GR 47731; (June, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47731 ; June 27, 1941
QUINTINA R. SABADO, applicant-appellant, vs. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Hermogenes R. Sabado died on March 13, 1938, leaving no descendants or ascendants. Before his death, he executed a will (Exhibit A). His sister, Quintina R. Sabado, moved for the allowance of the will. The deceased’s widow, Leoncia Fernandez, opposed its allowance. The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan disallowed the will on the ground that its attestation clause was defective for failing to state that the witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testator as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The movant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court. There was no question regarding the will’s authenticity, and no allegation of bad faith or fraud. The attestation clause stated: “We the undersigned, Elena Santos, Tomas B. Tadeo, and Natalio D. Robles, hereby declare: That we know Hermogenes Sabado the testator, that he signed the foregoing testament in our presence and we sign the same in the presence of each of us; the testator has read the testament and understood the same; it is written in English known by the testator; it is written only in one page, before signing the same it was read to him and he understood it; and we hereby sign as witnesses.”
ISSUE
Whether the attestation clause of the will is fatally defective for not stating that the witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testator.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and allowed the will to probate. The Court held that the requirement of the attestation clause stating that the witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other was substantially complied with. The Court interpreted the pronoun “us” in the clause “we sign the same in the presence of each of us” as referring both to the witnesses and the testator, considering the general tenor of the clause. The Court applied the rule of liberal construction, emphasizing that the object of the solemnities is to prevent fraud and bad faith, not to restrain the right to make a will. Since the authenticity of the signatures was uncontested, the testator and witnesses signed every page as stipulated, and there was no suggestion of fraud, the will should be admitted to probate despite the imperfection of language. The Court cited Abangan vs. Abangan, stating that laws on wills should be interpreted to attain the ends of preventing fraud and ensuring authenticity, without adding unnecessary requisites that frustrate the testator’s will.