G.R. No. 47931; June 27, 1941
Testamentaria del finado Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil. ADRIANO MENDOZA, solicitante y apelado, vs. CALIXTO PILAPIL Y OTROS, opositores y apelantes.

FACTS

Rev. Eleuterio Pilapil died in Cebu City on December 6, 1935. No will was presented until early 1939. On February 6, 1939, his brother Calixto Pilapil initiated intestate proceedings (Special Proceeding No. 399) and was appointed administrator of the estate on February 7, 1939. On March 4, 1939, Adriano Mendoza initiated separate testate proceedings (Special Proceeding No. 407) to probate a document (Exhibit A, a carbon duplicate of Exhibit C) as the last will and testament of the deceased. The will, written in Spanish and dated November 27, 1935, contained 16 dispositions across three pages. It instituted Adriano Mendoza as the executor-albacea, with Jose Cabatingan as substitute. A clause stated the will should not be ventilated in court as it merely corroborated the legitimacy of sale documents for the testator’s properties. The attestation clause indicated the testator signed and declared the will in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses (Wenceslao Pilapil, Marcelo Pilapil, Eugenio K. Pilapil) and that, at the testator’s request, they each signed in the presence of one another. The documents contained erasures: the place “Cebu” was written over “Mualboal,” and the date “Noviembre” was written over “Octubre.” The two cases (Nos. 399 and 407) were initially filed in different branches of the Court of First Instance of Cebu but were later consolidated. The court appointed Adriano Mendoza as special administrator in the testate proceedings. The oppositors (Calixto Pilapil et al.) appealed, contesting the appointment of the special administrator and the allowance of the will.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Cebu court could validly appoint Adriano Mendoza as special administrator of the estate on March 4, 1939, in the testate proceedings (No. 407) when Calixto Pilapil was already acting as the regular administrator appointed on February 7, 1939, in the intestate proceedings (No. 399).
2. Whether the document (Exhibit A/C) should be allowed and legalized as the last will and testament of Rev. Eleuterio Pilapil.

RULING

On the First Issue: The appointment of Adriano Mendoza as special administrator was valid. The two proceedings were initially in different branches but were later consolidated to avoid incompatible administration. The court had reason to appoint Mendoza because the will expressly named him as executor. No law prohibits a court from appointing more than one administrator. Furthermore, the appointment of Calixto Pilapil as administrator was effectively set aside upon the consolidation of the cases. Moreover, an order appointing a special administrator is not appealable under Section 660 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190). Even assuming any error in the appointment, it caused no prejudice to the estate.
On the Second Issue: The document (Exhibit A/C) should be allowed as the last will and testament. The oppositors’ arguments against probate are without merit:
(a) The erasures and alterations (place and month) were sufficiently explained. The testator, a parish priest, initially prepared the will in October in Mualboal but finalized and signed it in November in Cebu. These were minor corrections that did not affect the will’s substance or validity.
(b) The testator’s age and capacity were established. The will itself stated he was 68 years old. As a Catholic priest of that age, he was presumed competent to execute a will.
(c) The testator’s knowledge of Spanish was sufficiently proven. He was a Catholic priest, and it was a matter of common knowledge that priests of his time knew and used Spanish. No evidence suggested he was ignorant of the language.
(d) The clause prohibiting court litigation did not invalidate the will. It was merely an expression of the testator’s wish, not a mandatory condition, and it could not deprive the courts of their jurisdiction to settle the estate.
(e) The attestation clause substantially complied with legal requirements. The clause stated the testator signed and declared the will in the presence of all three witnesses and that, at his request, they each signed in the presence of one another. The phrase “a ruego de dicho Testador” (at the request of said Testator), coupled with the fact the testator signed in their presence, justifies the inference that the testator was also present when the witnesses signed. The law does not require perfect phrasing, only substantial compliance. The will’s formalities (three pages, signatures on the left margin of the first two pages, paging notes, consistency in the number of articles and dispositions) were observed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision allowing the will and appointing Adriano Mendoza, with costs against the appellants.
Separate Opinion (Moran, J., dissenting):
Justice Moran dissented on the ground that the attestation clause was fatally defective. The clause did not expressly state that the instrumental witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testator. The majority’s inference of the testator’s presence from the phrase “at the request of said Testador” was inadmissible, as the solemnities of a will cannot be established by aliunde evidence or inferences. The attestation clause must contain an explicit statement of that fact. Therefore, the will should not be probated.