Case Summary (G.R. No. L-51546)
Key Dates
• December 28, 1977 – Decision of the Court of First Instance dismissing the probate petition
• January 28, 1980 – Decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Applicable Law and Constitution
• 1973 Philippine Constitution (governing law at time of decision)
• Tax Code of the Philippines (Act No. 2669, as amended):
– Section 225 (now section 237): Thirty-centavo documentary stamp tax on notarial acknowledgments
– Section 238 (now section 250): Effect of failure to affix documentary stamps
Trial Court Ruling
The trial court characterized the probate proceeding as an “action” and dismissed the petition because the notarial acknowledgment of the will lacked the thirty-centavo documentary stamp required by section 225. Relying on section 238, it ruled that any document not duly stamped “shall not be recorded, nor admitted or used in evidence” until the requisite stamp is affixed and cancelled.
Issue Presented
Did the trial court err in dismissing the probate petition outright for lack of a documentary stamp on the notarial acknowledgment, or should it have allowed supplementation of the stamp requirement before deciding the merits?
Supreme Court Analysis
- Section 238’s plain language contemplates only temporary non-admissibility of a document until the required stamps are affixed and cancelled.
- The court must permit the proponent to supply the missing stamp at the time the document is offered in evidence.
- Precedents confirm this remedial approach:
– Del Castillo v. Madrilena, 49 Phil. 749: Documentary stamps may be affixed when the instrument is presented in evidence.
– Rodriguez v. Martinez, 5 Phil. 67: Courts should allow tender of the proper stamp to cure deficiencies in promissory notes.
– Azarraga v. Rodriguez, 9 Phil. 637: Lack of stamp does not invalidate the instrument.
– Cia. General de Tabacos v. Jeanjaquet, 12 Phil. 195; Delgado and Figueroa v. A
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-51546)
Facts
- Petitioner-appellant filed Special Proceeding No. 41 in the Court of First Instance of Camiguin for the probate of the will of the late Rogaciano Gabucan.
- The will in question was a notarial instrument whose acknowledgment did not bear the thirty-centavo documentary stamp required by law.
- Respondent Judge Manta dismissed the proceeding by “decision” dated December 28, 1977, characterizing it as an “action” and holding that the unstamped acknowledgment rendered the will inadmissible.
Ruling of the Court of First Instance
- Cited Section 238 of the Tax Code (now Section 250 of the 1977 Tax Code), which provides that unstamped documents “shall not be recorded, nor…admitted or used in evidence…until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled.”
- Concluded that, because no documentary stamp was affixed to the notarial acknowledgment, “there is no will and testament to probate” and the proceeding “must of necessity be dismissed.”
- Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, despite his submission that he had already attached the required stamp to the original will.
Petition to the Supreme Court
- Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel the lower court to allow an appeal from its dismissal.
- On January 21, 1980, the Supreme Court treated the petition “in the interest of substantial and speedy justice” as:
- An appeal unde