Casas v. Riosa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose Riosa executed a will in January 1908, disposing of an estate valued at over P35,000. The will was executed in accordance with Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was the law then in force. Jose Riosa died on April 17, 1917. Act No. 2645, which amended Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure by prescribing additional formalities for the signing and attestation of wills, became effective on July 1, 1916. The will of Jose Riosa did not comply with these new formalities, as it was not signed by the testator and witnesses on the left margin of each page, nor did the attestation state these facts. Procedural History: The applicant-appellant sought the probation of the will. The Court of First Instance of Albay disallowed the will in an order dated December 29, 1917. The Petition: The applicant-appellant appealed the disallowance of the will.
Issue(s)
Whether the law existing at the date of the execution of a will, or the law existing at the death of the testator, controls the validity of the will's execution. Whether Act No. 2645, which amended Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has retrospective effect on wills executed prior to its enactment but whose testator died after its effectivity.
Ruling
The order of the Court of First Instance disallowing the will of Jose Riosa is reversed. The record is remanded to the lower court with direction to admit the will to probate.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of which law governs the validity of a will's execution: The Court held that the validity of the execution of a will must be tested by the statutes in force at the time of its execution. The Court rejected the proposition that the law in force at the testator's death controls, finding the reasoning that a will is merely an inchoate act until death to be fallacious. The act of bequeathing or devising is considered a completed act when the will is executed and attested according to the law then in force, even though it takes effect on the property at a future time. This aligns with the principle that statutes are generally construed to have only prospective operation unless a retrospective effect is expressly declared or necessarily implied. Article 3 of the Civil Code also provides that laws shall not have retroactive effect unless otherwise prescribed. On the retrospective effect of Act No. 2645: The Court found no indication in the language of Act No. 2645 that it was intended to have retrospective effect. The uniform tendency of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands on cases related to testamentary succession has been against retrospective application of such laws. While Section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides grounds for disallowing a will, including if not executed and attested as provided, the general principle in the law of wills inserts itself. The statute announces a positive rule for the transference of property that must be complied with as a completed act at the time of execution for testaments made subsequent to the enactment of Act No. 2645, but it is not effective as to testaments made antecedent to that date. Therefore, the will of Jose Riosa, executed prior to Act No. 2645, is valid if it complied with the law at the time of its execution.
Main Doctrine
The validity of the execution of a will is governed by the law in force at the time of its execution, not at the time of the testator's death, unless the statute expressly provides for retrospective effect.