Specific Requirements – arts 805, 806 7.
Hence, this appeal by the oppositors claiming that such order is contrary
18979 – Icasiano vs Icasiano
Reyes, JBL J
The will was composed of five pages. All reqs under 805, 806 were complied
with. However, in page 3 one of the witnesses’ signature was not present. The
duplicate was produced wherein there was no such defect. The Court ruled
liberally, since it was proven that the defect was only inadvertently made by a
witness and should not cause the non-admission of the decedent’s will to
probate.
DOCTRINE
The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the
testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose
conduct she had no control, where the purpose of the law to guarantee the
identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained, no
intentional or deliberate deviation existed, and the evidence on record attests
to the full observance of the statutory requisites.
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
 Josefa Villacorte- decedent, referred to in the case as testatrix
 Celso Icasiano- proponent, requesting to be executor
 Natividad Icasiano- oppositor, a daughter of the Josefa
 Enrique Icasiano- oppositor, a son of Josefa
 Jose V. Natividad – one of the witnesses to the will, his missing
signature in page 3 of the original is in issue
FACTS
1. Oct 1958: The case began as a petition for the allowance and admission
to probate of Exhibit "A" as the alleged will of Josefa, and for the
appointment of petitioner Celso as executor.
a. (procedural)Notice and publication was made
2. Natividad filed her opposition; and asked to have herself appointed as a
special administrator.
3. CFI issued an order appointing the Philippine Trust Company as special
administrator.
4. Enrique also filed a manifestation adopting Natividad's opposition.
5. March 1959: Celso commenced introduction of evidence but later on filed
a motion for the admission of an amended and supplemental petition,
alleging that the decedent left a will executed in duplicate with all the legal
requirements, which he allegedly found only on or about May 26, 1959.
a. This was granted by the CFI.
6. After several hearings CFI admitted the will and its duplicate to probate.
to law and evidence.
8. Celso’s case:
a. Josefa died in Manila on September 12, 1958;
b. that on June 2, 1956, she had executed a last will and testament
in duplicate at the house of her daughter Felisa, published before
and attested by three witnesses, namely: attorneys Justo P.
Torres, Jr. and Jose V. Natividad, and Mr. Vinicio B. Diy;
c. that the will was acknowledged by the testatrix and by the said
three instrumental witnesses on the same date before attorney
Jose Oyengco Ong, Notary Public in and for the City of Manila;
d. and that the will was actually prepared by attorney Fermin
Samson, who was also present during the execution and signing
of the decedent's last will and testament, together with former
Governor of Bulacan, Judge Icasiano and a little girl.
e. Samson testified upon cross that he prepared one original and two
copies of Josefa Villacorte last will and testament at his house in
Baliuag, Bulacan, but he brought only one original and one signed
copy to Manila, retaining one unsigned copy in Bulacan.
9. (in issue) The records show that the original has five pages, and while
signed at the end and in every page, it does not contain the signature of
one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose V. Natividad, on page three
unlike the duplicate which is signed by the testatrix and her three attesting
witnesses in each and every page.
10. Witness Jose V. Natividad testified that he may have lifted two pages
instead of one when he signed the same(so sa pagkakabuklat nya nung
mga papel, naskip lang talaga yung page 3 mga bes), but affirmed that
page three (3) was signed in his presence.
11. Oppositors case:
a. expert testimony: that the signatures of the testatrix in the
duplicate are not genuine nor were they written on the same
occasion as the original, and
b. that granting that the documents were genuine, they were
executed through mistake and with undue influence and pressure
as may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding
the execution of the will and the provisions and dispositions
thereof, whereby proponents stand to profit from properties held
by them as attorneys-in-fact of the deceased and not enumerated
or mentioned therein, while oppositors are enjoined not to look for
other properties not mentioned in the will, and not to oppose the
probate of it, on penalty of forfeiting their share in the portion of
free disposal
1
ISSUE with HOLDING sufficiently attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation
1. w/n Josefa’s will is executed in accordance with the required formalities- existed, and the evidence on record attests to the full
YES, 805 and 806 was followed (as established from the fact#8) observance of the statutory requisites.
a. SC: oppositor's expert is not sufficient to overcome that of the iii. The failure of witness Natividad to sign page 3 was
notary and the two instrumental witnesses, Torres and Natividad. entirely through pure oversight as shown by his own
Why? Because: testimony and the duplicate copy wherein all pages were
signed.
i. On the alleged falsity of the signature of Josefa on the
iv. The text of the attestation clause and the
duplicate: the SC was not convinced by the witness of the
acknowledgment before the Notary Public likewise
oppositor: one, because it is directly contradicted by
evidence that no one was aware of the defect at the time.
expert for the proponents, two and principally because
d. Appellants also argue that since the original is in existence and
standards used by him. The expert has used as standards
available, the duplicate is not entitled to probate.
only three other signatures of the testatrix besides those
i. SC: This argument is irrelevant, they oppose the original
affixed to the original and the SC felt that with so few
because of the missing signature in page 3, it is easily
standards the expert's opinion becomes extremely
discerned that oppositors-appellants run here into a
hazardous. There were no radical differences that would
dilemma; if the original is defective and invalid, then in law
justify the charge of forgery, taking into account the
there is no other will but the duly signed carbon duplicate
advanced age of the testatrix, the evident variability of her
and the same is probatable. If the original is valid and can
signatures, and the effect of writing fatigue, the duplicate
be probated, then the objection to the signed duplicate
being signed right the original.
need not be considered.
ii. On the alleged slight variance in blueness of the ink of the
e. (Procedural) On lack of publication:
signatures does not appear reliable, considering the
i. SC: That duplicate was produced and admitted without a
standard and challenged writings were affixed to different
new publication does not affect the jurisdiction of the
kinds of paper, with different surfaces and reflecting
probate court, already conferred by the original
power.
publication of the petition for probate. There was no
b. SC: Nor was there adequate evidence of fraud or undue influence.
substantial alteration nor new interests involved.
The fact that some heirs are more favored than others is proof of
neither. The testamentary dispositions that the heirs should not
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
inquire into other property and that they should respect the
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with
distribution made in the will, under penalty of forfeiture of their
costs against appellants.
shares in the free part do not suffice to prove fraud or undue
influence.
c. ON TOPIC SC: The inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his
signature to one page of a testament, due to the simultaneous
lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is not per se sufficient
to justify denial of probate.
i. There was no substitution of page 3, o the testatrix and
two other witnesses signed it, moreover it bore the
coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public before
whom the testament was ratified by testatrix and all three
witnesses.
ii. The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted
as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence
of a single witness over whose conduct she had no
control, where the purpose of the law to guarantee the
identity of the testament and its component pages is
2