Title
Testate Estate of Abada vs. Abaja
Case
G.R. No. 147145
Decision Date
Jan 31, 2005
Alipio Abada's 1932 will, contested for improper execution and undue influence, was admitted to probate as it substantially complied with legal formalities under the Civil Code of 1889 and Code of Civil Procedure, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143755-58)

Procedural History

RTC-Kabankalan admitted Toray’s will in 1981 (becoming final). After appointment of Caponong-Noble as special administratrix in 1990, the court denied her motion to dismiss the petition for Abada’s will (1991). In 1994, the RTC resolved that Abada’s will substantially complied with formalities and admitted it to probate, appointing Noel Abellar administrator of Toray’s estate. Caponong-Noble appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed in 2001.

Issues Presented

  1. Applicable law for probate of a 1932 will
  2. Whether acknowledgment before a notary public is required
  3. Requirement to state in the will the language known to the testator
  4. Compliance of the attestation clause with statutory requisites
  5. Waiver or preclusion of language-knowledge issue
  6. Admissibility of proof aliunde to establish formal compliance

Applicable Law on Will Formalities

Under Section 618 of the 1901 Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by Act 2645), a valid will must be:
• Written in a language or dialect known to the testator
• Signed by the testator (or by another at his direction)
• Attested and subscribed by three credible witnesses in each other's and the testator’s presence
• Signed on each page by testator and witnesses on the left margin
• Pages numbered correlatively in letters at the top of each sheet
• Attestation clause stating number of pages, testator’s signing, and witnesses’ signing in requisite presence

Disputed Formal Requirements

Cap­onong-Noble argued the will (1) lacks an express statement that it is in a language known to Abada and (2) requires acknowledgment before a notary under Civil Code Articles 804 and 806 (New Civil Code), contending these apply by analogy to the Old Code.

Language Requirement & Acknowledgment

• Notarial acknowledgment is not required under the Code of Civil Procedure provisions in force in 1932.
• No statutory mandate demands that a will recite the testator’s knowledge of the language; such fact may be proven by evidence aliunde.
• Alipio C. Abaja’s testimony on Abada’s use of Spanish in social gatherings sufficed to prove the testator’s familiarity with the language.

Attestation Clause & Substantial Compliance

The Spanish-language attestation clause recites that Abada signed “in our presence” on the left margin of each of the two pages (numbered UNO and DOS) and that “each one of us” signed in the presence of the testator and one another.
• The clause indicates two pages and three subscribing witnesses, fulfilling numbering and margin-signing requirements.
• Although the clause does not explicitly recite the number of witnesses or repeat each statutory phrase, it achieves the purpose of the statute.

Liberal Construction & Proof Within the Instrument

Applying the liberal-construction doctrine long recognized by the Court (Dichoso de Ticson v. De Gorosti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.