Dichoso de Ticson v. De Gorostiza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The will of the deceased Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza was denied probate by the trial court. Procedural History: The trial court denied probate on the ground that the attestation clause failed to state that the testatrix signed every page of the will as required by section 618, as amended, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant sought to have the will admitted to probate, arguing that the attestation clause, despite not being a verbatim copy of the statute, sufficiently indicated compliance with the legal requirements.
Issue(s)
Whether the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to explicitly state that the testatrix signed every page of the will. Whether the interpretation of the attestation clause should be strict or liberal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, ordering that the will of the deceased Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza be admitted to probate. The costs of both instances were to be paid by the appellee.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the attestation clause's sufficiency: The Court held that the attestation clause, while not a literal copy of the statute, was legally sufficient. The clause stated that the testatrix "has publish unto us the foregoing will consisting of two pages as her Last Will and Testament and has signed the same." The Court reasoned that the word "same" in this context necessarily implies the signature by the testatrix of the will and every page thereof. It rejected the appellant's interpretation that "hereinabove" referred only to the signature at the end of the will and that "same" referred to the pages rather than the will itself. The Court emphasized that precision in language is desirable but not imperative, and it is sufficient if the language employed reasonably deduces compliance with the law's expectations. The attestation clause was found to be an exact transcription of a form found in a legal form book, with only a minor typographical error. On the issue of strict versus liberal construction: The Court acknowledged two divergent tendencies in the law of wills in the Philippines: strict construction and liberal construction. It cited Rodriguez vs. Alcala as an example of strict construction and Abangan vs. Abangan as a case favoring liberal construction. In this instance, the Court leaned towards an interpretation that sustained the validity of the attestation clause, finding it neither forced nor illogical. The Court stated that legalistic formalities should not obscure common sense or frustrate the wishes of the deceased, especially when there is no hint of bad faith or fraud. The Court also noted that the will itself showed the signatures of the testatrix and witnesses on the margins and at the end of the will and attestation clause, respectively, further supporting its validity.
Main Doctrine
An attestation clause is legally sufficient if, from its language, it can reasonably be deduced that it fulfills what the law expects of it, even if it is not a literal copy of the statutory wording. Precision is desirable but not imperative.