GR No. 47931, June 27, 1941 TESTAMENTARIA DEL FINADO REV. P.

ELEUTERIO
PILAPIL. ADRIANO MENDOZA, APPLICANT AND APPEAL, AGAINST CALIXTO PILAPIL AND
OTHERS, OPPOSITORS AND APPEALS.

DECISION

DIAZ, M.

The main issues that the opponents present to us for their resolution, when appealing the decision of
the Cebu Court of First Instance, issued in testamentary file No. 407 of said Court, can be reduced to
the following:

1. "If the Cebu Court could appoint on March 4, 1939, the appellant as special administrator of
the relict assets of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil (testamentary file No. 407), being as he was
then acting as administrator of the same assets , since February 7, 1939, the appellant Calixto
Pilapil, who promoted a day before, the File of Intestate of the same fl. P. Eleuterio Pilapil, in
said Court (file No. 399, Cebu Court); and

2. "If legalization proceeded and proceeds as testament or disposition of last will of the late P.
Eleuterio Pilapil, of the document in cars like Exhibit A which is a carbon duplicate of Exhibit C.

The pertinent facts that must be taken into account in resolving the proposed issues are, as they
appear from the decision appealed and from the same documents that the Court declared to be
testament and last will of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, which are listed below :

Father Eleuterio Pilapil, being Cura of the parish of Mualboal of the Province of Cebu, died in the city
of this name on December 6, 1935. No testament was submitted after his death, at least until the
beginning of February 1939, his brother Calixto Pilapil promoted on the 6th of said month and year,
the file of intestacy No. 399 to request that he be appointed administrator of the real estate of
him. Received the application he had submitted for the indicated purpose, prior to the publication of
the notices prescribed by law, and hearing the Court previously to those who appeared to oppose it,
among which were the same appeal and Simeona Pilapil, the Court granted it, appointing him
immediately administrator of said Intestate. A few days later,

"I, Eleuterio Pilapil, Priest of the Cato1ica Apostolka Romana Church, sixty-eight years old, a native of
Liloan, currently Cura Parroco de la Parroquia de Mualboal, Province of Cebu, IF, enjoying health and
in FULL USE OF MY MENTAL FACULTIES, I hereby publish, declare and grant the following as my
testament and I LAST WILL:

"ART. FIRST: I institute and appoint Mr. Adriano Ilendoza, my political nephew, married, of legal age
and neighbor of the Municipality of Liloan, Province of Cebu, IF, ALBACEA-EXECUTOR of this my
Testament and Last Will: Understanding, That , in case of impossibility, negligence or other cause
with which it is prohibited to enforce this my Will and Last Will, by bail, I have and order that it be
replaced in the position of executor of this my Testament and last Will, by my Cousin, Jose
Cabatingan, married, of legal age, resident of the Municipality of Mualboal, Province of Cebu, IF, who
will be in charge and will ensure that these following provisions are met:

*******
"2. at my disposal and I command you this my Testament and trltima Will NOT be vented in the Court,
since this Will and Will iJltima simply corroborates claims and ensures the legitimacy of the
documents for the sale of my property;

*******

"ART. Second: I hereby state that this My Testament and Last Will, which corroborates, affirms and
ensures the legitimacy of documents granted to me by buyers consists of two articles; it contains
sixteen provisions and is written on three pages;

*******

"Cebu, Cebu, IF, today

November 27, 1935.
(Signed) "ELEUTERIO
PILAPIL
" Testator";
at the end of them (exhibits A and C), there is this testimony clause:

"To the one who will read:

HEALTH,

We who sign below, state: That the pre-insertion Testament and Last Will has been signed, declared
and sworn by the Testament, Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil in the presence of all of us and at the request
of said Testament, we sign each of us in the presence of us, here in Cebu, Cebu, IF, today November
27, 1935.

(Signed) "WENCESLAO PILAPIL

"Witness
"MARCELO PILAPIL
"Witness
"EUGENIO K. PILAPIL
"Witness"
The two documents, exhibits A and C, consist of three pages; and in the left margin of each of the
first two, the signatures that are seen at the end of the main body of said documents and their
attestation clause appear; and that they are, according to the evidence, signatures of the late P.
Eleuterio Pilapil, and of the witnesses Wenceslao Pilapil, Marcelo Pilapil and Eugenio K. Pilapil.

In the place of the date of both the documents and their testimony clause, the word "Cebu" is written
about something that was tried to scrape but that can still be seen saying "Mualboal"; and also the
figure "27" and the name of the month: "November", the latter written on a scraped word that can still
be seen without any difficulty, at least in Exhibit A, which says: "October". In the last paragraph of
page 2 whose continuation appears in the first two lines of the following page, (page 3), which is the
last one, there is the following express mention: "it contains sixteen provisions and is written in three
pages". At the bottom of pages (1) and (2) there are respectively these notes: "Go to the 2nd
page"; "Go to 3".
The reasons in which the appellants support themselves to maintain that the legalization of neither of
the two documents expressed as testament of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil is not appropriate, are
these:

( a ) That they contain scrapes and alterations that the appellant stopped explaining;

( b ) That it has not been proven that the decedent, regardless of what is stated in the aforementioned
exhibits A and C, was of competent age to test;

( c ) That it has not been proven that the deceased possessed Spanish, which is the language in
which said documents are written;

( d ) That in one of the clauses of said documents there is a prohibition to be aired in the Courts;

( e ) That neither has been prepared, signed and witnessed in accordance with the provisions of
article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

With respect to the first question, it must be said that, as the same Appellate Piece of the appellants
tells us, the two files Nos. 399 and 407 were filed in two different Chambers of the Cebu Court of First
Instance. The first was promoted in Room III; and the last one, in Room II. When the Judge learned of
one of these Chambers that there was a direct relationship between one and the other, he arranged
for the two to meet by a single Judge; hence both were considered as one only to avoid what the
injured Judge said: "incompatibility in the administration of the property of said deceased", referring to
the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil.

Undoubtedly, the Cebu Court did not lack reason to appoint a special administrator in file No. 407, to
the appellate, because in the documents that were there to be legalized as testament and disposition
of last will of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, the commission Express that it was. In addition, there was
not, nor is there any law that prohibits Courts who know of a probate or intestate file, to appoint more
than one administrator; and, in the case in question, it happened that the appointment of the appellant
as administrator was canceled, after the two aforementioned files were merged. But still; if the
purpose of the appellants when proposing the question that we have been talking about, is to cancel
the appointment issued in favor of the appellant as special administrator, vain is and vain must be
said purpose, because insisting on it is equivalent to being appealing an order of the Court appointing
a special administrator; and the law does not allow appeal against orders of that nature. The provision
of the law that says: "The appeal against the appointment of said special administrator" shall not be
permitted. (Art. 660, Law No. 190.)

In addition to all this it must be said that, if there was any error in the appointment of the appellate as
special administrator, for the reason that another in property was already appointed by the Court, the
error, if such can be called, has not been such nature that caused any harm to anyone, let alone to
the Testamentary of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil.

The scrapes and alterations that are noted in Ips exhibits A and C constitute facts that are now, for
the first time, and in this instance, attention is to be called, when this should have been done while
the cause was still in the Court of its origin. We cannot take you into account in the present state of
the proceedings because, assuming that they already existed then, it can and should be said,
although the Cebu Court did not expressly state it, which I believe did not vitiate said
documents; well, it is presumption juris tantumthat "all the facts related to the points discussed in a
trial were exposed to the court and appreciated by him." (Art. 334, par. 16, Law No. 190.) And they
did not vitiate him in effect, because it follows from the same circumstances of the case, which were
done precisely to put things in their true place. The two exhibits A and C were prepared by the late P.
Eleuterio Pilapil in Mualboal where he was Cura Parroco, before being transferred to be treated for
his illness that caused his death, to the Southern Islands Hospital of Cebu, where he died. Judged in
these facts that were proven in trial, I declare the following: "The intervention of the three instrumental
witnesses of the document took place in a casual manner,

When preparing them, being in Mualboal, it was only natural to express in them that they were
prepared there, and leave the date blank but without ceasing to put the name of the month in which
they were cleaned, that is, October of 1935

Regarding the age of the testator and how much Spanish is spoken, which is the language in which
the two exhibits are written, or not, it must be said that as a priest and priest of the parish of Mudboal,
Cebu, it must be presumed that he had the competent age to test, and who understood and spoke
Spanish, then, it is of general knowledge that to be a priest of a parish, one must be a priest, and to
be a priest, many years of study in seminars where Spanish is spoken are needed. It is a language as
official as English. On the other hand, there is no evidence that it has been proven that the testator
did not understand that language.

The testator's disposition that his "Testament and Last Will not be aired in the Court" cannot
dispossess the Courts of his authority to determine whether his referred will is legalizable or not. It is
not the parties interested in one way or another in a matter, who can confer or remove jurisdiction and
authority to the Courts to resolve and decide what the same law wants to be resolved and decided. It
should be borne in mind that the law mandates that the wills granted by a testator be delivered to the
Court, after he dies, by the person to whom his custody has been entrusted, with the aim undoubtedly
to determine "if appropriate its legalization and at the same time it is possible to dispose of its assets
as mandated therein; or if, on the contrary, he must be declared dead intestate. for not granting
legalization. (Arts. 626 to 631, Law No. 190.) In addition, if the testator is not a lawyer, it is not
surprising that he has consigned in his will the prohibition that, using his own words, "he ventures in
the Court."

And as to that exhibits A and C cannot be legalized because they were not prepared or signed in
accordance with the law, saying that their pages are not numbered with letters; and because in its
testimony clause it is not expressed that they were signed by the three instrumental witnesses, in the
presence of the testator, it is sufficient to draw attention to the fact that at the bottom of the first page
there is in letters the note that clearly states:

"Go to 2". page "; and to the fact that, at the bottom of this second page, there is this other note:" Go
to 3 ". page"; and it is enough to also draw attention to the first two lines of said third page which is
the last one, where, to complete the provision that is enclosed in the last paragraph of the previous
page, that is to say second, sc says the following:

"* * * consists of two vehicles; with

It has sixteen provisions and is written
in three pages ",

which faithfully agrees with the true facts such as two exhibits appear in the aforementioned, because
they effectively contain two articles and sixteen provisions, and no more, and no less.

In the testimony clause in both copies of the Will subject to question, it is affirmed by the three
instrumental witnesses that the signature, which

"the pre-insertion Testament and last Vo-

luntad, has been subscribed, declared and ju-
by the Testament, Rev. P. Eleuterio
Pilapil in the presence of all of us ";
and followed, it is also affirmed by the same witnesses that:

"at the request of said Testament, we signed

each one of us, here in Cebu, Cebu,
IF, today November 27, 1935. "
The phrase "at the request of said Testament", together with the one that signed and signed his will in
the presence of the instrumental witnesses, allows and justifies the inference that the testator was
present when the last ones stamped their respective signatures there.

The purpose of the law in establishing the formalities required in a will, is undoubtedly to ensure and
guarantee its authenticity against bad faith and fraud, to prevent those who do not have the right to
succeed the testator from succeeding and benefiting from ] to its legalization. This purpose has been
fulfilled in the case that it has been discussed because, in the same body of the testament and on the
same page where the attestation clause appears, that is the third, it is expressed that the testament
consists of three pages and because each one of the first two has partly the note in letters, and partly
the note in figures, that are respectively the first and second pages of it. These facts obviously
exclude all fear, all suspicion,

Something more than in the case of Nayve against Mojal and Aguilar (47 Jur. Fil., 160), which was
clarified by the cause of Gumban against Gorecho and others (50 Jur. Fil., 31), there is in the present
case because there was no more than the notes: "Pag1. 1"; "Page 2"; "Page 3"; and "Page 4" on the
respective side of the four pages of which it is composed, and in the present there are the
aforementioned data and there is also the constancy inserted in the first two lines of the third page of
exhibits A and C, that they are composed of three pages, and contain two articles and sixteen
provisions.

They are, therefore, of perfect application to the case in question, what we said in the cases of
Rodriguez v. Yap, RG No. 45924, May 18, 1939; and Happy against De Gorostiza (57 Jur. Fil.,
456). We said in these cases, respectively, the following:

"The wording of the testimony clause in this testament is not technically free of objections, but it is
substantially sufficient compliance with the law.

We maintain the criterion that strict compliance with the substantive requirements of the will must be
demanded, to ensure its authenticity, but, at the same time, we believe that defects should not be
taken into account so that they cannot affect this purpose and that, on the other hand , if taken into
account, they could frustrate the testator's will. "(Rodriguez vs.Yap, supra .)

"Legal formalities should not be allowed to impede the use of good common sense in the
consideration of wills and to frustrate the wishes of the deceased solemnly expressed in their wills, as
to whose granting there is not even a shadow of bad faith or frandeness ". (Blessed against De
Gorostiza, supra. )

For all the foregoing, finding the decision appealed by the Cebu Court of First Instance fixed by law,
we hereby confirm it, condemning the appellants to pay the costs. That's how it is ordered.

Avanceña, Pres., Diaz, Laurel, Moran, and Horrilleno, MM., Aresatisfied.

DISSIDENT
MORAN, M. ,

The testimony clause is as follows:

"We who sign below, state: That the pre-insertion Testament and last Will, has been signed, declared
and sworn by the Testament, Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil in the presence of all of us and at the request
of said Testament, we sign each one of us in the presence of us, here in Cebfi, Cebu, IF, today
November 27, 1935. "

There is no provision in this clause that the instrumental witnesses have signed the will in the
presence of the testator and, therefore, the will cannot be legalized. But the majority argues that "the
phrase" at the request of said Testament, "together with the one that signed and signed his will in the
presence of the instrumental witnesses, allows and justifies the inference that the testator was
present when the last ones stamped their respective signatures. " But we have said repeatedly that
the solemnities of a will 'required by law can not be proved by evidence aliunde . Therefore, inference
tests are inadmissible, mostly if the inference is not entirely adjusted to logic.

For these considerations, I disagree with the majority opinion.

The decision is confirmed.