NERA VS RIMANDO
G.R. L-5971 February 27, 1911
Ponente: Carson, J.:
FACTS
1. At the time the will was executed, in a large room connecting with
a smaller room by a doorway where a curtain hangs across, one of
the witnesses was in the outside room when the other witnesses were
attaching their signatures to the instrument.
2. The trial court did not consider the determination of the issue as
to the position of the witness as of vital importance in determining
the case. It agreed with the ruling in the case of Jaboneta v. Gustillo
that the alleged fact being that one of the subscribing witnesses was
in the outer room while the signing occurred in the inner room, would
not be sufficient to invalidate the execution of the will.
3. The CA deemed the will valid.
ISSUE
Whether or not the subscribing witness was able to see the
testator and other witnesses in the act of affixing their
signatures.
HELD:
YES.The Court is unanimous in its opinion that had the
witnesses been proven to be in the outer room when the testator
and other witnesses signed the will in the inner room, it would have
invalidated the will since the attaching of the signatures under the
circumstances was not done 'in the presence' of the witnesses in the
outer room. The line of vision of the witness to the testator and
other witnesses was blocked by the curtain separating the rooms.
The position of the parties must be such that with relation to each
other at the moment of the attaching the signatures, they may see
each other sign if they chose to.
In the Jaboneta case, the true test of presence is not whether or not
they actualy saw each other sign but whether they might have seen
each other sign if they chose to doso considering their physical,
mental condition and position in relation to each other at the
moment of the inscription of the signature.
ALVARADO vs. GAVIOLA
September 14, 1993
FACTS:
The testator did not read the final draft of the will himself.
Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the 8-paged
document, read the same aloud in the presence of the testator, the 3
instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The latter 4 followed
the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished
them.
Said will was admitted to probate. Later on, a codicil was
executed, and by that time, the testator was already suffering from
glaucoma. But the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were
unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not
personally read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private
respondent who read it aloud in his presence and in the presence of
the three instrumental witnesses (same as those of the notarial will)
and the notary public who followed the reading using their own
copies.
ISSUE:
Was there substantial compliance to the reading of the will?
HELD:
Article 808 not only applies to blind testators, but also to
those who, for one reason or another, are incapable of reading
their wills. Hence, the will should have been read by the notary
public and an instrumental witness. However, the spirit behind the
law was served though the letter was not. In this case, there was
substantial compliance. Substantial compliance is
acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the
reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills
are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and
trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to
destroy the testamentary privilege.
In this case, private respondent read the testator's will and
codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental
witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and subsequent thereto, the
testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read
corresponded with his instructions. Only then did the signing and
acknowledgement take place.
KALAW VS RELOVA
132 SCRA 237
FACTS
On September 1, 1971,Gregorio Kalaw, claiming to be the
sole heir of his deceasedsister, Natividad Kalaw, filed a petition for
the probate of her holographic Will executed on December 24, 1968.
The holographic Will, as first written, named Rosa Kalaw, a sister of
the testatrix as her sole heir. She opposed probate alleging that
the holographic Will contained alterations, corrections, and
insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature of
the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code reading: Art.
814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in
a holographic will the testator must authenticate the same by his full
signature.
ROSA’s position was that the holographic Will, as first written,
should be given effect and probated so that she could be the
sole heir thereunder.
Trial Court denied petition to probate the holographic will.
Reconsideration denied.
ISSUE:
W/N the original unaltered text after subsequent alterations and
insertions were voided by the Trial Court for lack of authentication by
the full signature of the testatrix, should be probated or not, with
Rosa as sole heir.
HELD:
Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and
interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will litem not
been noted under his signature, … the Will is not thereby invalidated
as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased,
corrected or interlined.
However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute
had only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting
the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the
requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator,
the effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the
simple reason that nothing remains in the Will after that which could
remain valid. To state that the Will as first written should be
given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the
testatrix. But that change of mind can neither be given effect because
she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing
her full signature,
The ruling in Velasco, supra, must be held confined to such
insertions, cancellations, erasures or alterations in
a holographic Will, which affect only the efficacy of the altered words
themselves but not the essence and validity of the Will itself. As it is,
with the erasures, cancellations and alterations made by the
testatrix herein, her real intention cannot be determined with
certitude.
