6/27/2016

G.R.No.L4132

TodayisMonday,June27,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L4132March23,1908
InthematterofthewillofMARIASIASONYMADRIDDELEDESMA,Probateproceedings.
AntonioJaymeforpetitioner.
TRACEY,J.:
Inthisspecialproceedingsforthelegalizationofawill,theCourtofFirstInstancerefusedprobateontheground
that the instrument was not subscribed by the witnesses in the presence of the testatrix and of each other as
requiredbysection618oftheCodeofCivilProcedure.
Thetestatrixwasillandconfinedtoherhouse,theexecutionofthewilltakingplaceinthesalawhereshelayupon
asofa.Thewitnessesdifferastowhetherthetestatrixfromwhereshelaycouldreadwhatwaswrittenatthetable
andthefirstwitness,aftersigning,wentawayfromthetable.Thesetwocircumstancesdonotimpairthevalidityof
the execution of the will. The witnesses being in the same apartment were all present and the statute does not
exactthateithertheyarethetestatorshallreadwhathasbeenwritten.Hadoneofthewitnesseslefttheroomor
placed himself so remotely therein as to be cut off from actual participation in the proceedings, then the
subscriptionmightnothavetakenplaceinhispresencewithinthemeaningofthelaw.
A second objection is suggested on this appeal, that the signature to the instrument is defective. It ends in this
form:
AttherequestofSeoraMariaSiason.
CATALINOGEVA.
T.SILVERIO.FRUCTUOSOG.MORIN.
RAFAELESPINOS.
Section618oftheCodeofCivilProcedurereadsasfollows:
Requisitesofwill.Nowill,exceptasprovidedintheprecedingsection,shallbevalidtopassanyestate,
realofpersonal,norchargeoreffectthesame,unlessitbeinwritingandsignedbythetestator,orbythe
testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested
andsubscribedbythreeormorecrediblewitnessesinthepresenceofthetestatorandeachoftheother.
Theattestationshallestatethefactthatthetestatorsignedthewill,orcausedittobesignedbysomeother
person,athisexpressdirection,inthepresenceofthreewitnesses,andthattheyattestedandsubscribedit
in his presence and in the presence of each other. But the absence of such form of attestation shall not
renderthewillinvalidifitisproventhatthewillwasinfactsignedandattestedasinthissectionprovided.
ThemisunderstandingofthissectionarisingfromtheincorrectrenderingofintoSpanishintheofficialtranslation
wascorrectedbywhatwassaidinthedecisionofthiscourtinExparteArcenas(4Phil.Rep.,700).Confusionhas
also come out of the different wording of the two clauses of this section, the one specifying the requisites of
executionandtheotherthoseoftheattestationclause.Theconcludingsentenceofthesection,however,makes
clearthattheformerandnotthelatteristocontrol.Consequentlythewillmustbesignedbythetestator,orbythe
testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction," and the question
presented in this case is,Are the words "Seora Maria Siason" her name written by some other person? They
undoubtedlyarehername,butoccurringastheydoafterthewords"atrequestof,"itiscontendedthattheyform
a part of the recital and not a signature, the only signature being the names of the witnesses themselves. In
Guisonvs.Concepcion(5Phil.Rep.,551)itwasheldthattherewasnosignature,althoughtheattestationclause
which followed the will contained the name of the testatrix and was thereafter signed by the witnesses. The
distinctionbetweenthatcaseandthepresentoneisoneoftheextremenicety,andinthejudgmentofthewriterof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1908/mar1908/gr_l4132_1908.html

1/3

6/27/2016

G.R.No.L4132

thisopinionshouldnotbeattempted.Themajorityofthecourt,however,areoftheopinionthatthedistinctionisa
tenable one inasmuch as in the Concepcion will the name of the testatrix occurred only in the body of the
attestation clause, after the first signatures of the witnesses, whereas in this will it immediately follows the
testamentitselfandprecedesthenamesofthewitnesses.
Insustainingthisformofsignature,thiscourtdoesnotintendtoqualifythedecisionsinExparteSantiago(4Phil.
Rep.,692),ExparteArcenas,abovequoted,orinAbayavs.Zalamero.1IntheArcenascasethecourtpointedout
the correct formula for a signature which ought to be followed, but did not mean to exclude any other form
substantiallyequivalent.
Thedecisionofthecourtbelowisreversed,withoutcosts,andthatcourtisdirectedtoadmittheinstrumentbefore
ittoprobateasthelastwillofthetestatrix.Soordered.
Arellano,C.J.,TorresandMapa,JJ.,concur.
Willard,J.,concursintheresult.

SeparateOpinions
CARSON,J.,dissenting:
Idissent.Thiscourthasfrequentlyheldthatawillshouldnotbeprobatedunlesstherehasbeenstrictcompliance
initsexecutionwithallthe"requisitesofawill"asprescribedinsection618oftheCodeofCivilProcedure.
Thissectionprovidesthatthewillmustbesignedbythetestatororthatitmustbesignedbythetestator'sname
writtenbysomeotherperson.Ithinkitisquiteclearthatthewillinquestionwassignedbythenameofthewitness
writtenattherequestofthetestatrix,butthatitwasnotsignedbythenameofthetestatrixwrittenbythewitness.
WehaveheretoforecalledattentiontomistakesinthetranslationintoSpanishofsection618oftheCodeofCivil
Procedureinthefirstofficialtranslation.Ithink,however,thatthetranslationinthemajorityopinion,takenfromthe
last official translation is also imperfect. It fails to convey accurately the idea expressly set out in the English
version,whichrequiresthatwherethetestatordoesnotsignhisownname,thewillmustbesignedbythenameof
thetestatorattachedbysomeotherperson.TheSpanishversionseemstoprescribemerelythatinsuchcases
the will shall bear (lleve) the name of the testator written by some other person. The English version clearly
prescribesthatthenameofthetestatorshallbeaffixedtothewillasasignatureandwehavealreadydecidedthat
itisnotsufficientthatthenameofthetestatorappearintheattestationclause,becauseinsuchcasesthenameis
not affixed to the will as a signature. The name of the testatrix was not affixed to the instrument under
considerationasasignature,andappearstheremerelyintherecitalofthefactthatsherequestedsomeoneto
signforher.
The name of the testatrix appeared in the attestation clause at the end of the will in the case of Guison vs.
Concepcion(5 Phil. Rep., 551), and it was placed there for precisely the same purpose as it appears in the will
underconsiderationthatis,inarecitaloffactthatthetestatrixhadrequestedsomeonetoattachhersignatureto
thewill.Wedeclaredinthatcase,thatthewillcouldnotbeprobatedbecausethenameofthetestatrixwasnot
subscribedtothewillinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection618oftheCodeofCivilProcedure.Iamunable
toperceivethedistinctionbetweenthatcaseandthecaseunderconsideration.
Irecognizethatinthecaseunderconsiderationaholdingthatthenameofthetestatrixisnotsignedtothewillin
themannerprescribedbylawwouldappeartodefeattheintentofthetestatrix,andtoinvalidatetheinstrumentfor
a failure to comply with a mere technical formality. But the same reasons of public policy which dictated the
provisionsoflawprescribingcertainrequisiteswithoutwhichnowillisvalid,nomatterhowconclusivetheproofas
to the fact that the rejected instrument contains the last will of the deceased, and was prepared as such in
absolutegoodfaith,imposesuponthecourtsthedutyofscrutinizingeverywillsubmittedforprobatetoascertain
whethertherehasbeenastrictcomplianceinitsexecutionwiththerequisitesprescribedbylaw.
Johnson,J.,concurs.

Footnotes
TRACEY,J.:
1Page357,supra.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1908/mar1908/gr_l4132_1908.html

2/3

6/27/2016

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1908/mar1908/gr_l4132_1908.html

G.R.No.L4132

3/3