G.R. No. L-4888; May 25, 1953
JOSE MERZA, petitioner, vs. PEDRO LOPEZ PORRAS, respondent.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a Court of Appeals decision affirming a Court of First Instance of Zambales order denying the probate of the last will and testament (Exhibit A) and a so-called codicil (Exhibit B) of Pilar Montealegre. The testatrix was survived by her husband and collateral relatives, some of whom, including the husband, were disinherited in Exhibit B. The opposition to Exhibit A was based on alleged defects in its attestation clause, which was written in a local dialect and translated into English. The specific objections were that the clause did not state that the testatrix and witnesses signed each page and that it did not state the testatrix signed in the witnesses’ presence. The Court of Appeals dismissed the first objection, finding the signatures on each page cured the defect, but sustained the second objection, holding the absence of such a statement could not be offset by proof aliunde. Regarding Exhibit B, executed one day before Exhibit A, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that it could not be a codicil as it preceded the will. It also characterized Exhibit B as a simple affidavit without testamentary force and held disinheritance could only be made in the will itself (Exhibit A) under Article 849 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE

1. Whether the attestation clause of Exhibit A is valid despite its allegedly defective language.
2. Whether Exhibit B, executed before Exhibit A, can be probated as a valid testamentary disposition and effectively disinherit heirs.

RULING

1. Yes, the attestation clause of Exhibit A is sufficient and valid. The Supreme Court held that while poorly drafted and ungrammatical, a close examination of the clause’s context implies the testatrix signed in the witnesses’ presence. The phrase “in our presence,” used in connection with the signing process, necessarily implies the testatrix signed before them. The word “also” denotes the testatrix signed in a manner similar to the witnesses—in their presence. Adhering to the principle of liberal interpretation (affirmed in Article 827 of the new Civil Code), the Court ruled it is sufficient if the language reasonably deduces the clause fulfills the law’s requirements, and precision or a parrot-like copy of the statute is not imperative.
2. Yes, Exhibit B is entitled to probate as an independent testamentary disposition and can effect disinheritance. The Supreme Court held that Exhibit B partakes of the nature of a will, as it is an act disposing of property to take effect after death, executed with all legal formalities. There is no legal prohibition against probating two separate wills if one does not revoke the other and statutory requirements are met. Furthermore, Article 849 of the Civil Code of Spain does not require disinheritance to be in the same instrument disposing of property; it only requires disinheritance be by a will stating the legal cause. Therefore, Exhibit B is a legal vehicle for disinheritance. The Court ordered both Exhibits A and B admitted to probate, subject to the disinherited persons’ right to contest under Article 850.