G.R. No. 1641

FACTS:
The case involves the probate of the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta. The lower court denied probate, finding that one of the attesting witnesses, Julio Javellana, did not sign the will in the presence of another attesting witness, Isabelo Jena, as required by Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The critical testimony came from Jena, who stated that after he signed, he was in a hurry to leave. As he was departing, he saw Javellana with a pen in hand, in the act of signing (“en actitud de firmar”). Jena believed Javellana signed but did not actually see the pen touch the paper as he was leaving the room. The trial court found that Javellana signed only after Jena had left the room.

ISSUE:
Whether the will was executed in accordance with the legal formalities, specifically, whether witness Julio Javellana signed the will in the presence of witness Isabelo Jena.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and ordered the will admitted to probate. The Court held that Javellana did sign in the presence of Jena. The statutory requirement that witnesses sign in each other’s presence is satisfied if the witnesses are together for the purpose of executing the will and are in such a position that they could actually see the act of signing if they chose to look. The “presence” contemplated is determined by the possibility of vision and mental apprehension, not by the fact of actual observation. Here, all witnesses and the testator were assembled in the same room. Jena was physically present and in a position to see Javellana sign at the moment he was leaving, as evidenced by his testimony that he saw Javellana with pen in hand, moving it as if to sign. The fact that Jena’s back was turned or that he did not watch the entire act of signing is immaterial. The will was therefore executed in compliance with the law.