Jaboneta v. Gustilo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Macario Jaboneta executed a document presented as his last will and testament. The probate of this will was denied by the lower court. Procedural History: The lower court denied probate based on the finding that Julio Javellana, one of the witnesses, did not affix his signature in the presence of Isabelo Jena, another witness, as required by Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Petition: The plaintiff-appellant sought to reverse the lower court's decision denying probate.
Issue(s)
Whether the signature of witness Julio Javellana was affixed in the presence of witness Isabelo Jena, in compliance with Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the lower court erred in denying probate to the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, ordering that the will be admitted to probate. The Court found that the statutory requisites for the execution of the will were complied with.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the signature of witness Julio Javellana was affixed in the presence of witness Isabelo Jena, in compliance with Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The Court held that the signature was indeed affixed in the presence of Jena. Although Jena was in the act of leaving and had his back turned, he saw Javellana with the pen in hand, in position to sign, and believed he signed. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the requirement is for the testator (and witnesses, in this context) to have ocular evidence of the identity of the instrument and the act of signing. The generally accepted tests of presence involve vision and mental apprehension. The Court cited cases holding that it is sufficient if witnesses are together for the purpose of witnessing the execution and are in a position to actually see the act if they choose. The true test of vision is not whether the testator actually saw the witness sign, but whether he might have seen him sign, considering his mental and physical condition and position. These principles apply equally to witnesses signing in the presence of each other. Since Jena was still in the room and could have seen Javellana sign by merely turning his head, and there were no physical obstructions, the signing was considered to be in his presence. The fact that Jena was in a hurry and his back was turned during a portion of the signing was deemed of no importance. On the issue of whether the lower court erred in denying probate to the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta: Based on the finding that the statutory requisites were complied with, the Court concluded that the lower court erred in denying probate on the stated ground. The instrument was satisfactorily proven to be the last will and testament of the deceased and should be admitted to probate.
Main Doctrine
The signature of a witness to a will is considered to have been made in the presence of another witness if the signing witness was in a position to see the act of signing, even if the other witness was in the act of leaving and had their back turned, provided they could have seen the signing by merely turning their head and there were no physical obstructions.