ABANGAN V ABANGAN Thus, the will written in English in the instant

FACTS: case is a forgery. Respondent Judge could have readily

The testatrix Ana Abangan executed a will perceived the will was void since admittedly in the
consisting only of two pages; the first page contained the proceedings, Marcelina was an illiterate.
dispositions while the second page the attestation
clause, which the instrumental witnesses signed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It was argued that the will should not be
admitted into probate since the pages were not At first read, you might find that the issue is about
signed on the left margin, nor the numbered by letter. the special administrators
But topic wise, it centers on the validity of the attestation
ISSUE: Is the will valid? clause

RULING: MATIAS VS. SALUD

Yes. The requirement that each and every page
be signed on the left margin has for its purpose to avoid Facts:
substitution of the sheets, thereby substituting the The will of Gabina Raquel consist of 3 pages and
testator’s dispositions. it seems that after the attestation clause, there appears
Also, numbering correlatively by letters is to the signature of the testatrix 'Gabina Raquel', alongside
know whether any of the pages were removed. is a smudged in violet ink claimed by the proponents as
In the instant case, the dispositions of the will the thumbmark allegedly affixed by the tetratrix. On the
were contained all in one page. It would be repetitious third page at the end of the attestation clause appears
and redundant to require the testator and the witnesses signatures on the left margin of each page, and also on
to sign further on the left margins where the testatrix the upper part of each left margin appears the same
herself had already attested to the will itself. violet ink smudge accompanied by the written words
'Gabina Raquel' with 'by Lourdes Samonte' underneath
it.
SUROZA V REYNALDO
FACTS: Petitioner’s Contention: The proponent's
Mauro and Marcelina spouses adopted (not evidence is to the effect that the decedent allegedly
formally) a child name Agapito. instructed Atty. Agbunag to drat her will and brought to
When Agapito married Nenita, they begot a child named her on January 1950. With all the witnesses with her and
Lilia. They also brought up a supposed granddaughter the lawyer, the decedent affixed her thumbmark at the
named Marilyn. foot of the document and the left margin of each page.
Upon the death of Marcelina, she supposedly It was also alleged that she attempted to sign using a sign
executed a notarial will in English notwithstanding she pen but was only able to do so on the lower half of page
was an illiterate. 2 due to the pain in her right shoulder. The lawyer,
During the probate proceedings where Marilyn seeing Gabina unable to proceed instructed
was named executrix, Nenita opposed. She raised the Lourdes Samonte to write 'Gabina Raquel by
issue of illiteracy of the testatrix. Since the will was Lourdes Samonte' next to each thumbmark, after which
wholly written in English, a language not known to the the witnesses signed at the foot of the attestation clause
testatrix, it is patently void. and the left hand margin of each page.
The RTC denied the several motions
of Nenita wanting to set aside the probate proceedings Respondent’s Contention: The probate was
prompting the latter to file a disciplinary case against opposed by Basilia Salud, the niece of the decedent. One
Judge Reynaldo. of the points raised by the oppositors was that the finger
mark can not be regarded as the decedent’s valid
ISSUE: Is the will valid? signature as it does not show distinct identifying
ridgelines. And since the finger mark was an invalid
RULING: signature, there must appear in the attestation clause
No. It is invalid. that another person wrote the testator’s name at his
The Civil Code provides that every will must be request.
executed in a language or dialect not known to the
testator.
 The CFI of Cavite denied the probate on the (2) to certify that after the signing of the name of
ground that the attestation clause did not state that the the testator by Atty. Javier at the former's request said
testatrix and the witnesses signed each and every page testator has written a cross at the end of his name and
nor did it express that Lourdes was specially directed to on the left margin of the three pages of which the will
sign after the testatrix. consists and at the end thereof;
(3) to certify that the three witnesses signed the
Issue: Whether the thumbprint was a sufficient will in all the pages thereon in the presence of the
compliance with the formalities of the law despite the testator and of each other.
absence of a description of such in the attestation
clause. (Simply put: Whether the will is valid) ISSUE: Whether the attestation clause is valid

HELD: RULING:
Yes. The attestation clause is fatally defective for
The absence of the description on the failing to state that Antero Mercado caused
attestation clause that another person wrote the Atty. Florentino Javier to write the testator's name under
testatrix' name at her request is not a fatal defect, The his express direction, as required by section 618 of the
legal requirement only ask that it be signed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
testator, a requirement satisfied by a thumbprint or The Court is not prepared to liken the mere sign
other mark affixed by him. of the cross to a thumbmark, and the reason is obvious.
SC held that it has been held in a long line of The cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness
cases that a thumbprint is always a valid and sufficient of a thumbmark.
signature for the purpose of complying with the CA’s decision is affirmed.
requirement of the article.
Furthermore, the validity of thumbprints should
not be limited in cases of illness or infirmity. A BALONAN V ABELLANA
thumbprint is considered as a valid and sufficient
signature in complying with the requirements of the Article 805. Every will, other than a holographic will,
article. 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
IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF ANTERO MERCADO, attested and subscribed by three or more credible
DECEASED. ROSARIO GARCIA witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one
VS. another
JULIANA LACUESTA, ET AL., 
FACTS: Facts:
A will was executed by Antero Mercado where it
appears that it was signed by The last Will and Testament sought to be probated
Atty. Florentino Javiwe who wrote the name of Antero. consists in two (2) typewritten pages. The first page is
The will appears to have been signed by signed by Juan Bello and on the left margin appears the
Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero signatures of the three (3) instrumental witnesses. On
Mercado, followed below by "A reugo del testator" and the second page appears the signature of said witnesses,
the name of Florentino Javier. Antero Mercado is alleged at the bottom of which appears the signature of the
to have written a cross immediately after his name. notary public and below said signature is his designation
The CFI of Ilocos Norte ruled that the will is as notary public. On the left margin of the second page
valid. (last page of the will) appears the signature of Juan Bello
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of under whose name appears handwritten the
the trial court and ruled that the attestation clause phrase, “Por la Testadore Anacleta Abellana” (For the
failed: Testate of Anacleta Abellana). The will is duly
(1) to certify that the will was signed on all the acknowledged before the notary public.
left margins of the three pages and at the end of the will
by Atty. Florentino Javier at the express request of the Issue: Whether or not the signature of Juan Bello above
testator in the presence of the testator and each and the typewritten
every one of the witnesses; statement, “Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana” comply
with the requirements of law prescribing the manner in position with relation to each other were such that by
which a will shall be executed. merely casting the eyes in the proper direction they
could have seen each other sign.
Held: 

The law requires that the testator himself sign the will, TABOADA v ROSAL
or if he cannot do so, the testator’s name must be
written by some other person in his presence and by his FACTS: Petitioner filed for probate of the last will and
express direction.  testament of the late Dorotea Perez. After compliance of
publication and presentation of one of the witnesses
In this case, the name of the who signed the same, the trial court thru then presiding
testatrix, Anacleta Abellana does not appear written judge Pamatian still denied the probate. In the same
under the will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan order, petitioner was also required to submit names of
Bello. There is therefore, a failure to comply with the the intestate heirs. Petitioner on the other hand filed for
express requirement in the law that the testator must an ex-parte deliberation of the said will.
himself sign the will, or that his name be affixed thereto After the new judge Rosal assumed position, the motion
by some other person in his presence and by his express for reconsideration was still denied as petitioner failed to
direction. Hence, the will of the comply with the order requiring him to submit names of
deceased Anacleta Abellana must not be admitted to the intestate heirs and their addresses.
probate.
Petitioner contends that the will satisfies the requisites
under Art 805 therefore probate is called for. On the
NERA V RIMANDO other hand, respondent judge interprets that the law
provides that the witnesses must also sign at the same
Facts: place here the testator signs (at the end of the will) as to
attest the signature of the testator himself (lol I know
A notarial will was executed in a small room. At the right mejo lefong si judge).
moment when the witness Javellana signed the
document, Jaboneta was outside, some eight or ten feet ISSUE: WON the validity of a will is affected by the
away but was actually and physically present and in such location of the witnesses signature
position with relation to Jaboneta that he could see
everything that took place by merely casting his eyes in RULING:
the proper direction and without any physical NO.
obstruction to prevent his doing so. The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left
  margin of the first page of the will attested not only to
Issue: Whether or not the notarial will is void for the the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also
failure of the instrumental witnesses to see each other the due execution of the will as embodied in the
sign. attestation clause.
 
Held: While perfection in the drafting of the will may be
desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual forms
NO. The phrase “in the presence” required by law simply should be ignored, especially where the authenticity of
means that position of the parties with relation to each the will is not assailed.
other at the moment of the subscription of
each signature, must be such that they may see each ICASIANO v ICASIANO
other sign if they choose to do so.
FACTS: appeal for probate of the last will and testament
The question whether the testator and the subscribing of Josefa Villacorte and appointing executor Celso.
witnesses to an alleged will sign the instrument “in the Nativididad, daughter of the testatrix filed her opposition
presence” of each other does not depend upon proof of and petitioned to have herself appointed as special
the fact that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper administrator. The same was opposed byy Celso and
at the moment of its subscription by each of them, but appointed Phil Trust Company as SA. The latter
that at that moment existing conditions and their
appointment was also opposed by Enrique, son of the Ruling: YES. An attestation clause is the memorandum of
testatrix. the facts attending the execution of the will and must
Celso presented evidence of the decedent leaving a will bear the signatures of the witnesses. An unsigned
executed in duplicate. The original consists of five pages attestation clause negates their participation therein
and signed on each and every page except for page 3, as if they haven’t seen the execution of the will. IOW, the
where Atty. Jose’s signature does not appear but the law was not duly observed.
copy has the testatrix and witnesses attested in each and
every page.
AGAPITA CRUZ v LUGAY
Atty Jose testified on his failure to sign page 3 of the
original, admits that he may have lifted two pages
Doctrines:
instead but affirmed that page 3 was signed in his
presence. Article 805 - at least three credible witnesses to attest
and subscribe to the will
Oppositors contend that the duplicate is not genuine nor
Article 806- the testator and the witnesses to
were they written on the same occasion and that they
acknowledge the will before a notary public.
were executed through mistake and with undue
influence making the testatrix adopt in her will the
Facts: CFI- Cebu admitted the last will and testament of
wishes of those surrounding the execution of the will.
VALENTE Cruz. His surviving spouse AGAPITA opposed.
She alleged that the legal requirement of three
ISSUE: WON the failure of a witness to affix his signature
instrumental witnesses in the execution of the will
on one of the pages results to the invalidity of a will
before the notary public was not complied; as the third
witness was the notary public himself.
RULING:
NO.
The three witnesses were:
The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted  Jamaoas
as to penalize the testatrix on the account of the  Dr. Panares
carelessness of one of the witnesses conduct where she  Atty ANGEL TEVES JR (NP)
had no control.
The failure of the witness to sign page through was LUGAY, the executor of the will, argued that there was
entirely through pure oversight as shown as testified by substantial compliance even if the notary public was one
him. Thus the court ruled that the will can still be of the three instrumental witnesses citing an AMERICAN
probated. 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 the administratrix of the properties. The court approved
witnesses to act as such and of Article 806 which this because Consuelo has been managing the properties
requires that the testator and the required number of the deceased during her lifetime.
of witnesses must appear before the notary public to Respondents allege that in the last years of the
acknowledge the will. deceased, Consuelo sought the transfer of certain
parcels of land with assessed valued at 300k for a sale
ITC, there were only two instrumental witnesses. 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
GABUCAN VS. MANTA Certificates of Titles to certain parcels of land for the
purpose of preparing the inventory to be used in the
Facts: probate. Also shown was that NEW TCTs issued by the RD
CFI of Camiguin dismissed the probate of the will of the for certain lands of the deceased after Consuelo asked
late Rogacian Gabucan because the requisite 30cents for the old TCTs.
document stamp was not affixed to the notarial At the end of the probate proceedings, the court ruled
acknowledgment in the will; thus not admissible as that Consuelo should be made the administrator, and
evidence pursuant to Sec. 238 of the Tax Code. that the will was duly executed because of these
reasons:
Issue: W/N failure to affix documentary stamp 1. No evidence was presented to establish that
invalidates a will. the deceased was not of sound mind;
2. that even though the allegations state that the
Ruling: deceased prepared another will in 1956 (12pages),
the latter is not prevented from executing another
No no no no way. will in 1960 (1page);
3. and that inconsistencies in the testimonies of
While art. 238 of the Tax Code provides that a notarial the witnesses prove their truthfulness.
will without a documentary stamp may not be admitted
in evidence, once the said documentary stamp is affixed, ISSUE: Whether the will in 1960 (1 page) duly executed?
then the deficiency is cured and it can now be admitted
in evidence. The documentary stamp may be affixed at HELD:
the time the taxable document is presented in evidence.
NO. Provision of Article 808 is mandatory. Therefore, For
Further, the non-admissibility of the document, which all intents and purposes of the rules on probate, the
does not bear the requisite documentary stamp, subsists testatrix was like a blind testator, and the due execution
only "until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been of her will would have required observance of Article
affixed thereto and cancelled." 808.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will
to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the
GARCIA V. VASQUEZ
will himself (as when he is illiterate) , is to make the
32 SCRA 489
provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able
to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes.
FACTS:
Likewise, the 1970 will was done in Tagalog which the
This is a petition for appeal from the CFI of Manila deceased is not well versed but in Spanish. This creates
admitting to probate the will of Gliceria executed in doubt as to the due execution of the will and as well as
1960. Likewise, this is also an appeal to remove the the typographical errors contain therein which show the
current administrator, Consuelo as haste in preparing the 1 page will as compared to the 12
special administratrix of the estate on the ground of page will created in 1956 written in Spanish. ALSO, as to
Consuelo possesses interest adverse to the estate and to the blindness, there was proof given by the testimony of
order the RD of Manila to annotate on the registered the doctor that the deceased could not read at near
lands a notice of Lis Pendens. distances because of cataracts. (Testatrix’s vision was
Gliceria, 90, died without descendants, ascendants and mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading
siblings. Her niece, Consuelo petitioned the court to be 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 HOWEVER, despite the non-compliance with Art. 808 in
because she is not expected to sue her own husband this case, there was substantial compliance where the
to reconvey the lands to the estate alleged to have been purpose of the law has been satisfied: that of making the
transferred by the deceased to her own husband. 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
ALVARADO VS. GAVIOLA with his wishes.

Facts: The spirit behind the law was served though the
Brigido Alvarado, then 79 yrs. old, executed a notarial letter was not. Although there should be strict
will entitled “Huling Habilin” disinheriting petitioner (his compliance with the substantial requirements of
illegitimate son), and expressly revoked a previously law in order to insure the authenticity of the will,
executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate the formal imperfections should be brushed
before the RTC of Laguna. Thereafter, a codicil entitled aside when they do not affect its purpose and
“Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na which, when taken into account, may only defeat
Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na May Petsa Nobiembre 5, the testator’s will.
1977 ni Brigido Alvarado” was executed changing some
dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the Further, there was no evidence that contents of the will
testator’s eye operation (glaucoma). and codicil were not sufficiently made known and
communicated to the testator. With four persons mostly
Said will and codicil, as per private respondent Rino, was known to him following the reading word by word with
not read by the testator himself since he suffers from each having his own copy, it can be safely concluded that
glaucoma. Private Respondent instead drafted the 8- the testator was reasonably assured that what was read
page document and read the same aloud before the to him were terms in the document.
testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the
notary public, the latter four following the reading with Article 805
their own respective copies previously furnished them. GIL VS MURCIANO
FACTS:
Upon probate, petitioner opposed claiming that the will
was not executed and attested as required by law. The Court of First Instance of Manila admitted to probate
the alleged will and testament of the deceased Carlos Gil.
Issue: W/N Brigido Alvarado blind for purpose of Art, 808 The oppositor Pilar Gil Vda. de Murciano appealed to this
at the time his "Huling Habilin" and its codicil were Court
executed? If so, was the double-reading requirement of The court below said: The parties agreed that said copy
said article complied with? is true and correct. If it were otherwise, they would not
have so agreed, considering that the defect is of an
Ruling: essential character and is fatal to the validity of the
attestation clause.
Yes, Brigido is considered blind.
Oppositors asserted that the attestation clause quoted
Article 808 applies not only to blind testators but also, to does not state that the alleged testor signed the will. It
those who, for one reason or another, are “incapable of declares only that it was signed by the witnesses
reading their wills.” Petitioner's arguments:
It is claimed that the correction may be made by
Since Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final inference.
drafts of his will and codicil on the separate occasions of
their execution due to his “poor,” “defective,” or It is contended that the deficiency in the attestation
“blurred” vision, there can be no other course but to clause is cured by the last paragraph of the body of the
conclude that Brigido Alvarado comes within the scope alleged will.
of the term “blind." Thus, the will must be read twice as It is said that the rules of statutory construction are
Art. 808 requires. (SEE ART. 808 PLS!) applicable to documents and wills.

ISSUE:
1. WON the attestation does not signed by testator Ramon Tabiana, Gloria Montinola de Tabiana and
in the will is valid. Vicente Yap as witnesses. The contestant,
2. WON correction may be made by inference Da. Matea Ledesma, sister and nearest surviving relative
3. WON deficiency in the attestation clause is cured by of said deceased, appealed from the decision, insisting
the last paragraph of the body of the alleged will that the said exhibits were not executed in conformity
4. WON It is said that the rules of statutory construction with law.
are applicable to documents and wills.
The opposition to the probate charged that the testatrix
HELD lacked testamentary capacity because
1. NO. This is a fatal defect, for the precise purpose of the the acknowledgment clause was signed and the notarial
attestation clause is to certify that the testator signed the seal affixed by the notary without the presence of the
will, this being the most essential element of the clause. testatrix and the witnesses;
Without it there is no attestation at all. It is said that the
court may correct a mere clerical error. This is too much ISSUE: whether or not the notary signed without the
of a clerical error for it effects the very essence of the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses affects the
clause validity of codicil.
2. NO. Following that procedure we would be making
interpolations by inferences, implication, and even HELD. NO
by internal circumtantial evidence. This would be
Whether or not the notary signed the certification of
done in the face of the clear, uniquivocal, language of the
acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and the
statute as to how the attestation clause should be made.
witnesses, does not affect the validity of the codicil.
It is to be supposed that the drafter of the alleged will
Unlike the Code of 1889 (Art. 699), the new Civil Code
read the clear words of the statute when he prepared it.
does not require that the signing of the testator,
For the court to supply alleged deficiencies would be
witnesses and notary should be accomplished in one
against the evident policy of the law.
single act.
3. NO. At first glance, it is queer that the alleged testator
A comparison of Articles 805 and 806 of the new Civil
should have made an attestation clause, which is the
Code reveals that while testator and witnesses sign in the
function of the witness. But the important point is that
presence of each other, all that is thereafter required is
he attests or certifies his own signature, or, to be
that "every will must be acknowledged before a notary
accurate, his signature certifies itself. It is evident that
public by the testator and the witnesses" (Art. 806); i.e.,
one cannot certify his own signature, for it does not
that the latter should avow to the certifying officer the
increase the evidence of its authenticity. It would be like
authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of
lifting one's self by his own bootstraps. Consequently,
their actions in executing the testamentary disposition.
the last paragraph of the will cannot cure in any way the
This was done in the case before us. The subsequent
fatal defect of the attestation clause of the witnesses (I
signing and sealing by the notary of his certification that
CAN'T STATE THE LAST PAR. COZ IT'S WRITTEN
the testament was duly acknowledged by the
IN SPANISH )
participants therein is no part of the acknowledgment
4. YES. HOWEVER, said rules apply to the body of the will, itself nor of the testamentary act. Hence their separate
containing the testamentary provisions, but not to the execution out of the presence of the testatrix and her
attestation clause, which must be so clear that it should witnesses can not be said to violate the rule that
not require any construction. testaments should be completed without interruption

JAVELLANA VS. LEDESMA  CANEDA VS. CA

Article 806 Every will must be acknowledged before a
Facts:
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The
notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the
While on the twilight of his life, childless widower Mateo
will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.
Caballero executed a last will and testament before three
FACTS: attesting witnesses and duly assisted by his lawyer and a
The court admitted to probate the documents in the
notary public in the preparation of that last will. Declared
Visayan dialectas the testament and codicil
on that will was that he was leaving by way of legacies
Da. Apolinaria Ledesma Vda. de Javellana, with
and devises his real and personal properties to persons respective signatures to the will in the presence of the
not related to him. testator and of each other. The phrase "and he has
signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces
Mateo sought for his will's probate but died during its provided for his signature and on the left hand margin,"
pendency. Petitioners, testator's nephews and nieces, obviously refers to the testator and not the instrumental
then filed for intestate proceeding and opposed the witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the words "as
his Last Will and Testament." In other words, the will was
probate of the testator's will; that it was not executed in
only attested but not subscribed.
accordance with the requisites of law since the testator
What is lacking in the will is the statement that the
was already in poor state of health and that said will is
witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the
null and void because its attestation clause is fatally
presence of the testator and of one another.
defective for failure to specifically state that the
In the absence of that statement required by law is a fatal
instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator
defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in
signing the will in their presence and that they also the disallowance of the will.
signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence
of the testator and of one another (Art 805). (2) No.

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

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

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