Case Digest (G.R. No. 21151)
Facts:
In re Will of Antonino Vergel de Dios, Deceased, G.R. No. 21151, February 25, 1924, the Supreme Court, Romualdez, J., writing for the Court. Ramon J. Fernandez (petitioner and appellant) propounded Exhibit A as the last will and testament of Antonino Vergel de Dios for probate; the will was opposed by Fernando Vergel de Dios and by Francisco, Ricardo and Virgilio Rustia (opponents and appellees). Legatees Hermelo Vergel de Dios and Severina Javier joined as appellants.The will was presented for probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which denied probate on the ground that the attestation was fatally defective. Fernandez appealed the denial to the Supreme Court. The appellants assigned errors that the trial court improperly found the attestation defective and that Act No. 2645 (which amended section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure) was void.
The opponents contended various formal defects: (a) lack of proof that the testator knew the contents; (b) the testator did not sign all pages; (c) the testator did not request witnesses to attest; (d) no signature in presence of witnesses; (e) witnesses did not sign in the presence of the testator or each other; (f) witnesses did not sign the attestation clause before death; (g) the attestation clause was written after the dispositive part and attached post mortem; and (h) alleged inauthenticity of signatures on page 3.
The record showed Attorney López Lizo read the will to the testator, who understood it and was sane; the testator signed all pages of the dispositive part though he did not sign the separate sheet containing the attestation clause; the attestation sheet had been prepared (with witness names initially left blank) contemporaneously and kept together with the other loose sheets; the attestation clause stated that the will consisted of three sheets "besides this sheet," indicating four sheets in all; the witnesses were invited by the attorney in the testator's presence, signed in the presence of the testator and of each other, and their signatures—like the testator's—were found authentic.
The Court of First Instance denied probate; the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The parties litigated whet...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Exhibit A satisfy the statutory formalities for a valid will under section 618, as amended by Act No. 2645, so as to be probated despite (a) the attestation sheet not being numbered and (b) the attestation sheet lacking the testator’s signature and an explicit statement of marginal signings in the witnesses’ presence?
- Is ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)