Barut vs.

Cagacungan
(Case digest by Zenfanie Sandoval)
Facts:
This appeal arises out of an application on the part of Pedro Barut to probate the last
will and testament of Maria Salomon, deceased. It is alleged in the petition for probate
that Maria Salomon died on the 7th day of November, 1908, leaving a last will and
testament bearing date March 2, 1907. Severo Agayan, Timotea Inoselda, Catalino
Ragasa, and A. M. Jimenez are alleged to have been witnesses to the execution
thereof. By the terms of said will Pedro Barut received the larger part of decedent's
property.
The original will appears on page 3 of the record and is in the Ilocano dialect. Its
translation into Spanish appears at page 11. After disposing of her property the testatrix
revoked all former wills by her made. She also stated in said will that being unable to
read or write, the same had been 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 of the will was contested and opposed by a number of the relatives of the
deceased on various grounds, among them that a later will had been executed by the
deceased.
Issue:
Whether or not the will’s validity is affected when a person signed the name of the
testatrix to the will for and on her behalf instead of signing his own name
Held:
No. With respect to the validity of the will, it is unimportant whether the person who
writes the name of the testatrix signs his own or not. The important thing is that it clearly
appears that the name of the testatrix was signed at her express direction in the
presence of three witnesses and that they attested and subscribed it in her presence
and in the presence of each other. That is all the statute requires. It may be wise as a
practical matter that the one who signs the testator's name signs also his own; but that
is not essential to the validity of the will.
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.

Fernandez v. de Dios
46 Phil 922

FACTS:
The question in this case is as to the validity of the document Exhibit A as a will, which
was propounded by Ramon J. Fernandez for probate, and contested by Fernando
Vergel de Dios and Francisco, Ricardo and Virgilio Rustia, the court of First Instance of
Manila having denied its probate. (Daghag defect gi mention, peru it appear on record
that there are no such defect).
The main issue in this case is that the will has 4 pages. However, the 4 th page has no
page number. (bali the document consist of 3 pages besides that of the attestation
clause. ang 4th page contains the attestation clause.)

Ramon takes this appeal, assigning error to the action of the lower court in holding the
attestation fatally defective and in not finding Act No. 2645 void.

ISSUE:
1. Will the numbering of the sheet containing the attestation clause which does not
appear in the upper part make the will defective? NO
2. Should the attestation clause state, among other things,“that the testator signed
on the margin of each sheet of the will in the presence of the witnesses and the
latter in the presence of each other; and such a fact cannot be proven by any
other proof than the attestation clause itself”? NO
3. Are the signatures necessary in the attestation clause? NO

HELD:

1. NO. Although the numbering of the sheet containing the attestation clause does not
appear in the upper part thereof, yet if that numbering is found in its text, as when it
is said therein that the will consists of three sheets actually used, correlatively
numbered, besides this one, that is to say, the sheet containing the attestation
clause, the requirement prescribed by the law is substantially complied with, for if the
will consists of three sheets besides the one containing the attestation clause, it is
 evident that the latter is the fourth page, that is to say, that the document consists of
four sheets.

2. NO. The fact appears in any manner intelligible from the attestation clause, the latter
would be sufficient and valid. Thus the attestation clause in question is sufficient in
this respect which says: "* * * and he (the testator) signed at the bottom of the
aforesaid will in our presence, and at his request we also signed our names as
witnesses in his presence and that of each other, and finally, the testator, as well as
we, his witnesses, signed in the same manner on the left margin of each and every
one of its sheets," for the phrase, in the same manner, means that the testator
signed in the presence of the witnesses, and the latter in his presence and that of
each other.

3. NO. The last paragraph of section 618 of the Code deals with the requirements for
the attestation clause. This last paragraph reads thus:
The attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the
will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page
thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express
direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed
the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.

As may be seen this last paragraph, it refers to the contents of the text of the
attestation, not the requirements or signatures thereof outside of its text. It does not
require that the attestation be signed by the testator or that the page or sheet containing
it be numbered.

From this analysis of our law now in force it appears:

First. That the will must have an attestation clause as a complement, without
which it cannot be probate and with which only not aliunde (Uy Coque vs. Navas
L. Sioca , supra ) may the requirements to be stated in its text be proven. The
attestation clause must be prepared and signed, as in the instant case, on the
same occasion on which the will is prepared and signed, in such a way that the
possibility of fraud, deceit or suppression of the will or the attestation clause be
reduced to a minimum; which possibility always exists, as experience shows, in
spite of the many precautions taken by the legislator to insure the true and free
expression of one's last will.

Second. That the will is distinct and different from the attestation, although both
are necessary to the validity of the will, similar, in our opinion, to a document
which is not public so long as it is not acknowledged before a notary, the
document being a distinct and different thing from the acknowledgment, each of
which must comply with different requisites, among which is the signature of the
maker which is necessary in the document but not in the acknowledgment and
both things being necessary to the existence of the public document.
 Third. That the will proper must meet the requirements enumerated in the second
paragraph of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Fourth. That the text of the attestation clause must express compliance with the
requirements prescribed for the will.

In the case at bar the attestation clause in question states that the requirements
prescribed for the will were complied with, and this is enough for it, as such attestation
clause, to be held as meeting the requirements prescribed by the law for it.

The fact that in said clause the signature of the testator does not appear does not affect
its validity, for, as above stated, the law does not require that it be signed by the
testator.

Cagro vs Cagro
Facts:
Pelagio Cagro, appellant insists that the will of Vicente Cagro is fatally defective
because its attestation clause is not signed by the attesting witnesses. There is no
question that the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the
bottom of the attestation clause, although the page containing the same is signed by the
witnesses on the left-hand margin.
Issue: Is the will valid?
Ruling:
THE WILL IS VOID. The position of the appellant is correct. The attestation clause is 'a
memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will' required by law to be made
by the attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear their signatures. An unsigned
attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses, since the omission
of their signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their participation. THE
SIGNATURES OF THE 3 WITNESSES ON THE LEFT-HAND MARGIN DOES NOT
CONFORM SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE LAW. The signatures in the left-hand margin
are in compliance with the legal mandate that the will be signed on the left hand margin
of all its pages. If an attestation clause not signed by the 3 witnesses at the bottom
thereof, be admitted as sufficient, it would be easy to add such clause to a will on a
subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all of the witnesses.

Quinto v Morata G.R. No. L-31732, February 19, 1930

FACTS: This proceeding is the probate of the will of Gregorio Pueblo which was
opposed by his brother , Mateo Pueblo, on the following grounds:
(1) That the attestation clause of said will does not state the number of pages of which
the will is composed, and (2) that the attestation clause does not state that each and
every page of the will was signed by the testators in the presence of the witnesses, and
that the latter signed the same in the presence of the testators and in the presence of
each other.
Herein appellant contends that the defect was cured by oral evidence, which was
admitted without opposition on the part of the appellee.
ISSUE: WON the defect was cured by oral evidence. NO
HELD: The attestation clause of the will contravenes the express requirements of
section 618 of Act No. 190, as amended by Act No. 2645, in two ways: First, it fails to
state that each and every page of the will was signed by the testators and the
witnesses; and, second, it fails to state that the witnesses signed each and every page
of the will in the presence of the testators.
In the case of Saño vs. Quintana (48 Phil., 506) this court held that "an attestation
clause which does not recite that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page
thereof on the left margin in the presence of the testator is defective, and such defect
annuls the will."
The defect was not cured by oral evidence unopposed by the adverse party. The
doctrine with reference to statute of frauds is not applicable to wills. The statue of frauds
relates to contracts and agreements. The subject of will and testaments and the
formalities surrounding their execution are governed by separate and specific provisions
of Act No. 190.
An examination of section 618 of Act No. 190, prior to, and after its amendment by Act
No. 2645, shows clearly that the Legislature intended to exclude evidence aliunde,
tending to establish that the will has been executed and attested in conformity with the
requirements of the law, where such compliance does not appear on the face of the, will
itself. Prior to its amendment, section 618 contained the following saving clause: "But
the absence of such form of attestation shall not render the will invalid if it is proven that
the will was in fact signed and attested as in this section provided."
The most outstanding feature of the amendment of said section 618 by Act No. 2645 is
the elimination of said saving clause and the greater emphasis laid on the formalities as
to signatures and the attestation clause. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the
intention of the Legislature, in eliminating said clause, was admitted without opposition,
it should not be given effect and thus defeat the manifest intention of the Legislature in
amending said section 618.
Section 618 of Act No. 190, as amended, should be given a strict interpretation. In the
case of Uy the Court said:
Statutes prescribing the formalities to be observed in the execution of wills are very
strictly construed. As stated in 40 Cyc., at page 1097, "A will must be executed in
accordance with the statutory requirements; otherwise it is entirely void. All these
requirements stand as of equal importance and must be observed, and courts cannot
supply the defective execution of a will. No power or discretion is vested in them, either
to superadd other conditions or dispense with those enumerated in the statutes." (Uy
Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil., 405, 407.)