Icasiano vs.

Icasiano
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE
JOSEFAVILLACORTE.CELSO ICASIANO,
petitioner-appellee,vs.
NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO,
oppositors-appellants. Notes: (from business dictionary)
Definition of duplicate copy
The two classifications are: (1) copies produced for information purposes only and
which may bedestroyed after use, and (2) copies that
have administrative, fiscal, legal, or historical value.
Definition of duplicate original
A copy that has all the essential aspects of the original, including signatures.
Notes
A duplicate original of a letter may be created and sent by different routes to
increase thelikelihood that at least one original copy arrives to the
addressee.FACTS:1. JosefaVillacorta executed her last will and testament in
duplicate on June 2, 1956 and shedied on Sept. 12, 1958. The will was:* attested by
three instrumental witnesses- Justo Torres Jr., Jose Natividad and VinicioDy*
acknowledged by the testatrix and the three instrumental witnesses on the same
date before Atty. Ong, Notary Public* the will was actually prepared by Atty. Samson
who was present during the execution
and signing of the decedents last will and testament.
* pages of the original and duplicate were duly numbered* the attestation clause
contains all the facts required by law to be recited therein andsigned by the
attesting witnesses* will is written in the language known to and spoken by the
testatrix (Tagalog)* will was executed in one single occasion in duplicate copies*
both original and duplicate copies were duly acknowledged before the Notary Public
onthe same date.2.

The will consisted of five pages and while signed at the end and in every page, it
does notcontain the signature of one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose Natividad
on page 3 thereof;

but the duplicate copy attached was signed by the testatrix and the three attesting
witnesses ineach and every page.ISSUE: Does the failure of one of the attesting
witnesses to sign on one page of the originalinvalidate the will, and hence, denial of
the probate?HELD: NO.1. The inadvertent failure of one of the witnesses to affix
his signature to one page of atestament, due to the simultaneous lifting of two
pages in the course of signing, is not per sesufficient to justify the denial of the
probate. The impossibility of substituting this page is curedsince the testatrix and
two other witnesses signed the defective page, and that the document bearsthe
imprint of the seal of the notary public before whom the testament was ratified by
thetestatrix and all three witnesses.2. The law should not be strictly and
literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on accountof the inadvertence of a
single witness over whose conduct she has no control, where the purposeof the law
to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is
sufficientlyattained, no intentional or deliberate deviation existence, and the
evidence on record attests to thefull observance of the statutory
requisites.3. Despite the literal tenor of the law, the Court has held that in other
cases that;a. a testament with the only page signed at its foot by the testator and
witnesses but not in theleft margin could be probated(Abangan vs.
Abangan) b. despite the requirement of correlative lettering of the pages of a
will, the failure to make thefirst page either by letters or numbers is not a fatal
defect (Lopez vs. Liboro).

These precedents exemplify the Courts policy to require satisfaction of the legal
requirements in
order to guard against fraud and bad faith, but without undue or unnecessary
curtailment of thetestamentary privilege.4. The appellants also argued that since
the original of the will is in existence and available, theduplicate is not entitled to
probate. Since they opposed the probate of the original because of thelacking
signature on page 3, it is easily discerned that the oppositors-appellants run into
adilemma. If the original is defective and invalid, then in the law, there is no other
will but theduly signed carbon duplicate, and the same is probatable. If the original
is valid and can
be probated, then the objection to the signed duplicate need not be considered, bei
ng superfluousand irrelevant. At any rate, said duplicate, serves to prove that the
omission of one signature inthe third page of the original testament was inadvertent
and not intentional.

Case # 29 Cruz vs. VillasorAGAPITA N. CRUZ,

petitioner,vs.
HON. JUDGE GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, Presiding Judge of Branch I, Court of
FirstInstance of Cebu, and MANUEL B. LUGAY,
respondents.Civil Code Provisions:
Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at
the end thereofby the testator himself or by the testator's name written
by some other person in hispresence, and by his express direction, and
attested and subscribed by three or morecredible witnesses in the
presence of the testator and of one another.

The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the
instrumentalwitnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and
every page thereof, except thelast, on the left margin, and all the pages
shall be numbered correlatively in letters placedon the upper part of each
page.

The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will
is written, and thefact that the testator signed the will and every page
thereof, or caused some other person towrite his name, under his express
direction, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses,and that the
latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the
presence ofthe testator and of one another.

If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it

shall be interpretedto them. (n)

Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and thewitnesses. The notary public shall not be required to
retain a copy of the will, or fileanother with the Office of the Clerk of Court
FACTS:1. The only question presented for determination, on which the decision of
this case hinges, iswhether the supposed Last Will and Testament of Valente Z. Cruz
(Cruz) was executed inaccordance with:Art. 805- which states at at least three
credible witnesses must attest and subscribe to thewill andArt. 806- requiring the
testator and the witnesses to acknowledge the will before a notary public.2. Of the
three instrumental witnesses on the supposed Last Will and Testament of Cruz, one
ofthem, Atty. Angel Teves (Teves), acted also as the notary public before whom the
will wassupposed to have been acknowledged. The petitioner argues that as a result
thereof, the will hasonly two witnesses who appeared before the notary public to
acknowledge the will.

Job Board

About

Press

Blog

Stories

Terms

Privacy

Copyright

We're Hiring!

Help Center

Academia 2015