Testate estate of CARLOS GIL, deceased. ISABEL HERRERO VDA.

DE GIL,
administratrix-appellee,
vs.
PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS:
Carlos Gil executed a last will and testament. After his death, it was
presented for probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila. This was opposed by
his nephew, Roberto Toledo y Gil and sister, Pilar Vda. de Murciano. Toledo was
eliminated from the case since he has no legal right to intervene.
The will was initially destroy and was reconstituted. The parties all agree that
the reconstituted will is a copy of the original will. In the said will, the attestation
clause does not state that the testator signed the will. It only declares that it was
signed by the witnesses. Despite this defect, the Court of First Instance admitted to
probate the will. Pilar opposed such probate and appealed the decision of CFI to the
Supreme Court. The latter, reversed the decision of the CFI. Not contended with the
decision, Isabel Herreros Vda. de Gil, the administratrix, filed a motion for
reconsideration to the Supreme Court.
CONTENTIONS:
ADMINISTRATRIX-APPELLEE:
Isabel Herreros Vda. de Gil, the administratrix, contends that defective
attestation clause may be cured by inferring in the other parts of the will and inserting
a missing phrase to complete the whole meaning of the attestation clause. She also
claims that the court may correct clerical errors in a will as evidence by the earlier
decisions of the Supreme Court.
OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.
Pilar, on the other hand, contends that the will should not be probated since
the will did not comply with the requirement of Section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, as amended, which provides that "The attestation clause 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." Secondly, the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in
this case stated that the defect in the attestation clause is a fatal and not just a mere
clerical error for it affects the very essence of the clause. Thus, the defect cannot be
cured by inference to the will itself
ISSUE:
Whether or not the will is valid despite its defective attestation clause?
HELD:

The will is valid. It seems obvious that the missing phrase was left out from
the copy. The problem posed by the omission in question is governed, not by the
law of wills which require certain formalities to be fulfilled in the execution but by the
rules of construction applicable to statutes and documents in general. The court
may and should correct the error by supplying the omitted word or words.
It has been said, and experience has shown, that the mechanical system of
construction has operated more to defeat honest wills than prevent fraudulent ones.
That would be the effect in this case if the will under consideration were rejected for
the adverse party now concedes the genuineness of the document.
The
genuineness is super obvious, and there is not the slightest insinuation of undue
pressure, mental incapacity of the testator or fraud.
Coming to the execution of
practical reason for objecting to the
he signed the will in the presence
making, the intervention of attesting
interest.

wills, the Supreme Court saw no legitimate,

testator instead of the witnesses certifying that
of the latter. The will is of the testators own
witnesses being designed merely to protect his