GR L 18979; (June, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18979. June 30, 1964.
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOSEFA VILLACORTE. CELSO ICASIANO, petitioner-appellee, vs. NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO, oppositors-appellants.
FACTS
Josefa Villacorte died on September 12, 1958. Petitioner Celso Icasiano filed a petition to probate her original will (Exhibit “A”). Oppositors-appellants Natividad and Enrique Icasiano, children of the testatrix, objected. During proceedings, the proponent submitted an amended petition, presenting a signed duplicate copy of the will (Exhibit “A-1”) which he had subsequently found. The original will consisted of five pages, all signed by the testatrix and the three attesting witnesses at the end and on the left margin of each page, except that the signature of one attesting witness, Atty. Jose V. Natividad, was missing on page three. The duplicate copy (Exhibit “A-1”) was complete, bearing all requisite signatures on every page. Oppositors contested probate, arguing the original was invalid due to the missing signature and alleging the duplicate’s signatures were forged or the product of undue influence.
ISSUE
Whether the will, specifically the original with a missing attesting witness signature on one page, and its duplicate, should be admitted to probate.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s order, admitting both the original and duplicate to probate. The legal logic centers on substantial compliance with statutory formalities under the law of wills. The Court acknowledged the literal requirement under the old Civil Code (Article 805) that every page of a will must be signed by the testator and the attesting witnesses. However, it applied the doctrine of substantial compliance, noting that the purpose of these formalities is to safeguard against fraud and ensure the document’s authenticity. The omission of Atty. Natividad’s signature on page three of the original was found to be a mere inadvertence, proven by his own testimony and, conclusively, by the fully signed duplicate copy executed simultaneously. The duplicate copy served as incontrovertible evidence that the missing signature was purely accidental and that all pages were indeed signed in the presence of each other as required.
The Court rejected the oppositors’ argument that the duplicate could not be probated because the original was available. It clarified this created a legal dilemma for the oppositors: if the original was invalid due to the defect, then the duly signed duplicate was the operative will and was probatable; if the original was valid, the objection to the duplicate was superfluous. Furthermore, the admission of the amended petition to include the duplicate did not affect the court’s jurisdiction, as it did not alter the will’s substance or introduce new interests, and oppositors were duly notified. The ruling emphasizes the judicial policy to uphold the testator’s intent where the statutory safeguards are substantially met, preventing technical defects from defeating a will’s validity when no fraud is proven.