Garcia v.

Vasquez Digest
Garcia v. Vasquez
G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969
Fernando, J (Ponente)

Facts:
1. Gliceria del Rosario executed 2 wills, one in June 1956, written in Spanish, a language she
knew an spoke. The other will was executed in December 1960 consisting of only one page,
and written in Tagalog. The witnesses to the 1960 will declared that the will was first read
'silently' by the testatrix before signing it. The probate court admitted the will.

2. The oppositors alleged that the as of December 1960, the eyesight of the deceased was so
poor and defective that she could not have read the provisions contrary to the testimony of
the witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not the will is valid

RULING: The will is not valid. If the testator is blind, Art. 808 of the New Civil Code
(NCC) should apply.If the testator is blind or incapable of reading, he must be apprised of the
contents of the will for him to be able to have the opportunityto object if the provisions
therein are not in accordance with his wishes.

The testimony of her opthalmologist established that notwithstanding an operation to remove

her cataract and being fitted with the lenses, this did not improve her vision. Her vision
remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading. There was no evidence that
her vision improved at the time of the execution of the 2nd will. Hence, she was incapable of
reading her own will. The admission of the will to probate is therefor erroneous.

Garcia vs. Vasquez

4 APRIL 30, 1970

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

FACTS:

1. Testator: Gliceria Avelino del Rosario

Died unmarried
Left no descendents, ascendants, brother or sister
At the time of her death, she was said to be 90 years old more or less
Possessed of an estate consisting mostly of real properties
2. 2 wills allegedly executed:
1956 will
 o 12 pages
o Written in Spanish (which she knew and spoke)
o 3 witnesses
o Acknowledged before the notary
1960 will
o 1 page
o Tagalog
o 3 witnesses
o Acknowledged before the notary
o Special administratix husband actively participated in execution
Requested people to witness
Submitted the residence certificates to the notary, which he collected prior
Aided testator when she walked
Deed was already prepared
Physician: testator had possible glaucoma (leads to blindness)
Would that grade enable patient to read print? Apparently that is only a record for distance
vision, for distance sight, not for print.
She read the will silently
Done in haste and done without any regard for the defective vision
Upon its face, the testamentary provisions, the attestation clause and acknowledgment were
crammed together into a single sheet of paper, so much so that the words had to be written
very close to the top, bottom and two sides of the paper, leaving no margin
The word and had to be written by the symbol &, apparently to save on space
Typographical errors like HULINH for HULING (last), Alfonsa for Alfonso, MERCRDRS
for MERCEDES, instrumental for Instrumental, and acknowledged for acknowledge,
remained unconnected
3. Consuelo S. Gonzales Vda. de Precilla, niece of Gliceria, petitioned for probate of the 1960 will, and for her
appointment as special administratrix
Opposed separately by several groups of heirs, and among them were persons claiming to be relatives
within the 5th civil degree
The oppositions invariably charged that the instrument executed in 1960 was not intended by the
deceased to be her true will.
Prayed the court for an order, directing the Special Administratrix to deposit with the Clerk of Court all
certificates of title belonging to the estate.
It was alleged that after her appointment, Consuelo, in her capacity as special administratrix filed
a motion for the issuance of new copies of the owners duplicates of certain certificates of title in
the name of Gliceria del Rosario, supposedly needed by her in the preparation of the inventory
of the properties constituting the estate.
The motion having been granted, new copies of the owners duplicates of certificates appearing
the name of Gliceria del Rosario were issued.
She presented to the Register of Deeds the deed of sale involving properties supposedly executed
by Gliceria del Rosario in 1961 in favor of Alfonso Precilla (her husband)
And, in consequence, said certificates of title were cancelled and new certificates were issued in
the name of Alfonso
TC: Petition granted, and order premised on the fact the petitioner was managing the properties belonging
to the estate even during the lifetime of the deceased, and to appoint another person as administrator or
co-administrator at that stage of the proceeding would only result in further confusion and difficulties.

ISSUE: Was the will Glicerias true will, considering her eye defect? NO
HELD:

1. The testimony of the ophthalmologist who treated the deceased has first hand knowledge of the actual
condition of her eyesight.
2. Notwithstanding the operation and removal of the cataract in her left eye and her being fitted with aphakic
lens (used by cataract patients), her vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading
print.
3. Thus, the conclusion is inescapable that with the condition of her eyesight in August, 1960, and there is no
evidence that it had improved by 29 December 1960, Gliceria del Rosario was incapable of reading, and could
not have read the provisions of the will supposedly signed by her on 29 December 1960.
4. It is worth noting that the instrumental witnesses stated that she read the instrument silently which is a
conclusion and not a fact.
5. It is difficult to understand that so important a document containing the final disposition of ones worldly
possessions should be embodied in an informal and untidily written instrument.
6. Or that the glaring spelling errors should have escaped her notice if she had actually retained the ability to
read the purported will and had done so
7. That Doa Gliceria should be able to greet her guests on her birthday, arrange flowers and attend to kitchen
tasks shortly prior to the alleged execution of the testament Exhibit D, as appears from the photographs,
Exhibits E to E-l, in no way proves that she was able to read a closely typed page, since the acts shown do
not require vision at close range.
8. Neither is the signing of checks by her indicative of ability to see at normal reading distances.
9. Writing or signing of ones name, when sufficiently practiced, becomes automatic, so that, one need only to
have a rough indication of the place where the signature is to be affixed in order to be able to write it.
10. Thus, for all intents and purposes of the rules on probate, the deceased Gliceria del Rosario was, as appellant
oppositors contend, not unlike a blind testator, and the due execution of her will would have required
observance of the provisions of Article 808 of the Civil Code.
ART. 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing witnesses,
and again, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged.
11. The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading
the will himself (as when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be
able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes.
12. There is nothing in the records to show that the above requisites have been complied with.
13. Clearly, as already stated, the 1960 will sought to be probated suffers from infirmity that affects its due
execution.

Brigido Alvarado,
Cesar ALVARADO, petitioner vs.
Hon. Ramon GAVIOLA

FACTS:

On 5 November 1977, the 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will
entitled, Huling Habilin wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son, Cesar Alvarado,
and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting
probate before RTC. As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary
public and Cesar, the testator did not read the final draft of the will, instead, Atty. Rino,
as the lawyer who drafted the document read the same aloud in the presence of the
testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. While the testators will
was admitted to probate, a codicil was subsequently executed changing some
dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the testators eye operation because
he was then suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and the revocatory clauses
remained and as in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not personally read the
final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was Atty. Rino who read it aloud in his presence and
in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses and of the notary public. Upon the
testators death, Atty Rino as executor filed a petition for probate of the notarial will
which was in turn opposed by Cesar alleging that the will sought to be probated was not
executed and attested as required by law. Upon failure of Cesar to substantiate his
Opposition, a Probate Order was issued from which an appeal was made to IAC stating
that the probate of the deceaseds last will and codicil should have been denied
because the testator was blind within the meaning of the law at the time his Huling
Habilin and the codicil thereto was executed; and that since reading required by Art.
808 were admittedly not complied with. CA concluded that although Art. 808 was not
followed, there was, however, substantial compliance.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Brigido Alvarado was blind within the meaning of Article 808 at
the time his Huling Habilin and codicil were executed.
2. If so, whether or not the requirement of double-reading in said Article was
complied with such that whether or not, they were validly executed.

RULING:

Art. 808 apply not only to blind testators but also to those who, for one reason or
another, are incapable of reading their wills. Since the deceased was incapable of
reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on the separate occasions of their
execution due to his poor, defective, or blurred vision, there can be no other course
but to conclude that he comes within the scope of the term blind as used in Art. 808.
Unless the contents were read to him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the
lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so conformably with his instruction. Hence, to
consider his will as validly executed and entitled to probate, it is essential to ascertain
whether or not Art. 808 had been complied with.

There is no evidence and Cesar does not allege that the contents of the will and
codicil were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator. On the
contrary, with respect to the Huling Habilin, the day of the execution was not the first
time that the testator had affirmed the truth and authenticity of the contents of the draft.
Moreover, with four persons following the reading word for word with their own copies, it
can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that what was read to
him were the terms actually appearing on the typewritten documents. This is especially
true considering the fact that the three instrumental witnesses were persons known to
the testator.

The spirit behind that law was served though the letter was not. Although there
should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of the law in order to
Insure authenticity of the will, the formal imperfection should be brushed aside when
they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account may only defeat the
testators will. Substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has
been satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of will
are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are never
intended to be as rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.

ALVARADO vs. GAVIOLA

September 14, 1993

FACTS:

The testator did not read the final draft of the will himself. Instead, private
respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the 8-paged document, read the same aloud in the
presence of the testator, the 3 instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The latter 4
followed the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them.

Said will was admitted to probate. Later on, a codicil was executed, and by that time,
the testator was already suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and revocatory
clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not personally
read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who read it aloud in his
presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same as those of the
notarial will) and the notary public who followed the reading using their own copies.

ISSUE:

Was there substantial compliance to the reading of the will?

HELD:

Article 808 not only applies to blind testators, but also to those who, for
one reason or another, are incapable of reading their wills. Hence, the will should
have been read by the notary public and an instrumental witness. However, the spirit
behind the law was served though the letter was not. In this case, there was substantial
compliance. Substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has
been satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are
intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended
to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.
 In this case, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud in the
presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and
subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read
corresponded with his instructions. Only then did the signing and acknowledgement take
place.

Alvarado v. Gaviola, 226 SCRA 347 | JEN SUCCESSION REVIEWER

On 5 November 1977, 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled Huling
Habilin wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son, petitioner Cesar Alvarado, and expressly
revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate before the RTC of
Laguna.

According to Bayani Ma. Rino, private respondent, he was present when the said notarial will
was executed, together with three instrumental witnesses and the notary public, where the
testator did not read the will himself, suffering as he did from glaucoma. Rino, a lawyer,
drafted the eight-page document and read the same aloud before the testator, the three
instrumental witnesses and the notary public, the latter four following the reading with their
own respective copies previously furnished them.

Thereafter, a codicil entitled Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa

Huling Habilin na May Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado was executed changing
some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the testators eye operation. Said
codicil was likewise not read by Brigido Alvarado and was read in the same manner as with
the previously executed will.

When the notarial will was submitted to the court for probate, Cesar Alvarado filed his
opposition as he said that the will was not executed and attested as required by law; that the
testator was insane or mentally incapacitated due to senility and old age; that the will was
executed under duress, or influence of fear or threats; that it was procured by undue pressure
and influence on the part of the beneficiary; and that the signature of the testator was
procured by fraud or trick.

Whether or not notarial will of Brigido Alvarado should be admitted to probate despite
allegations of defects in the execution and attestation thereof as testator was allegedly blind
at the time of execution and the double-reading requirement under Art. 808 of the NCC was not
complied with.
YES. The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there should be
strict compliance with the substantial requirements of law in order to insure the authenticity
of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its
purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the testators will. Cesar
Alvardo was correct in asserting that his father was not totally blind (of counting fingers at 3
feet) when the will and codicil were executed, but he can be so considered for purposes of Art.
808. That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. However, in the case at bar, there
was substantial compliance where the purpose of the law has been satisfied: that of making
the provisions known to the testator who is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as
when he is illiterate) and enabling him to object if they do not accord with his wishes.

Rino read the testators will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three
instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator
affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only
then did the signing and acknowledgment take place.

There is no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil were not sufficiently made
known and communicated to the testator. With four persons, mostly known to the testator,
following the reading word for word with their own copies, it can be safely concluded that the
testator was reasonably assured that what was read to him were the terms actually appearing
on the typewritten documents.

The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or
incapable of reading the will to himself (as when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions
thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his
wishes. Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of law in
order to insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside
when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the
testators will.

Tedoro CANEDA, et al.petitioners vs. Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and William

CABRERA, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Mateo Caballero, respondents.

On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children, already in the twilight years of
his life executed a last will and testament before three attesting witnesses and he was duly assisted by
his lawyer and a notary public. It was declared therein that, among other things that the testator was
leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to specific persons, all of whom
do not appear to be related to Mateo. Not long after, he himself filed a petition before the CFI seeking
the probate of his last will and testament but the scheduled hearings were postponed, until the testator
passed away before his petition could finally be heard by the probate court. Benoni Cabrera, one of the
legatees named in the will, sought his appointment as special administrator of the testators estate but
due to his death, he was succeeded by William Cabrera, who was appointed by RTC which is already the
probate court.

PETITIONERS: The petitioners assail to the allowance of the testators will on the ground that it was not
executed in accordance with all the requisites of law since the testator was already in a poor state of
health such that he could not have possibly executed the same.

Petitioners likewise contend that the will is null and void because its attestation clause is fatally defective
since it fails to specifically state that the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing
the will in their presence and that they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of
the testator and of one another.

RESPONDENTS: The respondent, on the other hand, argue that Mateo was of sound and disposing mind
and in good health when he executed his will. Further, they also contend that the witnesses attested and
signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.

Whether or not the attestation clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero is fatally defective such that
whether or not it affects the validity of the will.

Whether or not the attestation clause complies with the substantial compliance pursuant to Article 809
of the Civil Code.

An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting witnesses certify that
the instrument has been executed before them and to the manner of the execution of the same. It is a
separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by
the witnesses; it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities required by
law has been observed. Under the 3rd paragraph of Article 805, such a clause, the complete lack of
which would result in the invalidity of the will, should state:

1 The number of pages used upon which the will is written;

2 That the testator signed, or expressly cause another to sign, the will and every page thereof in the
presence of the attesting witnesses;
3 That the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages, and that
the said witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
another.

It will be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest and subscribe to the will in
the presence of the testator and of one another. Attestation and subscription differ in meaning.
Attestation is the act of sense, while subscription is the act of the hand. The attestation clause herein
assailed is that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of
the three attesting witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does not
expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the
will in the presence of the testator and of each other. What is then clearly lacking is the statement that
the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

The absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily
result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be admitted to probate. Petitioners are
correct in pointing out that the defect in the attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized as
merely involving the form of the will or the language used therein which would warrant the application
of the substantial compliance rule, as contemplated in Article 809 of the Civil Code:

In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and
imperfection in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if
it is not proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the
requirements of Article 805.

The defects and imperfection must only be with respect to the form of the attestation or the language
employed therein. Such defects or imperfection would not render a will invalid should it be proved that
the will was really executed and attested in compliance with Article 805. These considerations do not
apply where the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and
every page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. In such a situation, the defect is
not only in the form or language of the attestation clause but the total absence of a specific element
required by Article 805 to be specifically stated in the attestation clause of a will. That is precisely the
defect complained of in the present case since there is no plausible way by which it can be read into the
questioned attestation clause statement, or an implication thereof, that the attesting witness did actually
bear witness to the signing by the testator of the will and all of its pages and that said instrumental
witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

Tedoro CANEDA, et al., petitioners vs.

Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and William CABRERA, as Special Administrator
of the Estate of Mateo Caballero, respondents.

FACTS:
On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower without any children, already in
the twilight years of his life executed a last will and testament before three attesting
witnesses and he was duly assisted by his lawyer and a notary public. It was declared
therein that, among other things that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and
devises his real and personal properties to specific persons, all of whom do not appear
to be related to Mateo. Not long after, he himself filed a petition before the CFI seeking
the probate of his last will and testament but the scheduled hearings were postponed,
until the testator passed away before his petition could finally be heard by the probate
court. Benoni Cabrera, one of the legatees named in the will, sought his appointment as
special administrator of the testators estate but due to his death, he was succeeded by
William Cabrera, who was appointed by RTC which is already the probate court.

CONTENTIONS:

PETITIONERS:
The petitioners assail to the allowance of the testator's will on the ground that it
was not executed in accordance with all the requisites of law since the testator was
already in a poor state of health such that he could not have possibly executed the
same. Petitioners likewise contend that the will is null and void because its attestation
clause is fatally defective since it fails to specifically state that the instrumental
witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that
they also signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of
one another.

RESPONDENTS:
The respondent, on the other hand, argue that Mateo was of sound and
disposing mind and in good health when he executed his will. Further, they also
contend that the witnesses attested and signed the will in the presence of the testator
and of each other.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the attestation clause in the last will of Mateo Caballero is
fatally defective such that whether or not it affects the validity of the will.
2. Whether or not the attestation clause complies with the substantial
compliance pursuant to Article 809 of the Civil Code.

RULING:

An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attesting
witnesses certify that the instrument has been executed before them and to the manner
of the execution of the same. It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts
surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the witnesses; it gives
affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities required by law has
been observed. Under the 3 rd paragraph of Article 805, such a clause, the complete
lack of which would result in the invalidity of the will, should state:

1. The number of pages used upon which the will is written;

2. That the testator signed, or expressly cause another to sign, the will and
every page thereof in the presence of the attesting witnesses; and
3. That the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will
and all its pages, and that the said witnesses also signed the will and every
page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

It will be noted that Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest and
subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of one another. Attestation and
subscription differ in meaning. Attestation is the act of sense, while subscription is the
act of the hand. The attestation clause herein assailed is that while it recites that the
testator indeed signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting
witnesses and states as well the number of pages that were used, the same does not
expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective
signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. What is then
clearly lacking is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page
thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

The absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which
must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be admitted
to probate. Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the defect in the attestation clause
obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the form of the will or the
language used therein which would warrant the application of the substantial
compliance rule, as contemplated in Article 809 of the Civil Code:

In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud or undue and improper pressure and
influence, defects and imperfection in the form of attestation or in the language used
therein shall not render the will invalid if it is not proved that the will was in fact executed
and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805.

The defects and imperfection must only be with respect to the form of the attestation
or the language employed therein. Such defects or imperfection would not render a will
invalid should it be proved that the will was really executed and attested in compliance
with Article 805. These considerations do not apply where the attestation clause totally
omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the
presence of the testator and of each other. In such a situation, the defect is not only in
the form or language of the attestation clause but the total absence of a specific
element required by Article 805 to be specifically stated in the attestation clause of a
will. That is precisely the defect complained of in the present case since there is no
plausible way by which it can be read into the questioned attestation clause statement,
or an implication thereof, that the attesting witness did actually bear witness to the
signing by the testator of the will and all of its pages and that said instrumental
witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator
and of one another.
Testate estate of CARLOS GIL, deceased. ISABEL HERRERO VDA. DE GIL,
administratrix-appellee,
vs.
PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS:

Carlos Gil executed a last will and testament. After his death, it was presented
for probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila. This was opposed by his nephew,
Roberto Toledo y Gil and sister, Pilar Vda. de Murciano. Toledo was eliminated from the
case since he has no legal right to intervene.

The will was initially destroy and was reconstituted. The parties all agree that the
reconstituted will is a copy of the original will. In the said will, the attestation clause
does not state that the testator signed the will. It only declares that it was signed by the
witnesses. Despite this defect, the Court of First Instance admitted to probate the will.
Pilar opposed such probate and appealed the decision of CFI to the Supreme Court.
The latter, reversed the decision of the CFI. Not contended with the decision, Isabel
Herreros Vda. de Gil, the administratrix, filed a motion for reconsideration to the
Supreme Court.

CONTENTIONS:

ADMINISTRATRIX-APPELLEE:

Isabel Herreros Vda. de Gil, the administratrix, contends that defective attestation
clause may be cured by inferring in the other parts of the will and inserting a missing
phrase to complete the whole meaning of the attestation clause. She also claims that
the court may correct clerical errors in a will as evidence by the earlier decisions of the
Supreme Court.

OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Pilar, on the other hand, contends that the will should not be probated since the
will did not comply with the requirement of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
as amended, which provides that "The attestation clause shall state the number of
sheets or pages used, upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed
the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under
his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and
signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other."
Secondly, the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in this case stated that the defect in
the attestation clause is a fatal and not just a mere clerical error for it affects the very
essence of the clause. Thus, the defect cannot be cured by inference to the will itself

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the will is valid despite its defective attestation clause?

HELD:

The will is valid. It seems obvious that the missing phrase was left out from the
copy. The problem posed by the omission in question is governed, not by the law of
wills which require certain formalities to be fulfilled in the execution but by the rules of
construction applicable to statutes and documents in general. The court may and
should correct the error by supplying the omitted word or words.

It has been said, and experience has shown, that the mechanical system of
construction has operated more to defeat honest wills than prevent fraudulent ones.
That would be the effect in this case if the will under consideration were rejected for the
adverse party now concedes the genuineness of the document. The genuineness is
super obvious, and there is not the slightest insinuation of undue pressure, mental
incapacity of the testator or fraud.

Coming to the execution of wills, the Supreme Court saw no legitimate, practical
reason for objecting to the testator instead of the witnesses certifying that he signed the
will in the presence of the latter. The will is of the testators own making, the intervention
of attesting witnesses being designed merely to protect his interest.