YAP TUA vs YAP CA KUAN and YAP CA LLU

27 Phil. 579
Topic/Doctrine: Forms of Wills
FACTS:
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. It appears
that the said Tomasa
died in the city of Manila on the 11th day of August, 1909. Accompanying said
petition and attached
thereto was the alleged will of the deceased. It appears that the will was signed by
the deceased, as well
as Anselmo Zacarias, Severo Tabora, and Timoteo Paez. Said petition, after due
notice was given, was
brought on for hearing. Timoteo Paez declared that he was 48 years of age; that he
had known the said
Tomasa; that she had died on the 11th day 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 Anselmo and Severo had also signed said will as
witnesses and that they had
signed the will in the presence of the deceased. Pablo Agustin also declared as a
witness and said that
he was 40 years of age; that he knew Tomasa during her lifetime; that she died on
the 11th day of
August, 1909, in the city of Manila; that before her death she had executed a last
will and testament;
that he was present at the time said last will was executed; that there were also
said will. The court
appointed Gabriel La O as guardian ad litem of said parties. Gabriel La O accepted
said appointment,
took the oath of office and entered upon the performance of his duties as guardian
ad litem of said
parties.
ISSUE:
Whether or not decedent complied with the requirements in making a will.
HELD:
Yes. While the rule is absolute that one who makes a will must sign the same in the
presence of the
witnesses and that the witnesses must sign in the presence of each other, as well as
in the presence of
the one making the will, yet, nevertheless, the actual seeing of the signatures made
is not necessary. It is

sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possible for each of the necessary
parties, if they desire
to see, may see the signatures placed upon the will. Where there is so much conflict
in the proof, it is
very difficult for the courts to reach conclusions that are absolutely free from doubt.
Great weight must
be given by appellate courts who do not see or hear the witnesses, to the
conclusions of the trial courts
who had that opportunity. 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 her faculties, the will dated August 11, 1909.