Title
Jaboneta vs. Gustilo
Case
G.R. No. 1641
Decision Date
Jan 19, 1906
A will's validity was contested due to a witness not seeing another sign; the Supreme Court ruled the signing was valid as witnesses were present and could have observed.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 1641)

Facts:

  • Execution of the Will
  • On December 26, 1901, Macario Jaboneta, while at the house of Arcadio Jarandilla in Jaro, Iloilo, ordered a document to be written as his last will and testament.
  • He summoned three witnesses: Julio Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and Isabelo Jena, all of whom were present in the room for its execution.
  • Witness Signing Sequence and Testimony
  • Isabelo Jena testified that he signed first. Immediately afterward, Aniceto Jalbuena signed, and then Jena, in haste, left the room.
  • As Jena was leaving, he saw Javellana holding the pen poised over the will “in actitud de firmar,” believed Javellana signed, but did not actually see the signature being affixed.
  • Lower Court Findings and Denial of Probate
  • The trial court found that Javellana did not sign in the presence of Jena as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because Jena had already left the room.
  • Based on that finding, probate of Jaboneta’s will was denied for failure to comply with the statutory attestation requirements.

Issues:

  • Statutory Compliance with Section 618, Code of Civil Procedure
  • Whether the signature of witness Javellana was affixed “in the presence” of witness Jena, as required by statute.
  • How “presence” is to be interpreted and applied in the context of will execution.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.