In re will of Ana Abangan (Case Digest)

 

G.R. No. L-13431            November 12, 1919

In re will of Ana Abangan.
GERTRUDIS ABANGAN,
 executrix-appellee,
vs.
ANASTACIA ABANGAN, ET AL., opponents-appellants.


FACTS:


Ana Abangan’s will was admitted to probate. Opponents appealed. Ana’s will consisted of two sheets. The first contained all the dispositions duly signed at the bottom bottom by Martin Montalban (in the name and under the direction of the testatrix) and by three witnesses. The following sheet contains only the attestation clause duly signed at the bottom by the three instrumental witnesses. Neither of these sheets is signed on the left margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses, nor numbered by letters; and these omissions, according to appellants’ contention, are defects whereby the probate of the will should have been denied.


ISSUES:

1. WON the probate of the will should have been denied because neither of the two sheets were signed on the left margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses, nor numbered by letters.


2. WON the testatrix knew the language in which the will was written.


RULING:


1.) NO. The will was duly admitted to probate. According to the SC:

ATTESTATION. — In a will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses and the second contains only the attestation clause and is signed also at the bottom by the three witnesses, it is not necessary that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator and the witnesses, or be paged.



TESTATOR’S SIGNATURE. — The testator’s signature is not necessary in the attestation clause because this, as its name implies, appertains only to the witnesses. 

 


The SC emphasized that the object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testator’s last will, must be disregarded.


2.) Yes. The testatrix knew the language in which the will was written.


DIALECT IN WHICH WRITTEN; PRESUMPTION. — The circumstance appearing in the will itself that same was executed in the city of Cebu and in the dialect of this locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is enough, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, to presume that she knew this dialect in which her will is written.


The judgment appealed from was affirmed.

 source 

No comments

Thank you so much for visiting. God bless you and your family always.

Back to Top