G.R. No. 1641 - Jaboneta vs. Gustilo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 1641)

Material Facts

On December 26, 1901, Macario Jaboneta had a document written and, calling Julio Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and Isabelo Jena as witnesses, executed the document as his will. Testimony of witness Isabelo Jena stated that he signed first, then Aniceto and the others; as he was leaving the room in a hurry he saw Julio Javellana with the pen in his hand "in position ready to sign" and believed Julio signed because the pen was resting on the paper and Julio was at the table. Jena could not positively state that he saw Julio actually write his signature; he described seeing Julio move the pen as if to sign and believed Julio was signing.

Trial Court Finding

The lower court denied probate, finding that although the witnesses and testator were present and Jena signed in the presence of the other witnesses and the testator, Julio Javellana did not sign in the presence of Isabelo Jena. The court concluded that Javellana signed only after Jena had left the room, and therefore the statutory requirement of mutual presence among witnesses, as set forth in section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had not been complied with.

Issue Presented on Appeal

Whether the signature of witness Julio Javellana was affixed in the presence of fellow witness Isabelo Jena, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements for execution and witness subscription under section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such that the instrument could be admitted to probate as the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta.

Governing Rule and Purpose of the Statutory Requirement

Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that witnesses sign in the presence of the testator and of one another. The articulated purpose of the statutory requirement is to afford the testator ocular evidence of the identity of the instrument subscribed by the witness and himself. The commonly accepted tests of "presence" are vision and mental apprehension: the true inquiry is not necessarily whether the testator actually saw the witnessing act, but whether the testator was in such a position and mental state that he might have seen it — i.e., whether the witnessing was within the testator’s potential observation.

Precedents and Doctrinal Guidance Cited

The court referenced authority indicating that it is sufficient for witnesses to be assembled for the purpose of witnessing the execution and to be positioned so that they could actually see the testator write if they chose to do so (citing In the matter of Bedell). The court also cited decisions stating the operative test of presence is whether a witness might have seen the act of signing, taking into account physical position and mental capacity (citing Spoonemore v. Cables), and invoked general commentary (Hee, American & English Encyclopedia of Law) to support this standard.

Application of Rule to the Facts

The Supreme Court concluded that Jena was still physically present in the room when Javellana took the pen and moved it in the act of signing; Jena’s testimony that he observed Javellana with the pen resting on the paper and moving as if to sign, combined with the other witnesses’ testimony that Javellana in fact subscribed the instrument at that time, satisfied the statutory requirement. The court emphasized that Jena’s partial departure, his back being turned during a portion of the signature, or his being in a hurry, did not deprive him of the capacity to observe the subscription: he was in the same room assembled for the purpose of executing the testament, and he occupied a physical position from which he could have seen the act by merely casting his eyes in the appropriate direction without obstruction. Accordingly, the si

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 1641)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 5 Phil. 541; G.R. No. 1641; decision rendered January 19, 1906.
Decision authored by Carson, J.
Probate of the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta, deceased, was denied by the lower court.
The denial was based on the lower court’s conclusion that one witness (Julio Javellana) did not affix his signature in the presence of another witness (Isabelo Jena) as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The case reached the appellate court on the question of whether the statutory execution requirements were satisfied; the appellate court reversed the lower court’s denial of probate.

Facts of Execution (as found in the record and by the lower court)

On December 26, 1901, Macario Jaboneta executed the document propounded as his will while in the house of Arcadio Jarandilla, in Jaro.
Jaboneta ordered that the document be written and called Julio Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and Isabelo Jena as witnesses.
The witnesses and the testator were "all together" and in the same room during execution.
The sequence of signatures as described in the lower court’s findings:
- The testator signed the document.
- Isabelo Jena signed afterwards, at the testator’s request, and in the presence of the testator and the other two witnesses.
- Aniceto Jalbuena then signed as a witness in the presence of the testator and the other two persons who signed as witnesses.
- At that moment Isabelo Jena, being in a hurry, took his hat and left the room.
- As Jena was leaving, Julio Javellana took the pen in his hand and put himself in position to sign the will as a witness, but (per the lower court) did not sign in the presence of Isabelo Jena.
- Nevertheless, after Jena had left, Julio Javellana signed as a witness in the presence of the testator and of the witness Aniceto Jalbuena.

Testimony of Witness Isabelo Jena (record excerpts)

Jena’s testimony as it appears in the record includes the following points and direct answers:
- "Q. Who first signed the will? A. I signed it first, and afterwards Aniceto and the others."
- "Q. Who were those others to whom you have just referred? A. After the witness Aniceto signed the will I left the house, because I was in a hurry, and at the moment when I was leaving I saw Julio Javellana with the pen in his hand in position ready to sign (en actitud de firmar). I believe he signed, because he was at the table. * * *"
- "Q. State positively whether Julio Javellana did or did not sign as a witness to the will. A. I can't say certainly, because as I was leaving the house I saw Julio Javellana with the pen in his hand, in position ready to sign. I believe he signed."
- "Q. Why do you believe Julio Javellana signed? A. Because he had the pen in his hand, which was resting on the paper, though I did not actually see him sign."
- "Q. Explain this contradictory statement. A. After I signed I asked permission to leave, because I was in a hurry, and while I was leaving Julio had already taken the pen in his hand, as it appeared, for the purpose of signing, and when I was near the door I happened to turn my face and I saw that he had his hand with the pen resting on the will, moving it as if for the purpose of signing."
- "Q. State positively whether Julio moved his hand with the pen as if for the purpose of signing, or whether he was