Fernandez v. Vergel de Dios
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ramon J. Fernandez sought the probate of the document Exhibit A as the last will and testament of the deceased Antonio Vergel de Dios. The will was contested by Fernando Vergel de Dios and others. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila denied the probate of the will. The Petition: The applicant, Ramon J. Fernandez, appealed the decision, assigning error to the lower court's holding that the attestation clause was fatally defective and in not finding Act No. 2645 void.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to number the separate sheet containing the attestation clause on the upper part of the page invalidates the will. Whether the phrase 'in the same manner' in the attestation clause sufficiently satisfies the requirement to state that the parties signed in the presence of each other. Whether the testator's signature is required on the sheet containing the attestation clause.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is ordered that the lower court proceed with the probate of the will Exhibit A in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the lack of physical paging on the upper part of the attestation sheet does not invalidate the will. Applying the ruling in Abangan v. Abangan, the Court held that the text of the attestation clause itself, which stated the document consisted of 'three sheets actually used... besides this sheet,' constitutes substantial compliance. This description clearly identifies the attestation sheet as the fourth page of the document. The law, specifically the second paragraph of Section 618, regulates the pages of the 'will proper,' but does not explicitly require the numbering of a separate sheet dedicated solely to the attestation clause. Therefore, the failure to physically number the top of the attestation sheet is a mere technicality that does not affect the validity of the testamentary disposition. On Issue 2: The phrase 'in the same manner' used in the attestation clause is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the law. The Court reasoned that this phrase refers back to the preceding description of the testator signing in the presence of the witnesses and the witnesses signing in the presence of the testator and of each other. The Court noted that even Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure uses similar shorthand, such as the expression 'as aforesaid,' to avoid repeating long phrases. In the context of the clause, 'in the same manner' can only mean that the marginal signatures were affixed with the same formalities as the signatures at the bottom. This prevents repetitive language while still affirming that all parties were present during the signing of every page. On Issue 3: The testator's signature is not required on the sheet containing the attestation clause. Following the precedent in Abangan v. Abangan, the Court emphasized that the attestation clause is the act of the witnesses, not the testator. Its purpose is for the witnesses to certify that the legal requirements for the execution of the will were met. While the testator must sign every page of the 'will' (the dispositive portion), the attestation clause is distinct from the will itself. Therefore, the absence of the testator's signature from the margin or bottom of the attestation sheet does not constitute a fatal defect under Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645.
Main Doctrine
The attestation clause is a distinct and necessary part of a will, but the testator's signature is not required on the attestation clause itself. Substantial compliance with statutory requirements for wills and attestation clauses is sufficient.