G.R. No. L-2696

FACTS:
On May 17, 1898, Cesarea Manalo y Manalo executed her last will and testament before Notary Public Adolfo Garcia Feijoo in the presence of three attesting witnesses. The will named her son, Sixto Timbol, as an heir and executor. After Cesarea’s death, Sixto Timbol filed a petition for the probate of the will in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, presenting a notarized copy because the original will in the notary’s protocol was lost. The defendants-appellants (Januaria Manalo, et al.) opposed the probate. The trial court admitted the will to probate, ruling it was duly executed under the laws in force at the time. Lino Lacson appealed the decision.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the will was executed in accordance with the Civil Code, the law in force at the time of its execution in 1898.
2. Whether the will can be admitted to probate under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which took effect after the will’s execution.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision, admitting the will to probate.
1. On Validity Under the Civil Code: The will was validly executed as an open or nuncupative will under Articles 694, 695, and 699 of the Civil Code. All solemnities were complied with: it was executed before a duly authorized notary public and three competent witnesses, at one sitting without interruption. The testatrix declared her will through an interpreter (as she spoke Pampango), the will was read back and interpreted to her, and a witness signed for her as she was unable to write. The notary’s certification in the copy attested to the observance of all formalities.
2. On Probate Under the Code of Civil Procedure: Section 617 of the new Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that wills executed before its effectivity are valid if duly executed under prior laws, but they must be established and the estate administered under the new code. Since the will was valid under the old law, it was subject to probate under the new procedure.
3. On the Lost Original: The notarized copy of the will was admissible as the best evidence under the circumstances. It was proven that the notarial protocols were lost. The copy, certified by the executing notary, was authenticated by the uniform testimony of the three attesting witnesses. No evidence was presented to show the copy was inexact or the testatrix lacked capacity.

The will was therefore properly allowed to probate.