Cuevas v. Achacoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose Venzon died on January 19, 1946, leaving a will instituting his widow, Valentina Cuevas, and daughter, Rosario Asera Venzon, as heirs, and naming his widow as executrix. Valentina Cuevas filed a petition for the probate of this will on February 1, 1946. Procedural History: Pilar Achacoso filed an alternative petition for the probate of a previous will executed by the deceased, praying that if the widow's will be rejected, the earlier will be admitted instead. Achacoso objected to the probate of the second will. The Court of First Instance of Zambales found the second will to be executed in accordance with law and admitted it to probate. Achacoso appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court due to purely legal questions. The Petition: The oppositor-appellant, Pilar Achacoso, assigned as error the alleged lack of an attestation clause in the will or, alternatively, that the attestation clause was signed by the testator himself and not by the instrumental witnesses, which defect, she claimed, invalidated the will.
Issue(s)
Whether an attestation clause phrased as a statement by the testator, but signed by three instrumental witnesses, is legally sufficient to admit a will to probate.
Ruling
The order admitting the will to probate is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the clause in question substantially complies with the requirements for an attestation clause. Although the clause appears as a recital by the testator rather than the witnesses, the fact that the three instrumental witnesses signed immediately under the testator's signature indicates they attested to both the genuineness of his signature and the due execution of the will as described in the clause. Defining 'instrumental witness,' the Court cited In re Will of Tan Diuco, stating that such a witness takes part in the execution of the writing and certifies the proper execution. The Court followed the precedent set in Aldaba v. Roque, where a similar clause signed by the testatrix and witnesses was upheld because the signatures together constituted sufficient compliance with Act No. 2645. The Court emphasized that the purpose of legal solemnities is to prevent fraud and verify authenticity, and laws should not be interpreted to curtail the right to make a will through unnecessary or useless requisites. Finally, the Court referenced Articles 788 and 791 of the New Civil Code, noting that interpretations favoring the operation of a testamentary disposition and the prevention of intestacy are preferred by the legislature.
Main Doctrine
An attestation clause, even if it appears to be made by the testator himself, may substantially comply with the legal requirements for the execution of a will if the instrumental witnesses also sign the will, thereby attesting to the genuineness of the testator's signature and the due execution of the will.