Title
Bona vs. Briones
Case
G.R. No. 10806
Decision Date
Jul 6, 1918
Francisco Briones' 1911 will, contested by his first marriage's children, was upheld by the Supreme Court, ruling it complied with legal formalities despite a notary also serving as a witness.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 10806)

Facts:

  1. Execution of the Will:
    Francisco Briones executed his will on September 16, 1911, in the presence of three witnesses: Gregorio Bustilla, Sixto Barrameda, and Domingo de la Fuente. Domingo de la Fuente, a notary, drafted the will under the direction of Francisco Briones. The will was signed by Briones and the witnesses in each other's presence.

  2. Petition for Probate:
    Monica Bona, the widow of Francisco Briones by his second marriage, petitioned for the probate of the will. The court granted her petition and set a date for the trial and other necessary proceedings.

  3. Opposition to Probate:
    Hospicio, Gregoria, and Carmen Briones, the legitimate children of Francisco Briones from his first marriage, opposed the probate of the will. They alleged that the will was executed with only two witnesses and under undue influence, fraud, and deceit. They sought to have the will declared null and void.

  4. Trial Proceedings:
    During the trial, Gregorio Bustilla testified that the will was executed in his house, with Francisco Briones signing the will in the presence of the three witnesses. The other witnesses, Sixto Barrameda and Domingo de la Fuente, would have testified similarly if called. The court denied probate to the will, leading Monica Bona to appeal.

  5. Legal Context:
    The will was executed under the provisions of Section 618 of Act No. 190, which required a will to be signed by the testator and attested by three credible witnesses in the presence of each other. The case arose before the amendment of Section 618 by Act No. 2645, which took effect on July 1, 1916.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Compliance with Section 618 of Act No. 190:
    The will was executed in accordance with Section 618 of Act No. 190, which required the will to be signed by the testator and attested by three credible witnesses in the presence of each other. The Court found that Domingo de la Fuente, despite acting as a notary, also fulfilled the role of an attesting witness, as he was present during the entire execution of the will and signed it in the presence of the testator and the other witnesses.

  2. Substance Over Form:
    The Court emphasized that the validity of a will should not be defeated by minor defects in form, especially when the testator's intent is clear and the will complies substantially with the legal requirements. The failure to explicitly state that Domingo de la Fuente was a witness did not invalidate the will, as he actively participated in its execution and attested to its authenticity.

  3. Non-Retroactivity of Amended Law:
    The Court ruled that Act No. 2645, which amended Section 618, could not be applied retroactively to the will executed in 1911. The law in force at the time of the execution of the will (Section 618 of Act No. 190) governed its validity, and the will met all the requirements under that law.

  4. Testator's Intent:
    The Court upheld the principle that the intent of the testator is paramount in interpreting wills. The will of Francisco Briones clearly expressed his testamentary wishes, and the Court found no evidence of undue influence, fraud, or deceit in its execution.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.