GR L 14074; (November, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14074, November 7, 1918
In the matter of the probation of the will of Jose Riosa. MARCELINO CASAS, applicant-appellant
FACTS:
Jose Riosa died on April 17, 1917. He left a will executed in January 1908, disposing of an estate valued at over P35,000. The will was executed in accordance with Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the law in force at that time. It was in writing, signed by the testator, and attested and subscribed by three credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. However, on July 1, 1916, Act No. 2645 took effect, amending Section 618 by prescribing additional formalities for the execution of wills, such as requiring the testator and witnesses to sign on the left margin of each page and including specific statements in the attestation clause. Riosa’s will did not comply with these new requirements. Thus, the will was executed under the old law, but the testator died after the new law took effect. The Court of First Instance of Albay disallowed the probate of the will for non-compliance with Act No. 2645, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the validity of a will is governed by the law in force at the time of its execution or by the law in force at the time of the testator’s death, specifically when a new law prescribing additional formalities is enacted between the execution of the will and the death of the testator.
RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the Court of First Instance and held that the will of Jose Riosa is valid. The Court ruled that the validity of the execution of a will must be tested by the statutes in force at the time of its execution, not by subsequent statutes enacted before the testator’s death, unless the later statute expressly provides for retrospective application.
The Court rejected the rule that the law at the time of death controls, which would have invalidated the will. Instead, it adopted the prevailing and more reasoned view that statutes relating to the execution of wills should not be given retroactive effect to impair the validity of a will already properly executed. The Court emphasized the general principle of statutory construction against retroactivity, as embodied in Article 3 of the Civil Code, and noted that Act No. 2645 contained no indication of an intent for retrospective application. The act of bequeathing is considered complete upon the will’s proper execution according to the law then existing, even though its effect on the property occurs only at death. Therefore, Riosa’s will, validly executed under the old law, remained valid and was ordered admitted to probate.