Icasiano v.
Icasiano Issue: Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing
G.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964
REYES, J.B.L., J:
Digested by Romeo Lanzarrote
RULE 76
Petitioner: Celsio Icasiano
Respondent: Natividad and Enrique Icasiano
Doctrine:
The testatrix should not be punished by the errors of the
witnesses. The subscribing signatures may be laxed, in
accordance both to the civil code and jurisprudence because such
error does not befall on the shoulders of the testator. Absent any
sign of bad faith or undue influence, it cannot be said that it was
against the law.
Facts:
Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of
Josefa Villacorte and for his appointment as executor thereof. It
appears from the evidence that the testatrix died on September
12, 1958. She executed a will in Tagalog, and through the help
of her lawyer, it was prepared in duplicates, an original and a
carbon copy.
On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only
brought the original copy of the will while the carbon duplicate
(unsigned) was left in Bulacan. One of the witnesses failed to
sign one of the pages in the original copy but admitted he may
have lifted 2 pages simultaneously instead when he signed the
will. Nevertheless, he affirmed that the will was signed by the
testator and other witnesses in his presence.
witnesses to affix his signature to a page is sufficient to deny
probate of the will
RULING: No, the failure to sign was entirely through pure
oversight or mere inadvertence. Since the duplicated bore the
required signatures, this proves that the omission was not
intentional. Even if the original is in existence, a duplicate may
still be admitted to probate since the original is deemed to be
defective, then in law, there is no other will but the duly signed
carbon duplicate and the same can be probated.
The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to
penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single
witness over whose conduct she has no control of. Where the
purpose of the law is to guarantee the identity of the testament
and its component pages, and there is no intentional or deliberate
deviation existed.
Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the
rules that the will should be signed by the witnesses on every
page. The carbon copy duplicate was regular in all respects.
Relevance to Rule 76:
The case did not explain Rule 76. However, as discussed in the
case, the court said that the rule should be laxed because Rule 76
section 9 mentioned the grounds for disallowing a will. There
was no sign of fraud or bad faith, or undue influence thus it
negates the theory that the dispositions were made not fully
respecting the intention of the testator.