G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993
TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, JUAN CABALLERO, AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA, HELEN CABALLERO, SANTOS CABALLERO, PABLO CABALLERO, VICTOR RAGA, MAURICIA RAGA, QUIRICA RAGA, RUPERTO ABAPO, represented herein by his Attorney-in-Fact, ARMSTICIA * ABAPO VELANO, and CONSESO CANEDA, represented herein by his heirs, JESUS CANEDA, NATIVIDAD CANEDA and ARTURO CANEDA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM CABRERA, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Mateo Caballero, respondents.

FACTS

On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without children, executed a last will and testament at his residence in Talisay, Cebu, before three attesting witnesses (Cipriano Labuca, Gregorio Cabando, Flaviano Toregosa), assisted by his lawyer and a notary public. The will devised his properties to non-relatives. On April 4, 1979, Caballero himself filed a petition (Special Proceeding No. 3899-R) for the probate of his will. He died on May 29, 1980, before the petition was heard. Benoni Cabrera, a legatee, was appointed special administrator. Petitioners, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a separate intestate proceeding (Special Proceeding No. 3965-R), which was later consolidated with the testate proceeding. They opposed the probate, alleging the testator was in poor health and his signature was not genuine. The probate court heard testimonies from one attesting witness (Labuca) and the notary public, who testified that the testator was of sound mind, in good health, and executed the will in their presence, with the witnesses attesting and signing in the presence of the testator and each other. On April 5, 1988, the probate court allowed the will, finding it executed in accordance with law. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, asserting the attestation clause was fatally defective for failing to state specifically that the witnesses witnessed the testator sign the will and that they signed in the presence of the testator and each other. The Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court on October 15, 1991, ruling the attestation clause substantially complied with Article 805 of the Civil Code. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on January 14, 1992.

ISSUE

Whether or not the attestation clause contained in the last will and testament of Mateo Caballero complies with the requirements of Article 805, in relation to Article 809, of the Civil Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious and declared the will void. The attestation clause in the will of Mateo Caballero reads: “we do certify that the testament was read by him and the attestator, Mateo Caballero, has published unto us the foregoing will consisting of THREE PAGES, including the acknowledgment, each page numbered correlatively in letters of the upper part of each page, as his Last Will and Testament, and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand margin in the presence of the said testator and in the presence of each and all of us.” The Court held this clause to be fatally defective. It fails to state the essential facts mandated by Article 805: (1) that the testator signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and (2) that the instrumental witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. The clause only states the testator signed in the presence of the witnesses, but is completely silent on whether the witnesses signed in the presence of the testator and of each other. This omission is a fatal defect, as the attestation clause must contain all three requisite statements. The defect cannot be cured by evidence aliunde or by the fact that the witnesses actually did sign in the required manner. The Court rejected the application of the substantial compliance rule under Article 809, as the defect is not merely a deficiency in the form of the statement but the absence of a statement of a fundamental requirement. The will was therefore declared not executed in accordance with law and thus void.