PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

For many years, it has been thought by authors in labor relations law that an appeal to the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43 must be done within ten (10) days set by the Labor Code, instead of the fifteen (15) days fixed under the Rules of Court. The explanation has been that substantive law prevails over procedural law. However, in the recent case of GNC vs. CA (G.R. No. 188492), it was held that a petition for review before the CA from the VA must be filed within 15 days from notice under Section 4 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The 10-day period under the Labor Code merely applies to a motion for reconsideration (MR) filed before the VA. Below is the full text of the case.

In the enumeration below, the property is considered located in the Philippines without considering the residence of the donor or decedent (as a general rule). [1] Franchise which must be exercise in the Philippines; [2] In case of corporations or limited partnerships organized or constituted in the Philippines and in line with laws therein, shares, obligations or bonds (SOBs) issued by them; [3] In case of foreign corporations operating 85% of its business in the Philippines, SOBs issued by them; [4] In case of foreign corporations, SOBs issued by them if said SOBs have acquired business situs in the Philippines; and [5] Shares or rights in any partnership, business or industry established in the Philippines. SEC. 104. Definitions. - For purposes of this Title, the terms 'gross estate' and 'gifts' include real and personal property, whether tangible or intangible, or mixed, wherever situated: Provided, however, That where the decedent or donor was a nonresiden

It taxation, the doctrine of mobilia sequuntur personam proves material in case of situs of taxation on personal property. It literally means "movables follow the person" or "movables follow the owners." So, the domicile of the owner is deemed the situs of personal property. It must be remembered, however, that tangible property may acquire situs elsewhere provided it has a definite location there with some degree of permanency.

As a rule, the power to tax is limited to the State's territory because, as an inherent power of sovereignty, it follows the rule that sovereignty extends not beyond the sovereign's territorial limits. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Article I) However, there are exceptions. For example, under Philippine income tax law, resident citizens are taxed on their income from outside the Philippines. This does not mean that the government of the country where the income was derived is oblig

When one speaks of the Secretary of Finance as the alter ego of the President, it simply means that as head of the Department of Finance he is the assistant and agent of the Chief Executive. The multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, such as the Department of Finance, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. The Secretary of Finance, as such, occupies a political position and holds office in an advisory capacity, and, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, "should be of the President's bosom confidence" and, in the language of Attorney-General Cushing, is subject to the direction of the President." In the present case, in making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of th

The general rule is delegated power cannot be further delegated. Potestas delegata non delegari potest. Tax is a power inherently legislative in character; hence, it cannot be delegation. By way of exception, there are three (3) instances of permissible delegation of tax powers. Note, however, that it is not altogether accurate to call them "delegation" because, for example, the Constitution directly gives local government units the power to tax. The Local Goverment Code (LGC) merely regulates this power. [1] Delegation to local government units.  The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. (Article II) Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. (Article X) Local gov

The tax imposed by the DECREE is not only a regulatory but also a revenue measure prompted by the realization that earnings of videogram establishments of around P600 million per annum have not been subjected to tax, thereby depriving the Government of an additional source of revenue. It is an end-user tax, imposed on retailers for every videogram they make available for public viewing. It is similar to the 30% amusement tax imposed or borne by the movie industry which the theater-owners pay to the government, but which is passed on to the entire cost of the admission ticket, thus shifting the tax burden on the buying or the viewing public. It is a tax that is imposed uniformly on all videogram operators. The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was imposed primarily to answer the need for regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights, and the proliferation of pornographic video tap

Here are eight (8) important principles regarding the public purpose of taxation. [1] Tax revenues must never be used for purely private purposes. [2] Tax revenues must never be used for the exclusive benefit of private persons. [3] Singling out a particular class for taxation is allowed as long as there is valid classification. [4] Congress enjoys the power to select the subjects of taxation and it is not required to impose the same tax to everyone or everything. [5] However, equal protection of the laws still applies. Hence, the law must apply to all members of the same class, there must be substantial distinction that makes real differences, the differences must not be confined to existing conditions only and the distinction must be germane for the purpose of the law. [6] There is no constitutional requirement that a taxpayer get direct benefit from the tax he pays. [7] The public purpose of taxes is not only a determination of whether the function is ministrant or constitue

The short answer is "Congress" However, that would be an incomplete answer; there is a long answer. While it is true that Congress enjoys the power to levy taxes, taxation being inherently legislative in character, and that it is Congress which has the power to set the purpose for which the same are collected from the people, the Presidency, using its veto powers, can also legally delay a bill in its way to becoming a law if it perceives that there is no public purpose. Moreover, the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion on the part of Congress in enacting a law. Abuse of discretion may be in the form of passing a tax law without a public purpose.

The purpose of a law is evident from its text or inferable from other secondary sources.  The term public purpose is not defined. It is an elastic concept that can be hammered to fit modern standards. Jurisprudence states that public purpose should be given a broad interpretation. It does not only pertain to those purposes which are traditionally viewed as essentially government functions, such as building roads and delivery of basic services, but also includes those purposes designed to promote social justice . Thus, public money may now be used for the relocation of illegal settlers, low-cost housing and urban or agrarian reform. While the categories of what may constitute a public purpose are continually expanding in light of the expansion of government functions, the inherent requirement that taxes can only be exacted for a public purpose still stands. Public purpose is the heart of a tax law. When a tax law is only a mask to exact funds from the public when its true inte

There are two (2) tests that can be used to determine whether the purpose for which tax is levied and collected is "public" in nature. First is the duty test and second is the general welfare test. [1] Duty test. Is the purpose for which the tax is levied one that the government has the duty to provide? For example, the prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. Does the purpose serve the people or protect them? [2] General welfare test. According to Article II of the Constitution, "The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy." Does the tax law promote the welfare of the people?

Tax must be for a public purpose. How can the public-purpose nature of a tax be determined? Here are four (4) examples: [1] If the tax is for the welfare of the nation; [2] If the tax is for greater portion of the population; [3] If the tax affects an area as a community rather than as individuals; and [4] If the tax aims to support the services of the government for some of its recognized functions.

There are three (3) kinds of limitations on taxation: inherent, direct constitutional and indirect constitutional. INHERENT LIMITATIONS: [1] Taxation must be for a public purpose. [2] Taxation is a power legislative in nature. [3] Taxation is limited to the territory of the State. [4] Taxation respects international comity. DIRECT CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS: [5] Nonpayment of poll tax must not result in imprisonment. [6] Taxation must be uniform. [7] Taxation must be progressive. [8] Congress may grant the President authority to impose tariff rates. [9] Religious, charitable entities and educational entities enjoy tax exemptions. [10] Non-stock, non-profit institutions may enjoy tax exemptions. [11] Tax exemption requires absolute majority vote. [12] Taxes levied for a special purpose must be used for such purpose. [13] The President may exercise its veto and item-veto powers. [14] Congress cannot expand or impair the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without the la

[T]ax laws, including rules and regulations, operate prospectively unless otherwise legislatively intended by express terms or by necessary implication. (G.R. No. 182045) Any revocation, modification or reversal of any of the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the preceding Sections or any of the rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner shall not be given retroactive application if the revocation, modification or reversal will be prejudicial to the taxpayers, except in the following cases: [1] Where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return or any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; [2] Where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based; or [3] Where the taxpayer acted in bad faith. (Section 246) Thus, under Section 246 of the 1997 NIRC, taxpayers may rely upon a rule or ruling issued by the Commissioner fr

Implementing rules and regulations for tax laws are called revenue regulations (RRs). RRs may explain or interpret tax laws and they are controlling upon courts, except when they are issued ultra vires.

Hence, petitioner cannot invoke the rule on strictissimi juris with respect to the interpretation of statutes granting tax exemptions to NPC. Moreover, it is a recognized principle that the rule on strict interpretation does not apply in the case of exemptions in favor of a government political subdivision or instrumentality. The basis for applying the rule of strict construction to statutory provisions granting tax exemptions or deductions, even more obvious than with reference to the affirmative or levying provisions of tax statutes, is to minimize differential treatment and foster impartiality, fairness, and equality of treatment among taxpayers. The reason for the rule does not apply in the case of exemptions running to the benefit of the government itself or its agencies. In such case the practical effect of an exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be handled by government in the course of its operations. For these reasons, provisions granting exemp

As a general rule, tax exemptions are strictly construed against the grantee. This is not an absolute rule. The following are cases in which liberal construction is used in favor of the grantee. [1] If the law granting exemption expressly gives the grantee the benefit of liberal interpretation [2] If the grantee is a traditional tax exemptee [3] If the exemption is applied to public property [4] If the exemption is of clear legislative intent and there is no doubt whatsoever [5] If the exemption is from special taxes [6] If the exemption is granted to the government

The National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) allows the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and the Collector of Customs. The BIR Commissioner is allowed to enter into a compromise with a taxpayer over taxes in any of the following cases: [1] Existence of reasonable doubt as to the tax claim's validity; or [2] Clear inability of the taxpayer to pay the tax due to his financial position. The BOC Commissioner is also allowed to do so in cases involving the imposition of fines, surcharges and forfeitures. This power is subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance. The Collector of Customs, with respect to customs duties limited to cases where the legitimate authority is specifically granted such as in the remission of duties.

Compromise over taxes is allowed by Philippine tax laws. A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by adjusting and giving in to the other's demands for the purpose avoiding litigation or putting an end to one already commenced, come to an agreement regarding the matter in dispute which, in case of taxation, is taxes due which the taxpayer needs to pay and the government wants to collect. The person entering such compromise must be duly authorized to do so and the object (especially the rate at which the compromise is met) must be lawful.

Compensation or set-off takes place by operation of law if the tax due and the tax credit are both overdue, demandable and fully liquidated. SUPREME COURT:  Under the above circumstances, both the claim of the Government for inheritance taxes and the claim of the intestate for services rendered have already become overdue and demandable as well as fully liquidated. Compensation, therefore, takes place by operation of law, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1279 and 1290 of the Civil Code, and both debts are extinguished to the concurrent amount, thus: ART. 1200. When all the requisites mentioned in article 1279 are present, compensation takes effect by operation of law, and extinguished both debts to the concurrent amount, even though the creditors and debtors are not aware of the compensation.  (G.R. No. L-18994. June 29, 1963)

Article 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. (Civil Code of the Philippines) Compensation is a civil law concept and, as a rule, it does not apply in the realm of tax law. There are three (3) reasons why this concept does not apply in taxation. First is category of obligation. Second is category of law. Third is public policy. Category of law. The applicable laws are different. Compensation is governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines but taxation, its collection and other aspects thereof are governed by the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) as amended and other tax laws. Category of obligation. What is referred to in Article 1278 is ordinary obligations where there is a creditor and a debtor and both of them are creditors and debtors of each other. In the case of tax laws, the government and the taxpayers are not creditors and debtors because tax is not a debt. Public policy. Taxes are the li

Below are six (6) basic rules to be kept in mind when facing questions regarding the revocation of tax exemptions. [1] It cannot impair the obligation of contracts which is guaranteed by the Constitution. [2] If granted with consent, it must be altered or revoked with consent. [3] If granted by the Constitution, revocation must be done via amendment or revision. [4] If granted by a special law, a general law using general terms of revocation cannot be construed as revoking the exemption under the special law. [5] For a general law using general terms to revoke an exemption granted by special law, there must be manifest intent to repeal or alter the latter. An example of this would be the Local Government Code on the tax exemption of GOCCs. [6] If withdrawn, exemption can still be granted in the future.

The Constitution provides that no law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress. Hence, for tax exemptions to be valid, the statute granting it cannot be passed by a mere majority of members then present and voting. All members must vote and a majority of them must support the grant. Tax amnesties, tax condonations, and tax refunds are treated in the same nature as tax exemptions. This being so, a law granting tax amnesties, tax condonations and tax refunds requires the same absolute majority vote. However, note that not all tax refunds are in the nature of exemptions. For it to be so, the same must be a result of legislative grace not a mere return on the basis of mistake in payment.

BASIS:  Tax exemption may be constitutional, statutory, contractual or treaty. In other words, it may be granted by the Constitution, by law created by Congress or by valid treaty stipulations. EXTENT:  Tax exemption may also be total or partial. It is total when the taxpayer is absolutely not required to pay a particular tax. It is partial when only a part of the tax is waived by the State. OBJECT:  Tax exemption may be direct or indirect. It is direct (personal) if it favors certain persons. If it favors a class of property, it is indirect. In other words, it is direct if a person is exempt from paying the tax; if property or business is exempt, it is indirect (because the ultimate beneficiary is the person who owns the property or business).

There are three (3) kinds of tax exemptions: [1] express; [2] implied; and [3] contractual. They are express when the law expressly grants it to a person or persons. They are implied when a person or persons are excluded in enumeration or not covered by the scope of the taxing provisions of the law. They are contractual when the State descents to the level of an individual and enters into an agreement for a person or persons to perform an obligation in exchange of tax exemption. The third kind (contractual), if valid, cannot be revoked by the State unilaterally.

[1] They are personal. [2] They are non-transferable. [3] They are frowned upon by law. [4] They must be granted by the plain language of law. [5] They cannot be presumed. [6] They must be proved by those alleging entitlement. [7] They are strictly, not liberally, construed against the taxpayer. [8] They, if granted by the Constitution, are self-executing. [9] They are revocable unless contractual in nature or constitutionally granted. [10] They are granted by law and revocable by law.

Tax exemption is a grant of immunity to particular persons or corporations from a tax. In short, the taxpayer is impliedly or expressly rendered free by law. A tax exemption is personal. It covers only the grantee and extends to no one else. It cannot be transferred or assigned. A tax exemption is strictly construed against the taxpayer. It is a derogation from the lifeblood doctrine; as a result of this, it cannot be liberally construed in favor of the taxpayer. Taxation is the general rule and exemption is the exception. Tax exemptions are never presumed except when it comes to the government because it is not usual for the government to tax itself. There are also traditionally-exempt entities that enjoy presumption of untaxability.

"Shifting of the burden of the tax" happens when the taxpayer transfers to another person the burden of the tax. The taxpayer remains the taxpayer; he still pays it but the economic burden is transferred to another person. There are three (3) ways of shifting tax burden: [1] forwarding; [2] backwarding; and [3] onwarding. When the burden of the tax is transferred to the end user, ultimate purchaser or ultimate consumer, there is forward shifting. When the burden of tax is taken away from the end user by adjusting production or distribution variables, there is backward shifting. When the tax burden is shifted two or more times either forward or backward, there is onward shifting.

The six (6) basic ways of escaping taxation are: [1] Shifting of the burden of the tax; [2] Capitalization; [3] Avoidance; [4] Transformation; [5] Exemption; and [6] Evasion. Note that, under [1], the tax is not shifted but the burdent. Also, [6] is illegal and punishable.

[T]he ultimate reason for avoiding double taxation is to encourage foreign investors to invest in the Philippines — a crucial economic goal for developing countries. The goal of double taxation conventions would be thwarted if such treaties did not provide for effective measures to minimize, if not completely eliminate, the tax burden laid upon the income or capital of the investor. Thus, if the rates of tax are lowered by the state of source, in this case, by the Philippines, there should be a concomitant commitment on the part of the state of residence to grant some form of tax relief, whether this be in the form of a tax credit or exemption . Otherwise, the tax which could have been collected by the Philippine government will simply be collected by another state, defeating the object of the tax treaty since the tax burden imposed upon the investor would remain unrelieved. If the state of residence does not grant some form of tax relief to the investor, no benefit would redound to t

To begin with, we are not aware of any law or rule pertinent to the payment of royalties, and none has been brought to our attention, which provides for the payment of royalties under dissimilar circumstances. The tax rates on royalties and the circumstances of payment thereof are the same for all the recipients of such royalties and there is no disparity based on nationality in the circumstances of such payment. On the other hand, a cursory reading of the various tax treaties will show that there is no similarity in the provisions on relief from or avoidance of double taxation as this is a matter of negotiation between the contracting parties. As will be shown later, this dissimilarity is true particularly in the treaties between the Philippines and the United States and between the Philippines and West Germany. The RP-US Tax Treaty is just one of a number of bilateral treaties which the Philippines has entered into for the avoidance of double taxation. The purpose of these inter

The term "tax" applies — generally speaking — to all kinds of exactions which become public funds. The term is often loosely used to include levies for revenue as well as levies for regulatory purposes. Thus license fees are commonly called taxes. Legally speaking, however, license fee is a legal concept quite distinct from tax; the former is imposed in the exercise of police power for purposes of regulation, while the latter is imposed under the taxing power for the purpose of raising revenues (MacQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 9, 3rd Edition, p. 26). Ordinance No. 3358 is clearly one that prescribes municipal license fees for the privilege to engage in the business of selling liquor or alcoholic beverages, having been enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila pursuant to its charter power to fix license fees on, and regulate, the sale of intoxicating liquors, whether imported or locally manufactured. (Section 18 [p], Republic Act 409, as amended). The license fees

If a lessors pay real estate tax over his building and piece of land, pays real estate dealer's tax based on rental receipts and also pay income tax on rentals, is there prohibited double taxation? No, there is no prohibited double taxation here. These are taxes on property, on the privilege to engage in business and on income. They have different purposes. GR L‐26521, December 28, 1968: The contention that the plaintiffs-appellees are doubly taxed because they are paying the real estate taxes and the tenement tax imposed by the ordinance in question, is also devoid of merit. It is a well-settled rule that a license tax may be levied upon a business or occupation although the land or property used in connection therewith is subject to property tax. The State may collect an ad valorem tax on property used in a calling, and at the same time impose a license tax on that calling, the imposition of the latter kind of tax being in no sense a double tax. In order to constitute do

The 1987 Constitution does not prohibit double taxation in the broad sense; this is that double taxation that is allowed. However, substantive due process stops the government from imposing double taxation in the strict sense; this is also called obnoxious double taxation or direct duplicate taxation. There are four (4) ways by which this illegal form of double taxation can be eliminated or mitigated. [1] Tax deduction whereby an amount is subtracted from the gross amount [2] Tax exemption whereby a person is given immunity from tax laws [3] Tax credit whereby a person is allowed to deduct an amount from his tax liability [4] Imposition of a lower rate

Double taxation means taxing the same property twice when it should be taxed only once; that is, taxing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing. It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is taxed twice, when it should be but once. Otherwise described as direct duplicate taxation, the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, during the same taxing period; and the taxes must be of the same kind or character. (G.R. No. 181845) Therefore, for there to be direct duplicate taxation or obnoxious double taxation (the kind that is not allowed), the taxpayer must be made to pay tax for the same PATO: same purpose, same authority, same taxable period and same object (or property).

Section 327 of the National Internal Revenue Code which provides: Sec. 327. Non-retroactivity of rulings. Any revocation, modification, or reversal of any of the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the preceding section or any of the rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner shall not be given retroactive application if the revocation, modification, or reversal will be prejudicial to the taxpayer except in the following cases (a) where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return or in any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (b) where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based, or (c) where the taxpayer acted in bad faith . (G.R. No. L-66653. June 19, 1986)

The power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty. It is a power emanating from necessity. It is a necessary burden to preserve the State's sovereignty and a means to give the citizenry an army to resist an aggression, a navy to defend its shores from invasion, a corps of civil servants to serve, public improvement designed for the enjoyment of the citizenry and those which come within the State's territory, and facilities and protection which a government is supposed to provide. Considering that the reinsurance premiums in question were afforded protection by the government and the recipient foreign reinsurers exercised rights and privileges guaranteed by our laws, such reinsurance premiums and reinsurers should share the burden of maintaining the state. (G.R. No. L-22074. April 30, 1965)

It is said that taxes are what we pay for a civilized society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of one's hard earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must contribute his share in the running of the government. The government for its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power. (G.R. No. L-28896. February 17, 1988)

Expenses without pertinent supporting documents. Without said documents, such as but not limited to, receipts, transportation-related vouchers and/or invoices, there is no way of ascertaining whether the amounts reflected in the schedule of expenses were disbursed for transportation. With regard to commission expense, no additional documentary evidence, like the reinsurance agreements contracts, was presented to support petitioner’s allegation that the expenditure originated from reinsurance activities that gave rise to reinsurance commissions, not subject to withholding tax. As to occupancy costs, records reveal that petitioner failed to compute the correct total occupancy cost that should be subjected to withholding tax, hence, petitioner is liable for the deficiency. As to service/contractors and purchases, petitioner contends that both parties already stipulated that it correctly withheld the taxes due. Thus, petitioner is of the belief that it is no longer required to pres

The damage that may be caused to the petitioner will not, of course, be irrepairable; where so indicated by subsequent events favorable to it, whatever it shall have paid is easily refundable. Besides, the damage to its property rights must perforce take a back seat to the paramount need of the State for funds to sustain governmental functions. Compared to the damage to the State which may be caused by reduced financial resources, the damage to petitioner is negligible. The policy of the law is to discountenance any delay in the collection of taxes because of the oft-repeated but unassailable consideration that taxes are the lifeblood of the Government and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.

We agree with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that without Executive Order No. 73, the basis for collection of real property taxes win still be the 1978 revision of property values. Certainly, to continue collecting real property taxes based on valuations arrived at several years ago, in disregard of the increases in the value of real properties that have occurred since then, is not in consonance with a sound tax system. Fiscal adequacy, which is one of the characteristics of a sound tax system, requires that sources of revenues must be adequate to meet government expenditures and their variations. (G.R. No. 76778. June 6, 1990)

Article 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 proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of article 805. (Civil Code of the Philippines) This rule only applies when it comes to the form of attestation and the language used therein. We stress once more that 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. In this regard, however, the manner of proving the due execution and attestation has been held to be limited to merely an examination of the will itself without resorting to evidence

The true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the execution of a will is not whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they might have been seen each other sign, had they chosen to do so, considering their mental and physical condition and position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each signature. But, it is especially to be noted that the 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. This, of course, does not mean that the testator and the subscribing witnesses may be held to have executed the instrument in the presence of each other if it appears that they would not have been able to see each other sign at that moment, without changing their relative positions or existing conditions. (G.R. No. L-5971. February 27, 1911)

Article 805. The attestation shall state the number of 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 the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. (Civil Code of the Philippines) The attestation clause shall state the following: [1] the number of pages; [2] the fact that the testator or his representative under his express direction signed the will and every page in the presence of instrumental witnesses; and [3] the fact that witnesses signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the testator and of one another. In the statutory law of wills, an attestation clause is a clause that is typically appended to a will, often just below the place of the testator's signature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Att

Article 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof 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. There are two requirements of subscription under Article 805. One is the testator's subscription. The other is subscription by witnesses. The testator must subscribe the will at the logical end thereof. He also has the choice of making another person write his name by some other person but it must be done in his presence and by his express direction. Moreover, the three (3) or more credible witnesses must subscribe, also at the logical end of the will, in the presence of the testator and of one another. "In the presence" means "in a position which allows them to cast them eyes in the proper direction and see one another

Ordinary wills are also called attested wills or notarial wills. Below are the basic requirements; note that there are more details to know regarding each requirement (discussed in other posts). [1] Must be subscribed by the testator at the logical end thereof [2] Must be attested to [3] Must be signed on the left margin of every page [4] Must be paginated [5] Must be acknowledged by a notary public [6] Must be read to a handicapped testator [7] Must be witnessed by three or more witnesses 

Here is a summary of rules regarding the formal validity of wills executed by Filipinos or aliens, whether within or outside the Philippines. [1] If executed by a Filipino in the Philippines, follow Philippine rules. [2] If executed by a Filipino outside the Philippines, follow Philippine rules. [3] If executed by a Filipino outside the Philippines, follow rules of the place where the will is executed. [4] If executed by an alien in the Philippines, follow Philippines rules. [5] If executed by an alien in the Philippines, follow rules of the country of which he is a citizen or subject. Basically, this means national law. [6] If executed by an alien outside the Philippines, follow rules of the country where the will is executed. [7] If executed by an alien outside the Philippines, follow rules of the country of his residence. [8] If executed by an alien outside the Philippines, follow rules of his country (national law). [9] If executed by an alien outside the Philippines, fol

Article 795. The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made. Article 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution. Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

Article 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. (Civil Code of the Philippines) There can be no oral wills. The law requires them to be in writing. Also, there is a language requirement; they must be written in a language or dialect the testator could speak or understand when he was alive. Note that the law speaks of language or dialect "known to" and not necessarily "spoken by."

Article 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act. Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval. (Civil Code of the Philippines) [1] Even if the testator does not fully possess