ABANGAN V ABANGAN Thus, the will written in English in the instant
FACTS:
The testatrix Ana Abangan executed a will
consisting only of two pages; the first page contained the
dispositions while the second page the attestation
clause, which the instrumental witnesses signed.
It was argued that the will should not be
admitted into probate since the pages were not
signed on the left margin, nor the numbered by letter.
ISSUE: Is the will valid?
RULING:
Yes. The requirement that each and every page
be signed on the left margin has for its purpose to avoid
substitution of the sheets, thereby substituting the
testator’s dispositions.
Also, numbering correlatively by letters is to
know whether any of the pages were removed.
In the instant case, the dispositions of the will
were contained all in one page. It would be repetitious
and redundant to require the testator and the witnesses
to sign further on the left margins where the testatrix
herself had already attested to the will itself.
SUROZA V REYNALDO
FACTS:
Mauro and Marcelina spouses adopted (not
formally) a child name Agapito.
When Agapito married Nenita, they begot a child named
Lilia. They also brought up a supposed granddaughter
named Marilyn.
Upon the death of Marcelina, she supposedly
executed a notarial will in English notwithstanding she
was an illiterate.
During the probate proceedings where Marilyn
was named executrix, Nenita opposed. She raised the
issue of illiteracy of the testatrix. Since the will was
wholly written in English, a language not known to the
testatrix, it is patently void.
The RTC denied the several motions
of Nenita wanting to set aside the probate proceedings
prompting the latter to file a disciplinary case against
Judge Reynaldo.
ISSUE: Is the will valid?
RULING:
No. It is invalid.
The Civil Code provides that every will must be
executed in a language or dialect not known to the
testator.
case is a forgery. Respondent Judge could have readily
perceived the will was void since admittedly in the
proceedings, Marcelina was an illiterate.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At first read, you might find that the issue is about
the special administrators
But topic wise, it centers on the validity of the attestation
clause
MATIAS VS. SALUD
Facts:
The will of Gabina Raquel consist of 3 pages and
it seems that after the attestation clause, there appears
the signature of the testatrix 'Gabina Raquel', alongside
is a smudged in violet ink claimed by the proponents as
the thumbmark allegedly affixed by the tetratrix. On the
third page at the end of the attestation clause appears
signatures on the left margin of each page, and also on
the upper part of each left margin appears the same
violet ink smudge accompanied by the written words
'Gabina Raquel' with 'by Lourdes Samonte' underneath
it.
Petitioner’s Contention: The proponent's
evidence is to the effect that the decedent allegedly
instructed Atty. Agbunag to drat her will and brought to
her on January 1950. With all the witnesses with her and
the lawyer, the decedent affixed her thumbmark at the
foot of the document and the left margin of each page.
It was also alleged that she attempted to sign using a sign
pen but was only able to do so on the lower half of page
2 due to the pain in her right shoulder. The lawyer,
seeing Gabina unable to proceed instructed
Lourdes Samonte to write 'Gabina Raquel by
Lourdes Samonte' next to each thumbmark, after which
the witnesses signed at the foot of the attestation clause
and the left hand margin of each page.
Respondent’s Contention: The probate was
opposed by Basilia Salud, the niece of the decedent. One
of the points raised by the oppositors was that the finger
mark can not be regarded as the decedent’s valid
signature as it does not show distinct identifying
ridgelines. And since the finger mark was an invalid
signature, there must appear in the attestation clause
that another person wrote the testator’s name at his
request.
 The CFI of Cavite denied the probate on the
ground that the attestation clause did not state that the
testatrix and the witnesses signed each and every page
nor did it express that Lourdes was specially directed to
sign after the testatrix.
Issue: Whether the thumbprint was a sufficient
compliance with the formalities of the law despite the
absence of a description of such in the attestation
clause. (Simply put: Whether the will is valid)
HELD:
Yes.
The absence of the description on the
attestation clause that another person wrote the
testatrix' name at her request is not a fatal defect, The
legal requirement only ask that it be signed by the
testator, a requirement satisfied by a thumbprint or
other mark affixed by him.
SC held that it has been held in a long line of
cases that a thumbprint is always a valid and sufficient
signature for the purpose of complying with the
requirement of the article.
Furthermore, the validity of thumbprints should
not be limited in cases of illness or infirmity. A
thumbprint is considered as a valid and sufficient
signature in complying with the requirements of the
article.
IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF ANTERO MERCADO,
DECEASED. ROSARIO GARCIA
VS.
JULIANA LACUESTA, ET AL., 
FACTS:
A will was executed by Antero Mercado where it
appears that it was signed by
Atty. Florentino Javiwe who wrote the name of Antero.
The will appears to have been signed by
Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero
Mercado, followed below by "A reugo del testator" and
the name of Florentino Javier. Antero Mercado is alleged
to have written a cross immediately after his name.
The CFI of Ilocos Norte ruled that the will is
valid.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of
the trial court and ruled that the attestation clause
failed:
(1) to certify that the will was signed on all the
left margins of the three pages and at the end of the will
by Atty. Florentino Javier at the express request of the
testator in the presence of the testator and each and
every one of the witnesses;
(2) to certify that after the signing of the name of
the testator by Atty. Javier at the former's request said
testator has written a cross at the end of his name and
on the left margin of the three pages of which the will
consists and at the end thereof;
(3) to certify that the three witnesses signed the
will in all the pages thereon in the presence of the
testator and of each other.
ISSUE: Whether the attestation clause is valid
RULING:
The attestation clause is fatally defective for
failing to state that Antero Mercado caused
Atty. Florentino Javier to write the testator's name under
his express direction, as required by section 618 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court is not prepared to liken the mere sign
of the cross to a thumbmark, and the reason is obvious.
The cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness
of a thumbmark.
CA’s decision is affirmed.
BALONAN V ABELLANA
Article 805. Every will, other than a holographic will,
must be subscribed at the end there of by the testator
himself or by the testator’s name written by some other
person in his presence, and by his express direction and
attested and subscribed by three or more credible
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one
another
Facts:
The last Will and Testament sought to be probated
consists in two (2) typewritten pages. The first page is
signed by Juan Bello and on the left margin appears the
signatures of the three (3) instrumental witnesses. On
the second page appears the signature of said witnesses,
at the bottom of which appears the signature of the
notary public and below said signature is his designation
as notary public. On the left margin of the second page
(last page of the will) appears the signature of Juan Bello
under whose name appears handwritten the
phrase, “Por la Testadore Anacleta Abellana” (For the
Testate of Anacleta Abellana). The will is duly
acknowledged before the notary public.
Issue: Whether or not the signature of Juan Bello above
the typewritten
statement, “Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana” comply
with the requirements of law prescribing the manner in
which a will shall be executed.
Held: 
The law requires that the testator himself sign the will,
or if he cannot do so, the testator’s name must be
written by some other person in his presence and by his
express direction.  testament of the late Dorotea Perez. After compliance of
In this case, the name of the
testatrix, Anacleta Abellana does not appear written
under the will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan
Bello. There is therefore, a failure to comply with the
express requirement in the law that the testator must
himself sign the will, or that his name be affixed thereto
by some other person in his presence and by his express
direction. Hence, the will of the
deceased Anacleta Abellana must not be admitted to
probate.
NERA V RIMANDO
Facts:
A notarial will was executed in a small room. At the
moment when the witness Javellana signed the
document, Jaboneta was outside, some eight or ten feet
away but was actually and physically present and in such
position with relation to Jaboneta that he could see
everything that took place by merely casting his eyes in
the proper direction and without any physical
obstruction to prevent his doing so.
 
Issue: Whether or not the notarial will is void for the
failure of the instrumental witnesses to see each other
sign.
Held:
NO. The phrase “in the presence” required by law simply
means that position of the parties with relation to each
other at the moment of the subscription of
each signature, must be such that they may see each
other sign if they choose to do so.
The question whether the testator and the subscribing
witnesses to an alleged will sign the instrument “in the
presence” of each other does not depend upon proof of
the fact that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper
at the moment of its subscription by each of them, but
that at that moment existing conditions and their
position with relation to each other were such that by
merely casting the eyes in the proper direction they
could have seen each other sign.
TABOADA v ROSAL
FACTS: Petitioner filed for probate of the last will and
publication and presentation of one of the witnesses
who signed the same, the trial court thru then presiding
judge Pamatian still denied the probate. In the same
order, petitioner was also required to submit names of
the intestate heirs. Petitioner on the other hand filed for
an ex-parte deliberation of the said will.
After the new judge Rosal assumed position, the motion
for reconsideration was still denied as petitioner failed to
comply with the order requiring him to submit names of
the intestate heirs and their addresses.
Petitioner contends that the will satisfies the requisites
under Art 805 therefore probate is called for. On the
other hand, respondent judge interprets that the law
provides that the witnesses must also sign at the same
place here the testator signs (at the end of the will) as to
attest the signature of the testator himself (lol I know
right mejo lefong si judge).
ISSUE: WON the validity of a will is affected by the
location of the witnesses signature
RULING:
NO.
The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left
margin of the first page of the will attested not only to
the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also
the due execution of the will as embodied in the
attestation clause.
While perfection in the drafting of the will may be
desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual forms
should be ignored, especially where the authenticity of
the will is not assailed.
ICASIANO v ICASIANO
FACTS: appeal for probate of the last will and testament
of Josefa Villacorte and appointing executor Celso.
Nativididad, daughter of the testatrix filed her opposition
and petitioned to have herself appointed as special
administrator. The same was opposed byy Celso and
appointed Phil Trust Company as SA. The latter
appointment was also opposed by Enrique, son of the
testatrix.
Celso presented evidence of the decedent leaving a will
executed in duplicate. The original consists of five pages
and signed on each and every page except for page 3,
where Atty. Jose’s signature does not appear but the
copy has the testatrix and witnesses attested in each and
every page.
Atty Jose testified on his failure to sign page 3 of the
original, admits that he may have lifted two pages
instead but affirmed that page 3 was signed in his
presence.
Oppositors contend that the duplicate is not genuine nor
were they written on the same occasion and that they
were executed through mistake and with undue
influence making the testatrix adopt in her will the
wishes of those surrounding the execution of the will.
ISSUE: WON the failure of a witness to affix his signature
on one of the pages results to the invalidity of a will
RULING:
NO.
The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted
as to penalize the testatrix on the account of the
carelessness of one of the witnesses conduct where she
had no control.
The failure of the witness to sign page through was
entirely through pure oversight as shown as testified by
him. Thus the court ruled that the will can still be
probated.
Ruling: YES. An attestation clause is the memorandum of
the facts attending the execution of the will and must
bear the signatures of the witnesses. An unsigned
attestation clause negates their participation therein
as if they haven’t seen the execution of the will. IOW, the
law was not duly observed.
AGAPITA CRUZ v LUGAY
Doctrines:
Article 805 - at least three credible witnesses to attest
and subscribe to the will
Article 806- the testator and the witnesses to
acknowledge the will before a notary public.
Facts: CFI- Cebu admitted the last will and testament of
VALENTE Cruz. His surviving spouse AGAPITA opposed.
She alleged that the legal requirement of three
instrumental witnesses in the execution of the will
before the notary public was not complied; as the third
witness was the notary public himself.
The three witnesses were:
 Jamaoas
 Dr. Panares
 Atty ANGEL TEVES JR (NP)
LUGAY, the executor of the will, argued that there was
substantial compliance even if the notary public was one
of the three instrumental witnesses citing an AMERICAN
jurisprudence.

ISSUES:
CAGRO V CAGRO APRIL 29, 1953
1. Can a notary public act as a witness.
2. Whether the will was executed in accordance
DOCTRINE: Signatures of the witnesses must be placed
with law.
at the bottom of attestation clause.
_______________________________
RULING:
Facts: The will executed by Vicente Cagro was admitted
1. NO; for the very obvious reason that he
by the CFI- Samar. Pelagio opposed the same
cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed
because the will was fatally defective; the three
the will. He cannot split his personality into two as an
witnesses failed to sign at the bottom of the attestation
instrumental witness and as acknowledging witness.
clause.
The function of the notary public is primarily to prevent
or minimize fraud.
Jesusa countered that the signature of the witnesses on
the left margin substantially complied with
The instant case is different from Mahilum v. Court of
the legal requirements.
Appeals and other American jurisprudence since the
notaries public merely acted as an instrumental
Issue: Whether the will was fatally defective.
witnesses only and not as ACKNOWLEDGING WITNESS.
 2. No. Article 805 requiring at least three credible
witnesses to act as such and of Article 806 which
requires that the testator and the required number
of witnesses must appear before the notary public to
acknowledge the will.
ITC, there were only two instrumental witnesses.
GABUCAN VS. MANTA
Facts:
CFI of Camiguin dismissed the probate of the will of the
late Rogacian Gabucan because the requisite 30cents
document stamp was not affixed to the notarial
acknowledgment in the will; thus not admissible as
evidence pursuant to Sec. 238 of the Tax Code.
Issue: W/N failure to affix documentary stamp
invalidates a will.
Ruling:
No no no no way.
While art. 238 of the Tax Code provides that a notarial
will without a documentary stamp may not be admitted
in evidence, once the said documentary stamp is affixed,
then the deficiency is cured and it can now be admitted
in evidence. The documentary stamp may be affixed at
the time the taxable document is presented in evidence.
Further, the non-admissibility of the document, which
does not bear the requisite documentary stamp, subsists
only "until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been
affixed thereto and cancelled."
GARCIA V. VASQUEZ
32 SCRA 489
FACTS:
This is a petition for appeal from the CFI of Manila
admitting to probate the will of Gliceria executed in
1960. Likewise, this is also an appeal to remove the
current administrator, Consuelo as
special administratrix of the estate on the ground of
Consuelo possesses interest adverse to the estate and to
order the RD of Manila to annotate on the registered
lands a notice of Lis Pendens.
Gliceria, 90, died without descendants, ascendants and
siblings. Her niece, Consuelo petitioned the court to be
the administratrix of the properties. The court approved
this because Consuelo has been managing the properties
of the deceased during her lifetime.
Respondents allege that in the last years of the
deceased, Consuelo sought the transfer of certain
parcels of land with assessed valued at 300k for a sale
price of 30k to her husband Alfonso through fraud and
intimidation. In addition, the oppositors presented
evidence that Consuelo asked the court to issue new
Certificates of Titles to certain parcels of land for the
purpose of preparing the inventory to be used in the
probate. Also shown was that NEW TCTs issued by the RD
for certain lands of the deceased after Consuelo asked
for the old TCTs.
At the end of the probate proceedings, the court ruled
that Consuelo should be made the administrator, and
that the will was duly executed because of these
reasons:
1. No evidence was presented to establish that
the deceased was not of sound mind;
2. that even though the allegations state that the
deceased prepared another will in 1956 (12pages),
the latter is not prevented from executing another
will in 1960 (1page);
3. and that inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the witnesses prove their truthfulness.
ISSUE: Whether the will in 1960 (1 page) duly executed?
HELD:
NO. Provision of Article 808 is mandatory. Therefore, For
all intents and purposes of the rules on probate, the
testatrix was like a blind testator, and the due execution
of her will would have required observance of Article
808.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will
to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the
will himself (as when he is illiterate) , is to make the
provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able
to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes.
Likewise, the 1970 will was done in Tagalog which the
deceased is not well versed but in Spanish. This creates
doubt as to the due execution of the will and as well as
the typographical errors contain therein which show the
haste in preparing the 1 page will as compared to the 12
page will created in 1956 written in Spanish. ALSO, as to
the blindness, there was proof given by the testimony of
the doctor that the deceased could not read at near
distances because of cataracts. (Testatrix’s vision was
mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading
print.) Since there is no proof that it was read to the
deceased twice, the will was NOT duly executed.
ALSO, Consuelo should be removed as administrator
because she is not expected to sue her own husband
to reconvey the lands to the estate alleged to have been
transferred by the deceased to her own husband.
ALVARADO VS. GAVIOLA
Facts:
Brigido Alvarado, then 79 yrs. old, executed a notarial
will entitled “Huling Habilin” disinheriting petitioner (his
illegitimate son), and expressly revoked a previously
executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate
before the RTC of Laguna. Thereafter, a codicil entitled
“Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na
Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na May Petsa Nobiembre 5,
1977 ni Brigido Alvarado” was executed changing some
dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the
testator’s eye operation (glaucoma).
Said will and codicil, as per private respondent Rino, was
not read by the testator himself since he suffers from
glaucoma. Private Respondent instead drafted the 8-
page document and read the same aloud before the
testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the
notary public, the latter four following the reading with
their own respective copies previously furnished them.
Upon probate, petitioner opposed claiming that the will
was not executed and attested as required by law.
Issue: W/N Brigido Alvarado blind for purpose of Art, 808
at the time his "Huling Habilin" and its codicil were
executed? If so, was the double-reading requirement of
said article complied with?
Ruling:
Yes, Brigido is considered blind.
Article 808 applies not only to blind testators but also, to
those who, for one reason or another, are “incapable of
reading their wills.”
Since Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final
drafts of his will and codicil on the separate occasions of
their execution due to his “poor,” “defective,” or
“blurred” vision, there can be no other course but to
conclude that Brigido Alvarado comes within the scope
of the term “blind." Thus, the will must be read twice as
Art. 808 requires. (SEE ART. 808 PLS!)
HOWEVER, despite the non-compliance with Art. 808 in
this case, there was substantial compliance where the
purpose of the law has been satisfied: that of making the
provisions known to the testator who is blind or
incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is
illiterate) and enabling him to object if they do not accord
with his wishes.
The spirit behind the law was served though the
letter was not. Although there should be strict
compliance with the substantial requirements of
law in order to insure the authenticity of the will,
the formal imperfections should be brushed
aside when they do not affect its purpose and
which, when taken into account, may only defeat
the testator’s will.
Further, there was no evidence that contents of the will
and codicil were not sufficiently made known and
communicated to the testator. With four persons mostly
known to him following the reading word by word with
each having his own copy, it can be safely concluded that
the testator was reasonably assured that what was read
to him were terms in the document.
Article 805
GIL VS MURCIANO
FACTS:
The Court of First Instance of Manila admitted to probate
the alleged will and testament of the deceased Carlos Gil.
The oppositor Pilar Gil Vda. de Murciano appealed to this
Court
The court below said: The parties agreed that said copy
is true and correct. If it were otherwise, they would not
have so agreed, considering that the defect is of an
essential character and is fatal to the validity of the
attestation clause.
Oppositors asserted that the attestation clause quoted
does not state that the alleged testor signed the will. It
declares only that it was signed by the witnesses
Petitioner's arguments:
It is claimed that the correction may be made by
inference.
It is contended that the deficiency in the attestation
clause is cured by the last paragraph of the body of the
alleged will.
It is said that the rules of statutory construction are
applicable to documents and wills.
ISSUE:
1. WON the attestation does not signed by testator
in the will is valid.
2. WON correction may be made by inference
3. WON deficiency in the attestation clause is cured by
the last paragraph of the body of the alleged will
4. WON It is said that the rules of statutory construction
are applicable to documents and wills.
HELD
1. NO. This is a fatal defect, for the precise purpose of the
attestation clause is to certify that the testator signed the
will, this being the most essential element of the clause.
Without it there is no attestation at all. It is said that the
court may correct a mere clerical error. This is too much
of a clerical error for it effects the very essence of the
clause
2. NO. Following that procedure we would be making
interpolations by inferences, implication, and even
by internal circumtantial evidence. This would
done in the face of the clear, uniquivocal, language of the
statute as to how the attestation clause should be made.
It is to be supposed that the drafter of the alleged will
read the clear words of the statute when he prepared it.
For the court to supply alleged deficiencies would be
against the evident policy of the law.
3. NO. At first glance, it is queer that the alleged testator
should have made an attestation clause, which is the
function of the witness. But the important point is that
he attests or certifies his own signature, or, to be
accurate, his signature certifies itself. It is evident that
one cannot certify his own signature, for it does not
increase the evidence of its authenticity. It would be like
lifting one's self by his own bootstraps. Consequently,
the last paragraph of the will cannot cure in any way the
fatal defect of the attestation clause of the witnesses (I
CAN'T STATE THE LAST PAR. COZ IT'S WRITTEN
IN SPANISH )
4. YES. HOWEVER, said rules apply to the body of the will,
containing the testamentary provisions, but not to the
attestation clause, which must be so clear that it should
not require any construction.
JAVELLANA VS. LEDESMA  CANEDA VS. CA
Article 806 Every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The
notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the
will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.
FACTS:
The court admitted to probate the documents in the
Visayan dialectas the testament and codicil
Da. Apolinaria Ledesma Vda. de Javellana, with
Ramon Tabiana, Gloria Montinola de Tabiana and
Vicente Yap as witnesses. The contestant,
Da. Matea Ledesma, sister and nearest surviving relative
of said deceased, appealed from the decision, insisting
that the said exhibits were not executed in conformity
with law.
The opposition to the probate charged that the testatrix
lacked testamentary capacity because
the acknowledgment clause was signed and the notarial
seal affixed by the notary without the presence of the
testatrix and the witnesses;
ISSUE: whether or not the notary signed without the
presence of the testatrix and the witnesses affects the
validity of codicil.
HELD. NO
be
Whether or not the notary signed the certification of
acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and the
witnesses, does not affect the validity of the codicil.
Unlike the Code of 1889 (Art. 699), the new Civil Code
does not require that the signing of the testator,
witnesses and notary should be accomplished in one
single act.
A comparison of Articles 805 and 806 of the new Civil
Code reveals that while testator and witnesses sign in the
presence of each other, all that is thereafter required is
that "every will must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witnesses" (Art. 806); i.e.,
that the latter should avow to the certifying officer the
authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of
their actions in executing the testamentary disposition.
This was done in the case before us. The subsequent
signing and sealing by the notary of his certification that
the testament was duly acknowledged by the
participants therein is no part of the acknowledgment
itself nor of the testamentary act. Hence their separate
execution out of the presence of the testatrix and her
witnesses can not be said to violate the rule that
testaments should be completed without interruption
Facts:
While on the twilight of his life, childless widower Mateo
Caballero executed a last will and testament before three
attesting witnesses and duly assisted by his lawyer and a
notary public in the preparation of that last will. Declared
on that will was that he was leaving by way of legacies
and devises his real and personal properties to persons
not related to him.
Mateo sought for his will's probate but died during its
pendency. Petitioners, testator's nephews and nieces,
then filed for intestate proceeding and opposed the
probate of the testator's will; that it was not executed in
accordance with the requisites of law since the testator
was already in poor state of health and that said will is
null and void because its attestation clause is fatally
defective for failure to specifically state that the
instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator
signing the will in their presence and that they also
signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence
of the testator and of one another (Art 805).
respective signatures to the will in the presence of the
testator and of each other. The phrase "and he has
signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces
provided for his signature and on the left hand margin,"
obviously refers to the testator and not the instrumental
witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the words "as
his Last Will and Testament." In other words, the will was
only attested but not subscribed.
What is lacking in the will is the statement that the
witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the
presence of the testator and of one another.
In the absence of that statement required by law is a fatal
defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in
the disallowance of the will.
(2) No.

Both RTC and CA upheld the validity of the will.
Issues:
(1) W/N the attestation clause in question may be
considered as having substantially complied with the
requirements of Art. 805
Under Article 809, the defects and imperfections must
only be with respect to the form of the attestation or the
language employed therein. Such defects or
imperfections would not render a will invalid should it be
proved that the will was really executed and attested in
compliance with Article 805.

(2) W/N the substantial compliance rule, in Art. 809 (In
the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and
improper pressure and influence, defects and
imperfections in the form of attestation or in the
language used therein shall not render the will invalid if
it is not proved that the will was in fact executed and
attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of article 805") applies in this case.
In this case, however, the defect is not only in the form
or language of the attestation clause but the total
absence of a specific element required by Article 805 to
be specifically stated in the attestation clause of a will
that would warrant the application of the substantial
compliance rule (Art. 809).

Ruling:
(1) No.

Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest

and subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator
and of one another. "Attestation" and "subscription"
differ in meaning. To attest a will is to know that it was
published as such, and to certify the facts required to
constitute an actual and legal publication; but to
subscribe a paper published as a will is only to write on
the same paper the names of the witnesses, for the sole
purpose of identification. (PLS SEE ART. 805)

A careful reading of the attestation clause shows that

while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will
and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting
witnesses and states as well the number of pages that
were used, the same does not expressly state therein the
circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their