G.R. No. 20366 - IN RE: Neumark

The case involves an appeal from the Court of First Instance of Manila which denied probate to the document titled Exhibit B, purported to be the last will and testament of W. Neumark.
The will was typewritten in the German language on a single sheet of legal-cap paper, dated June 28, 1922, and executed in Manila.

The document bears the signature of the purported testator, with the inscription “signed in the presence of” followed by the names of three attesting witnesses: M. Cruz, P. Medel, and R. Petrich.
Although the will complies with most of the requisites set forth by Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it lacks a formal attestation clause that should contain specific details as mandated by the law.

The trial judge, while convinced of the document’s authenticity and proper execution in all but one requirement, denied probate solely on the ground of the missing attestation clause.
Attorneys for the proponent, Paul P. Daniels, argued that the absence of the attestation clause was immaterial since all other formalities were duly observed.

Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure originally contained a clause stating that the absence of the formal attestation clause should not render a will invalid if it was otherwise properly executed.
However, with the passage of Act No. 2645, the attestation clause became mandatory, and its contents were precisely specified: the number of sheets or pages used, confirmation that the testator signed all pages (or directed another person to sign in his presence), and the requirement that three witnesses sign all pages in the presence of the testator and each other.

Prior cases had accepted wills even without the formal clause when other formalities were met, based on the original text of Section 618.
Subsequent decisions reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the attestation clause following the legislative amendment, establishing a uniform rule that it must express the required material matters accurately.

Justice Johns dissented, referencing his earlier dissent in Esconde vs. Belen, arguing that under the facts (with the will being executed on one side of one sheet and duly signed by the testator and witnesses), fraud was impossible.
He contended that the will was legally executed under the current law and therefore should have been admitted to probate.

Whether the absence of the attestation clause, as required by the amended Section 618, should render the will invalid despite all other formal execution requirements being met.

Whether omitting the clause “But the absence of such form of attestation shall not render the will invalid…” indicated a deliberate legislative intent to make the attestation clause mandatory.

How admitting the will without the attestation clause would affect the established uniform rule and the consistency of probate decisions following Act No. 2645.