Case Summary (G.R. No. 1523)
Procedural Background
The Court of First Instance of Samar admitted Vicente Cagro’s holographic will to probate despite objections that its attestation clause lacked the witnesses’ signatures at its conclusion. The oppositors appealed the probate order to the Supreme Court, asserting that the attestation clause must bear the signatures of all attesting witnesses to satisfy statutory formalities.
Issue Presented
Whether a will’s attestation clause is valid when the instrumental witnesses sign only on the left-hand margins of the pages, rather than immediately after the attestation clause itself.
Majority Opinion
The Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Paras, held that the attestation clause is a mandatory “memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will” and must bear the witnesses’ signatures at its end. Signatures in the margin serve only to comply with the requirement that every page be signed, but they do not substitute for a signature on the attestation clause. The absence of signatures at the bottom of the clause negates the witnesses’ participation and opens the door to posthumous or fraudulent additions. Consequently, the will failed to meet the essential formalities and its probate was properly denied.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Bautista, joined by Justices Feria and Tuason, argued that the will substantially complied with formal requirements. The witnesses not only signed the margins but also testified without contradiction that the attestation clause existed at the time of signing. Citing Abangan v. Abangan, the dissent maintained that strict technicality should not override the testato
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 1523)
Relevant Facts
- Vicente Cagro died in Laoangan, Pambujan, Samar, on February 14, 1949, leaving an alleged will.
- The contested will contains an attestation clause not signed by the three attesting witnesses at its bottom.
- Each page of the will, including the attestation clause page, bears the signatures of the witnesses on the left-hand margin.
- The witnesses testified they saw the testator sign the will and that the attestation clause was already written when they signed.
Procedural History
- The Court of First Instance of Samar admitted the will to probate.
- Oppositors (Pelagio Cagro, et al.) appealed the probate decision to the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the attestation clause.
- The Supreme Court issued a decision on April 29, 1953, reversing the CFI’s ruling and denying probate.
Issue
- Whether a will’s attestation clause, unsigned by the attesting witnesses at its bottom but bearing their signatures on the left-hand margin of the page, satisfies the statutory requirement for valid execution.
Majority Decision
- The probate of the will was denied.
- The Court held that the attestation clause is “a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will” and must bear the signatures of the witnesses at its bottom.
- Signatures on the left-hand margin serve only the margin-signature requirement for all pages, not the attestation clause itself.
- Admission of an unsigned attestation clause could facilitate fraud or posthumous alterations.
Majority Reasoning
- The attestation clause constitutes the witnesses’ act of attesting;