Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC

DECISION

November 12, 1919 G.R. No. L-13431 In re

will of Ana Abangan. GERTRUDIS

ABANGAN, executrix-appellee,

vs. ANASTACIA ABANGAN, ET AL.,

opponents-appellants. Filemon Sotto for

appellants. M. Jesus Cuenco for

appellee. AVANCEÑA, J.:

 On September 19, 1917, the Court of First

Instance of Cebu admitted to probate Ana

Abangan's will executed July, 1916. From

this decision the opponent's appealed. Said

document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's

will, consists of two sheets, the first of which

contains all of the disposition of the testatrix,

duly signed at the bottom by Martin

Montalban (in the name and under the

direction of the testatrix) and by three

witnesses. The following sheet contains

only the attestation clause duly signed at

the bottom by the three instrumental

witnesses. Neither of these sheets is signed

on the left margin by the testatrix and the

three witnesses, nor numbered by letters;

and these omissions, according to

appellants' contention, are defects whereby

the probate of the will should have been

denied. We are of the opinion that the will

was duly admitted to probate. In requiring

that each and every sheet of the will should

also be signed on the left margin by the

testator and three witnesses in the presence

of each other, Act No. 2645 (which is the

one applicable in the case) evidently has for

its object (referring to the body of the will

itself) to avoid the substitution of any of said

sheets, thereby changing the testator's

dispositions. But when these dispositions

are wholly written on only one sheet signed

at the bottom by the testator and three

witnesses (as the instant case), their

signatures on the left margin of said sheet

would be completely purposeless. In

requiring this signature on the margin, the

statute took into consideration, undoubtedly,

the case of a will written on several sheets

and must have referred to the sheets which

the testator and the witnesses do not have

to sign at the bottom. A different

interpretation would assume that the statute

requires that this sheet, already signed at

the bottom, be signed twice. We cannot

attribute to the statute such an intention. As

these signatures must be written by the

testator and the witnesses in the presence

of each other, it appears that, if the

signatures at the bottom of the sheet

guaranties its authenticity, another signature

on its left margin would be unneccessary;

and if they do not guaranty, same

signatures, affixed on another part of same

sheet, would add nothing. We cannot

assume that the statute regards of such

importance the place where the testator and

the witnesses must sign on the sheet that it

would consider that their signatures written

on the bottom do not guaranty the

authenticity of the sheet but, if repeated on

the margin, give sufficient security. In

requiring that each and every page of a will

must be numbered correlatively in letters

placed on the upper part of the sheet, it is

likewise clear that the object of Act No.

2645 is to know whether any sheet of the

will has been removed. But, when all the

dispositive parts of a will are written on one

sheet only, the object of the statute

disappears because the removal of this

single sheet, although unnumbered, cannot

be hidden. What has been said is also

applicable to the attestation clause.

Wherefore, without considering whether or

not this clause is an essential part of the

will, we hold that in the one accompanying

the will in question, the signatures of the

testatrix and of the three witnesses on the

margin and the numbering of the pages of

the sheet are formalities not required by the

statute. Moreover, referring specially to the

signature of the testatrix, we can add that

same is not necessary in the attestation

clause because this, as its name implies,

appertains only to the witnesses and not to

the testator since the latter does not attest,

but executes, the will. Synthesizing our

opinion, we hold that in a will consisting of

two sheets the first of which contains all the

testamentary dispositions and is signed at

the bottom by the testator and three

witnesses and the second contains only the

attestation clause and is signed also at the

bottom by the three witnesses, it is not

necessary that both sheets be further

signed on their margins by the testator and

the witnesses, or be paged. The object of

the solemnities surrounding the execution of

wills is to close the door against bad faith

and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and

testaments and to guaranty their truth and

authenticity. Therefore the laws on this

subject should be interpreted in such a way

as to attain these primordal ends. But, on

the other hand, also one must not lose sight

of the fact that it is not the object of the law

to restrain and curtail the exercise of the

right to make a will. So when an

interpretation already given assures such

ends, any other interpretation whatsoever,

that adds nothing but demands more

requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and

frustative of the testator's last will, must be

disregarded. As another ground for this

appeal, it is alleged the records do not show

that the testarix knew the dialect in which

the will is written. But the circumstance

appearing in the will itself that same was

executed in the city of Cebu and in the

dialect of this locality where the testatrix

was a neighbor is enough, in the absence of

any proof to the contrary, to presume that

she knew this dialect in which this will is

written. For the foregoing considerations,

the judgment appealed from is hereby

affirmed with costs against the appellants.

So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Araullo,

Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.