Unson v. Abella
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 19, 1918, Josefa Zalamea y Abella, a single 60-year-old woman, executed a last will and testament with an attached inventory of her properties in the presence of three witnesses. The testatrix died on January 6, 1921. The appointed executor, Pedro Unson, filed an application for the probate of the will and issuance of letters of administration. Procedural History: Opponents Antonio Abella, Ignacia Abella, Avicencia Abella, and Santiago Vito opposed the probate, alleging that the will was not executed in conformity with law, specifically citing the lack of correlative paging in letters, absence of an attestation clause, and failure of the testatrix and witnesses to sign in each other's presence. The trial court overruled the opposition and ordered the probate of the will and inventory. The Petition: The contestants appealed the decision of the lower court, assigning three errors: (1) the finding that the will was executed with all required solemnities; (2) the admission of the will to probate despite the proponent's omission to produce one attesting witness; and (3) the probate of the inventory despite its lack of an attestation clause and its paging in Arabic numerals.
Issue(s)
Whether the will was executed with all the solemnities required by law. Whether the will could be admitted to probate despite the proponent's failure to produce one of the attesting witnesses. Whether the inventory, lacking an attestation clause and paged in Arabic numerals, could be probated along with the will.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, ordering the probate of the will and inventory. The Court found the assignments of error to be without merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first assignment of error (execution with solemnities): The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court's finding that the will was executed with the required solemnities. The attesting witnesses clearly testified that they and the testatrix signed each page in the presence of each other. The appellants' attempt to impeach the credibility of a witness based on a dismissed criminal case and a prior statement was deemed insufficient, especially since the witness's testimony was corroborated by another attesting witness and the attorney who prepared the will. The Court emphasized that the testimony of the attesting witnesses, when credible and corroborated, is sufficient to establish due execution. On the second assignment of error (omission of one witness): The Court held that the issue of the proponent's failure to produce all attesting witnesses could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Even if it could be raised, the Court noted that the non-production of one witness was accounted for by the proponent's counsel, who believed the witness to be hostile. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the exception to the rule requiring all witnesses to testify: if the court is satisfied upon other proofs that the will was duly executed, it may be admitted to probate. The Court also cited Section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows probate even if a witness does not remember attesting, provided the court is satisfied with the evidence of due execution. The Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to satisfy the trial court of the will's due execution. On the third assignment of error (probate of inventory): The Court ruled that the attestation clause in the will, which referred to and incorporated the inventory, sufficiently complied with the law. The attestation clause explicitly stated that the testatrix and witnesses signed each page of both the will and the inventory. Regarding the paging of the inventory in Arabic numerals instead of letters, the Court adhered to its previous rulings in Aldaba vs. Roque and Abangan vs. Abangan. The Court held that the primary object of paging is to indicate the correlation of pages and prevent abstraction, a purpose achieved by both Arabic numerals and letters. Therefore, the use of Arabic numerals did not render the inventory void, as it served the same purpose as paging in letters and did not detract from the authenticity of the testament, which was further guaranteed by the signatures on the margins and the attestation clause.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the probate of a will, holding that substantial justice was served and that procedural defects, such as the omission of one attesting witness or the numbering of pages in Arabic numerals instead of letters, were either cured by other evidence, waived by failure to raise them in the lower court, or did not violate the spirit and purpose of the law on wills.