Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-14322 February 25, 1960
In the matter of the TESTATE ESTATE OF PETRONILA TAMPOY, deceased,
vs.
DIOSDADA ALBERASTINE, petitioner-appellant.
Agustin Y. Kintanar for appellant.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
This concerns the probate of a document which purports to be the last will and testament of one Petronila Tampoy. After the petition was published in accordance with law and petitioner had presented oral and documentaryevidence, the trial court denied the petition on the ground that the left hand margin of the first of the will does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix. Petitioner appealed from this ruling but the Court of Appeals certified the case to us because it involves purely a question of law.
The facts of this case as found by the trial court as follows:
De las pruebas resulta que Petronila Tampoy, ya viuda y sin hijos, rogo a Bonigfacio Miņoza que la leyera el testamento Exhibito A y la expicara su contenido en su casa en al calle San Miguel, del municipio de Argao, provincia de Cebu, en 19 de noviember de 1939, y lasi lo hizo Bonifacio Miņoza en presencia de los tres testigos instrumentales, Rosario K. Chan, Mauricio de la Peņa y Simeon Omboy, y despues de conformarse con el contendido del testamento, ella rogo a Bonifacio Miņoza, que escribiera su nombre al pie del testamento, en la pagina segunda, y asi lo hizo Bonifacio Miņoza, y despues ella estampo su marca digital entra su nombre y apelido en presencia de todos y cada uno de los tres testigos instrumentales, Rosario K. Chan, Mauricio de la Peņa y Simeon Omboy y de Bonifacio Miņoza, y despues, Bonifacio Miņoza firmo tambien al pie del todos y cada uno de lo tres testigos arriba nombrados. La testadora asi como Bonifacio Miņoza parte de la primera pagina del testamento qeu se halla compuesto de dos paginas. Todos y cada uno de los tres testigos instrumentales, Rosario K. Chan, Mauricio de la Peņa y Simeon Omboy, firmaron al pie de la clausula de atestiguamiento que esta escrita en la pagina segunda del testamento y en la margen izquierda de la misma pagina 2 y de la pagina primera en presencia de la testadora, de Bonifacio Miņoza, del abogado Kintanar y de todos y cada uno de ellos. El testamento fue otorgado por la testadora libre y expontaneament, sin haber sido amenazada, forzada o intimidada, y sin haberse ejercido sobre ella influencia indebida, estando la misma en pleno uso de sus facultades mentales y disfrutando de buena salud. La testadore fallecio en su case en Argao en 22 de febrero de 1957 (Vease certificado de defuncion Exhibito B). La heredera instituida en el testamento, Carmen Alberastine, murio dos semanas despues que la testadora, o sea en 7 de Marzo de 1957, dejando a su madre, la solicitante Diosdada Alberastine.
The above facts are not controverted, there being no opposition to the probate of the will. However, the trial court denied the petition on the ground that the first page of the will does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix. Petitioner now prays that this ruling be set aside for the reason that, although the first page of the will does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix, the same however expresses her true intention to givethe property to her whose claims remains undisputed. She wishes to emphasize that no one has filed any to the opposition to the probate of the will and that while the first page does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix, the second however bears her thumbmark and both pages were signed by the three testimonial witnesses. Moreover, despite the fact that the petition for probate is unoppossed, the three testimonial witnesses testified and manifested to the court that the document expresses the true and voluntary will of the deceased.
This contention cannot be sustained as it runs counter to the express provision of the law. Thus, Section 618 of Act 190, as amended, requires that the testator sign the will and each and every page thereof in the presence of the witnesses, and that the latter sign the will and each and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other, which requirement should be expressed in the attestation clause. This requirement is mandatory, for failure to comply with it is fatal to the validity of the will (Rodriguez vs. Alcala, 55 Phil., 150). Thus, it has been held that "Statutes prescribing the formalities to be observed in the execution of wills are very strictly construed. As stated in 40 Cyc., at page 1097, 'A will must be executed in accordance with the statutory requirements; otherwise it is entirely void.' All these requirements stand as of equal importance and must be observed, and courts cannot supply the defective execution of a will. No power or discretion is vested in them, either to superadd other conditions or dispence with those enumerated in the statutes" (Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil., 405, 407; See also Saņo vs. Quintana, 48 Phil., 506; Gumban vs. Gorecho, 50 Phil., 30; Quinto vs. Morata, 54 Phil., 481).
Since the will in question suffers from the fatal defect that it does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix on its first page even if it bears the signature of the three instrumental witnesses, we cannot escape the conclusion that the same fails to comply with the law and therefore, cannot be admitted to probate.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez, David, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
