ART 804-806

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    1/23

    G.R. No. 122880 April 12, 2006

    FELIX AZUELA, Petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO s!s"i""#$ !% ERNESTO G. CASTILLO, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N

    TINGA, J.:

    The core of this petition is a highly defective notarial will, prportedly e!ected "y Egenia E. Igsolo #decedent$, who diedon %& Dece'"er %()* at the age of )+. In refsing to give legal recognition to the de e!ection of this doc'ent, theCort is provided the opportnity to assert a few i'portant doctrinal rles in the e!ection of notarial wills, all selfevidentin view of -rticles )+ and )+& of the Civil Code.

    A &ill &'os# (""#s"("io) *l(s# $o#s )o" *o)"(i) "'# )+!#r o p(-#s o) &'i*' "'# &ill is &ri""#) is ("(ll%$##*"i#. A &ill &'os# (""#s"("io) *l(s# is )o" si-)#$ !% "'# i)s"r+#)"(l &i")#ss#s is ("(ll% $##*"i#. A)$p#r'(ps +os" i+por"()"l%, ( &ill &'i*' $o#s )o" *o)"(i) () (*/)o&l#$-+#)", !" ( +#r#jurat, is ("(ll% $##*"i#A)% o)# o "'#s# $##*"s is si*i#)" "o $#)% pro!("#. A )o"(ri(l &ill &i"' (ll "'r## $##*"s is s" (*'i)- or

    $i*i(l r##*"io).

    There is a distinct and conse/ential reason the Civil Code provides a co'prehensive catalog of i'peratives for theproper e!ection of a notarial will. 0ll and faithfl co'pliance with all the detailed re/isites nder -rticle )+ of the Codeleave little roo' for do"t as to the validity in the de e!ection of the notarial will. -rticle )+& li1ewise i'poses anothersafegard to the validity of notarial wills 2 that they "e ac1nowledged "efore a notary p"lic "y the testator and thewitnesses. - notarial will e!ected with indifference to these two codal provisions opens itself to nagging /estions as toits legiti'acy.

    The case ste's fro' a petition for pro"ate filed on %+ -pril %()3 with the Regional Trial Cort #RTC$ of 4anila. Thepetition filed "y petitioner 0eli! -5ela soght to ad'it to pro"ate the notarial will of Egenia E. Igsolo, which wasnotari5ed on %+ 6ne %()%. Petitioner is the son of the cosin of the decedent.

    The will, consisting of two #*$ pages and written in the vernaclar Pilipino, read in fll7

    89:IN; 8--P-:, -4EN7

    ->O, si E9;ENI- E. I;SO:O, na1atira sa ++ San Diego St., Sa'paloc, 4anila, pitongpt siya' #?($ na glang, nasahstong pagiisip, pagnawa at 'e'oria ay naghahayag na ito na ang a1ing hling ha"ilin at testa'ento, at "ina"aliwala 1o lahat ang nanang ginawang ha"ilin o testa'ento7

    9na8inihiling 1o na a1o ay 'aili"ing sa Se'enterio del Norte, :a :o'a sangayong sa 1agalian at pata1aran ngsi'"ahang 1atoli1o at ang tagapagingat #E!ector$ ng ha"iling ito ay 'agtatayo ng "antayog pang sil"ing alaala saa1in ng a1ing pa'ilya at 1ai"igan@

    Pangalawa-1ing ipinag1a1aloo" at isinasalin ang lahat ng 1arapatan sa a1ing pa'ang1in na si 0eli! -5ela, na siyangnagalaga sa a1in sa 'aha"ang panahon, yaong 'ga "ahay na na1atiri1 sa lote n'ero *), orporasyon, ganoon din i"ini"igay 1o ang lahat ng 1arapatan sa "ahay na na1atiri1 sa inoopahan 1ong lote,n'ero 3A,

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    2/23

    #Sgd.$E9;ENI- E. I;SO:O#Tagapag'ana$

    P-T9N-= N; 4;- S->SI

    -ng 1aslatang ito, na "in"o ng dahon pati ang hling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa a'in ni Egenia E. Igsolo,tagapag'ana na siya niyang 8ling 8a"ilin, ngayon i1a%+ ng 8nyo %()%, ay nilagdaan ng nasa"ing tagapag'ana sailali' ng 1aslatang na"anggit at sa 1aliwang panig ng lahat at "awaBt dahon, sa harap ng lahat at "awaBt sa a'in, at

    1a'i na'ang 'ga sa1si ay l'agda sa harap ng nasa"ing tagapag'ana at sa harap ng lahat at "awaBt isa sa a'in, sailali' ng nasa"ing 1aslatan at sa 1aliwang panig ng lahat at "awaBt dahon ng 1aslatan ito.

    E9;ENI- E. I;SO:Oaddress7 ++ San Diego St.Sa'paloc, 4anila Res. Cert. No. -??%?A?Issed at 4anila on 4arch %+, %()%.

    9IRINO -;R--address7 %**)Int. A, >ahil'Pandacan, 4anila Res. Cert. No. -3)A&Issed at 4anila on 6an. *%, %()%

    :-4

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    3/23

    Oppositor ;eralda Castillo also arged that the will was not e!ected and attested to in accordance with law. She pointedot that decedentBs signatre did not appear on the second page of the will, and the will was not properly ac1nowledged.These twin arg'ents are a'ong the central 'atters to this petition.

    -fter de trial, the RTC ad'itted the will to pro"ate, in an Order dated %+ -gst %((*. &The RTC favora"ly too1 intoaccont the testi'ony of the three #A$ witnesses to the will, irino -grava, :a'"erto :eano, and 6anito Estrada. TheRTC also called to fore the 'odern tendency in respect to the for'alities in the e!ection of a will ! ! ! with the end inview of giving the testator 'ore freedo' in e!pressing his last wishes@ ?and fro' this perspective, re"tted oppositorBsarg'ents that the will was not properly e!ected and attested to in accordance with law.

    -fter a carefl e!a'ination of the will and consideration of the testi'onies of the s"scri"ing and attesting witnesses, andhaving in 'ind the 'odern tendency in respect to the for'alities in the e!ection of a will, i.e., the li"erali5ation of theinterpretation of the law on the for'al re/ire'ents of a will with the end in view of giving the testator 'ore freedo' ine!pressing his last wishes, this Cort is persaded to rle that the will in /estion is athentic and had "een e!ected "ythe testatri! in accordance with law.

    On the isse of lac1 of ac1nowledge'ent, this Cort has noted that at the end of the will after the signatre of thetestatri!, the following state'ent is 'ade nder the s"title, Patnay Ng 4ga Sa1si7

    -ng 1aslatang ito, na "in"o ng dahon pati ang hling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa a'in ni Egenia N. Igsolo,tagapag'ana na siya niyang 8ling 8a"ilin, ngayong i1a%+ ng 8nyo %()%, ay nilagdaan ng nasa"ing tagapag'ana sailali' ng 1aslatang na"anggit at sa 1aliwang panig ng lahat at "awaBt dahon, sa harap ng lahat at "awaBt sa a'in, at

    1a'i na'ang 'ga sa1si ay l'agda sa harap ng nasa"ing tagapag'ana at sa harap ng lahat at "awaBt isa sa a'in, sailali' ng nasa"ing 1aslatan at sa 1aliwang panig ng lahat at "awaBt dahon ng 1aslatan ito.

    The afore/oted declaration co'prises the attestation clase and the ac1nowledge'ent and is considered "y this Cortas a s"stantial co'pliance with the re/ire'ents of the law.

    On the oppositorBs contention that the attestation clase was not signed "y the s"scri"ing witnesses at the "otto'thereof, this Cort is of the view that the signing "y the s"scri"ing witnesses on the left 'argin of the second page of thewill containing the attestation clase and ac1nowledg'ent, instead of at the "otto' thereof, s"stantially satisfies theprpose of identification and attestation of the will.

    Jith regard to the oppositorBs arg'ent that the will was not n'"ered correlatively in letters placed on pper part ofeach page and that the attestation did not state the n'"er of pages thereof, it is worthy to note that the will is co'posedof only two pages. The first page contains the entire te!t of the testa'entary dispositions, and the second page containsthe last portion of the attestation clase and ac1nowledge'ent. Sch "eing so, the defects are not of a serios natre asto invalidate the will. 0or the sa'e reason, the failre of the testatri! to affi! her signatre on the left 'argin of the secondpage, which contains only the last portion of the attestation clase and ac1nowledg'ent is not a fatal defect.

    -s regards the oppositorBs assertion that the signatre of the testatri! on the will is a forgery, the testi'onies of the threes"scri"ing witnesses to the will are convincing enogh to esta"lish the genineness of the signatre of the testatri! andthe de e!ection of the will.)

    The Order was appealed to the Cort of -ppeals "y Ernesto Castillo, who had s"stitted his since deceased 'otherinlaw, ;eralda Castillo. In a Decision dated %? -gst %((, the Cort of -ppeals reversed the trial cort and ordered thedis'issal of the petition for pro"ate.(The Cort of -ppeals noted that the attestation clase failed to state the n'"er ofpages sed in the will, ths rendering the will void and ndeserving of pro"ate. %+

    8ence, the present petition.

    Petitioner arges that the re/ire'ent nder -rticle )+ of the Civil Code that the n'"er of pages sed in a notarial will"e stated in the attestation clase is 'erely directory, rather than 'andatory, and ths sscepti"le to what he ter'ed asthe s"stantial co'pliance rle.%%

    The soltion to this case calls for the application of -rticles )+ and )+& of the Civil Code, which we replicate in fll.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_122880_2006.html#fnt11
  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    4/23

    -rt. )+. Every will, other than a holographic will, 'st "e s"scri"ed at the end thereof "y the testator hi'self or "y thetestatorKs na'e written "y so'e other person in his presence, and "y his e!press direction, and attested and s"scri"ed"y three or 'ore credi"le witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

    The testator or the person re/ested "y hi' to write his na'e and the instr'ental witnesses of the will, shall also sign,as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, e!cept the last, on the left 'argin, and all the pages shall "e n'"eredcorrelatively in letters placed on the pper part of each page.

    The attestation shall state the n'"er of pages sed pon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed

    the will and every page thereof, or cased so'e other person to write his na'e, nder his e!press direction, in thepresence of the instr'ental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in thepresence of the testator and of one another.

    If the attestation clase is in a langage not 1nown to the witnesses, it shall "e interpreted to the'.

    -rt. )+&. Every will 'st "e ac1nowledged "efore a notary p"lic "y the testator and the witnesses. The notary p"licshall not "e re/ired to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Cler1 of Cort.

    The appellate cort, in its Decision, considered only one defect, the failre of the attestation clase to state the n'"er ofpages of the will.

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    5/23

    the will to the predice of the heirs to who' the property is intended to "e "e/eathed #In re Jill of -ndrada, 3* Phil.%)+@ 9y Co/e vs. Navas :. Sioca, 3A Phil., 3+@ ;'"an vs. ;orcho, + Phil. A+@ into vs. 4orata, 3 Phil. 3)%@Echevarria vs. Sar'iento, && Phil. &%%$. The ratio decidendi of these cases see's to "e that the attestation clase 'stcontain a state'ent of the n'"er of sheets or pages co'posing the will and that if this is 'issing or is o'itted, it willhave the effect of invalidating the will if the deficiency cannot "e spplied, not "y evidence alinde, "t "y a considerationor e!a'ination of the will itself.

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    6/23

    In Canedaitself, the Cort refsed to allow the pro"ate of a will whose attestation clase failed to state that the witnessess"scri"ed their respective signatres to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other, A+the other o'issioncited "y 6stice 6.

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    7/23

    The Cort today reiterates the contined efficacy of Cagro. -rticle )+ particlarly segregates the re/ire'ent that theinstr'ental witnesses sign each page of the will, fro' the re/isite that the will "e attested and s"scri"ed "y Ltheinstr'ental witnessesM. The respective intents "ehind these two classes of signatre are distinct fro' each other. Thesignatres on the lefthand corner of every page signify, a'ong others, that the witnesses are aware that the page theyare signing for's part of the will. On the other hand, the signatres to the attestation clase esta"lish that the witnessesare referring to the state'ents contained in the attestation clase itself. Indeed, the attestation clase is separate andapart fro' the disposition of the will. -n nsigned attestation clase reslts in an nattested will. Even if the instr'entalwitnesses signed the lefthand 'argin of the page containing the nsigned attestation clase, sch signatres cannotde'onstrate these witnessesB nderta1ings in the clase, since the signatres that do appear on the page were directedtowards a wholly different avowal.

    The Cort 'ay "e 'ore charita"ly disposed had the witnesses in this case signed the attestation clase itself, "t not thelefthand 'argin of the page containing sch clase. Jithot di'inishing the vale of the instr'ental witnessesBsignatres on each and every page, the fact 'st "e noted that it is the attestation clase which contains the tterancesredced into writing of the testa'entary witnesses the'selves. It is the witnesses, and not the testator, who are re/irednder -rticle )+ to state the n'"er of pages sed pon which the will is written@ the fact that the testator had signed thewill and every page thereof@ and that they witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of thetestator and of one another. The only proof in the will that the witnesses have stated these ele'ental facts wold "e theirsignatres on the attestation clase.

    Ths, the s"ect will cannot "e considered to have "een validly attested to "y the instr'ental witnesses, as they failedto sign the attestation clase.

    =et, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition shold also hinge. The re/ire'ent nder-rticle )+& that every will 'st "e ac1nowledged "efore a notary p"lic "y the testator and the witnesses has also not"een co'plied with. The i'portance of this re/ire'ent is highlighted "y the fact that it had "een segregated fro' theother re/ire'ents nder -rticle )+ and entrsted into a separate provision, -rticle )+&. The nono"servance of -rticle)+& in this case is e/ally as critical as the other cited flaws in co'pliance with -rticle )+, and shold "e treated as ofe/ivalent i'port.

    In lie of an ac1nowledg'ent, the notary p"lic, Petronio =.

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    8/23

    There are two other re/ire'ents nder -rticle )+ which were not flly satisfied "y the will in /estion. Je need notdiscss the' at length, as they are no longer 'aterial to the

    disposition of this case. The provision re/ires that the testator and the instr'ental witnesses sign each and every pageof the will on the left 'argin, e!cept the last@ and that all the pages shall "e n'"ered correlatively in letters placed on thepper part of each page. In this case, the decedent, nli1e the witnesses, failed to sign "oth pages of the will on the left'argin, her only signatre appearing at the socalled logical end33of the will on its first page. -lso, the will itself is notn'"ered correlatively in letters on each page, "t instead n'"ered with -ra"ic n'erals. There is a line of thoght thathas disa"sed the notion that these two re/ire'ents "e constred as 'andatory.3Ta1en in isolation, these o'issions,

    "y the'selves, 'ay not "e sfficient to deny pro"ate to a will. =et even as these o'issions are not decisive to theaddication of this case, they need not "e dwelt on, thogh indicative as they 'ay "e of a general lac1 of de regard forthe re/ire'ents nder -rticle )+ "y whoever e!ected the will.

    -ll told, the string of 'ortal defects which the will in /estion sffers fro' 'a1es the pro"ate denial ine!ora"le.

    J8ERE0ORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    LETICIA 5ALONTE ORTEGA, G.R. No. 17971 P#"i"io)#r,

    Pr#s#)":

    P()-()i!(), J.,

    C'(ir+(), ; #rss ; S()$o(l;G"i#rr#

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    9/23

    7 :i1e so 'any others "efore hi', Placido toiled and lived for a long ti'e in the 9nited States ntil hefinally reached retire'ent. In %()+, Placido finally ca'e ho'e to stay in the Philippines, and he lived inthe hose and lot located at H(*++ Cat'on St., San -ntonio illage, 4a1ati, which he owned in co''onwith his sister Ciriaca al'onte and titled in their na'es in TCT %*A3&). Two years after his arrival fro'the 9nited States and at the age of )+ he wed 6osefina who was then *) years old, in a cere'onysole'ni5ed "y 6dge Perfecto :agio, 6r. on 0e"rary , %()*.

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    10/23

    *. Petitioner failed to state the na'es, ages, and residences of theheirs of the testator@ or to give the' proper notice prsant to law@

    A. Jill was not e!ected and attested as re/ired "y law and legal sole'nities and

    for'alities were not co'plied with@3. Testator was 'entally incapa"le to 'a1e a will at the ti'e of the alleged e!ection

    he "eing in an advance sate of senility@

    . Jill was e!ected nder dress, or the inflence of fear or threats@

    &. Jill was procred "y nde and i'proper inflence and pressre on the part of thepetitioner andGor her agents andGor assistants@ andGor

    ?. Signatre of testator was procred "y frad, or tric1, and he did not intend that the

    instr'ent shold "e his will at the ti'e of affi!ing his signatre thereto@B

    and she also opposed the appoint'ent as E!ectri! of 6osefina alleging her want of nderstanding andintegrity.

    -t the hearing, the petitioner 6osefina testified and called as witnesses the notary p"lic -tty.

    0loro Sar'iento who prepared and notari5ed the will, and the instr'ental witnesses sposes Egenio

    ;o'e5, 6r. and 0eli5a ;o'e5 and 6osie Collado. 0or the opposition, the oppositor :eticia and herdaghter 4ary 6ane Ortega testified.

    -ccording to 6osefina after her 'arriage with the testator they lived in her parents hose at

    Salingco",

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    11/23

    instead on -gst (, %()A "ecase of the a"sence of the notary p"lic@ that the testator e!ected the willin /estion in their presence while he was of sond and disposing 'ind and that he was strong and ingood health@ that the contents of the will was e!plained "y the notary p"lic in the Ilocano and Tagalogdialect and that all of the' as witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the testator and ofeach other. -nd that dring the e!ection, the testatorBs wife, 6osefina was not with the'.

    The oppositor :eticia declared that 6osefina shold not inherit alone "ecase aside fro' her

    there are other children fro' the si"lings of Placido who are st as entitled to inherit fro' hi'. Sheattac1ed the 'ental capacity of the testator, declaring that at the ti'e of the e!ection of the notarial willthe testator was already )A years old and was no longer of sond 'ind. She 1new whereof she spo1e"ecase in %()A Placido lived in the 4a1ati residence and as1ed :eticiaBs fa'ily to live with hi' and theytoo1 care of hi'. Dring that ti'e, the testatorBs physical and 'ental condition showed deterioration,a"errations and senility. This was corro"orated "y her daghter 4ary 6ane Ortega for who' Placido too1a fancy and wanted to 'arry.

    Sifting throgh the evidence, the cort a quoheld that 1t23e evidence adduced) reduces t3e

    o""osition to t4o grounds) na#ely:%. Non5co#"liance 4it3 t3e legal sole#nities and for#alities in t3e e6ecution and attestation of

    t3e 4ill7 and8. ,ental inca"acity of t3e testator at t3e ti#e of t3e e6ecution of t3e 4ill as 3e 4as t3en in an

    advanced state of senility

    It then fond these gronds e!tant and proven, and accordingly disallowed pro"ate. LM

    Rli)- o "'# Cor" o App#(ls

    Reversing the trial cort, the appellate cort ad'itted the will of Placido al'onte to pro"ate. The C- pheld the

    credi"ility of the notary p"lic and the s"scri"ing witnesses who had ac1nowledged the de e!ection of the will.4oreover, it held that the testator had testa'entary capacity at the ti'e of the e!ection of the will. It added that hisse!al e!hi"itionis' and nhygienic, crde and i'polite ways L&Mdid not 'a1e hi' a person of nsond 'ind.

    8ence, this Petition.L?M

    Iss#s

    Petitioner raises the following isses for or consideration7

    Jhether or not the findings of the pro"ate cort are entitled to great respect.

    II.Jhether or not the signatre of Placido al'onte in the s"ect will was procred "y frad or tric1ery, andthat Placido al'onte never intended that the instr'ent shold "e his last will and testa'ent.

    III.Jhether or not Placido al'onte has testa'entary capacity at the ti'e he allegedly e!ected the s"ectwill.L)M

    In short, petitioner assails the C-Bs allowance of the pro"ate of the will of Placido al'onte.

    T'is Cor"4s Rli)-

    The Petition has no 'erit.

    (i) Iss#:Probate of a Will

    -t the otset, we stress that only /estions of law 'ay "e raised in a Petition for Review nder Section % of Rle

    3 of the Rles of Cort. -s an e!ception, however, the evidence presented dring the trial 'ay "e e!a'ined and the

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn8
  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    12/23

    factal 'atters resolved "y this Cort when, as in the instant case, the findings of fact of the appellate cort differ fro'those of the trial cort.L(M

    The fact that p"lic policy favors the pro"ate of a will does not necessarily 'ean that every will presented forpro"ate shold "e allowed. The law lays down the procedres and re/isites that 'st "e satisfied for the pro"ate of awill.L%+M erily, -rticle )A( of the Civil Code states the instances when a will 'ay "e disallowed, as follows7

    -rticle )A(. The will shall "e disallowed in any of the following cases7#%$ If the for'alities re/ired "y law have not "een co'plied with@

    #*$ If the testator was insane, or otherwise 'entally incapa"le of 'a1ing a will, at the ti'e of

    its e!ection@

    #A$ If it was e!ected throgh force or nder dress, or the inflence of fear, or threats@

    #3$ If it was procred "y nde and i'proper pressre and inflence, on the part of the"eneficiary or of so'e other person@

    #$ If the signatre of the testator was procred "y frad@

    #&$ If the testator acted "y 'ista1e or did not intend that the instr'ent he signed shold "e

    his will at the ti'e of affi!ing his signatre thereto.

    In the present case, petitioner assails the validity of Placido al'onteBs will "y i'pting frad in its e!ection and

    challenging the testatorBs state of 'ind at the ti'e.Existence of Fraud in theExecution of a Will

    Petitioner does not dispte the de o"servance of the for'alities in the e!ection of the will, "t 'aintains that thecirc'stances srronding it are indicative of the e!istence of frad. Particlarly, she alleges that respondent, who is thetestatorBs wife and sole "eneficiary, conspired with the notary p"lic and the three attesting witnesses in deceiving Placidoto sign it. Deception is allegedly reflected in the varying dates of the e!ection and the attestation of the will.

    Petitioner contends that it was highly d"ios for a wo'an at the pri'e of her yong life LtoM al'ost i''ediately

    plnge into 'arriage with a 'an who LwasM thrice her age ! ! ! and who happened to "e LaM 0il-'ericanpensionado,L%%Mths casting do"t on the intention of respondent in see1ing the pro"ate of the will. 4oreover, ispposedly defies h'an reason, logic and co''on e!perience L%*Mfor an old 'an with a severe psychological conditionto have willingly signed a last will and testa'ent.

    Je are not convinced. 0rad is a tric1, secret device, false state'ent, or pretense, "y which the s"ect of it ischeated. It 'ay "e of sch character that the testator is 'isled or deceived as to the natre or contents of the doc'entwhich he e!ectes, or it 'ay relate to so'e e!trinsic fact, in conse/ence of the deception regarding which the testator isled to 'a1e a certain will which, "t for the frad, he wold not have 'ade. L%AM

    Je stress that the party challenging the will "ears the "rden of proving the e!istence of frad at the ti'e of its

    e!ection.L%3M The "rden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will only pon a showing of credi"le evidence offrad.L%M 9nfortnately in this case, other than the selfserving allegations of petitioner, no evidence of frad was evepresented.

    It is a settled doctrine that the o'ission of so'e relatives does not affect the de e!ection of a will. L%&M That the

    testator was tric1ed into signing it was not sfficiently esta"lished "y the fact that he had institted his wife, who was 'orethan fifty years his nior, as the sole "eneficiary@ and disregarded petitioner and her fa'ily, who were the ones who hadta1en the cdgels of ta1ing care of Lthe testatorM in his twilight years. L%?M

    4oreover, as correctly rled "y the appellate cort, the conflict "etween the dates appearing on the will does noinvalidate the doc'ent, "ecase the law does not even re/ire that a LnotarialM will ! ! ! "e e!ected and ac1nowledgedon the sa'e occasion.L%)M 4ore i'portant, the will 'st "e s"scri"ed "y the testator, as well as "y three or 'orecredi"le witnesses who 'st also attest to it in the presence of the testator and of one another. L%(M 0rther'ore, thetestator and the witnesses 'st ac1nowledge the will "efore a notary p"lic. L*+M In any event, we agree with the C- tha

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157451.htm#_ftn20
  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    13/23

    the variance in the dates of the will as to its spposed e!ection and attestation was satisfactorily and persasivelye!plained "y the notary p"lic and the instr'ental witnesses. L*%M

    The pertinent transcript of stenographic notes ta1en on 6ne %%, %(), Nove'"er *, %(), Octo"er %A, %()&,

    and Octo"er *%, %()? as /oted "y the C- are reprodced respectively as follows7-tty. 0loro Sar'iento7 =o typed this doc'ent e!hi"it C, specifying the date 6ne % when the testator and his witnesses

    were spposed to "e in yor office- =es sir. On 6ne %, %()A, did the testator and his witnesses co'e to yor hose- They did as of agree'ent "t nfortnately, I was ot of town.

    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! The doc'ent has "een ac1nowledged on -gst (, %()A as per ac1nowledge'ent appearing

    therein. Jas this the actal date when the doc'ent was ac1nowledged- =es sir. Jhat a"ot the date when the testator and the three witnesses affi!ed their respective signatre on

    the first and second pages of e!hi"it C

    - On that particlar date when it was ac1nowledged, -gst (, %()A. Jhy did yo not 'a1e the necessary correction on the date appearing on the "ody of the doc'ent

    as well as the attestation clase-

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    14/23

    -nd on -gst (, %()A did yo go "ac1 to the hose of -tty. Sar'iento- =es, Sir. 0or what prpose- Or prpose is st to sign the will. Jere yo a"le to sign the will yo 'entioned- =es sir. #tsn, Octo"er *%, %()?, pp. 3$L**M

    Nota"ly, petitioner failed to s"stantiate her clai' of a grand conspiracy in the co''ission of a frad. There

    was no showing that the witnesses of the proponent stood to receive any "enefit fro' the allowance of the will. Thetesti'onies of the three s"scri"ing witnesses and the notary are credi"le evidence of its de e!ection. L*AM Theitesti'ony favoring it and the finding that it was e!ected in accordance with the for'alities re/ired "y law shold "eaffir'ed,a"sent any showing of ill 'otives.L*3M

    Capacity to Make a Will

    In deter'ining the capacity of the testator to 'a1e a will, the Civil Code gives the following gidelines7-rticle ?(). In order to 'a1e a will it is essential that the testator "e of sond 'ind at the ti'e of

    its e!ection.

    -rticle ?((. To "e of sond 'ind, it is not necessary that the testator "e in fll possession of all

    his reasoning faclties, or that his 'ind "e wholly n"ro1en, ni'paired, or shattered "y disease, inry orother case.

    It shall "e sfficient if the testator was a"le at the ti'e of 'a1ing the will to 1now the natre of

    the estate to "e disposed of, the proper o"ects of his "onty, and the character of the testa'entary act.-rticle )++. The law pres'es that every person is of sond 'ind, in the a"sence of proof to the

    contrary.The "rden of proof that the testator was not of sond 'ind at the ti'e of 'a1ing his

    dispositions is on the person who opposes the pro"ate of the will@ "t if the testator, one 'onth, or less,

    "efore 'a1ing his will was p"licly 1nown to "e insane, the person who 'aintains the validity of the will'st prove that the testator 'ade it dring a lcid interval.

    -ccording to -rticle ?((, the three things that the testator 'st have the a"ility to 1now to "e considered of sond'ind are as follows7 #%$ the natre of the estate to "e disposed of, #*$ the proper o"ects of the testatorBs "onty, and #A$the character of the testa'entary act. -pplying this test to the present case, we find that the appellate cort was correcin holding that Placido had testa'entary capacity at the ti'e of the e!ection of his will.

    It 'st "e noted that despite his advanced age, he was still a"le to identify accrately the 1inds of property he

    owned, the e!tent of his shares in the' and even their locations. -s regards the proper o"ects of his "onty, it wassfficient that he identified his wife as sole "eneficiary. -s we have stated earlier, the o'ission of so'e relatives fro' thewill did not affect its for'al validity. There "eing no showing of frad in its e!ection, intent in its disposition "eco'esirrelevant.

    Jorth reiterating in deter'ining sondness of 'ind isAlsua59etts v. CA)L*Mwhich held ths7

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    15/23

    J8ERE0ORE, the Petition is DENED, and the assailed Decision and Resoltion of the Cort of -ppealsare!FF"MED. Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    6anary %(, %(+&

    ;.R. No. %&3%GERAN =AONETA,plaintiffappellant,vs.RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL.,defendantsappellees.

    Ledes#a) Su#ulong and uintos for a""ellant.;el5/an) rtigas and Fis3er for a""ellees.CARSON, J.:In these proceedings pro"ate was denied the last will and testa'ent of 4acario 6a"oneta, deceased, "ecase the lowercort was of the opinion fro' the evidence addced at the hearing that 6lio 6avellana, one of the witnesses, did notattach his signatre thereto in the presence of Isa"elo 6ena, another of the witnesses, as re/ired "y the provisions ofsection &%) of the Code of Civil Procedre.

    The following is a copy of the evidence which appears of record on this particlar point, "eing a part of the testi'ony of

    the said Isa"eo 6ena7. < < < %=>% < < W3o first signed t3e 4ill?

    A. < < < %=>% < < I signed it first) and after4ards Aniceto and t3e ot3ers.

    . < < < %=>% < < W3o 4ere t3ose ot3ers to 43o# you 3ave -ust referred?

    A. < < < %=>% < < After t3e 4itness Aniceto signed t3e 4ill I left t3e 3ouse) because I 4as in a 3urry) and at t3e#o#ent 43en I 4as leaving I sa4 @ulio @avellana 4it3 t3e "en in 3is 3and in "osition ready to sign 'en actitud de fir#ar(. Ibelieve 3e signed) because 3e 4as at t3e table. . . .. < < < %=>% < < State "ositively 43et3er @ulio @avellana did or did not sign as a 4itness to t3e 4ill.

    A. < < < %=>% < < I cant say certainly) because as I 4as leaving t3e 3ouse I sa4 @ulio @avellana 4it3 t3e "en in 3is3and) in "osition ready to sign. I believe 3e signed.

    . < < < %=>% < < W3y do you believe @ulio @avellana signed?

    A. < < < %=>% < < 9ecause 3e 3ad t3e "en in 3is 3and) 43ic3 4as resting on t3e "a"er) t3oug3 I did not actually see3i# sign.

    . < < < %=>% < < 06"lain t3is contradictory state#ent.

    A. < < < %=>% < < After I signed I as$ed "er#ission to leave) because I 4as in a 3urry) and 43ile I 4as leaving @ulio3ad already ta$en t3e "en in 3is 3and) as it a""eared) for t3e "ur"ose of signing) and 43en I 4as near t3e door I3a""ened to turn #y face and I sa4 t3at 3e 3ad 3is 3and 4it3 t3e "en resting on t3e 4ill) #oving it as if for t3e "ur"ose ofsigning.

    . < < < %=>% < < State "ositively 43et3er @ulio #oved 3is 3and 4it3 t3e "en as if for t3e "ur"ose of signing) or43et3er 3e 4as signing

    A. < < < I believe 3e 4as signing.

    The trth and accracy of the testi'ony of this witness does not see' to have "een /estioned "y any of the parties tothe proceedings, "t the cort, nevertheless, fond the following facts7

    On the *&th day of Dece'"er, %(+%, 4acario 6a"oneta e!ected nder the following circ'stances the doc'ent in/estion, which has "een presented for pro"ate as his will7

    9eing in t3e 3ouse of Arcadio @arandilla) in @aro) in t3is "rovince) 3e ordered t3at t3e docu#ent in question be 4ritten)and calling @ulio @avellana) Aniceto @albuena) and Isabelo @ena as 4itnesses) e6ecuted t3e said docu#ent as 3is 4ill.T3ey 4ere all toget3er) and 4ere in t3e roo# 43ere @aboneta 4as) and 4ere "resent 43en 3e signed t3e docu#ent)

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    16/23

    Isabelo @ena signing after4ards as a 4itness) at 3is request) and in 3is "resence and in t3e "resence of t3e ot3er t4o4itnesses. Aniceto @albuena t3en signed as a 4itness in t3e "resence of t3e testator) and in t3e "resence of t3e ot3er t4o

    "ersons 43o signed as 4itnesses. At t3at #o#ent Isabelo @ena) being in a 3urry to leave) too$ 3is 3at and left t3e roo#.As 3e 4as leaving t3e 3ouse @ulio @avellana too$ t3e "en in 3is 3and and "ut 3i#self in "osition to sign t3e 4ill as a4itness) but did not sign in t3e "resence of Isabelo @ena7 but nevert3eless) after @ena 3ad left t3e roo# t3e said @ulio@avellana signed as a 4itness in t3e "resence of t3e testator and of t3e 4itness Aniceto @albuena.

    Je can not agree with so 'ch of the a"ove finding of facts as holds that the signatre of 6avellana was not signed in thepresence of 6ena, in co'pliance with the provisions of section &%) of the Code of Civil Procedre. The fact that 6ena wasstill in the roo' when he saw 6avellana 'oving his hand and pen in the act of affi!ing his signatre to the will, ta1en

    together with the testi'ony of the re'aining witnesses which shows that 6avellana did in fact there and then sign hisna'e to the will, convinces s that the signatre was affi!ed in the presence of 6ena. The fact that he was in the act ofleaving, and that his "ac1 was trned while a portion of the na'e of the witness was "eing written, is of no i'portance.8e, with the other witnesses and the testator, had asse'"led for the prpose of e!ecting the testa'ent, and weretogether in the sa'e roo' for that prpose, and at the 'o'ent when the witness 6avellana signed the doc'ent he wasactally and physically present and in sch position with relation to 6avellana that he cold see everything which too1place "y 'erely casting his eyes in the proper direction, and withot any physical o"strction to prevent his doing so,therefore we are of opinion that the doc'ent was in fact signed "efore he finally left the roo'.

    The prpose of a stattory re/ire'ent that the witness sign in the presence of the testator is said to "e that the testator'ay have oclar evidence of the identity of the instr'ent s"scri"ed "y the witness and hi'self, and the generallyaccepted tests of presence are vision and 'ental apprehension. #See -'. Eng. Enc. of :aw, vol. A+, p. ((, and casesthere cited.$

    In the 'atter of

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    17/23

    Presented for resoltion "y this Cort in the present petition for review on certiorariis the isse of whether or not theattestation clase contained in the last will and testa'ent of the late 4ateo Ca"allero co'plies with the re/ire'ents of-rticle )+, in relation to -rticle )+(, of the Civil Code.

    The records show that on Dece'"er , %(?), 4ateo Ca"allero, a widower withot any children and already in the twilightyears of his life, e!ected a last will and testa'ent at his residence in Talisay, Ce" "efore three attesting witnesses,na'ely, Cipriano :a"ca, ;regorio Ca"ando and 0laviano Toregosa. The said testator was dly assisted "y his lawyer,-tty. E'ilio :'ontad, and a notary p"lic, -tty. 0iloteo 4anigos, in the preparation of that last will. 1It was declaredtherein, a'ong other things, that the testator was leaving "y way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties

    to Presentacion ;aviola, -ngel -"atayo, Rogelio -"atayo, Isa"elito -"atayo, On 0e"rary *, %()%,

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    18/23

    9ndanted "y the said dg'ent of the pro"ate cort, petitioners elevated the case in the Cort of -ppeals in C-;.R. CNo. %(&&(. They asserted therein that the will in /estion is nll and void for the reason that its attestation clase is fatallydefective since it fails to specifically state that the instr'ental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the willin their presence and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of oneanother.

    On Octo"er %, %((%, respondent cort pro'lgated its decision 10affir'ing that of the trial cort, and rling that theattestation clase in the last will of 4ateo Ca"allero s"stantially co'plies with -rticle )+ of the Civil Code, ths7

    The /estion therefore is whether the attestation clase in /estion 'ay "e considered as havings"stantialy co'plied with the re/ire'ents of -rt. )+ of the Civil Code. Jhat appears in the attestationclase which the oppositors clai' to "e defective is we do certify that the testa'ent was read "y hi' andthe attestator, 4ateo Ca"allero, has p"lished nto s the foregoing will consisting of T8REE P-;ES,inclding the ac1nowledg'ent, each page n'"ered correlatively in letters of the pper part of eachpage, as his :ast Jill and Testa'ent, and 3e 3as signed t3e sa#e and every "age t3ereof) on t3es"aces "rovided for 3is signature and on t3e left 3and #argin in t3e "resence of t3e said testator and int3e "resence of eac3 and all of us#e'phasis spplied$.

    To or thin1ing, this is sfficient co'pliance and no evidence need "e presented to indicate the 'eaningthat the said will was signed "y the testator and "y the' #the witnesses$ in the presence of all of the'and of one another. Or as the langage of the law wold have it that the testator signed the will in thepresence of the instr'ental 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. If not co'pletely or ideally perfect inaccordance with the wordings of -rt. )+ "t #sic$ the phrase as for'lated is in s"stantial co'pliancewith the re/ire'ent of the law. 11

    Petitioners 'oved for the reconsideration of the said rling of respondent cort, "t the sa'e was denied in the latterKsresoltion of 6anary %3, %((*, 12hence this appeal now "efore s. Petitioners assert that respondent cort has rledpon said isse in a 'anner not in accord with the law and settled risprdence on the 'atter and are now /estioningonce 'ore, on the sa'e grond as that raised "efore respondent cort, the validity of the attestation clase in the last willof 4ateo Ca"allero.

    Je find the present petition to "e 'eritorios, as we shall shortly hereafter, after so'e prefatory o"servations which wefeel shold "e 'ade in aid of the rationale for or resoltion of the controversy.

    %. - will has "een defined as a species of conveyance where"y a person is per'itted, with the for'alities prescri"ed "ylaw, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate after his death. 1>9nder the Civil Code, there are two 1indsof wills which a testator 'ay e!ecte. 19the first 1ind is the ordinary or attested will, the e!ection of which is governed "y-rticles )+3 to )+( of the Code. -rticle )+ re/ires that7

    -rt. )+. Every will, other than a holographic will, 'st "e s"scri"ed at the end thereof "y the testatorhi'self or "y the testatorKs na'e written "y so'e other person in his presence, and "y his e!pressdirection, and attested and s"scri"ed "y three or 'ore credi"le witnesses in the presence of the testatorand of one another.

    The testator or the person re/ested "y hi' to write his na'e and the instr'ental witnesses of the will,shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, e!cept the last, on the left 'argin, and all thepages shall "e n'"ered correlatively in letters placed on the pper part of each page.

    The attestation shold state the n'"er of pages sed pon which the will is written, and the fact that thetestator signed the will and every page thereof, or cased so'e other person to write his na'e, nder hise!press direction, in the presence of the instr'ental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signedthe will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

    If the attestation clase is in a langage not 1nown to the witness, it shall "e interpreted to the'.

    In addition, the ordinary will 'st "e ac1nowledged "efore a notary p"lic "y a testator and the attesting witness. 17henceit is li1ewise 1nown as notarial will. Jhere the attestator is deaf or deaf'te, -rticle )+? re/ires that he 'st personallyread the will, if a"le to do so. Otherwise, he shold designate two persons who wold read the will and co''nicate its

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    19/23

    contents to hi' in a practica"le 'anner. On the other hand, if the testator is "lind, the will shold "e read to hi' twice@once, "y anyone of the witnesses thereto, and then again, "y the notary p"lic "efore who' it is ac1nowledged. 16

    The other 1ind of will is the holographic will, which -rticle )%+ defines as one that is entirely written, dated, and signed "ythe testator hi'self. This 1ind of will, nli1e the ordinary type, re/ires no attestation "y witnesses. - co''onre/ire'ent in "oth 1inds of will is that they shold "e in writing and 'st have "een e!ected in a langage or dialect1nown to the testator. 1

    8owever, in the case of an ordinary or attested will, its attestation clase need not "e written in a langage or dialect

    1nown to the testator since it does not for' part of the testa'entary disposition. 0rther'ore, the langage sed in theattestation clase li1ewise need not even "e 1nown to the attesting witnesses. 18The last paragraph of -rticle )+ 'erelyre/ires that, in sch a case, the attestation clase shall "e interpreted to said witnesses.

    -n attestation clase refers to that part of an ordinary will where"y the attesting witnesses certify that the instr'ent has"een e!ected "efore the' and to the 'anner of the e!ection the sa'e. 1?It is a separate 'e'orand' or record of thefacts srronding the condct of e!ection and once signed "y the witnesses, it gives affir'ation to the fact thatco'pliance with the essential for'alities re/ired "y law has "een o"served. 20It is 'ade for the prpose of preserving ina per'anent for' a record of the facts that attended the e!ection of a particlar will, so that in case of failre of the'e'ory of the attesting witnesses, or other casalty, sch facts 'ay still "e proved. 21

    9nder the third paragraph of -rticle )+, sch a clase, the co'plete lac1 of which wold reslt in the invalidity of thewill, 22shold state #%$ t3e nu#ber of t3e "ages used pon which the will is written@ #*$ that the testator signed, or

    e!pressly cased another to sign, the will and every page thereof in t3e "resence of t3e attesting 4itnesses@ and #A$ thatthe attesting 4itnesses 4itnessed t3e signing by t3e testator of t3e 4illand all its pages,andthat said4itnesses alsosigned t3e 4ill and every page thereof in t3e "resence of t3e testator and of one anot3er.

    The prpose of the law in re/iring the clase to state the n'"er of pages on which the will is written is to safegardagainst possi"le interpolation or o'ission of one or so'e of its pages and to prevent any increase or decrease in thepages@2>whereas the s"scription of the signatre of the testator and the attesting witnesses is 'ade for the prpose ofathentication and identification, and ths indicates that the will is the very sa'e instr'ent e!ected "y the testator andattested to "y the witnesses.29

    0rther, "y attesting and s"scri"ing to the will, the witnesses there"y declare the de e!ection of the will as e'"odiedin the attestation clase.27The attestation clase, therefore, provide strong legal garanties for the de e!ection of a willand to insre the athenticity thereof. 26-s it appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator, it need "e signed

    only "y the'.2Jhere it is left nsigned, it wold reslt in the invalidation of the will as it wold "e possi"le and easy toadd the clase on a s"se/ent occasion in the a"sence of the testator and its witnesses. 28

    In its report, the Code Co''ission co''ented on the reasons of the law for re/iring the for'alities to "e followed in thee!ection of wills, in the following 'anner7

    The nderlying and fnda'ental o"ectives per'eating the provisions on the law on wills in this Proectconsists in the li"erali5ation of the 'anner of their e!ection with the end in view of giving the testator'ore freedo' in e!pressing his last wishes, "t with sfficient safegards and restrictions to prevent theco''ission of frad and the e!ercise of nde and i'proper pressre and inflence pon the testator.

    This o"ective is in accord with the 'odern tendency with respect to the for'alities in the e!ection ofwills. . . .2?

    *. -n e!a'ination of the last will and testa'ent of 4ateo Ca"allero shows that it is co'prised of three sheets all of whichhave "een n'"ered correlatively, with the left 'argin of each page thereof "earing the respective signatres of thetestator and the three attesting witnesses. The part of the will containing the testa'entary dispositions is e!pressed in theCe"anoisayan dialect and is signed at the foot thereof "y the testator. The attestation clase in /estion, on the otherhand, is recited in the English langage and is li1ewise signed at the end thereof "y the three attesting witnesseshereto.>0Since it is the prover"ial "one of contention, we reprodce it again for facility of reference7

    Je, the ndersigned attesting Jitnesses, whose Residences and postal addresses appear on theOpposite of or respective na'es, we do here"y certify that the Testa'ent was read "y hi' and thetestator, 4-TEO C-

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    20/23

    page, as his :ast Jill and Testa'ent and he has the sa'e and every page thereof, on the spacesprovided for his signatre and on the left hand 'argin, in the presence of the said testator and in thepresence of each and all of s.

    It will "e noted that -rticle )+ re/ires that the witness shold "oth attest and s"scri"e to the will in the presence of thetestator and of one another. -ttestation and s"scription differ in 'eaning. -ttestation is the act of senses, whiles"scription is the act of the hand. The for'er is 'ental, the latter 'echanical, and to attest a will is to 1now that it wasp"lished as sch, and to certify the facts re/ired to constitte an actal and legal p"lication@ "t to s"scri"e a paperp"lished as a will is only to write on the sa'e paper the na'es of the witnesses, for the sole prpose of identification. >1

    In Taboada vs. !ial,>2we clarified that attestation consists in witnessing the testatorKs e!ection of the will in order to seeand ta1e note 'entally that those things are done which the statte re/ires for the e!ection of a will and that thesignatre of the testator e!ists as a fact. On the other hand, s"scription is the signing of the witnessesK na'es pon thesa'e paper for the prpose of identification of sch paper as the will which was e!ected "y the testator. -s it involves a'ental act, there wold "e no 'eans, therefore, of ascertaining "y a physical e!a'ination of the will whether thewitnesses had indeed signed in the presence of the testator and of each other nless this is s"stantially e!pressed in theattestation.

    It is contended "y petitioners that the afore/oted attestation clase, in contravention of the e!press re/ire'ents of thethird paragraph of -rticle )+ of the Civil Code for attestation clases, fails to specifically state the fact that the attestingwitnesses the testator sign the will and all its pages in their presence and that they, the witnesses, li1ewise signed the willand every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. Je agree.

    Jhat is fairly apparent pon a carefl reading of the attestation clase herein assailed is the fact that while it recites thatthe testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and states as well then'"er of pages that were sed, the sa'e does not e!pressly state therein the circ'stance that said witnessess"scri"ed their respective signatres to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.

    The phrase and he has signed the sa'e and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signatre and on the lefthand 'argin, o"viosly refers to the testator and not the instr'ental witnesses as it is i''ediately preceded "y thewords as his :ast Jill and Testa'ent. On the other hand, althogh the words in the presence of the testator and in thepresence of each and all of s 'ay, at first "lsh, appear to li1ewise signify and refer to the witnesses, it 'st, however,"e interpreted as referring only to the testator signing in the presence of the witnesses since said phrase i''ediatelyfollows the words 3ehas signed the sa'e and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for 3issignatre and on theleft hand 'argin. Jhat is then clearly lac1ing, in the final logical analysis , is t3e state#ent t3at t3e 4itnesses signed t3e

    4ill and every "age t3ereof in t3e "resence of t3e testator and of one anot3er.

    It is or considered view that the a"sence of that state'ent re/ired "y law is a fatal defect or i'perfection which 'stnecessarily reslt in the disallowance of the will that is here soght to "e ad'itted to pro"ate. Petitioners are correct inpointing ot that the aforestated defect in the attestation clase o"viosly cannot "e characteri5ed as 'erely involving thefor' of the will or the langage sed therein which wold warrant the application of the s"stantial co'pliance rle, asconte'plated in the pertinent provision thereon in the Civil Code, to wit7

    -rt. )+(. In the a"sence of "ad faith, forgery, or frad, or nde and i'proper pressre and inflence,defects and i'perfections in thefor#of attestation or in t3e languagesed therein shall not render thewill invalid if it is not proved that the will was in fact e!ected and attested in s"stantial co'pliance withall the re/ire'ents of article )+ #E'phasis spplied.$

    Jhile it 'ay "e tre that the attestation clase is indeed s"scri"ed at the end thereof and at the left 'argin of each page"y the three attesting witnesses, it certainly cannot "e conclsively inferred therefro' that the said witness affi!ed theirrespective signatres in the presence of the testator and of each other since, as petitioners correctly o"served, thepresence of said signatres only esta"lishes the fact that it was indeed signed, "t it does not prove that the attestingwitnesses did s"scri"e to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The e!ection of a will is spposed to"e one act so that where the testator and the witnesses sign on varios days or occasions and in varios co'"inations,the will cannot "e sta'ped with the i'pri'atr of effectivity. >>

    Je "elieve that the frther co''ent of for'er 6stice 6.9regarding -rticle )+(, wherein he rged cation inthe application of the s"stantial co'pliance rle therein, is correct and shold "e applied in the case nderconsideration, as well as to ftre cases with si'ilar /estions7

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    21/23

    . . . The rle 'st "e li'ited to disregarding those defects that can "e spplied "y an e!a'ination of thewill itself7 whether all the pages are consectively n'"ered@ whether the signatres appear in each andevery page@ whether the s"scri"ing witnesses are three or the will was notari5ed. -ll theses are factsthat the will itself can reveal, and defects or even o'issions concerning the' in the attestation clase can"e safely disregarded. In re Will of Andrada,99Uy Coque vs. Sioca,97In re 0state of Neu#ar$, 96and Sanovs. uintana.9

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    22/23

    Du#ban vs. Dorec3o) et al.,98provided the Cort with the occasion to clarify the see'ingly conflicting decisions in theafore'entioned cases. In said case of Du#ban, the attestation clase had failed to state that the witnesses signed the wiland each and every page thereof on the left 'argin in the presence of the testator. The will in /estion was disallowed,with these reasons therefor7

    In spport of their arg'ent on the assign'ent of error a"ove'entioned, appellants rely on a series ofcases of this cort "eginning with #I$n the 4atter of the #E$state of Saginsin #L%(*+M, 3% Phil., )?$,contining with In re Jill of -ndrada L%(*%M, 3* Phil., %)+$, 9y Co/e vs. Navas :. Sioca L%(**M, 3A Phil.,3+$, and In re Estate of Ne'ar1 #L%(*AM, 3& Phil., )3%$, and ending with Sano vs. uintana#L%(*M, 3)

    Phil., +&$. -ppellee conters with the citation of a series of cases "eginning withAbangan vs.Abangan #L%(%(M, 3+ Phil., 3?&$, contining throghAldaba vs. !oque #L%(**M, 3A Phil., A?)$,and Fernande vs. Eergel de ;ios #L%(*3M, 3& Phil., (**$, and cl'inating in Nayve vs. ,o-al and

    Aguilar #L%(*3M, 3? Phil., %*$. In its last analysis, or tas1 is to contrast and, if possi"le, conciliate the lasttwo decisions cited "y opposing consel, na'ely, those of Sano vs. uintana,su"ra, and Nayve vs. ,o-aland Aguilar, su"ra.

    In the case of Sano vs. uintana, su"ra, it was decided that an attestation clase which does not recitethat the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof on the left 'argin in the presence ofthe testator is defective, and sch a defect annls the will. The case of Uy Coque vs. Sioca, su"ra, wascited, "t the case of Nayve vs. ,o-al and Aguilar, su"ra, was not 'entioned. In contrast, is the decisionin Nayve vs. ,o-al and Aguilar, su"ra, wherein it was held that the attestation clase 'st estate the factthat the testator and the witnesses reciprocally saw the signing of the will, for sch an act cannot "eproved "y the 'ere e!hi"ition of the will, if it is not stated therein. It was also held that the fact that thetestator and the witnesses signed each and every page of the will can "e proved also "y the 'eree!a'ination of the signatres appearing on the doc'ent itself, and the o'ission to state sch evidentfacts does not invalidate the will.

    It is a ha"it of corts to reaffir' or distingish previos cases@ seldo' do they ad'it inconsistency indoctrine. =et here, nless aided i'possi"le to reconcile the 4oal and intana decisions. They arefnda'entally at variance. If we rely on one, we affir'. If we rely on the other, we reverse.

    In resolving this p55ling /estion of athority, three otstanding points 'ay "e 'entioned. In the firstplace, the 4oal, decision was concrred in "y only for 'e'"ers of the cort, less than a 'aority, withtwo strong dissenting opinions@ the intana decision was concrred in "y seven 'e'"ers of the cort, aclear 'aority, with one for'al dissent. In the second place, the 4oal decision was pro'lgated in

    Dece'"er, %(*3, while the intana decision was pro'lgated in Dece'"er, %(*@ the intanadecision was ths s"se/ent in point of ti'e. -nd in the third place, the intana decision is "elieved'ore nearly to confor' to the applica"le provisions of the law.

    The right to dispose of property "y will is governed entirely "y statte. The law of the case is here fond insection &% of the Code of Civil Procedre as a'ended "y -ct No. *&3, and in section &A3 of the sa'eCode, as na'ended. It is in part provided in section &%, as a'ended that No 4ill. . .s3all bevalid. . . unless . . .. It is frther provided in the sa'e section that The attestation s3allstate the n'"erof sheets or pages sed, pon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will andevery page thereof, or cased so'e other person to write his na'e, nder his e!press direction, in thepresence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in thepresence of the testator and of each other. Codal section &A3 provides that The will s3all"e disallowedin either of the following case7 %. If note!ected and attestedas in this -ct provided. The law not alone

    careflly 'a1es se of the i'perative, "t catiosly goes frther and 'a1es se of the negative, toenforce legislative intention. It is not within the province of the corts to disregard the legislative prposeso e'phatically and clearly e!pressed.

    Je adopt and reaffir' the decision in the case of Sano vs. uintana, su"ra, and, to the e!tent necessary,'odify the decision in the case of Nayve vs. ,o-al and Aguilar, su"ra. #E'phases in the original te!t$.

  • 8/14/2019 ART 804-806

    23/23

    Fernande,62,endoa vs. /ila"il, 6>and Lo"e vs. Liboro,69veered away fro' the strict interpretation rle andesta"lished a trend toward an application of the li"eral view.

    The Code Co''ission, cogni5ant of sch a conflicting welter of views and of the ndenia"le inclination towards a li"eralconstrction, reco''ended the codification of the s"stantial co'pliance rle, as it "elieved this rle to "e in accord withthe 'odern tendency to give a li"eral approach to the interpretation of wills. Said rle ths "eca'e what is now -rticle)+( of the Civil Code, with this e!planation of the Code Co''ission7

    The present law provides for only one for' of e!ecting a will, and that is, in accordance with the

    for'alities prescri"ed "y Section &%) of the Code of Civil Procedre as a'ended "y -ct No. *&3. TheSpre'e Cort of the Philippines had previosly pheld the strict co'pliance with the legal for'alitiesand had even said that the provisions of Section &%) of the Code of Civil Procedre, as a'endedregarding the contents of the attestation clase were 'andatory, and nonco'pliance therewithinvalidated the will #9y Co/e vs. Sioca, 3A Phil. 3+$. These decisions necessarily restrained thefreedo' of the testator in disposing of his property.

    8owever, in recent years the Spre'e Cort changed its attitde and has "eco'e 'ore li"eral in theinterpretation of the for'alities in the e!ection of wills. This li"eral view is ennciated in the casesof!odrigue vs. a", ;.R. No. 3(*3, 4ay %), %(A(@ Leyne vs. Leyne, ;.R. No. 3&+(?, Octo"er %),%(A(@ ,artir vs. ,artir, ;.R. No. 3&((, 6ne *%, %(3+@ andAlcala vs. Eilla, ;.R. No. 3?A%, -pril %),%(3%.

    In the a"ove 'entioned decisions of or Spre'e Cort, it has practically gone "ac1 to the originalprovisions of Section &%) of the Code of Civil Procedre "efore its a'end'ent "y -ct No. *&3 in theyear %(%&. To trn this attitde into a legislative declaration and to attain the 'ain o"ective of theproposed Code in the li"erali5ation of the 'anner of e!ecting wills, article )*( of the Proect isreco''ended, which reads7

    -rt. )*(. In the a"sence of "ad faith, forgery, or frad, or nde and i'proper pressreand inflence, defects and i'perfections in the for' of attestation or in the langagesed therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in facte!ected and attested in s"stantial co'pliance with all the re/ire'ents of article)*(.67

    The socalled li"eral rle, the Cort said in Dil vs. ,urciano,66does not offer any p55le or difficlty, nor does it open the

    door to serios conse/ences. The later decisions do tell s when and where to stop@ they draw the dividing line withprecision. They do not allow evidence aliundeto fill a void in any part of the doc'ent or spply 'issing details thatshold appear in the will itself. They only per'it a pro"e into the will, an e!ploration into its confines, to ascertain its'eaning or to deter'ine the e!istence or a"sence of the re/isite for'alities of law. This clear, sharp li'itation eli'inatesncertainty and oght to "anish any fear of dire reslts.

    It 'ay ths "e stated that the rle, as it now stands, is that o'issions which can "e spplied "y an e!a'ination of the willitself, withot the need of resorting to e!trinsic evidence, will not "e fatal and, correspondingly, wold not o"strct theallowance to pro"ate of the will "eing assailed. 8owever, those o'issions which cannot "e spplied e!cept "yevidence aliundewold reslt in the invalidation of the attestation clase and lti'ately, of the will itself.6

    J8ERE0ORE, the petition is here"y ;R-NTED and the i'pgned decision of respondent cort is here"y REERSEDand SET -SIDE. The cort a quois accordingly directed to forthwith DIS4ISS its Special Proceeding No. A)((R #Petition

    for the Pro"ate of the :ast Jill and Testa'ent of 4ateo Ca"allero$ and to REIE Special Proceeding No. A(&R #In the'atter of the Intestate Estate of 4ateo Ca"allero$ as an active case and thereafter dly proceed with the settle'ent of theestate of the said decedent.

    SO ORDERED.