GR 51546; (January, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-51546 January 28, 1980
JOSE ANTONIO GABUCAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. JUDGE LUIS D. MANTA, JOSEFA G. VDA. DE YSALINA and NELDA G. ENCLONAR, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Jose Antonio Gabucan filed a petition for the probate of the notarial will of the late Rogaciano Gabucan in the Court of First Instance of Camiguin. The respondent judge dismissed the probate proceeding. The dismissal was based on the sole ground that the notarial acknowledgment in the will did not bear the required thirty-centavo documentary stamp.
The probate court, citing Section 238 of the Tax Code, held that the will was inadmissible in evidence due to the missing stamp. Consequently, it ruled there was “no will and testament to probate” and dismissed the proceeding. Despite petitioner’s subsequent manifestation that he had already affixed the documentary stamp to the original will, the judge refused to reconsider the dismissal. Gabucan then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for mandamus.
ISSUE
Whether the probate court erred in dismissing the petition for probate solely because the notarial acknowledgment of the will lacked a documentary stamp at the time of filing.
RULING
Yes, the lower court manifestly erred. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on a proper interpretation of Section 238 of the Tax Code. This provision states that an unstamped document is inadmissible in evidence only until the requisite stamp is affixed and cancelled. It does not render the document permanently void or invalid.
The probate court’s duty was not to dismiss the petition outright but to require the petitioner to cure the defect by affixing the missing stamp. Jurisprudence establishes that the documentary stamp may be affixed at the time the document is presented in evidence. The lack of a stamp is a curable formal deficiency that does not affect the intrinsic validity of the document itself. The lower court’s failure to allow this correction constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The case was remanded to the probate court for a decision on the merits based on the evidence.