Unson v. Abella [G.R. No. 17857 June 12, 1922]

 - CASE DIGEST - 

Unson v. Abella

G.R. No. 17857 June 12, 1922

 

SUBJECT: LAW ON WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Topic: Formalities of Wills; Paging Requirement; Attestation Clause; Testimony of Witness

FACTS: Pedro Unson, executor of Dona Josefa Zalamea’s last will, filed a petition the probate of the will of the latter. Attached on the said will is an inventory of all the properties of Dona Josefa.

 

Opposition was made was made thereto to by Antonio, Ignacia and Santiago Vito on the following grounds:

• ·    The will is not paged correlatively in letters rather it is in Arabic numerals
• ·    There is no attestation clause in the inventory attached to the will
• ·     Will was not signed by the testatrix and the witnesses in the presence of each other.

Only the two witnesses namely Gonzalo Avaya and Eugenio Zalamea testified as to the authenticity of the will.  The third witness, Pedro de Jesus, was not presented because he was hostile with Unson and has been meeting with the oppositors since the filing of the petition for the probate of the will of Josefa.

 

ISSUE: Whether or not the will is validly executed?

 

HELD: YES.

 

1. As to the paging of the will, the SC cited the the case of Aldaba v. Roque. It was held that this way of numbering the pages of a will is in compliance with the spirit of the law, inasmuch as either one of these methods indicates the correlation of the pages and serves to prevent the abstraction of any of them. The object of the law in requiring that the paging law be made in letters is to make falsification more difficult, but it should be noted that since all the pages of the testament are signed at the margin by the testatrix and the witnesses, the difficulty of forging the signatures in either case remains the same. In other words the more or less or degree of facility to imitate the writing of the letters A, B, C, etc., does not make for the easiness to forge the signatures. And even the emission of paging does not necessarily render the testament invalid (Abangan vs. Abangan 40 Phil., 476)

 

2. Attestation clause. The inventory is referred to in the will as an “integral part” of it so the inventory need not have an additional attestation clause at the end. Attestation clause is unnecessary at the end of inventory.

 

3. As to the Witness. The actuation of the proponents in NOT bringing to court Pedro de Jesus does not render the will invalid. The will may even be admitted without the testimony of said witness, if, upon the other proofs adduced in the case, the court is satisfied that the will has been duly executed.

 

But supposing that de Jesus, when cited, had testified adversely to the application, this would not by itself have change the result reached by the court for section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a will can be admitted notwithstanding one or one or more witnesses do not remember having attested it, provided the court is satisfied upon the evidence adduced that the will, upon the evidence adduced, has been executed and signed in the has been executed and signed in the manner prescribed by the law.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW FULL TEXT OF THE CASE