ANTONIO CASTAEDA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE E. ALEMANY, defendant-appellant. Ledesma, Sumulong and Quintos for appellant.

The court erred in holding that all legal formalities had been complied with in the execution of the will of Doa Juana Moreno, as the proof shows that the said will was not written in the presence of under the express direction of the testratrix as required b section !"# of the $ode of $ivil %rocedure. Antonio V. Herrero for appellee. The grounds upon which a will ma be disallowed are limited to those mentioned in section !&' of the $ode of $ivil %rocedure. WILLARD, J.: (") The evidence in this case shows to our satisfaction that the will of Doa Juana Moreno was dul signed b herself in the presence of three witnesses, who signed it as witnesses in the presence of the testratrix and of each other. *t was therefore executed in conformit with law. There is nothing in the language of section !"# of the $ode of $ivil %rocedure which supports the claim of the appellants that the will must be written b the testator himself or b someone else in his presence and under his express direction. That section requires (") that the will be in writing and (+) either that the testator sign it himself or, if he does sign it, that it be signed b some one in his presence and b his express direction. ,ho does the mechanical wor- of writing the will is a matter of indifference. The fact, therefore, that in this case the will was t pewritten in the office of the law er for the testratrix is of no consequence. The .nglish text of section !"# is ver plain. The mista-es in translation found in the first /panish edition of the code have been corrected in the second. (+) To establish conclusivel as against ever one, and once for all, the facts that a will was executed with the formalities required b law and that the testator was in a condition to ma-e a will, is the onl purpose of the proceedings under the new code for the probate of a will. (/ec. !+0.) The 1udgment in such proceedings determines and can determine nothing more. *n them the court has no power to pass upon the validit of an provisions made in the will. *t can not decide, for example, that a certain legac is void and another one valid. *t could not in this case ma-e an decision upon the question whether the testratrix had the power to appoint b will a guardian for the propert of her children b her first husband, or whether the person so appointed was or was not a suitable person to discharge such trust.

2ll such questions must be decided in some other proceeding. The grounds on which a will ma be disallowed are stated the section !&'. 3nless one of those grounds appears the will must be allowed. The all have to do with the personal condition of the testator at the time of its execution and the formalities connected therewith. *t follows that neither this court nor the court below has an 1urisdiction in his proceedings to pass upon the questions raised b the appellants b the assignment of error relating to the appointment of a guardian for the children of the deceased. *t is claimed b the appellants that there was no testimon in the court below to show that the will executed b the deceased was the same will presented to the court and concerning which this hearing was had. *t is true that the evidence does not show that the document in court was presented to the witnesses and identified b them, as should have been done. 4ut we thin- that we are 1ustified in sa ing that it was assumed b all the parties during the trial in the court below that the will about which the witnesses were testif ing was the document then in court. 5o suggestion of an -ind was then made b the counsel for the appellants that it was not the same instrument. *n the last question put to the witness 6on7ales the phrase 8this will9 is used b the counsel for the appellants. *n their argument in that court, found on page "0 of the record, the treat the testimon of the witnesses as referring to the will probate the were then opposing. The 1udgment of the court below is affirmed, eliminating therefrom, however, the clause 8el cual debera e1ecutarse fiel exactamente en todas sus partes.9 The costs of this instance will be charged against the appellants.