GR L 1162; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1162; May 30, 1951
Testate estate of the deceased Enrique C. Zuñiga. ROSARIO DIA, petitioner-appellee, vs. JUAN ZUÑIGA and FAUSTINA CALANOG, oppositors-appellants.
FACTS
Enrique C. Zuñiga died on December 31, 1945, leaving a will. The attestation clause of the will stated: “That we, the undersigned witnesses, hereby certify that these LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT consisting of two pages written in two sheets, each sheet composing a page, including the page in which this attestation clause is written; that each page is correlatively numbered in letters in the middle of the upper part of each page; and that the Testator signed the will and on both pages at the left hand margin of the page; and that we also signed at the left hand margin of the will on both pages in the presence of the Testator and in the presence and within sight of each other.” The will was presented for probate by Rosario Dia, the testator’s wife. The probate was opposed by Juan Zuñiga and Faustina Calanog, the testator’s parents. The Court of First Instance admitted the will to probate. The oppositors appealed, contending the attestation clause was defective for not stating that the testator signed the will and each page in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses, and that the trial court erred in curing this defect by admitting oral testimony from the witnesses.
ISSUE
Whether the attestation clause of the will is legally sufficient despite not explicitly stating that the testator signed in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment, admitting the will to probate. The Court held that the word “we” in the last sentence of the attestation clause, although expected to refer to the attesting witnesses, may also refer to both the testator and the attesting witnesses. It is also obvious that the attesting witnesses could not have certified that the testator signed the will and all pages at the left-hand margin if he did not sign in their presence. The flaw was deemed a grammatical imperfection. The Court followed its later decisions in Estate of Magdalena Ozoa and Sebastian vs. Pañganiban, which sustained probate despite similar imperfections in attestation clauses, rather than the stricter ruling in Quinto vs. Morata invoked by the appellants.