Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1921 > September 1921 Decisions > G.R. No. 16008 September 29, 1921 - IN RE: LUCILA ARCE

042 Phil 180:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 16008. September 29, 1921. ]

In re will of the deceased Lucina Andrada. LUCILA ARCE, Petitioner-Appellant.

J. Dorado, J. Tirol, and J. Hontiveros for Appellant.

SYLLABUS


WILL; ATTESTING CLAUSE; FAILURE TO STATE NUMBER OF SHEETS OR PAGES USED. — A document purporting to be the will of a deceased person cannot be admitted to probate where the attesting clause fails to state the number of sheets or pages in the will.


D E C I S I O N


STREET, J. :


Lucina Andrada died on June 5, 1919, in the Municipality of Capiz, Province of Capiz; and soon thereafter a petition was presented to the Court of First Instance of Capiz by Lucila Arce to establish a document purporting to be the last will and testament of the deceased. Upon hearing the petition, his Honor, Judge Antonio Villareal, declared that the document in question had not been executed in conformity with the requirements of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645 of the Philippine Legislature. He therefore refused to admit the purported will to probate, and the petitioner appealed.

The attesting clause of the will in question is incorporated in the will itself, constituting the last paragraph thereof; and its defect consists in the fact that it does not state the number of sheets or pages upon which. the will is written, though it does state that the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses signed on every page, as is in fact obvious from an inspection of the instrument. Each of the pages moreover bears successively the Visayan words, "isa," "duha," "tatlo," "apat," "lima," which mean respectively "one," "two," "three," "four," "five," Visayan being the dialect in which the instrument is written.

By section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645, it is required that each and every page of the will shall be numbered correlatively in letters and that the attesting clause shall state the number of sheets or pages used.

Without deciding in this case whether the will in question is rendered invalid by reason of the manner in which the pages are numbered, the court is unanimous upon the point that the defect pointed out in the attesting clause is fatal. The law plainly says that the attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, the evident purpose being to safeguard the document from the possibility of the interpolation of additional pages or the omission of some of the pages actually used. It is true that this point is also safeguarded by the other two requirements that the pages shall be consecutively lettered and that each page shall be signed on the left margin by the testator and the witnesses. In the light of these requirements it is really difficult to see any practical necessity for the additional requirement that the attesting clause shall state the number of sheets or pages used. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the last mentioned requirement affords additional security against the danger that the will may be tampered with; and as the Legislature has seen fit to prescribe this requirement, it must be considered material.

In two cases we have held that the failure to comply with the strict requirements of this law does not invalidate the instrument, but the irregularities presented in those cases were entirely trivial, the defect in one case being that a will in which the dispositive part consisted of a single sheet was not signed in the margin in addition to being signed at the bottom (In re will of Abangan, 40 Phil., 476); in the other, that the pages comprising the body of the will were signed by the testator and witnesses on the right margin instead of the left (Avera v. Garcia and Rodriguez, p. 145, ante). In the case now before us the defect is, in our opinion, of more significance; and the rule here applicable is that enunciated in Caraig v. Tatlonghari, R. G. No. 12558, decided March 23, 1918, not reported, and In re estate of Saguinsin, 41 Phil., 875), in each of which the will was held to be invalid.

It results that the trial judge did not err in refusing probate of the will, and the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered, with costs against the Appellant.

Johnson, Araullo, Avanceña, and Villamor, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





September-1921 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 17374 September 1, 1921 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MANANQUIL

    042 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 17870 September 1, 1921 - MATEA PAMPOLINA, ET AL. v. MARIA NIEVES SUIZ, ET AL.

    042 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 15915 September 7, 1921 - LEONCIO SEÑA Y MEDINA v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

    042 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 17218 September 8, 1921 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. NARCISO VISTAN Y DE LA CRUZ

    042 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 17274 September 9, 1921 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO PERFECTO

    042 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 16077 September 10, 1921 - CORPORACION DE PP. DOMINICOS v. MARIA LAZARO

    042 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. 16798 September 10, 1921 - GAVINO TAN YUNGQUIP v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    042 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 15823 September 12, 1921 - JULIO DANON v. ANTONIO A. BRIMO & Co.

    042 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 16703 September 12, 1921 - ICHISUKE AGARI v. GOV’T OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    042 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 15566 September 14, 1921 - EUTIQUIA AVERA v. MARINO GARCIA

    042 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 16805 September 16, 1921 - UNITED STATES v. CALIXTO D. BERBARI

    042 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-14904 September 19, 1921 - FRANCISCO D. LUNSOD, ET AL. v. SINFOROSO ORTEGA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-16961 September 19, 1921 - UNITED STATES v. NIEVES DE VERA Y GAYTE

    043 Phil 1000

  • G.R. No. 16257 September 19, 1921 - ESTEBAN CABUHAT v. CASIANO ANSAY, ET AL.

    042 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 16256 September 28, 1921 - DIONISIA VALENCIA, ET AL. v. HONORIO ACALA, ET AL.

    042 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 16008 September 29, 1921 - IN RE: LUCILA ARCE

    042 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 16454 September 29, 1921 - GEORGE A. KAUFFMAN v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK

    042 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-17144 September 29, 1921 - UNITED STATES v. LAMBERTO A. GETA

    043 Phil 1009