ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47032 June 6, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE MIRANDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 222

  • G.R. Nos. 47038, 47039 & 47040 June 6 1941

    LUIS R. PIMENTEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 47260 June 6, 1941 - BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. EUGENIA M. SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 47454 June 6, 1941 - ADRIANO TRINIDAD v. ANDRES S. SIOCHI, ET AL.

    072 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 47317 June 10, 1941 - SISENANDO ABARRO v. TOMASA DE GUIA

    072 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 47519 June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO

    072 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 47549 June 10, 1941 - J. BENTON CLAUSEN v. ISABEL CABRERA

    072 Phil 252

  • G.R. Nos. 47646 & 47657 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO BALTAZAR v. ANDRES LAYUG, ET AL.

    072 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 47684 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO A. MANEJA

    072 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 47686 June 10, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SANDIKO

    072 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 47689 June 10, 1941 - WILFRIDO MACEDA, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 47694 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 47756 June 10, 1941 - LUIS OCAMPO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 47762 June 10, 1941 - SILVERIO MORCO v. SALVADOR MUÑOZ

    072 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 47764 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO V. VILLARICA v. CONCEPCION MANIKIS

    072 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 47770 June 10, 1941 - SILVESTRE GALLANO v. PABLO S. RIVERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 47780 June 10, 1941 - CIRILO ALAFRIZ v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 47789 June 10, 1941 - FE CASTRO DE AGBAYANI v. JUSTICE OF PEACE OF THE CAPITAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 47816 June 10, 1941 - SABINO AGUILOS v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 47862 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. SINFOROSO TAGOC

    072 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 47863 June 10, 1941 - JOSE H. JUNQUERA v. JOSE VAÑO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 47892 June 10, 1941 - PABLO VALENZUELA v. VALERIO FLORES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 48027 June 10, 1941 - EL INTESTADO DE BENITO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    072 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47421 June 13, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47734 June 13, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. CORNELIO PINEDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 47738 June 13, 1941 - ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47799 June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47965 June 13, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. MARIANO ABACAHIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 47072 June 17, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 47358 June 17, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 47432 June 17, 1941 - EUSTAQUIO FULE v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 47542 June 17, 1941 - LA FABRICA DE CERVEZA DE SAN MIGUEL v. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU

    072 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47570 June 17, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE PAMPANGA v. ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO

    072 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47580 June 17, 1941 - SIMEON MANDAC v. COURT OF APPEALS

    072 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 47587 June 17, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. A. L. YATCO

    072 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 47660 June 17, 1941 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICENTE VERSOZA

    072 Phil 362

  • G.R. Nos. 47678 & 47679 June 17, 1941 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO, ET AL. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 47724 June 17, 1941 - HERMENEGILDO DEVEZA v. MANUEL RUIZ RUILOBA

    072 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 47745 June 17, 1941 - JOSE OLIVER SUCCESSORS v. MARIAÑO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 47771 June 17, 1941 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. GRACIANO DE LA RAMA

    072 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 47837 June 17, 1941 - SEGUNDO GARCIA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 47848 June 17, 1941 - BONIFACIO DANGALAN v. DOMINGO MARTICIO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 47889 June 17, 1941 - ANDRES JARDIN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA VILLAMAYOR

    072 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47972 June 17, 1941 - A. K. SPIELBERGER v. L. R. NIELSON

    072 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 47538 June 20, 1941 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. ARCO AMUSEMENT CO.

    072 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 47588 June 20, 1941 - JOSE L. LIWANAG v. TOLARAM MENGHRAJ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 47601 June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 47683 June 20, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. CONSOLACION M. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 47726 June 20, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL. v. VICTORINO DANGOY

    072 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 47797 June 20, 1941 - JOSEFA LABOT v. EDUVIGES LIBRADA

    072 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47819 June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 48100 June 20, 1941 - FLORENCIO PELOBELLO v. GREGORIO PALATINO

    072 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 46966 June 24, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE FILIPINAS v. CHUNG LIU & COMPANY

    072 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 47058 June 27, 1941 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL

    072 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 47189 June 27, 1941 - A. L. AMMEN TRANS. CO. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS

    072 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 47226 June 27, 1941 - PEDRO DE JESUS v. GUAN BEE CO.

    072 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 47338 June 27, 1941 - FRANCISCO EGMIDIO v. LEON REGALADO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 47354 June 27, 1941 - EL OPISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE NUEVA SEGOVIA v. EL MUNICIPIO DE SANTA CATALINA

    072 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47380 June 27, 1941 - ZACARIAS DE SADUESTE v. MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO

    072 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 47409 June 27, 1941 - ANGEL P. MIGUEL v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    072 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 47411 June 27, 1941 - J. A. WOLFSON v. MANILA STOCK EXCHANGE

    072 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 47465 June 27, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. POPULAR LABOR UNION OF CAIBIRAN

    072 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 47501 June 27, 1941 - FELIX B. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. GABRIEL LASAM, ET AL.

    072 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941 - IDONAH SLADE PERKINS v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 47641 June 27, 1941 - JOSEFA BUNDALIAN, ET AL. v. JUAN DE VERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 47701 June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 47731 June 27, 1940

    QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ

    072 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 47888 June 27, 1941 - MANUEL VILLARAMA vs.JUANITO MANLUSOC

    072 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47931 June 27, 1941 - ADRIANO MENDOZA v. CALIXTO PILAPIL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. 47955 y 47993 June 27, 1941 - MARIANO B. ARROY, ET AL. v. ARSENIO DIZON

    072 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 47971 June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 48004 June 27, 1941 - CARLOS DORONILA v. DOLORES VASQUEZ DE ARROYO

    072 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 47179 June 28, 1941 - PHIL. ASS’N OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS v. M. JESUS CUENCO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 47269 June 28, 1941 - KUAN LOW & CO. v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE ADUANAS

    072 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47424 June 28, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

    072 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 47586 June 28, 1941 - LIM BONFING, ET AL. v. TEODORICO RODRIGUEZ

    072 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 47966 June 28, 1941 - LOPE ATIENZA v. MAXIMINO CASTILLO

    072 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 47342 June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    073 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47446 June 30, 1941 - JOSE P. BANTUG v. MAMERTO ROXAS

    073 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 47637 June 30, 1941 - JOSE VISTAN v. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE MANILA

    073 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 47663 June 30, 1941 - JULIN GO v. EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    073 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 47768 June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47790 June 30, 1941 - IN RE: EMILIANO GUZMAN

    073 Phil 51

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47731   June 27, 1940<br /><br />QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ<br /><br />072 Phil 531

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 47731. June 27, 1940.]

    QUINTINA R. SABADO, Applicant-Appellant, v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ, Oppositor-Appellee.

    Tomas B. Tadeo for Appellant.

    Primicias, Abad, Mencias & Castillo for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    WILLS; PROBATE; ATTESTATION CLAUSE. — It is contended that the pronoun "us" in the attestation clause refers to witnesses and not to the testator. The testator is mentioned in the antecedent clause and the word "us" may be held to refer both to the testator and the witnesses from the general tenor of the attestation clause. Granting the mistake or imperfection, it is one of language. Grammar is a subject worthwhile mastering, but few people are probably thus privileged; some are unfamiliar, with its conventional intriacacies, while others happen to neglect the rules thereof. Omission of this kind should not give rise to the frustration of the recognized testamentary right of the citizen under the circumstances of the present case.


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    Hermogenes R. Sabado before his death which occurred on March 13, 1938, executed a will which was presented in the court below as Exhibit A. He left neither descendants nor ascendants. His sister, Quintina R. Sabado, moved for the allowance of the will. The widow of the deceased, Leoncia Fernandez, opposed the allowance. The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan disallowed the will, on the ground that the attestation clause is defective and does not state that the witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testator as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From this disallowance, appeal was taken by the movant to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to this court, pursuant to the provisions of section 145-H of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act. No. 3.

    There is no question regarding the authenticity of the will; neither is there any allegation of bad faith or fraud in the execution of the will in question. The attestation clause of the will recites as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "We the undersigned, Elena Santos, Tomas B. Tadeo, and Natalio D. Robles, hereby declare: That we know Hermogenes Sabado the testator, that he signed the foregoing testament in our presence and we sign the same in the presence of each of us; the testator has read the testament and understood the same; it is written in English known by the testator; it is written only in one page; before signing the same as it was read to him and he understood it; and we hereby sign as witnesses.

    "San Miguel, February 25, 1938 A. D.

    (Sgd.) "NATALIO D. ROBLES

    "ELENA SANTOS

    "TOMAS B. TADEO"

    It is contended that the pronoun "us" in the attestation clause refers to witnesses and not to the testator. The testator is mentioned in the antecedent clause and the word "us" may be held to refer to both the testator and the witnesses from the general tenor of the attestation clause. Granting the mistake or imperfection, it is one of language. Grammar is a subject worthwhile mastering, but few people are probably thus privileged; some are unfamiliar with its conventional intricacies, while others happen to neglect the rules thereof. Omission of this kind should not give rise to the frustration of the recognized testamentary right of the citizen under the circumstances of the present case. In Leynes v. Leynes, G.R. NO. 46097, promulgated October 18, 1939, we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The alleged defect in the attestation clause of the controverted will is that it fails to state that the testator and the three witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the manner prescribed by law, because it merely states ’firmamos el presente cada uno en presencia de los otros, o de los demas y de la del mismo testador Valerio Leynes.’ In deciding this question the Court of Appeals, however, ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘A la luz de las jurisprudencias arriba citadas, en la clausula de atestiguamiento discutida en el asunto de autos, no encontramos un cumplimiento sustancial del requisito exigido por la ley, de que en ella se haga contar que el testador y los testigos han firmado unos en presencia de otros, todas y cada una de las paginas usadas del testamento, requisito que no se puede comprobar mediante un examen del testamento, ni se puede establecer por medio de su prueba aliunde.’

    "Against this conclusion of the Court of Appeals, petitioner puts forward the contention that it has decided a question of substance in a way not probably in accord with the law and the applicable decisions of this court. (Rule 47, paragraph A (1) of Supreme Court). The rule of liberal construction of the applicable law should, petitioner avers, be held to apply in the case at bar, and in support of her contention she invokes a long array of cases (Abangan v. Abangan, 40 Phil., 476; Avera v. Garcia and Rodriguez, 42 Phil., 145; Abalda v. Roque, 43 Phil., 378; Unson v. Abella, 43 Phil., 494; Fernandez v. Vergel De Dios, 46 Phil., 922; Nayve v. Mojal, 47 Phil., 152; De Gala v. Gonzales, 53 Phil., 104; Rey v. Cartagena, 56 Phil., 282; Dichoso de Ticson v. De Gorostiza, 57 Phil., 437; Sebastian v. Panganiban, 59 Phil., 653; De Guzman v. Celestino, G.R. No. 35273, April 25, 1932; Policarpio v. Baltazar, G.R. No. 36439, November 14, 1932; Malate v. Olea, G.R. No. 36154, December 16, 1932; In re Estate of Harry Edgar Jennings, 1933, G.R. No. 37758). To this line of cases those of Rodriguez v. Yap Et. Al., G.R. No. 45924, May 18, 1939, and Grey v. Fabie Et. Al., G.R. No. 45160, May 23, 1939, may perhaps be added. Respondent, on the other hand, equally invokes a number of cases wherein, he contends, the rule of strict construction was made to prevail. (Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil., 405; In re Estate of Newmark, 46 Phil., 841; Saño v. Quintana, 48 Phil., 506; Gumban v. Gorecho, 50 Phil., 30; Quinto v. Morata, 54 Phil., 481; Rodriguez v. Alcala, 55 Phil. 150.)

    "This court has already taken notice of these different views when, in Dichoso de Ticson v. De Gerostiza, (57 Phil., 437; 439 — 440), it frankly made the following observation: "The truth is that there have been noticeable in the Philippines two divergent tendencies in the law of wills-the one being planted on strict construction and the other on liberal construction. A late example of the former views may be found in the decision in Rodriguez v. Alcala ([1930], 55 Phil., 150), sanctioning a literal enforcement of the law. The basic case in the other direction, predicated on reason, is Abangan v. Abangan ([1919], 40 Phil., 476), oft-cited approvingly in later decisions.’ It is fairness to recognize the existence of opposing currents of legal thought, a situation which perhaps has brought about a certain degree of confusion in this field. It is also fairness to avow, however, that a more careful examination of the cases will show that, while the two tendencies mentioned is easily discernible, the conflict in many cases is more apparent that real, and the variance, if at all, in the application of the principles involved was due in some instances to the amendment of the law and in other instances to the marked differentiation of facts and the consequent personal or collective criteria in particular cases.

    "We have taken pains to examine the numerous cases relied upon by the petitioner and those relied upon by the respondent, and while we do not deem it necessary to make a detailed comparison between them, we find no difficulty in selecting what we consider is the reasonable rule to apply in the case at bar. It is, of course, not possible to lay down a general rule, rigid and inflexible, which would be applicable to all cases. More than anything else, the facts and circumstances of record are to be considered in the application of any given rule. If the surrounding circumstances point to a regular execution of the will, and the instrument appears to have been executed substantially in accordance with the requirements of the law, the inclination should, in the absence of any suggestion of bad faith, forgery or fraud, lean towards its admission to probate, although the document may suffer from some imperfection of language, or other nonessential effect. This, in our opinion, is the situation in the present case, and we, therefore, hold that the requirement that the attestation clause, among other things, shall state ’that the testator signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of three witnesses, and that the witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other,’ is sufficiently complied with, it appearing that the testator and the witnesses signed each and every page of the will according to the stipulation of the parties. (Record on Appeal, stipulation, pp. 10, 14-15); and this fact being shown in the will itself, and there being, furthermore, no question raised as to the authenticity of the signatures of the testator and the witnesses.

    "An attestation clause is made for the purpose of preserving, in permanent form, a record of the facts attending to the execution of the will, so that in the case of failure of the memory of subscribing witnesses, or other casualty, they may still be proved. (Thompson on Wills, 2nd ed., sec. 132.) A will, therefore, should not be rejected where its attestation clause serves the purpose of the law. The law-making body, in recognition of the dangers to which testamentary dispositions are apt to be subject in the hands of unscrupulous individuals, has surrounded the execution of wills with every solemnity deemed necessary to safeguard it. This purpose was indicated when our legislature provided for the exclusion of evidence aliunde to prove the due execution of the will. We should not, however, attribute the prohibition as indicative of a desire to impose unreasonable restraint or beyond what reason and justice permit. It could have been the intention of the legislature in providing for the essential safeguards in the execution of a will to shackle the very right of testamentary disposition which the law recognizes and holds sacred. The pronouncement of this court in Abangan v. Abangan, (40 Phil., 476, 479), expresses the sound rule to which we have recently adhered in principle (Rodriguez v. Yap, G.R. No. 45924, promulgated May 18, 1939; and Grey v. Fabie, G.R. No. 54160, promulgated May 23, 1939):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "‘The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testators last will, must be disregarded.’"

    The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the will allowed to probate, without pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Diaz and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    MORAN, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I cannot agree with the majority opinion. The attestation clause is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "We the undersigned, Elena Santos, Tomas B. Tadeo, and Natalio D. Robles, hereby declare: That we know Hemogenes Sabado the testator, that he signed the foregoing testament in our presence and we sign the same in the presence of each of us; the testator has read the testament and understood the same; it is written in English known by the testator; it is written only in one page; before signing the same it was read to him and he understood it; and we hereby sign as witnesses."cralaw virtua1aw library

    One of the facts required by law to be stated in a attestation clause is that the will has been signed by the attesting witnesses in the presence of the testator. Statement of such fact is wanting in the above attestation clause, and the trial court committed no error in disallowing the will.

    The majority, however, believes that the pronoun "us" in the attestation clause refers not only to the attesting witnesses but to the testator also. Such a construction is, in my judgment, utterly groundless.

    In the attestation clause it is the attesting witnesses alone who are speaking, and the words "we", "our", and "us" appearing therein can have no reference but to them alone. Whenever the testator is referred to in the attestation clause, the reference is made by his name "Hermogenes Sabado", or by the words "the testator" or "he." There can be no doubt, therefore, that the pronoun "us" appearing in the attestation clause can have no reference to the testator.

    After thus giving an erroneous meaning to the pronoun "us", the majority finds, in consequence, a mistake or imperfection of language in the attestation clause, and on the ground of such supposed grammatical deficiency ignores the fatal defect of the attestation clause. Whether this trend of reasoning is a liberal or strict construction of the law is immaterial, for it is in my opinion wrong, and I cannot agree with it.

    G.R. No. 47731   June 27, 1940<br /><br />QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ<br /><br />072 Phil 531


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED