Case Digest (G.R. No. 14074)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Probation of the Will of Jose Riosa. Marcelino Casas, Applicant and Appellant, appealed from an order of the Court of First Instance for the Province of Albay dated December 29, 1917, which disallowed the will of Jose Riosa. Riosa executed the will in January, 1908 in conformity with section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as then in force; he died on April 17, 1917, after the effective date (July 1, 1916) of Act No. 2645, which imposed additional formalities not observed in the will.
Issues:
- Does the validity of a will depend on the law in force at the time of its execution or at the time of the testator's death?
- Must a will executed before July 1, 1916 that fails to comply with Act No. 2645 be disallowed at probate?
Ruling:
The Court held that the validity of a will is to be tested by the law in force at the time of its execution. The Court declared the will of Jose Riosa valid, reversed the order of the Court of First Instance, and remanded with directions to admit the will to probate without special findings as to costs.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that statutes are presumptively prospective and not retroactive absent an express legislative intent, citing the general rule in Montilla v. Corporacion de PP. Agustinos and Article 3, Civil Code. It concluded that a will formally executed under the law existing at its making is a completed act of disposition and should not be defeated by subsequent legislation increasing formalities; reliance on authority favoring nonretroactivity and justice to the testator guided the holding.
Doctrine:
- Article 3, Civil Code: laws shall not have retroactive effect unless expressly provided.
- A will validly executed according to the statutes in force at its execution remains valid despite subsequent statutes increasing testamentary formalities.
- Courts must avoid applying later procedural formalities retroactively so as to defeat dispositions lawfully made by a testator.