Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > September 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1888 September 2, 1905 - PETRONILA VALERA v. SEVERINO PURUGGANAN

004 Phil 719:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1888. September 2, 1905. ]

PETRONILA VALERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEVERINO PURUGGANAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Del Paz, Ortigas & Fisher, for Appellant.

F . Dominguez, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. WILLS, EXECUTION; NOTARIES PUBLIC. — By the provisions of the law now in force it is not necessary that a notary public take part in the execution of a will.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RELATION OF NOTARY. — The fact that a notary did act as such in the execution of a will in 1902, and that he was a brother of the principal beneficiary under the will, did not invalidate the will. Article 754 of the Civil Code, which 90 provided, has been repealed.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — The fact that the notary who assisted in the execution of the will was a brother of the principal beneficiary is not sufficient to show that undue influence was exercised upon the testator.

4. ID.; IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNATURE; PROBATE. — Castañeda v. Alemany (2 Off. Gaz., 366), followed to the point that the fact that the witnesses at the trial did not identify their signatures did not require a judgment refusing probate to the will.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


Cosme Purugganan was the husband of the appellant, and Severino Purugganan the appellee, was his brother. Cosme died on the 13th day of December, 1902, leaving neither children nor father nor mother surviving. He left a will which was executed on the 30th of July 1902. He appointed as his only heir the appellant, his wife. In case his wife should die before he died, he appointed as his heir Rita Barcena. In case Rita should die before he died, he appointed as his heirs his next of kin. In case his wife should die after Rita died, he provided that his property should pass to his next of kin. He appointed a guardian for Rita, and executors of his will.

At the time this document was executed, to wit, on the 30th day of July, 1902, and at the time the testator died, on the 13th of December, 1902, the law in force in regard to the execution of wills was section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This will was executed in the presence of three witnesses, who signed the same in the presence of the testator, and in the presence of each other. It was accordingly executed in compliance with the law.

The judge below refused to probate the will on the ground that the notary before whom it was executed was a brother of the appellant, and that the will was accordingly void under the terms of article 754 of the Civil Code, which provided that the testator could not dispose of the whole or any part of his estate in favor of the notary who took part in the execution of the will, or of any relation of his within the fourth degree.

In accordance with the law now in force it is not necessary that a notary should intervene in the execution of any will. In every case it is sufficient if the will is signed by the testator and by three credible witnesses, in the manner stated in said section 618. There were in this case three credible witnesses, of whom the notary was not one. What the notary did was no more than the work of a lawyer. Moreover, even if the notary had been a witness to the will, it would not have been void on that account, but by section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any legacy made to the notary who was a witness, or to his relatives named in said section, would have been void. It follows that article 754 of the Civil Code was repealed by these provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It is apparently claimed by the appellee in his brief that the testator made his will as he did by reason of undue influence exercised by the beneficiaries. There is no evidence in the case to show any undue influence exercised by anyone. The only evidence which could possibly be said to exist upon that point is evidence of the fact that the notary was a brother of the appellant, who was made the heiress, but this is not sufficient to show undue influence.

It is claimed also by the appellee that the judgment of the court was correct, because at the time of the hearing the original will was not produced in court. In answer to this it may be said that it does not affirmatively appear that the original will was not produced in court. In one part of the testimony it is stated that the will was read. In another part of the proceedings it is stated that the will was presented with the petition.

The fact that the witnesses did not identify their signatures to the will is not important. We have already so held in the case of Castañeda v. Alemany (2 Off. Gaz., 366). Upon the point here in question the two cases are almost identical.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and after the expiration of twenty days the case will be remanded to that court, with instructions to enter judgment as prayed for in the petition for the probate of the will. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 3 Phil. Rep., 426.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1572 September 1, 1905 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. WIFE AND SON OF IGNACIO GORRICHO

    004 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. 2738 September 1, 1906

    UNITED STATES v. MORO SARIHUL

    004 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. 1888 September 2, 1905 - PETRONILA VALERA v. SEVERINO PURUGGANAN

    004 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 1837 September 5, 1905 - ESTEBAN QUIROS v. D. M. CARMAN

    004 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 1889 September 5, 1906

    JOHN B. EARLY v. SY GIANG

    004 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 2027 September 5, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY v. SY-GIANG

    004 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 1783 September 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO ARCEO

    004 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 1850 September 6, 1905 - NATIVIDAD AGUILAR v. PLACIDO LAZARO

    004 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 1884 September 7, 1905 - PRESENTACION INFANTE v. MANUEL T. FIGUERAS

    004 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 2078 September 7, 1905 - VICENTE BENEDICTO v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 2205 September 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENAVENTURA v. JUANA URBANO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 1875 September 9, 1905 - RUDOLPH WAHL v. DONALDSON SIM & CO.

    005 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 2026 September 13, 1905 - ALEJANDRO A. SANTOS v. ANGEL LIMUCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. 2122 September 13, 1905 - PEDRO T. ACOSTA v. DAVID FLOR

    005 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 2100 September 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MATIAS DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    005 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 2028 September 16, 1905 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. HENRY M. JONES

    005 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 2036 September 18, 1905 - MARIA MANONA v. DIONISIO OBLERO

    005 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 2033 September 19, 1905 - RUFINA CAUSIN v. FORTUNATO RICAMORA

    005 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 2045 September 20, 1905 - ADRIANO MORTIGA v. VICENTE SERRA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 1746 September 21, 1905 - TOMAS OSMEÑA v. JOSE GORORDO

    005 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 2275 September 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO DALASAY

    005 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 1890 September 22, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY v. SY-GIANG

    005 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 2126 September 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SY VINCO

    005 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. 2879 September 25, 1905 - EDWIN CASE v. METROPOLE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT

    005 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 1698 September 26, 1905 - JULIAN BORROMEO v. JOSE F. FRANCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 862 September 27, 1905 - JOSE VASQUEZ v. BENITO SANCHEZ

    005 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 2288 September 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX GARCIA

    005 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 2805 September 27, 1905 - MARIANO ANDRES v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    005 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 2781 September 28, 1905 - VICTOR LOPEZ v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER, ET AL.

    005 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 1913 September 29, 1905 - FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    005 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 2086 September 29, 1905 - P. ELADIO ALONSO v. MUNICIPALITY OF PLACER

    005 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 2366 September 29, 1905 - PATRICIA ABOLENCIA v. GUILLERMO MAAÑO

    005 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 1472 September 30, 1905 - E.J. SMITH AND RAFAEL REYES v. JACINTA LOPEZ, ET AL.

    005 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 1876 September 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SMITH BELL & COMPANY

    005 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 2808 September 30, 1905 - FELIX BARCELONA v. DAVID J. BAKER, ET AL.

    005 Phil 87