Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 194 views

    Icasiano V Icasiano

    Uploaded by

    Roy Daguio
    One of the witnesses to a will failed to sign one page of the original document, though he signed the carbon duplicate copy. The court ruled this was due to inadvertence and oversight rather than intentional omission. As the duplicate copy contained all required signatures, it could be admitted to probate. The purpose of signature requirements is to guarantee the document's identity, and this was achieved despite the single witness's mistake. The ruling does not depart from the general rule that witnesses must sign each page.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Icasiano V Icasiano

    Uploaded by

    Roy Daguio
    194 views1 page
    One of the witnesses to a will failed to sign one page of the original document, though he signed the carbon duplicate copy. The court ruled this was due to inadvertence and oversight rather than intentional omission. As the duplicate copy contained all required signatures, it could be admitted to probate. The purpose of signature requirements is to guarantee the document's identity, and this was achieved despite the single witness's mistake. The ruling does not depart from the general rule that witnesses must sign each page.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Icasiano v Icasiano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    One of the witnesses to a will failed to sign one page of the original document, though he signed the carbon duplicate copy. The court ruled this was due to inadvertence and oversight rather than intentional omission. As the duplicate copy contained all required signatures, it could be admitted to probate. The purpose of signature requirements is to guarantee the document's identity, and this was achieved despite the single witness's mistake. The ruling does not depart from the general rule that witnesses must sign each page.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    194 views1 page

    Icasiano V Icasiano

    Uploaded by

    Roy Daguio
    One of the witnesses to a will failed to sign one page of the original document, though he signed the carbon duplicate copy. The court ruled this was due to inadvertence and oversight rather than intentional omission. As the duplicate copy contained all required signatures, it could be admitted to probate. The purpose of signature requirements is to guarantee the document's identity, and this was achieved despite the single witness's mistake. The ruling does not depart from the general rule that witnesses must sign each page.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Icasiano v.

    Icasiano Digest
    Icasiano vs. Icasiano
    G.R. No. L-18979
    June 30, 1964

    Facts:
    1. Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of Josefa Villacorte and for his
    appointment as executor thereof. It appears from the evidence that the testatrix died on
    September 12, 1958. She executed a will in Tagalog, and through the help of her lawyer,
    it
    was
    prepared
    in
    duplicates,
    an
    original
    and
    a
    carbon
    copy.
    2. On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only brought the original
    copy of the will while the carbon duplicate (unsigned) was left in Bulacan. One of the
    witnesses failed to sign one of the pages in the original copy but admitted he may have
    lifted 2 pages simultaneously instead when he signed the will. Nevertheless, he affirmed
    that the will was signed by the testator and other witnesses in his presence.
    Issue: Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his
    signature to a page is sufficient to deny probate of the will
    RULING: No, the failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or mere
    inadvertence. Since the duplicated bore the required signatures, this proves that the
    omission was not intentional. Even if the original is in existence, a duplicate may still be
    admitted to probate since the original is deemed to be defective, then in law, there is no
    other will bu the duly signed carbon duplicate and the same can be probated.
    The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on
    account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she has no control
    of. Where the purpose of the law is to guarantee the identity of the testament and its
    component pages, and there is no intentional or deliberate deviation existed.
    Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the rules that the will should
    be signed by the witnesses on every page. The carbon copy duplicate was regular in all
    respects.

    You might also like