2 pages. The name of Anacleta Abellana, the testator, does not appear written
under the will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan Abello. Only the signature of Dr. Abello was present. The will of
Anacleta was not admitted to probate.

9. In re Will of Siason (Short)

The Court of First Instance refused probate on the ground that the instrument was not subscribed by the witnesses in the
presence of the testatrix and of each other as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court held the will
as valid and considered the phrase At the request of Seora Maria Siason appearing in the attestation clause as a valid
signature. This was because the testators name preceded those of the witnesses unlike in other cases.

10. Nera v. Rimando (Short)

The only question raised by the evidence in this case as to the due execution of the instrument propounded as a will in the
court below, is whether one of the subscribing witnesses was present in the small room where it was executed at the time
when the testator and the other subscribing witnesses attached their signatures since the small and big room was
separated by a huge curtain which made it impossible for one outside the room to see thru the other room; SC said yes. The
important thing is not that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper at the moment of signing, but that if they cast their
eyes in the proper direction, they could have seen each other sign.

11. Jaboneta v. Gustilo (Short)

WON the will was signed in the presence of the testator and of all the witnesses as required by Section 618 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. Jena was in a hurry to leave and as he was doing so he saw Javellana, with the pen in his hand, moving his
and in the act of affixing his signature. The SC said section 618 was complied with. The fact that Jena was in the act of
leaving and his back was turned was of no importance. What is important was that they were in a position to see the
testator and each other sign if they chose to do so.

12. Taboada v. Rosal

13. Icasiano v. Icasiano

The original will consisting of 5 pages was signed by the testator and its witnesses in each and every page except that on
page 3 thereof, Atty. Jose Natividad was not able to sign. However, the duplicate of the will contained in each and every
page all the signatures of the testator and the witnesses. The fact that some heirs are favored does not prove fraud. The
testamentary dispositions that the heirs should not inquire into other property and that they should respect the
distribution made in the will, under penalty of forfeiture of their shares in the free part do not suffice to prove fraud or
undue influence. Fraud and undue influence are repugnant of each other. Natividads failure to sign was pure oversight.

14. Cagro v. Cagro (Short)

The signatures of the 3 witnesses on the left-hand margin cannot be treated as substantial compliance with the signatures
needed in the attestation clause. The attestation clause is the memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will
required by law and must bear their signatures. An unsigned attestation clause is not considered as act of the witnesses.
Natividad testified that he might have lifted two pages instead of one, reason for him not being able to sign the 3 rd page of
the original will.

15. Cruz v. Villasor (Short)

Cruz the surviving spouse of the testator opposed the probate of the will on the ground that it lacked the necessary act of
subscribing and attestation of 3 witnesses considering that one of the 3 witnesses was the notary public himself. The SC
held that the will was not executed in accordance with law. The notary public cannot be considered as the third
instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. The function of the notary
public is to guard against illegal arrangements. It would defeat the function of the notary public were allowed to be one of
the attesting witnesses.
Sister of the testator insisted that the will was not executed in conformity with law. Whether or not the notary signed the
certification of acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses, does not affect the validity of the
codicil. The New CC does not require that the signing of the testator, witnesses and notary should be accomplished in one
single act. The subsequent signing and sealing by the notary of his certification did not affect the validity of the will.

16. Javellana v. Ledesma (Short)

17. Garcia v. Vasquez

18. Alvarado v. Gaviola

19. Caneda v. CA
20. Cuevas v. Achacoso (Short)

Cesar Alvarado, an illegitimate son of Brigido Alvarado, was disinherited by the latter. The testator also revoked a previous
holographic will awaiting to be probated. That the testator was blind when he executed the last will and the req of double
reading in Art. 808 of the CC was not complied with. SC said he was not totally blind but this did not prevent the application
of Art. 808 since it also applies to persons who are not able to read. Since the contents of the will were read by the notary
public and the witnesses, there was substantial compliance with Art. 808.
The attestation clause in the second will was not signed by the instrumental witnesses but by the testator himself. It,
however, showed that, the recital of the attestation clause was made by the testator himself and was signed by him and
the 3 instrumental witnesses. The interpretation of a will is w/c that will prevent intestacy.

21. Dichoso v. Gorostiza (Short)

The will of Gorostiza was denied probate in the lower court for the attestation clause failed to state that the testatrix
signed every page of the will as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Evidence may not be admitted to
supply omissions in an attestation clause but this does not preclude examination of the will itself. It was shown that this
attestation clause was copied from former Justice Fishers New Encyclopedia of Legal Forms. A decision against the validity
of the will might have far-reaching disastrous results. Moreover, a will is interpreted in favor of testacy over intestacy.

22. Merza v. Porras (Short)

Testatrix executed two wills. Exhibit A was to dispose of her property while Exhibit B, a codicil, was to disinherit the
husband and collateral relatives. Ex. A was challenged on the ground that the attestation clause failed to state that the
testatrix and witnesses had signed each and every page of the will in the presence of each other. SC held the will was valid.
It liberally interpreted the attestation clause of the will. Ex. B was challenged that it was a mere affidavit, but was held by
the SC to be a will and therefore a valid instrument to disinherit the husband and the collateral heirs.