Facts:

The case involves Monica Bona, the petitioner and appellant, against Hospicio Briones and others, the objectors and appellees. The events leading to this case began with the death of Francisco Briones on August 14, 1913. Prior to his death, on September 16, 1911, Briones executed a will during his lifetime. Following his death, Monica Bona, who was his widow from a second marriage, filed a petition for the probate of the will, seeking a hearing for the presentation of evidence and the approval of the property partition as outlined in the will. On January 20, 1915, the court granted her petition and set a date for trial. However, the legitimate children from Briones' first marriage—Gregorio, Carmen, and Hospicio Briones—opposed the probate of the will. They claimed that the will was executed under undue influence and was signed in the presence of only two witnesses, which they argued rendered it invalid. During the trial, one of the witnesses, Gregorio Bustilla, testified ...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Monica Bona, the petitioner/appellant, was the widow by the second marriage of the deceased Francisco Briones.
• The respondents/appellees were Hospicio Briones and other legitimate children from Francisco Briones’ first marriage.

Probate Petition and Proceedings

• Counsel for Monica Bona filed a petition for:
• The probate of the will executed by Francisco Briones on September 16, 1911.
• The scheduling of a day for hearing and presentation of evidence after proper citation of all interested parties.
• The approval of a partition of property as made in the said will.
• An order dated January 20, 1915, granted Bona’s petition by setting the required trial and probate proceedings.

Objections Raised by the Legitimate Children

• Counsel for Hospicio, Gregoria, and Carmen (all Briones by the first marriage) opposed the probate on the following grounds:
• The will was executed with only two witnesses instead of the requisites provided by law.
• It was claimed to have been made under unlawful or undue influence, fraud, and deceit.
• They prayed that the will be declared null and void, with costs against the petitioners.

Testimony of Witnesses and Evidence Presented

• Gregorio Bustilla, one of the attesting witnesses, testified under oath regarding the execution of the will:
• He, along with Sixto Barrameda and Domingo de la Fuente, was present when Francisco Briones executed his will in Bao, Ambos Camarines.
• The process included Briones’ announcement of his intent to execute his will, then leaving and returning with paper for the drafting of the will.
• Notary Domingo de la Fuente, acting under the express direction of the testator, drafted the will.
• The document (Exhibit A) was identified as the will, containing:
• The testator’s signature.
• The attestation and subscription of the witnesses (Bustilla, Barrameda, and de la Fuente).
• Both parties agreed that, if called, the remaining witnesses would have corroborated the testimony provided by Bustilla.

Judicial Developments

• The trial court rendered a judgment on March 27, 1915, denying probate of the will (Exhibit A).
• Upon Monica Bona’s appeal, the trial court admitted the appeal and ordered the original records to be retrieved, reiterating Bona’s status as a pauper for the purposes of the appeal.

Legal Framework and Timing of the Execution

• The will was executed on September 16, 1911, and the trial judgment was rendered on March 27, 1915.
• The provisions of Section 618 of Act No. 190 then in force (which required the will to be written, signed by the testator, and attested by three or more credible witnesses) applied because:
• The later amendment through Act No. 2645, promulgated on February 24, 1916 and effective July 1, 1916, could not be applied retroactively.
• Thus, the will was to be examined according to the law in force at the time of its execution.

Analysis of the Execution of the Will

• The will’s text clearly expressed the testator’s genuine testamentary intent.
• Despite minor defects in form—such as the failure to state explicitly that Domingo de la Fuente acted as an attesting witness—the substantive requirements under Section 618 of Act No. 190 were satisfied.
• Domingo de la Fuente’s dual role as both the drafter (notary) and an attesting witness did not vitiate the execution, for he acted under the testator’s direction and was present throughout the signing process by all parties involved.

Conclusion of the Judicial Findings

• The Supreme Court, applying the principle of non-retroactivity of new laws, held that the will was executed in due form under the law then in force (Act No. 190).
• The judgment of the trial court denying probate was reversed.
• The will (Exhibit A) was declared valid and reflective of the testator’s true intentions, and the records were ordered to be returned to the lower court for appropriate probate proceedings.

Issue:

Compliance with Statutory Formalities

• Whether the execution of the will satisfied the formal requirements of Section 618 of Act No. 190, which mandated that a will be written, signed by the testator, and attested by three or more credible witnesses in each other’s presence.

Impact of Alleged Defects

• Whether the alleged defect—specifically, that the will was executed before only two witnesses and errors in formal notation regarding Domingo de la Fuente’s role—rendered the will invalid.

Application of Subsequent Amendments

• Whether Act No. 2645, which amended the formalities required for a valid will and took effect in 1916, could be applied retroactively to a will executed in 1911.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)