Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1939 > October 1939 Decisions > G.R. No. 46097 October 18, 1939 - TEOFILA ADEVA VIUDA DE LEYNEZ v. IGNACIO LEYNEZ

068 Phil 745:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 46097. October 18, 1939.]

TEOFILA ADEVA VIUDA DE LEYNEZ, Petitioner, v. IGNACIO LEYNEZ, Respondent.

Conrado V. Sanchez and Ambrosio Padilla for Petitioner.

Ilao & Enriquez for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. WILLS; PROBATE; ATTESTATION CLAUSE. — 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.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — An attestation clause is made for the purpose of preserving, in permanent form, a record of the facts attending the execution of the will, so that in case of failure of the memory of the subscribing witnesses, or other casualty, they may still be proved. (Thompson on Wills, 2d ed., sec. 132.) will, therefore, should not be rejected where its attestation clause serves the purposes 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 that reason and justice permit. It could not 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. 451G0, promulgated May 23, 1939).


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro denying probate of the will of the deceased Valerio Leynez, on the ground that its attestation clause does not conform to the requirements of section 618, as amended, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The attestation clause of the will is worded as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Suscrito y declarado por el testador Valerio Leynez, como su ultima voluntad y testamento en presencia de to dos y cada uno de nosotros, y a ruego de dicho testador, firmamos el presente cada uno en presencia de los otros, o de los demas y de h del mismo testador Valerio Leynez. El testamento consta de dos (2) paginas solamente."cralaw virtua1aw library

The question presented is, under section 618, as amended, of the Code of Civil Procedure, is this attestation clause legally sufficient? The pertinent portion of this section of the Code is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other."cralaw virtua1aw library

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 Leynez." In deciding this question the Court of Appeals, however, ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A la luz de las jurisprudencias arriba citadas, en la clausula de atestiguamiento discutida en el asunto de autos, no encontramos un cumplimiento substantial del requisito exigido por la ley, de que en ella se haga constar 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."cralaw virtua1aw library

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 e[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; Aldaba 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. Gonzalez, 53 Phil., 104; Rey v. Cartagena, 56 Phil., 282; Dichoso de Ticson v. De Gorostiza, 57 Phil., 437; Sebastian v. Pañganiban, 59 Phil., 653; De Guzman v. Celestino, G. R. No. 35273, April 25, 1932; Policarpio v. Baltazar, G. R. No. 36349, November 14, 1932; Malate v. Olea, G. R. No. 36154, December 16, 1932; In re Estate of Jennings, 1933, G. R. No. 38758). To this line of cases those of Rodriguez v. Yap, G. R. No. 45924, May 18, 1939, and Grey v. Fabie, 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 Neuark, 46 Phil., 841; Sano v. Quintana, 48 Phil., 506; Gumban v. Gorecho, 50 Phil., 30; Quinto v. Mcrata, 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 Gorostiza (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 he 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 than 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 non-essential defect. 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 signature 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 the execution of the will so that in case of failure of the memory of the subscribing witnesses, or other casualty they may still be proved. (Thompson on Wills, 2d ed., sec. 132.) A will, therefore, should not be rejected where its attestation clause series the purpose of the law. The lawmaking 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 not 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. 45160, 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 testator’s last will, must be disregarded."cralaw virtua1aw library

It follows that the writ of certiorari should be, as it is hereby, granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed, with the results that the controverted will, Exhibit A, of the deceased Valerio Leynez, shall be admitted to probate. So ordered, with costs against the respondent appellee. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, and Concepcion, J.J., concur.




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






October-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46714 October 2, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS ACHA Y RIVERA

    068 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 46264 October 3, 1939 - DOMINGO FERRER v. JOSE S. LOPEZ

    068 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 46320 October 5, 1939 - NICOLASA DE GUZMAN v. ANGELA LIMCOLIOC

    068 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. 46413 October 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO BALAGTAS Y MANLAPAS

    068 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 46501 October 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS K. ARELLANO

    068 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 46573 October 5, 1939 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. JUAN G. LESACA

    068 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 46589 October 6, 1939 - NATIONAL NAVIGATION CO. v. JOSE T. TINSAY

    068 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 46625 October 6, 1939 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. VICENTE DE VERA

    068 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 46702 October 6, 1939 - ALEIDA SAAVEDRA v. W. S. PRICE

    068 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 45793 October 9, 1939 - ARISTONA LASERNA v. JOSE ALTA VAS

    068 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 46207 October 10, 1939 - VICTORIANO GATCHALIAN v. MAMERTO MANALO

    068 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 45963 October 12, 1939 - CARLOS PARDO DE TAVERA v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO

    068 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. 46285 October 12, 1939 - MANUEL DIAZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 46457 October 12, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONINO DE ASIS

    068 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 46459 October 13, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO DEL ROSARIO

    068 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 46628 October 13, 1939 - RADIO THEATER v. VICENTE DE VERA Y MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    068 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 46246 October 14, 1939 - TEODORO MARIANO Y LINGAT v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. 46521 October 14, 1939 - TEOPISTA DOLAR v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    068 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 46540 October 14, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARION CAMACLANG

    068 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 46598 October 14, 1939 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 46612 October 14, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODULO YECLA

    068 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 46534 October 16, 1939 - J. V. HOUSE v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    068 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 46591 October 16, 1939 - TAN TIONG GONG v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 46097 October 18, 1939 - TEOFILA ADEVA VIUDA DE LEYNEZ v. IGNACIO LEYNEZ

    068 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. 46249 October 18, 1939 - CONCEPCION DE HILADO v. JESUS R. NAVA

    069 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 46454 October 18, 1939 - DIONISIA JAMORA v. DOMINGA DURAN

    069 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 46825 October 18, 1939 - ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL. v. PEDRO VILLAROMAN, ET AL.

    069 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46242 October 20, 1939 - JOSE MA. DE LA VIÑA, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    069 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. 46278 October 26, 1939 - MENZI & CO. v. QUING CHUAN

    069 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 46386 October 26, 1939 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. BENJAMIN A. LEDESMA

    069 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 46306 October 27, 1939 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. LAZARO BLAS GERVACIO

    069 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-46533 October 28, 1939 - THE MANILA RACING CLUB, INC. v. THE MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, ET AL.

    069 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. L-46666 October 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    069 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 46700 October 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO GEMORA

    069 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-46261 October 31, 1939 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. ROSARIO GEAGA

    069 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-46310 October 31, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO GONZALES

    069 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 46455 October 31, 1939 - EUSEBIO PELIÑO v. JOSE ICHON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 81

  • G.R. Nos. 46526 & 46527 October 31, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERANG

    069 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 46635 October 31, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. ISABELO Z. ECHAVEZ, ET AL.

    069 Phil 86