Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-7188 August 9, 1954
In r! "#$$ %n& Tst%'nt o( t) &*%s& RE+EREN, SANC-O A.A,IA.
SE+ERINA A. +,A. ,E ENRI/UE0, ET AL., petitioners-appellees,
vs.
MIGUEL A.A,IA, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
Manuel A. Zosa, Luis B. Ladonga, Mariano A. Zosa and B. G. Advincula for appellants.
C. de la Victoria for appellees.
MONTEMA1OR, J.!
On September , !"#$, %ather Sancho Aba&ia, parish priest of 'alisa(, Cebu, e)ecute& a &ocument purportin* to be his +ast ,ill an&
'estament no- mar.e& E)hibit /A/. Resi&ent of the Cit( of Cebu, he &ie& on 0anuar( !1, !"1$, in the municipalit( of Alo*uinsan, Cebu,
-here he -as an evacuee. 2e left properties estimate& at P3,444 in value. On October #, !"1, one An&res Enri5ue6, one of the le*atees in
E)hibit /A/, file& a petition for its probate in the Court of %irst 7nstance of Cebu. Some cousins an& nephe-s -ho -oul& inherit the estate of
the &ecease& if he left no -ill, file& opposition.
8urin* the hearin* one of the attestin* -itnesses, the other t-o bein* &ea&, testifie& -ithout contra&iction that in his presence an& in the
presence of his co--itnesses, %ather Sancho -rote out in lon*han& E)hibit /A/ in Spanish -hich the testator spo.e an& un&erstoo&9 that he
:testator; si*ne& on he left han& mar*in of the front pa*e of each of the three folios or sheets of -hich the &ocument is compose&, an&
numbere& the same -ith Arabic numerals, an& finall( si*ne& his name at the en& of his -ritin* at the last pa*e, all this, in the presence of the
three attestin* -itnesses after tellin* that it -as his last -ill an& that the sai& three -itnesses si*ne& their names on the last pa*e after the
attestation clause in his presence an& in the presence of each other. 'he oppositors &i& not submit an( evi&ence.
'he learne& trial court foun& an& &eclare& E)hibit /A/ to be a holo*raphic -ill9 that it -as in the han&-ritin* of the testator an& that althou*h
at the time it -as e)ecute& an& at the time of the testator<s &eath, holo*raphic -ills -ere not permitte& b( la- still, because at the time of the
hearin* an& -hen the case -as to be &eci&e& the ne- Civil Co&e -as alrea&( in force, -hich Co&e permitte& the e)ecution of holo*raphic
-ills, un&er a liberal vie-, an& to carr( out the intention of the testator -hich accor&in* to the trial court is the controllin* factor an& ma(
overri&e an( &efect in form, sai& trial court b( or&er &ate& 0anuar( #1, !"=#, a&mitte& to probate E)hibit /A/, as the +ast ,ill an& 'estament
of %ather Sancho Aba&ia. 'he oppositors are appealin* from that &ecision9 an& because onl( 5uestions of la- are involve& in the appeal, the
case -as certifie& to us b( the Court of Appeals.
'he ne- Civil Co&e :Republic Act No. $3; un&er article 3!4 thereof provi&es that a person ma( e)ecute a holo*raphic -ill -hich must be
entirel( -ritten, &ate& an& si*ne& b( the testator himself an& nee& not be -itnesse&. 7t is a fact, ho-ever, that at the time that E)hibit /A/ -as
e)ecute& in !"#$ an& at the time that %ather Aba&ia &ie& in !"1$, holo*raphic -ills -ere not permitte&, an& the la- at the time impose&
certain re5uirements for the e)ecution of -ills, such as numberin* correlativel( each pa*e :not folio or sheet; in letters an& si*nin* on the left
han& mar*in b( the testator an& b( the three attestin* -itnesses, re5uirements -hich -ere not complie& -ith in E)hibit /A/ because the bac.
pa*es of the first t-o folios of the -ill -ere not si*ne& b( an( one, not even b( the testator an& -ere not numbere&, an& as to the three front
pa*es, the( -ere si*ne& onl( b( the testator.
7nterpretin* an& appl(in* this re5uirement this Court in the case of 7n re Estate of Sa*uinsin, 1! Phil., 3>=, 3>", referrin* to the failure of the
testator an& his -itnesses to si*n on the left han& mar*in of ever( pa*e, sai&?
. . . . 'his &efect is ra&ical an& totall( vitiates the testament. 7t is not enou*h that the si*natures *uaranteein* authenticit( shoul&
appear upon t-o folios or leaves9 three pa*es havin* been -ritten on, the authenticit( of all three of them shoul& be *uarantee&
b( the si*nature of the alle*e& testatri) an& her -itnesses.
An& in the case of Aspe vs. Prieto, 1 Phil., >44, referrin* to the same re5uirement, this Court &eclare&?
%rom an e)amination of the &ocument in 5uestion, it appears that the left mar*ins of the si) pa*es of the &ocument are si*ne&
onl( b( @entura Prieto. 'he noncompliance -ith section # of Act No. #1= b( the attestin* -itnesses -ho omitte& to si*n -ith the
testator at the left mar*in of each of the five pa*es of the &ocument alle*e& to be the -ill of @entura Prieto, is a fatal &efect that
constitutes an obstacle to its probate.
,hat is the la- to appl( to the probate of E)h. /A/A Ma( -e appl( the provisions of the ne- Civil Co&e -hich not allo-s holo*raphic -ills,
li.e E)hibit /A/ -hich provisions -ere invo.e& b( the appellee-petitioner an& applie& b( the lo-er courtA But article >"= of this same ne-
Civil Co&e e)pressl( provi&es? /'he vali&it( of a -ill as to its form &epen&s upon the observance of the la- in force at the time it is ma&e./
'he above provision is but an e)pression or statement of the -ei*ht of authorit( to the affect that the vali&it( of a -ill is to be Bu&*e& not b(
the la- enforce at the time of the testator<s &eath or at the time the suppose& -ill is presente& in court for probate or -hen the petition is
&eci&e& b( the court but at the time the instrument -as e)ecute&. One reason in support of the rule is that althou*h the -ill operates upon
an& after the &eath of the testator, the -ishes of the testator about the &isposition of his estate amon* his heirs an& amon* the le*atees is
*iven solemn e)pression at the time the -ill is e)ecute&, an& in realit(, the le*ac( or be5uest then becomes a complete& act. 'his rulin* has
been lai& &o-n b( this court in the case of 7n re ,ill of Riosa, $" Phil., #$. 7t is a -holesome &octrine an& shoul& be follo-e&.
Of course, there is the vie- that the intention of the testator shoul& be the rulin* an& controllin* factor an& that all a&e5uate reme&ies an&
interpretations shoul& be resorte& to in or&er to carr( out sai& intention, an& that -hen statutes passe& after the e)ecution of the -ill an&
after the &eath of the testator lessen the formalities re5uire& b( la- for the e)ecution of -ills, sai& subse5uent statutes shoul& be applie& so
as to vali&ate -ills &efectivel( e)ecute& accor&in* to the la- in force at the time of e)ecution. 2o-ever, -e shoul& not for*et that from the
&a( of the &eath of the testator, if he leaves a -ill, the title of the le*atees an& &evisees un&er it becomes a veste& ri*ht, protecte& un&er the
&ue process clause of the constitution a*ainst a subse5uent chan*e in the statute a&&in* ne- le*al re5uirements of e)ecution of -ills -hich
-oul& invali&ate such a -ill. B( parit( of reasonin*, -hen one e)ecutes a -ill -hich is invali& for failure to observe an& follo- the le*al
re5uirements at the time of its e)ecution then upon his &eath he shoul& be re*ar&e& an& &eclare& as havin* &ie& intestate, an& his heirs -ill
then inherit b( intestate succession, an& no subse5uent la- -ith more liberal re5uirements or -hich &ispenses -ith such re5uirements as to
e)ecution shoul& be allo-e& to vali&ate a &efective -ill an& thereb( &ivest the heirs of their veste& ri*hts in the estate b( intestate
succession. 'he *eneral rule is that the +e*islature can not vali&ate voi& -ills :=> Am. 0ur., ,ills, Sec. #$!, pp. !"#-!"$;.
7n vie- of the fore*oin*, the or&er appeale& from is reverse&, an& E)hibit /A/ is &enie& probate. ,ith costs.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, e!es, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and e!es J.B.L., JJ., concur.