G.R. No. L-4603 October 25, 1952.
In re: Petition for the probate of the will of the deceased LEONA SINGSON. MANUEL SINGSON, petitioner-appellee, vs. EMILIA FLORENTINO, TRINIDAD FLORENTINO DE PAZ, and JOSEFINA FLORENTINO VDA. DE LIM, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

On January 13, 1948, Leona Singson died in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, leaving a will. The will instituted as heirs her brothers Evaristo, Dionisio, and Manuel, her nieces Rosario F. de Donateo, Emilia Florentino, and Trinidad Florentino de Paz, her grandniece Consolacion Florentino, and some servants. She named her brothers Evaristo and Manuel as executors. On February 2, 1948, Manuel Singson filed a petition for the probate of the will. On March 6, 1948, Emilia Florentino, Trinidad Florentino de Paz, and Josefina Florentino Vda. de Lim (daughters of a sister of the deceased) opposed the petition, alleging that the signatures on the will were not genuine and that the will was not executed in accordance with the formalities of the law. After trial, the lower court found the will duly executed and admitted it to probate. The oppositors appealed. The case was certified to the Supreme Court as it involves purely questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in admitting the deposition of an instrumental witness, Fidel Reyes, instead of requiring his personal testimony in court.
2. Whether the attestation clause is fatally defective for:
a. Failing to state the number of sheets or pages of the will.
b. Failing to state that the testatrix signed each and every page in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses.
c. Failing to state that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, admitting the will to probate.
1. On the deposition of Fidel Reyes: The Court held that while the taking of the deposition was not in strict compliance with Section 11, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court (which requires subscribing witnesses present in the Philippines to be produced and examined), any deficiency was cured by the waiver of opposing counsel, who consented to the deposition and was present during its taking. Alternatively, the deposition was justified by interpreting Rule 77 in connection with Rule 18, Section 4(c), allowing depositions when a witness is unable to testify due to sickness.
2. On the attestation clause’s deficiencies:
a. Failure to state the number of pages: The attestation clause itself did not state the number of pages. However, the last part of the body of the will contained a statement that it was composed of eight pages. Following liberal rulings in De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona and Mendoza vs. Pilapil, the Court held that this substantial compliance was sufficient, as the will on its face showed it was composed of eight pages duly signed, preventing any fraud or interpolation.
b. Failure to state the testatrix signed each page in the witnesses’ presence: The attestation clause, when read as a whole and disregarding an erroneous semicolon, indicated the testatrix signed or affixed her thumbmark at the bottom and on the left margin of each page in the presence of the witnesses. This was a substantial compliance with the law.
c. Failure to state the witnesses signed each page: The clause stated the witnesses “also signed in the presence of the testatrix and of each other.” Reading this in connection with the preceding portion describing the testatrix’s signing, the word “also” indicated the witnesses signed in the same manner as the testatrix—on the will and on all margins. This complied with the law as interpreted in Rey vs. Cartagena.
The will was executed in substantial compliance with legal formalities, and the lower court committed no error.