AMBROSIA POSTIGO VS.

DOLORES BORJAL [MARCH 23, 1909]

FACTS:
Enrique Borjal husband of Ambrosia Postigo (petitioner) executed a will and testament declaring
that his properties shall be administered by his wife for the space of 4 years in order to satisfy all
of their debts and at the expiration of the 4 years his wife shall transfer the parcels to his sister
Dolores Borjal (respondent)
CFI appointed commissioners to appraise the property of the deceased and published notices
summoning all creditors who had claims against property but no claims were presented by the
creditors
Respondent was placed in possession of that portion of the inheritance corresponding to her
without the necessity of waiting for the 4 years stipulated in the will
ISSUE:
Whether the clause which provided for the retention by the widow of the said property which the
deceased willed to his sister may be considered as set aside and the usufruct of the said
property bequeathed to his widow should be considered as having terminated
RULING:
NO.
The will of the testator is the primary and principal law governing wills and testaments, and
when the testamentary provisions are clearly and positively stated, questions arising in the
courts in connection with the execution of and compliance therewith shall be adjusted in
harmony with the plain and literal meaning of the language of the testator, except where it
clearly appears that his intention was other than that actually expressed.
In this case, the testator provided that his wife should administer the said parcels of land for
4years, in order that she might pay his debts. The fact that no creditor ever appeared to collect
them is no reason why the widow and executrix should be deprived of the usufruct of said
properties before the lapse of the said 4 years. Such deprivation would be in violation of the
special law that governs the matter, that is, the will of the testator, by which his property must be
administered, according to the legal provisions and settled rules herein before cited.

VDA. DE VILLANUEVA vs. JUICO

4 SCRA 550
FACTS:
Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, devising and
bequeathing in favor of his wife, Dona Faustina ½ of all his real and personal properties giving
the other half to his brother Don Fausto.
Petitioner filed an action against the administrator contending that upon the widow’s death, she
became vested with the ownership of the properties bequeathed under clause 7 pursuant to its
8th clause of the will.
ISSUE:
WON the petitioner is entitled to the ownership of the properties upon the death of Dona
Faustina.
HELD:
The intention of the testator here was to merely give usufructuary right to his wife Doňa Fausta
because in his will he provided that Doňa Fausta shall forfeit the properties if she fails to bear a
child and because she died without having begotten any children with the deceased then it
means that Doňa Fausta never acquired ownership over the property. Upon her death, because
she never acquired ownership over the property, the said properties are not included in her
estate. Those properties actually belong to Villaflor. That was the intention of the testator.
Otherwise, if the testator wanted to give the properties to Doňa Fausta then he should
have specifically stated in his will that ownership should belong to Doňa Fausta without
mentioning any condition.
Rodriguez vs CA

Caguioa vs Calderon

Samson vs Quintin
In the matter of the estate of Mariano Corrales Tan, deceased. FLAVIANA SAMSON,
petitioner and appellee, vs. VICENTE CORRALES TAN QUINTIN, oppositor and appellant.
[No. 19142. March 5, 1923]

FACTS: This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila admitting to
probate a document alleged to be the last will and testament of the deceased Mariano Corrales
Tan. Appellant Tan Quintin alleges that the testator acted under duress and under undue
influence, and that at the time of the execution of the will he was not of sound and disposing
mind.

Dr. Tee Han Kee, the attending physician, and witness for the opposition, testified that the
deceased was suffering from diabetes and had been in a comatose condition for several days
prior to his death. He died about eight or nine o'clock in the evening of December 26, 1921, and
the will is alleged to have been executed in the forenoon of the same day.

Counsel for the appellant argues that coma implies complete unconsciousness, and that
the testator, therefore, could not at that time have been in possession of his mental
faculties and have executed a will.

There are, however, varying degrees of coma and in its lighter forms the patient may be
aroused and have lucid intervals. Such seems to have been the case here. Doctor Tee Han
Kee, who visited the deceased in the evening of December 25th, says he then seemed to be in
a state of coma and that in the forenoon of December 26th, when the doctor again visited him,
he was in "the same state of coma."

Maximina Ong, the wife of the opponent, the only other witness for the opposition, states that on
December 26th the deceased could not talk and did not recognize anyone. But all the witnesses
presented by the petitioner, five in number, testify that the deceased was conscious, could hear
and understand what was said to him and was able to indicate his desires. Four of these
witnesses state that he could speak distinctly; the fifth, Velhagen, says that the deceased only
moved his head in answer to questions.

ISSUE:

WON the testator lacked the required mental capacity when he executed the will, the latter
therefore invalid.

HELD:

No. That the deceased was in an exceedingly feeble condition at the time the will was executed
is evident, but if the witnesses presented in support of the petition told the truth there can be no
doubt that he was of sound mind and capable of making his will. And the Court sees no reason
to discredit any of these witnesses; the discrepancies found between their respective versions
of what took place at the execution of the document are comparatively unimportant and so far
from weakening their testimony rather lend strength to it by indicating the absence of any
conspiracy among them.

As against their testimony we have only the testimony of Maximina Ong and Dr. Tee Han Kee.
The former is not a disinterested witness. As to the testimony of the latter it is sufficient to say
that mere professional speculation cannot prevail over the positive statements of five apparently
credible witnesses whose testimony does not in itself seem unreasonable.
NOTARIAL WILL

(1) In re estate of Piraso, deceased.

SIXTO ACOP, petitioner-appellant, v. SALMING PIRASO, ET AL., opponents-appellees.

FACTS:

This appeal was taken from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Benguet,
denying the probate of the last will and testament of the deceased Piraso.

The will was written in English which the supposed testator Piraso did not know thus the
proponent-appellant contends that the will is not valid for it was not written in a dialect
understood by the testator. The proponent-appellant further contends that the will should have
been in the Ilocano dialect, the dialect that is known to the testator.

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 the
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.

The fundamental errors assigned refer chiefly to the part of the judgment which reads as
follows:

“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 will herein is valid.

HELD:

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

Section 628 of the Code of Civil Procedure, strictly provides that:

"No will, except as provides 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," etc.
 Moreover, the presumption in favour of the will established by this court in Abangan vs.
Abangan (40 Phil., 476), to the effect that the testator is presumed to know the dialect of the
locality where he resides, unless there is proof to the contrary, cannot be applied in this case
because, in the instant case, not only is it not proven that English is the language of the City of
Baguio where the deceased Piraso lived and where the will was drawn, but that the record
contains positive proof that said Piraso knew no other language than the Igorot dialect, with a
smattering of Ilocano.

(2) Jimenez Vda. De Javellana v. Javellana, 106 Phil 1073

(3) SUCCESSION DIGEST #25 – ART 799 SOUNDNESS OF MIND – PRELIM

G.R. No. L-23483 December 18, 1925

In re will of Pedro Tablizo, deceased.

ANTONIO AMATA and FELIPE ALMOJUELA, petitioners-appellants, vs.JUANA TABLIZO, ET

AL., objectors-appellees.

FACTS:
• Ps Atonio Amata and Felipe Almojuela filed a petition for the probate of the last will and
testament of deceased Pedro Tablizo.
• Juana Tablizo and others opposed the probate of the will on the following grounds:
(1) That it was not signed by the witnesses, nor executed by the deceased Pedro
Tablizo, as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure;
(2) That the deceased Pedro Tablizo was not habitually of sound mind, but on the
contrary, was unconscious at the time of the execution of said document;
(3) that said document was not signed by the testator freely and voluntarily, nor did he
intend it to be his will on the date when it was executed; and
(4) that said document was maliciously and fraudulently prepared by the two
beneficiaries Antonio Amata and Felipe Almojuela, causing a date to appear thereon
which is not the true date of its execution
• Opponents prayed that the
1. petition be denied
2. it be held that Pedro Tablizo died intestate, and
3. Tomas Tablizo be appointed special administrator of the estate left by said deceased

TRIAL COURT
1. The deceased Pedro Tablizo was unconscious when the document Exhibit A was
executed
2. Document did not contain the last will of the testator
3. Denied the probate as the last will and testament of said deceased
4. Declared that Pedro Tablizo died intestate

• The petitioners attempted to prove that the deceased Pedro Tablizo was
1. 82 years old
2. Near sighted
3. Beginning May 4, 1924, he was confined to his bed by reason of senile weakness
and could not stand up
4. Ordered that Felipe Almojuela be called [arrived at about 3 o'clock in the evening]
 5. Asked Antonio Amata to bring him the list of his real properties, and to read one by
one the items for the purpose of separating the paraphernal property of his wife form his own
and the conjugal property. Antonio Amata read them one by one giving their boundaries, kinds,
areas and values.
6. As Antonio Amata was mentioning each parcel, Pedro Tablizo was telling him to whom
it must be alloted.
7. When he said,
a. "that is Incay's" (wife of Pedro Tablizo), he marked the item with the word
"Incay," and so on,
b. with the words "Pedro," if he said it was his;
c. "conjugal" if he said it was conjugal; and "own cultivation" if he said it was
cultivated and occupied by him.
8. Pedro Tablizo began to dictate his will [6pm] to Felipe Almojuela, in the presence of
his wife, of Mariano Arcilla and Antonio Amata, having finished the same at about 8 o'clock in
the evening. While
9. The testator told Antonio Amata to look for Vicente Arcilla and Gregorio Sarmiento
who were to act as witnesses to the will, together with Gregorio Sarmiento who was already in
the house.
10. Felipe Almojuela finished typewriting the will at 12 o'clock in that night and took it to
the house of the testator, who, in the presence of Mariano Dominguez, Vicente Arcilla, Gregorio
Sarmiento, Cipriano Suscito, Felipe Almojuela, Francisco Gianan, Eufrosina Tablizo and Antonio
Amata, had Mariano Dominguez, "Alas! Nitoy, I will no longer be able to help you in the next
election."
11. Upon the termination of the reading of the will, and after stating that it was his last
will, Pedro Tablizo asked for it in order to sign the same. It was 1 o'clock in the morning of June
4, 1924.

•Antonio Amata took a book of music, placing the will Exhibit A upon it, and presenting it to the
testator for his signature.
• As the latter could no longer see, Eufrosina Tablizo, niece of the testator and wife of Antonio
Amata, placed the pen between his fingers, held his hand and put the point of the pen on the
place where he had write his signature.
• The testator signed unaided of the left margin of each of the pages and at the bottom of the
will in the presence of all the witnesses, who did the same in the presence of each other and of
the testator.
• June 12, 1924: Father Cecilio Penilla saw him for the last time, and on said date, as on June
4, he found him lying down on his bed, being unable to move, but he could speak, and prayed
correctly, first in an audible voice and then in low voice.
• In his two confessions, he related his spiritual life coherently and without confusion.
• Antonio Amata has been living with his wife in the house of the testator, taking care of him
and helping him manage his estate.
- It was he who attended to the payment of the land tax.
• Felipe Almojuela was reared by Pedro Tablizo since he was a child, having taken him from
the possession of his parents and kept him in his house until he married.
• Pedro Tablizo died on June 20, 1924.

THE OPPONENTS
• The opponents, who are all brothers and sisters and children of brothers and sisters of the
testator, attempted to prove that:
1. the will was clandestinely prepared by Antonio Amata and Felipe Almojuela and
2. signed on the midnight of June 19, 1924, Pedro Tablizo then:
 a. lying down on his bed, weakened by old age and his sickness,
b. lying down with his mouth upward and open,
c. the eyes closed and the feet and arms extended, being unable to move, see,
speak or know those surrounding him, it being necessary that Antonio Amata should, as
he did, place the pen in his fingers, hold him by the arm and guide him while signing the
will upon a pillow

ISSUE:
W/N the testator was perfectly sound when he made and signed the will? – YES. Sound.

• The very witness for the opponents, Father Cecilio Penilla, testified that
1. at 10 o'clock approximately in the night of June 4, 1924, the date when the will was
signed, and
2. on the 12th day of the same month and year,
the testator had sent for him in order to confess and on both occasions he intelligently
and intelligibly talked with him, relating his spiritual life coherently and clearly although he was
lying down on his bed and could not move or stand up without assistance.
• It is a fact that on June 9, 1924, he ordered a carabao sold, designating it by its
name Tibayong.
• On the 10th day of the same month, he received the visit of Father Andres Tablizo and
Mariano Surtida with whom he has been conversing.
• All these prior, coetaneous and subsequent circumstances show that Pedro Tablizo was
perfectly of sound mind at the time of making his last will.

Where the testator is in perfectly sound mental condition, neither old age, nor ill health, nor the
fact that somebody had to guide his hand in order that he could sign, is sufficient to invalidate
his will.
(28 R. C. L., pars. 44 and 68; L. R. A. [1915 D]. page 906; 35 L. R. A., 102.)

WHEN WAS THE WILL MADE AND SIGNED

• The preponderance of the evidence shows that the testator dictated to Felipe Almojuela the
rough draft of his will
• Felipe have typewritten it clean, and finished the drawing thereof at midnight.
• Notwithstanding the distrust with which the trial judge received the testimony of the petitioners,
as they had intervened in the preparation of the will, and are the ones most benefited, he could
not help giving credit to their testimony and that of their witnesses upon the date when the will
was made and signed, that is, from 3 o'clock in the evening of the third day up to 1 o'clock
in the morning of the 4th June, 1924.
• In view of the fact that the testator did not die until June 20, 1924, in order to make credible the
theory that the testator was unconscious when his will was executed and signed.

WHO DREW AND SIGNED IT

• The will was made on June 3, 1924, and signed immediately thereafter at an early hour in the
morning of June 4, 1924.
• The date of the execution of the will is important in the determination of the mental condition of
the testator.
• If the opponents and their witnesses testified falsely upon this essential point, under the rule
falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, they are not entitled to any credit upon the other essential
points of their testimony, unless corroborated by other witnesses whose credibility is beyond
suspicion.
• On the other hand, the testimony of the petitioners and their witnesses upon the making if the
will is so clear, positive and consistent, and the succession of facts upon which they testified
and their incidents is so natural, that it cannot but convince anyone who should read it without
bias.
• If, as above stated, the petitioners and their witnesses are entitled to a greater credit that the
opponents and their witnesses, and if, as above seen, the testator was in perfectly sound
mental condition, there can be no doubt that it was the testator who signed his signature on the
will placed upon a book of music.
• The testimony of the opponents and their witnesses is improbable that the will was signed
upon a pillow.
• A pillow being soft, as it is, cannot serve as a support for writing purposes.

(4) Jose Lopez vs Liboro

On July 17, 2012

81 PHIL 429 – Succession – Pagination of the Will – Witnesses to a Will – Language of the Will
– Thumb Mark as Signature

In 1947, Don Sixto Lopez executed a will where Jose Lopez was named an heir. Agustin Liboro
questioned the validity of the said will based on the following ground, among others:

1. The first sheet, which is also the first page) is not paged either in letters or in Arabic
numerals.
2. That the witnesses to the will provided contradictory statements.
3. That Don Sixto used his thumb mark to sign the will.
4. There was no indication in the will that the language used therein is known by Don Sixto
Lopez.

ISSUE: Whether or not the will is valid.

HELD: Yes, the will is valid.

1. 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 numeral 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. Further, the first pages is captioned “Testamento”.
2. The contradictions in the testimony of the instrumental witnesses as are set out in Liboro’s
appelant’s brief are incidents not all of which every one of the witnesses can be supposed to
have perceived, or to recall in the same order in which they occurred.3. Don Sixto affixed his
thumb mark to the instrument instead of signing his name. The reason for this was that he was
suffering from “partial paralysis.” 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.4. There is no statutory requirement which prescribes that it
must be expressly placed in the will that the testator knows the language being used therein. It
is a matter that may be established by proof aliunde.

(5) YAP TUA vs. YAP CA KUAN and YAP CA LLU[G.R. No. 6845. September 1,
1914.]JOHNSON, J.:
FACTS:
• August, 1909, one Perfecto Gabriel, representing the petitioner, Yap Tua, presented a petition
in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, asking that the will of Tomasa Elizaga Yap
Caong be admitted to probate, as the last will and testament of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong,
deceased.

• Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong died in the city of Manila on the 11th day of August, 1909.

• Together with the petition was the will, signed by deceased, as well as Anselmo Zacarias,
Severo Tabora, and Timoteo Paez.

• During the hearing, Timoteo Paez and Pablo Agustin declared that they knew the said Tomasa
Elizaga Yap Caong; that she had died on the 11thday of August, 1909; that before her death she
had executed a last will and testament; that he was present at the time of the execution of the
same; that he had signed the will as a witness; that Aselmo Zacarias and Severo Tabora had
also signed said will as witnesses and that they had signed the will in the presence of the
deceased; that the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong signed the will voluntarily; and in their
judgment, she was in the possession of her faculties; that there were no threats or intimidation
used to induce her to sign the will; that she signed it voluntarily.

• It was ordered that the last will and testament of Tomasa Elizaga YapCaong be allowed and
admitted to probate.

• From the record it appears that no further proceedings were had until the28th of February,
1910, when Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu appeared and presented a petition, alleging that they
were interested in the matters of the sail will and desired to intervene asked that a guardian ad
litem be appointed to represented them in the cause.

• The court appointed guardian ad litem of said parties, Gabriel La O,appeared in court and
presented a motion in which he alleged, in substance:

XXX

(b)Because at the time of the execution of the will, the said TomasaElizaga Yap Caong was not
then mentally capacitated to execute the same,due to her sickness.

XXX

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in declaring that the testator had clear knowledge and knew what
she was doing at the time of signing the will.
HELD:
NO. Article 800 of the Civil Code states that:

“The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.

The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his
dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month,
or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the
validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval.”
We find the same conflict in the declarations of the witnesses which we found with reference to
the undue influence. While the testimony of Dr. Papa is very strong relating to the mental
condition of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong, yet, nevertheless, his testimony related to a time
perhaps twenty-four hours before the execution of the will in question (Exhibit A). Several
witnesses testified that at the time the will was presented to her for her signature, she was of
sound mind and memory and asked for a pen and ink and kept the will in her possession for ten
or fifteen minutes and finally signed it. Thelower court found that there was a preponderance of
evidence sustaining theconclusion that Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong was of sound mind and
memory and in the possession of her faculties at the time she signed this will. In view of the
conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and the finding of the lower court, we do not feel
justified in reversing his conclusions upon that question.

Upon a full consideration of the record, we find that a preponderance of the proof shows that
Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong did execute, freely and voluntarily, while she was in the right use of
all of her faculties, the will dated August 11, 1909 (Exhibit A). Therefore the judgment of the
lower court admitting said will to probate is hereby affirmed with costs.

(6) LEANO v LEANO

(7) Dolar v. Diancin, 55 Phil 479

Estate of Diancin, Teopista Dolar Vs Fidel Diancin
Facts: The will of Paulino Diancin was denied probate on the sole ground that the thumbmarks
appearing were not thumbmarks of the testator.
Exhibit 8 was presented; it is a document of sale containing an admitted genuine thumbmark of
Paulino Diancin. Carlos Jaena, attempted to qualify as an expert gave his opinion that the
thumbmarks were not made by the same person.
The trial judge expressed his opinion that great differences existed between the two marks.
Issue: The sole issue is whether the will may be probated despite the alleged discrepancy
between the thumbmarks?
Held: The Supreme Court through Justice Malcolm found error on part of the trial court. In cases
of dispute as to the will there is an obvious mean to ascertain whether the same is genuine.
Resort may be had on the testimony of the instrumental witnesses present during the execution
of the will. In the case at bar, the three instrumental witnesses were united in testifying on
matters concerning the execution of the will. Moreover a certain Diosdado Dominado testified;
that he was the one who prepared the will for Diancin, that the thumbmarks are those of
Diancin, and that he saw Diancin make these impressions.
(8) Ex Parte Arcenas, 4 Phil 700
(9) Guison v. Concepcion, 5 Phil 551
(10) Ex Parte Juan Ondevilla, 13 Phil 470
(11) In the Matter of the Will of Siason, 10 Phil 504 (read dissent)
In Re Will of Siason10 Phil. 504
FACTS: A will ended in this way: “At the re-quest of Señora Maria Siason.’’ “
“Catalino Geva” “T. Silver’’ “F. Morin’’ “R. Espinosa”
Señora Siason made her own signature, but it was contended that it should not be considered
one, since it forms the end of the phrase “at the request of _________________.” Is the will
valid? HELD: Yes, it can be considered a valid signature, and the will is therefore valid, because
after all, in this case, the name immediately follows the statement itself, and precedes names of
the witnesses
Art. 805
(12) Macapinlac v. Alimurong, 16 Phil 41
(13) Balonan v. Abellana, 109 Phil 359
(14) Caluya v. Domingo, 27 Phil 330