Enriquez v. Abadia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Reverend Sancho Abadia, parish priest of Talisay, Cebu, executed a document purporting to be his Last Will and Testament on September 6, 1923. He died on January 14, 1943, leaving properties estimated at P8,000. On October 2, 1946, one of the legatees filed a petition for its probate. Some cousins and nephews who would inherit in case of intestacy filed an opposition. Procedural History: During the hearing, an attesting witness testified that the testator wrote the will in his handwriting, signed it on the left-hand margin of each of the three folios, numbered them, and signed at the end, all in the presence of three attesting witnesses who also signed in his presence and in the presence of each other. The oppositors did not submit any evidence. The trial court admitted the will to probate, finding it to be a holographic will, and applying the new Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386) which permits holographic wills, despite the law in force at the time of execution and death not allowing them. The oppositors appealed. The Petition: The oppositors-appellants contend that the will, executed in 1923 and the testator dying in 1943, should be governed by the laws then in force, which did not permit holographic wills and required specific formalities for their execution, which were not met by Exhibit "A".
Issue(s)
Whether the validity of the holographic will, executed prior to the effectivity of the new Civil Code, should be determined under the law in force at the time of its execution or under the new Civil Code. Whether Exhibit "A" meets the requirements for a valid will under the law in force at the time of its execution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court, denying probate to Exhibit "A".
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicable law for the validity of the will: The Court held that the validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made. This principle is enshrined in Article 795 of the new Civil Code and is a well-established doctrine. The Court reasoned that the testator's wishes are given solemn expression at the time the will is executed, making it a completed act at that point. Therefore, subsequent laws that liberalize the requirements for holographic wills cannot validate a will defectively executed under the law prevailing at the time of its execution. The Court emphasized that applying a new law that lessens formalities would divest heirs of their vested rights acquired through intestate succession upon the testator's death. On the compliance with formalities: The Court found that Exhibit "A" did not comply with the requirements of the law in force in 1923. Specifically, the law required correlative numbering of each page in letters, and signing on the left-hand margin by the testator and three attesting witnesses. Exhibit "A" was not numbered on the back pages, and these pages were not signed by anyone. The front pages were signed only by the testator. Citing previous cases like In re Estate of Saguinsin and Aspe vs. Prieto, the Court reiterated that failure to comply with the signing and numbering requirements on each page is a radical and fatal defect that vitiates the testament.
Main Doctrine
The validity of a will as to its form is determined by the law in force at the time of its execution, not by subsequent laws that may liberalize the requirements for holographic wills.