Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > May 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1162 May 30, 1951 - IN RE: ROSARIO DIA v. JUAN ZUÑIGA

089 Phil 129:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-1162. May 30, 1951.]

Testate estate of the deceased Enrique C. Zuñiga. ROSARIO DIA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JUAN ZUÑIGA and FAUSTINA CALANOG, Oppositors-Appellants.

Potenciano A. Magtibay for Appellants.

Juan Q. Abello and Suarez & Remo for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


WILLS; ATTESTATION CLAUSE; FAILURE TO STATE THAT TESTATOR SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES. — The flaw attributed to the attestation clause in question is that, although the witnesses stated that the testator signed the will and on both pages at the left hand margin, they did not certify that the testator signed "in the presence of the instrumental witnesses." Held: The attestation clause is sufficient, following the later trend. The word "we" in the last sentence of the attestation clause, although expected to relate to the attesting witnesses, may also refer both to the testator and to the attesting witnesses, who moreover could not have certified — as they did — that the testator signed the will and all pages thereof at the left hand margin, if said testator did not sign in their presence.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


Enrique C. Zuñiga died on December 31, 1945, leaving a will with the following attestation clause:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That we, the undersigned witnesses, hereby certify that these LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT consisting of two pages written in two sheets, each sheet composing a page, including the page in which this attestation clause is written; that each page is correlatively numbered in letters in the middle of the upper part of each page; and that the Testator signed the will and on both pages at the left hand margin of the page; and that we also signed at the left hand margin of the will on both pages in the presence of the Testator and in the presence and within sight of each other."cralaw virtua1aw library

Said will was presented in the Court of First Instance of Quezon for probate by Rosario Dia, wife of the testator. The petition for probate was opposed by Juan Zuñiga and Faustina Calanog, parents of the testator. In the decision of the Court of First Instance rendered on April 12, 1946, the will was admitted to probate. The oppositors have appealed, raising the sole contention that the trial court erred "in admitting to probate the will and last testament of Enrique C. Zuñiga, despite the defect that the attestation clause does not state that the testator signed the will and each page thereof in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses, and in declaring that said defect was cured by the oral testimony of the instrumental witnesses." The appellants invoke the case of Quinto v. Morata, 54 Phil., 481, wherein it was held that the attestation clause must be made in strict conformity with the requirements of section 618 of Act No. 190, as amended, and evidence aliunde should not be admitted to establish facts not appearing in the attestation clause.

As already stated, the flaw attributed to the attestation clause in question is that, although it states that the testator signed the will and on both pages at the left hand margin, it does not certify that the testator signed "in the presence of the instrumental witnesses." In decisions of this Court posterior to the case relied upon by the appellants, the probate of wills containing attestation clauses similarly assailed, had been sustained. In Estate on the Deceased Magdalena Ozoa, G.R. No. 37208, 58 Phil., 928, in which it was contended that the attestation clause failed to state that the testatrix signed each and every page of the will in the presence of the three witnesses and in the presence of each other, the following ruling was made: "While the words ’we have each signed, the same and each page thereof in the presence of said testatrix and in the presence of each other’ would be expected to relate to the attesting witnesses, it is possible to find that the quoted words also relate to the testatrix. Otherwise stated, the word ’we’ could include both the testatrix and the attesting witnesses." (Quoted in Sebastian v. Pañganiban, 59 Phil., 653, 655.)

In the latter case of Sebastian v. Pañganiban, wherein the argument was advanced that the attestation clause failed to state that the witnesses signed the will in the presence of each other, this Court, citing the Ozoa decision, upheld the probate of the will.

Following the later trend, we are constrained to sustain the appealed judgment. Indeed, the word "we" in the last sentence of the attestation clause in dispute, above quoted, although expected to relate to the attesting witnesses, may also refer both to the testator and to the attesting witnesses. It is likewise obvious that the attesting witnesses could not have certified — as they did — that the testator signed the will and all pages thereof at the left hand margin, if said testator did not sign in their presence. The case, ultimately, is one more or less of grammatical imperfection.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is affirmed with costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered.

Feria, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


PABLO, M., disidente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

En mi opinion, no debe legalizarse el testamento del finado Enrique C. Zuñiga, porque no aparece en la clausula de atestiguamiento que el testador haya firmado el testamento en presencia de los tres testigos presenciales. Esto es un requisito indispensable. La ley exige que el testador firme el testamento en presencia de tres o mas testigos para evitar que un testamento firmado por un testador en presencia de nadie pueda despues ser legalizado si, a peticion de alguien, tres testigos firman la clausula de atestiguamiento aseverando que cada uno de los tres firmo la clausula en presencia de cada uno de ellos. Con esta clase de certificacion de tres personas es facil legalizar un testamento apocrifo. En el caso citado, los tres testigos que firman la clausula de atestiguamiento no mienten porque no certifican que el testador firmo el testamento en su presencia. Supongase que un testador haya firmado su testamento en presencia de nadie y por s�plicas de alguien, los testigos firmaron la clausula de atestiguamiento porque creian — por las seguridades dadas por ese alguien — que la firma es del testador. Las tres testigos no mienten en la clausula de atestiguamiento al decir que el testador firmo el testamento, porque es posible que sea verdad que lo haya firmado. Ellos no certifican que el testamento ha sido firmado en presencia de ellos. No es suficiente que el testamento este firmado por el testador: lo que requiere la ley es que el testador lo firme en presencia de los testigos y que cada uno de estos lo firme tambien en presencia del testador y de cada uno de ellos.

La clausula del testamento discutido dice: "That we, the undersigned witnesses, . . . and that the Testator signed the will and on both pages at the left hand margin of the page; and that we also signed at the left hand margin of the will on both pages in the presence of the Testator and in the presence and within sight of each other." La palabra "we" en la �ltima oracion, no se refiere al testador y a los testigos; se refiere solamente a los tres testigos, "the undersigned witnesses."cralaw virtua1aw library

Este Tribunal en Quinto contra Morata, (54 Jur. Fil., 515) dijo:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Al articulo 618 de la Ley No. 190, tal y como esta rerormado, se le debe dar una interpretaon estricta. En el asunto de Uy Coque contra Navas L. Sioca (43 Jur. Fil., 425) este Tribumal, hablando de la interpretacion que se ha de dar a dicho articulo, dijo:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘Las leyes que señalan las formalidades que han de observarse en el otorgamiento de los testamentos se interpretan muy estrictamente.’ Como se dice en 40 Cyc., pagina 1097, ’El testamento debera otorgarse de conformidad con los requisitos que marca la ley; de lo contrario es absolutamente nulo. Todos esos requisitos son de igual importancia y deben observarse, sin que los tribunales puedan subsanar los defectos en que se haya incurrido en el otorgamiento de un testamento. No se les ha conferido poder ni facultad alguna, ni para añadir otras condiciones ni para dispensar las enumeradas en la ley’ (Uy Coque contra Navas L. Sioca, 43 Jur. Fil., 425, 427.)"

La decision en la testamentaria de Magdalena Ozoa, G.R. No. 37208, citada por la mayoria, no esta publicada (58 Jur. Fil., 973) y, si no se publico, es porque el Tribunal Supremo no quiso establecerla como una regla de conducta en el futuro.

El articulo 618 del Codigo de Procedimiento Civil dispone que el testamento debe estar firmado por el testador en presencia de tres testigos o mas y que estos atestiguaron y firmaron el testamento en presencia del testador y en la de cada uno de ellos. El hecho de que durante la vista se probo, por medio de testigos, que el testador firmo en presencia de los testigos, esa prueba no debe tenerse en cuenta. Es doctrina inaplicable a asuntos sobre legalizacion de testamentos. Asi declaro este Tribunal en Quinto contra Morata, supra:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Se sostiene energicamente, en representacion, de la apelante, que el supuesto defecto en la clausula de atestiguamiento ha sido subsanado mediante prueba oral, que fue admitida sin oposicion de parte de los apelados. No es puede sostener esta pretension. No es aplicable a testamentos la doctrina de este Tribunal relativa a la ley de fraudes. La ley de fraudes se refiere a contratos y convenios. La materia sobre testamentos y las formalidades que acompañan a su otorgamiento, se rigen por disposiciones separadas y especificas de la Ley No. 190."cralaw virtua1aw library

Y en Uy Coque contra Sioca, este Tribunal dijo:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"El objeto del nuevo requisito de que en la clausula de atestiguamiento debe constar que el testador y los testigos firmaron cada uno en presencia de los otros, y que este hecho no puede demostrarse por pruebas aliunde, es, tal vez, menos evidente, pero, en vista de la bien conocida falta de seguridad de la prueba testifical, es cosa clara que lo declarado en la clausula de atestiguamiento aporta una prueba mas satisfactoria del hecho que ha de probarse. En todo caso, el hecho de que el antiguo principio relativo a la y edmisibilidad de pruebas testificales para demostrar que el testador y los testigos han firmado en la forma prescrita por la ley, se ha considerado nada satisfactorio, y se ha cambiado deliberadamente en virtud de la reforma, demuestra que la Legislatura ha considerado importante el asunto. Siendo asi, no esta justificado que los tribunales enerven la enmienda mediante una interpratacion demasiado liberal" ’ (43 Jur. Fil., 426.)

Debe revocarse la orden apelada.




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






May-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4638 May 8, 1951 - TOMAS L. CABILI, ET AL. v. VICENTE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    088 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-2926 May 11, 1951 - PAZ JARIN, ET AL. v. DANIEL SARINAS, ET AL.

    088 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-3254 May 11, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO NATE, ET AL.

    088 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2260 May 14, 1951 - HONORATO DE VERA v. JOSE C. FERNANDEZ

    088 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-2843 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BENITO GUHITING, ET AL.

    088 Phil 672

  • G.R. Nos. L-3112 & L-3113 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SEVERINO NOLASCO

    088 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-2236 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS CRUZ

    088 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-3047 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUADALUPE ZAPATA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 688

  • G.R. Nos. L-3248 & L-3249 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO AGUILAR

    088 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3321 May 16, 1951 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PAZ E. DE LA CRUZ

    088 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. L-3824 May 16, 1951 - BENJAMIN v. HON. MARIANO C. MELENDRES

    088 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-2464 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO AGUILA

    088 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-2755 May 18, 1951 - JOHNNY CHAUSINTEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-3345 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS S. TAPANG

    088 Phil 721

  • G.R. Nos. L-3386 & L-3387 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO IBALI

    088 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-3497 May 18, 1951 - VALENTINA CUEVAS v. PILAR ACHACOSO

    088 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-3987 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

    088 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-4459 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE C. ZULUETA

    088 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2311 May 21, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN NADURATA

    088 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-2525 May 21, 1951 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. TOMAS DE VERA

    088 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-3099 May 21, 1951 - CIPRIANA GONZALES v. PURIFICACION, ET AL.

    088 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-3325 May 21, 1951 - FELIX BARRACA v. SOCORRO ZAYCO

    088 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-3537 May 21, 1951 - SISENANDO ARGUIETA, ET AL. v. VICENTE CORCUERA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-2155 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKADATO ALAMADA

    089 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1687 May 23, 1951 - CIPRIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2834 May 23, 1951 - ENCARNACION CAPARAS v. NICASIO YATCO

    089 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-2956 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ICARO

    089 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-2998 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN FLAVIER

    089 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-3002 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARTIN

    089 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-3324 May 23, 1951 - QUINCIANO ISAAC v. TACHUAN LEONG

    089 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3430 May 23, 1951 - PAZ E. SIGUION v. GO TECSON

    089 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3495 May 23, 1951 - ISIDORE FALEK v. NATIVIDAD GANDIONGCO DE SINGSON

    089 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-3549 May 23, 1951 - BERNARDO P. TIMBOL v. MARIA KABAKAW

    089 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-3561 May 23, 1951 - CESAR REYES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO

    089 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-3621 May 23, 1951 - DOMINGO T. DIKIT v. RAMON A. YCASIANO

    089 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3694 May 23, 1951 - LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CO. v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    089 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-2294 May 25, 1951 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. CHRISTERN

    089 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-1594 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. HONORIO CABILING

    089 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-1967 May 28, 1951 - MATILDE MENCIANO v. PAZ NERI SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-2645 May 28, 1951 - IN RE: ALFONSO R. LIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-2695 May 28, 1951 - FERMIN TABANDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    089 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. L-2841 May 28, 1951 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL Co. v. LUDOVICO ESTRADA

    089 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2847 May 28, 1951 - MAXIMINO VALDEZ v. MAGDALENA MENDOZA

    089 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2959 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMAZORA

    089 Phil 87

  • G.R. Nos. L-3267 & L-3268 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SABADO

    089 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3339 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CRISPIN RODILLAS

    089 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-3490 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FILEMON CARLON

    089 Phil 105

  • G.R. Nos. L-4053-55 May 28, 1951 - LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO. v. COMISION DE UTILIDADES PUBLICAS

    089 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-4143 May 28, 1951 - SIXTO PAÑGILINAN v. EMILIO PEÑA

    089 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-1743 May 29, 1951 - DOMINADOR NICOLAS v. VICENTA MATIAS

    089 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-1162 May 30, 1951 - IN RE: ROSARIO DIA v. JUAN ZUÑIGA

    089 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-1364 May 30, 1951 - LOO SOO and VY LIONG LEE v. DONATO OSORIO

    089 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-1866 May 30, 1951 - QUIRINO RANJO v. LEONITA PAYOMO

    089 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-2100 May 30, 1951 - GERARDO VASQUEZ v. PATROCINIO GARCIA

    089 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-2263 May 30, 1951 - PAZ Y. OCAMPO v. CONRADO POTENCIANO

    089 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2474 May 30, 1951 - MARIANO ANDAL v. EDUVIGIS MACARAIG

    089 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-2552 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO DIWA

    089 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-2586 May 30, 1951 - ANITA TOMACRUZ v. BEATRIZ B. VALERO

    089 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-2664 May 30, 1951 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAN TAN

    089 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-2715 May 30, 1951 - TERESA ALBERTO v. CASIMIRO MANANGHALA

    089 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-2819 May 30, 1951 - MARCIANA ESCOTO v. BENITO M. ARCILLA

    089 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2872 May 30, 1951 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES VARELA

    089 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-3004 May 30, 1951 - BENITA TOMIAS v. CONRADO TOMIAS

    089 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3411 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENGRACIO ARLATINCO

    089 Phil 220

  • G.R. Nos. L-3491-93 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO HAMIANA

    089 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3510 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAGNAYE

    089 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4179 May 30, 1951 - CRISANTO DE BORJA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    089 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-4663 May 30, 1951 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS v. CHIEF OF STAFF

    089 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4670 May 30, 1951 - NICANOR MARONILLA-SEVA v. LORENZO B. ANDRADA

    089 Phil 252