FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROATE OF THE !ILL OF
"OROTEA PERE#, $%e&e'(e%)* APOLONIO TAOA"A,petitioner,
vs.
HON. A+ELINO ,. RO,AL, '( -.%/e o0 1o.r2 o0 F3r(2 I4(2'4&e o0 ,o.25er4 Le62e,
$r'4&5 III, M''(34),respondent.
Erasmo M. Diola counsel for petition.
Hon. Avelino S. Rosal in his own behalf.

GUTIERREZ, JR. J.:
This is a petition for review of the orders issued by the Court of First Instance of
Southern Leyte, Branch III, in Special Proceedings o. !"#$#%, entitled &In the 'atter of
the Petition for Probate of the (ill of )orotea Pere*, )eceased+ ,polonio Taboada,
Petitioner&, which denied the probate of the will, the -otion for reconsideration and the
-otion for appoint-ent of a special ad-inistrator.
In the petition for probate filed with the respondent court the petitioner attached the alle!ed last
will and testa"ent of the late Dorotea #ere$. %ritten in the &ebuano'Visa(an dialect the will
consists of two pa!es. The first pa!e contains the entire testa"entar( dispositions and is si!ned
at the end or botto" of the pa!e b( the testatri) alone and at the left hand "ar!in b( the three *+,
instru"ental witnesses. The second pa!e which contains the attestation clause and the
ac-nowled!"ent is si!ned at the end of the attestation clause b( the three *+, attestin! witnesses
and at the left hand "ar!in b( the testatri).
Since no opposition was filed after the petitioner.s co"pliance with the re/uire"ent of publication
the trial court co""issioned the branch cler- of court to receive the petitioner.s evidence.
Accordin!l( the petitioner sub"itted his evidence and presented Vicente Ti"-an! one of the
subscribin! witnesses to the will who testified on its !enuineness and due e)ecution.
The trial court thru then #residin! 0ud!e Ra"on &. #a"atian issued the /uestioned order
den(in! the probate of the will of Dorotea #ere$ for want of a for"alit( in its e)ecution. In the
sa"e order the petitioner was also re/uired to sub"it the na"es of the intestate heirs with their
correspondin! addresses so that the( could be properl( notified and could intervene in the
su""ar( settle"ent of the estate.
Instead of co"pl(in! with the order of the trial court the petitioner filed a "anifestation and1or
"otion ex parte pra(in! for a thirt('da( period within which to deliberate on an( step to be ta-en
as a result of the disallowance of the will. He also as-ed that the ten'da( period re/uired b( the
court to sub"it the na"es of intestate heirs with their addresses be held in abe(ance.
The petitioner filed a "otion for reconsideration of the order den(in! the probate of the will.
However the "otion to!ether with the previous "anifestation and1or "otion could not be acted
upon b( the Honorable Ra"on &. #a"atian due to his transfer to his new station at #asi! Ri$al.
The said "otions or incidents were still pendin! resolution when respondent 0ud!e Avelino S.
Rosal assu"ed the position of presidin! 2ud!e of the respondent court.
3eanwhile the petitioner filed a "otion for the appoint"ent of special ad"inistrator.
Subse/uentl( the new 0ud!e denied the "otion for reconsideration as well as the "anifestation
and1or "otion filed ex parte. In the sa"e order of denial the "otion for the appoint"ent of special
ad"inistrator was li-ewise denied because of the petitioner.s failure to co"pl( with the order
re/uirin! hi" to sub"it the na"es of. the intestate heirs and their addresses.
The petitioner decided to file the present petition.
For the validit( of a for"al notarial will does Article 456 of the &ivil &ode re/uire that the testatri)
and all the three instru"ental and attestin! witnesses si!n at the endof the will and in the
presence of the testatri) and of one another7
Article 456 of the &ivil &ode provides8
9ver( will other than a holo!raphic will "ust be subscribed at the end thereof b( the
testator hi"self or b( the testator.s na"e written b( so"e other person in his presence
and b( his e)press direction and attested and subscribed b( three or "ore credible
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
The testator or the person re/uested b( hi" to write his na"e and the instru"ental
witnesses of the will shall also si!n as aforesaid each and ever( pa!e thereof e)cept
the last on the left "ar!in and all the pa!es shall be nu"bered correlativel( in letters
placed on the upper part of each pa!e.
The attestation shall state the nu"ber of pa!es used upon which the will is written and
the fact that the testator si!ned the will and ever( pa!e thereof or caused so"e other
person to write his na"e under his e)press direction in the presence of the
instru"ental witnesses and that the lacier witnesses and si!ned the will and the pa!es
thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
If the attestation clause is in a lan!ua!e not -nown to the witnesses it shall be
interpreted to the witnesses it shall be interpreted to the".
The respondent .udge interprets the above"/uoted provision of law to re/uire that, for a
notarial will to be valid, it is not enough that only the testatri0 signs at the &end& but an
the three subscribing witnesses -ust also sign at the sa-e place or at the end, in the
presence of the testatri0 and of one another because the attesting witnesses to a will attest
not -erely the will itself but also the signature of the testator. It is not sufficient
co-pliance to sign the page, where the end of the will is found, at the left hand -argin of
that page.
On the other hand the petitioner "aintains that Article 456 of the &ivil &ode does not "a-e it a
condition precedent or a "atter of absolute necessit( for the e)trinsic validit( of the wi! that the
si!natures of the subscribin! witnesses should be specificall( located at the end of the wi! after
the si!nature of the testatri). He contends that it would be absurd that the le!islature intended to
place so heav( an i"port on the space or particular location where the si!natures are to be found
as lon! as this space or particular location wherein the si!natures are found is consistent with
!ood faith and the honest frailties of hu"an nature.
%e find the petition "eritorious.
:ndoubtedl( under Article 456 of the &ivil &ode the will "ust be subscribed or si!ned at its end
b( the testator hi"self or b( the testator.s na"e written b( another person in his presence and b(
his e)press direction and attested and subscribed b( three or "ore credible witnesses in the
presence of the testator and of one another.
It "ust be noted that the law uses the ter"s attested and subscribed Attestation consists in
witnessin! the testator.s e)ecution of the will in order to see and ta-e note "entall( that those
thin!s are done which the statute re/uires for the e)ecution of a will and that the si!nature of the
testator e)ists as a fact. On the other hand subscription is the si!nin! of the witnesses. na"es
upon the sa"e paper for the purpose of Identification of such paper as the will which was
e)ecuted b( the testator. *Ra!sdale v. Hill ;<= S% ;d =>>,.
Insofar as the re/uire"ent of subscription is concerned it is our considered view that the will in
this case was subscribed in a "anner which full( satisfies the purpose of Identification.
The si!natures of the instru"ental witnesses on the left "ar!in of the first pa!e of the will attested
not onl( to the !enuineness of the si!nature of the testatri) but also the due e)ecution of the will
as e"bodied in the attestation clause.
%hile perfection in the draftin! of a will "a( be desirable unsubstantial departure fro" the usual
for"s should be i!nored especiall( where the authenticit( of the will is not assailed. *?on$ales v.
?on$ales =5 #hil. @@@ @@=,.
The law is to be liberall( construed Athe underl(in! and funda"ental ob2ective per"eatin! the
provisions on the law on wills in this pro2ect consists in the liberali$ation of the "anner of their
e)ecution with the end in view of !ivin! the testator "ore freedo" in e)pressin! his last wishes
but with sufficient safe!uards and restrictions to prevent the co""ission of fraud and the e)ercise
of undue and i"proper pressure and influence upon the testator. This ob2ective is in accord with
the "odern tendenc( in respect to the for"alities in the e)ecution of a willA *Report of the Code
commission, p. >5+,.
#arentheticall( 0ud!e Ra"on &. #a"atian stated in his /uestioned order that were not for the
defect in the place of si!natures of the witnesses he would have found the testi"on( sufficient to
establish the validit( of the will.
The ob2ects of attestation and of subscription were full( "et and satisfied in the present case
when the instru"ental witnesses si!ned at the left "ar!in of the sole pa!e which contains all the
testa"entar( dispositions especiall( so when the will was properl( Identified b( subscribin!
witness Vicente Ti"-an! to be the sa"e will e)ecuted b( the testatri). There was no /uestion of
fraud or substitution behind the /uestioned order.
%e have e)a"ined the will in /uestion and noticed that the attestation clause failed to state the
nu"ber of pa!es used in writin! the will. This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the
fact that in this case it is discernible fro" the entire wi! that it is reall( and actuall( co"posed of
onl( two pa!es dul( si!ned b( the testatri) and her instru"ental witnesses. As earlier stated the
first pa!e which contains the entiret( of the testa"entar( dispositions is si!ned b( the testatri) at
the end or at the botto" while the instru"ental witnesses si!ned at the left "ar!in. The other
pa!e which is "ar-ed as A#a!ina dosA co"prises the attestation clause and the ac-nowled!"ent.
The ac-nowled!"ent itself states that AThis Bast %ill and Testa"ent consists of two pa!es
includin! this pa!eA.
In Singson v. Florentino, et al.*=; #hil. ><> ><@, this &ourt "ade the followin! observations with
respect to the purpose of the re/uire"ent that the attestation clause "ust state the nu"ber of
pa!es used8
The law referred to is article <>4 of the &ode of &ivil #rocedure as a"ended b( Act No.
;<@6 which re/uires that the attestation clause shall state the nu"ber of pa!es or
sheets upon which the win is written which re/uire"ent has been held to be "andator(
as an effective safe!uard a!ainst the possibilit( of interpolation or o"ission of so"e of
the pa!es of the will to the pre2udice of the heirs to who" the propert( is intended to be
be/ueathed *In re will of Andrada @; #hil. >45C :( &o/ue vs. Navas B. Sioca @+ #hil.
@56C ?u"ban vs. ?orecho 65 #hil. +5C Duinto vs. 3orata 6@ #hil. @4>C 9chevarria vs.
Sar"iento << #hil. <>>,. The ratio decidendiof these cases see"s to be that the
attestation clause "ust contain a state"ent of the nu"ber of sheets or pa!es
co"posin! the will and that if this is "issin! or is o"itted it will have the effect of
invalidatin! the will if the deficienc( cannot be supplied not b( evidence aliunde but b(
a consideration or e)a"ination of the will itself. Eut here the situation is different. %hile
the attestation clause does not state the nu"ber of sheets or pa!es upon which the will
is written however the last part of the bod( of the will contains a state"ent that it is
co"posed of ei!ht pa!es which circu"stance in our opinion ta-es this case out of the
ri!id rule of construction and places it within the real" of si"ilar cases where a broad
and "ore liberal view has been adopted to prevent the will of the testator fro" bein!
defeated b( purel( technical considerations.
Icasiano v. Icasiano1## SC!, 233, 2345 has the following ruling which applies a si-ilar
liberal approach6
... I"possibilit( of substitution of this pa!e is assured not onl( *sic, the fact that the
testatri) and two other witnesses did si!n the defective pa!e but also b( its bearin! the
coincident i"print of the seal of the notar( public before who" the testa"ent was
ratified b( testatri) and all three witnesses. The law should not be so strictl( and literall(
interpreted as to penali$e the testatri) on account of the inadvertence of a sin!le
witness over whose conduct she had no control where the purpose of the law to
!uarantee the Identit( of the testa"ent and its co"ponent pa!es is sufficientl( attained
no intentional or deliberate deviation e)isted and the evidence on record attests to the
fun observance of the statutor( re/uisites. Otherwise as stated in Vda. de ?il. Vs.
3urciano @= Off. ?a$. >@6= at >@F= *decision on reconsideration, .witnesses "a(
sabota!e the will b( "uddlin! or bun!lin! it or the attestation clause.
(78!8F9!8, the present petition is hereby granted. The orders of the respondent court
which denied the probate of tile will, the -otion for reconsideration of the denial of
probate, and the -otion for appoint-ent of a special ad-inistrator are set aside. The
respondent court is ordered to allow the probate of the wig and to conduct further
proceedings in accordance with this decision. o pronounce-ent on costs.
SO ORD9R9D.