FACTS:

The late Mateo Caballero executed a last will and testament leaving his properties to individuals unrelated to him. He filed a petition for the probate of his will but passed away before the petition was heard. Benoni Cabrera, a legatee, sought appointment as special administrator of the estate and was granted such. The nephews and nieces of the testator filed a petition for intestate proceedings and opposed the probate of the will. The probate court declared the will as the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero, but the opposition appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The issue in the case is the validity of the attestation clause in the will. The attestation clause stated that the testator and witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in each other's presence. The trial court and respondent court ruled that the attestation clause complied with the law. The petitioners appealed, arguing that the ruling was not in accordance with the law and settled jurisprudence. The court explains that there are two types of wills: ordinary or attested wills and holographic wills. The attestation clause in an ordinary will need not be written in a language known to the testator and witnesses, but it must be interpreted to the witnesses. The attestation clause serves as a separate record of the facts surrounding the execution of the will.

Mateo Caballero's last will and testament consisted of three sheets, all numbered and signed by the testator and three attesting witnesses. The testamentary dispositions were written in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect and signed by the testator. The attestation clause, written in English, stated that the will consisted of three pages and was signed by the testator on every page in the presence of the testator and witnesses. However, the attestation clause was left unsigned by the witnesses.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the attestation clause in the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero complies with the requirements under Article 805 of the Civil Code.

2. Whether the absence of the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another is a fatal defect that would result in the disallowance of the will.

3. Whether the defects or imperfections in the attestation clause of a will can be cured by substantial compliance.

4. Whether proof of the acts required by the attesting witnesses can be supplied by extrinsic evidence.

5. Whether the attestation clause in a will must strictly comply with the formalities required by law or substantial compliance is sufficient.

6. Whether the defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used in the will renders it invalid.

7. Whether the will was executed and attested in substantial compliance with the requirements of the law.

RULING:

1. The attestation clause in the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero does not comply with the requirements under Article 805 of the Civil Code. While it recites that the testator signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states the number of pages used, it does not expressly state that the witnesses subscribed their signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.

2. The absence of the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another is a fatal defect that would result in the disallowance of the will. The attestation clause must include such statement in order to comply with the requirements under Article 805 of the Civil Code.

3. The defects or imperfections in the attestation clause of a will cannot be cured by substantial compliance. The defects must only be with respect to the form of the attestation or the language employed therein. The total absence of a specific element required by Article 805 cannot be remedied by the text of the will or any intrinsic evidence.

4. Proof of the acts required by the attesting witnesses cannot be supplied by extrinsic evidence. The attestation must be proved only by an examination of the will itself without resorting to evidence outside the will.

5. The Supreme Court, in the case of Gumban vs. Gorecho, et al., clarified that the formalities required in the execution of wills are mandatory in nature and must be strictly construed. The attestation clause must state that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof on the left margin in the presence of the testator. Failure to comply with these requirements renders the will invalid.

6. The defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used in the will shall not render it invalid if it is proven that the will was executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of the law. Omissions that can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the need for extrinsic evidence, will not invalidate the will. However, omissions that cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would render the attestation clause and the will itself invalid.

PRINCIPLES:

• Attestation and subscription in the execution of wills differ in meaning. Attestation is the act of the senses, while subscription is the act of the hand. Attestation consists of witnessing the testator's execution of the will and certifying the facts required for its execution, while subscription is the act of signing the witnesses' names on the same paper for the purpose of identification. (Taboada v. Rosal)

• The attestation clause in a will must substantially express that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. The absence of this statement is a fatal defect that would result in the disallowance of the will. (Article 805, Civil Code)

• The defects or imperfections in the attestation clause of a will cannot be cured by substantial compliance. (Article 805)

• The attestation must be proved only by an examination of the will itself without resorting to evidence outside the will. (Article 809)

• The total absence of a specific element required by Article 805 in the attestation clause renders the will invalid.

• The liberal or substantial compliance rule in the execution of wills aims to achieve the primordial ends of closing the door against bad faith and fraud, avoiding substitution of wills, and ensuring the truth and authenticity of wills.

• Statutes prescribing the formalities in the execution of wills are mandatory and to be strictly followed.

• The formalities in the execution of wills are mandatory in nature and must be strictly construed.

• The attestation clause must state that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof on the left margin in the presence of the testator.

• The failure to comply with the formalities required by law invalidates the will.

• Substantial compliance is not sufficient in the execution of wills.

• The liberal approach to the interpretation of wills allows for substantial compliance with the requirements of the law.

• Omissions that can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the need for extrinsic evidence, will not invalidate the will.

• Omissions that cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would render the attestation clause and the will itself invalid.