G.R. No. 27440, December 24, 1927
JOSE VILLAFLOR, petitioner-appellant, vs. DEOGRACIAS TOBIAS, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

Jose Villaflor filed a petition for the probate of the will of the deceased Gregoria Villaflor. The oppositors (Deogracias Tobias, et al.) contested the will on several grounds, including that it was not signed by the testatrix personally despite her ability to do so, that she did not authorize anyone to sign for her, that she used thumb marks on other documents, that she later repudiated the will, and that its execution did not comply with the law. The trial court denied probate, finding fatal defects in the execution. Specifically, the court found that: (1) one attesting witness, Rufino D. Soliven, was not present when the testatrix’s name was signed by Claro Lazo and when another witness, Vicente Tacderas, signed; (2) the attestation clause was written on a separate sheet (page 9) when it could have been placed on the blank half of page 8; and (3) the testatrix did not sign the will herself, even though she was in good health (aside from rheumatism) and had used thumb marks on other documents around the same time.

ISSUE

Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formal requirements of the law (Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and should therefore be admitted to probate.

RULING

YES. The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s judgment and ordered the will admitted to probate.

The Court found the trial court’s factual conclusions unsupported by the evidence. Regarding the alleged absence of witness Rufino D. Soliven during the signing, the Court noted that Claro Lazo initially omitted Soliven’s name but later corrected his testimony to state that Soliven was present alongside all other witnesses during the entire signing ceremony. This corrected testimony was consistent with the accounts of all instrumental witnesses. The Court found it highly improbable that the lawyer who prepared the will, Eustaquio Gallardo, would have allowed the signing to proceed without all witnesses present, given his apparent knowledge of the legal formalities.

On the matter of the attestation clause being on a separate page, the Court deemed this a minor, non-fatal defect. It was explained by the lack of space on the last page of the will’s body, and all pages, including the one with the attestation clause, were properly signed by all witnesses.

Concerning the testatrix not signing personally but having her name written by Claro Lazo, the Court found this was a deliberate attempt by lawyer Gallardo to strictly comply with the Spanish text of the law, which used the term “escrito” (written). A thumb mark may not have been considered as “writing” under that interpretation. The execution, with the name written by another at the testatrix’s express direction in the presence of witnesses, complied with the legal alternative to personal signing.

The Court gave little weight to the oppositors’ evidence that the testatrix later disowned the will, noting she lived for over two years after its execution and could have made a new one if truly dissatisfied. Such statements do not constitute a legal revocation.

Therefore, the will was executed in conformity with the law and should be probated. No costs were awarded.