1) The Supreme Court held that the validity of a will must be determined by the laws in place at the time of its execution, not at the time of the testator's death.
2) Jose Riosa executed a will in 1908 according to the laws at that time, but the laws were amended in 1916 with additional requirements.
3) Riosa died in 1917 without updating his will, but the Court found his original 1908 will was still valid since it complied with the laws in place when he executed it.
1) The Supreme Court held that the validity of a will must be determined by the laws in place at the time of its execution, not at the time of the testator's death.
2) Jose Riosa executed a will in 1908 according to the laws at that time, but the laws were amended in 1916 with additional requirements.
3) Riosa died in 1917 without updating his will, but the Court found his original 1908 will was still valid since it complied with the laws in place when he executed it.
1) The Supreme Court held that the validity of a will must be determined by the laws in place at the time of its execution, not at the time of the testator's death.
2) Jose Riosa executed a will in 1908 according to the laws at that time, but the laws were amended in 1916 with additional requirements.
3) Riosa died in 1917 without updating his will, but the Court found his original 1908 will was still valid since it complied with the laws in place when he executed it.
1) The Supreme Court held that the validity of a will must be determined by the laws in place at the time of its execution, not at the time of the testator's death.
2) Jose Riosa executed a will in 1908 according to the laws at that time, but the laws were amended in 1916 with additional requirements.
3) Riosa died in 1917 without updating his will, but the Court found his original 1908 will was still valid since it complied with the laws in place when he executed it.
In the matter of the probation of the will of Jose Riosa.
Marcelino Casas, applicant and appellant
Malcolm, J. Nov. 7, 1918 No. 14074 Doctrine Law governing form: All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the Legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used. In every case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved against the restrospective effect. Summary Riosa executed a will in 1908 in accordance with the law then in force, but said law was amended by Act No. 2645 in 1916. The latter added formalities for the signing and attestation of the will. Riosa died in 1917, however, without having left a will that conformed to the new requirements. Thus, the trial court disallowed the will. The Supreme Court reversed the order and held that what’s controlling is the law existing on the date of the execution of the will, not that which was existing at the death of the testator. The will was declared as valid. Facts - Jose Riosa executed a will on January 1908 in which he disposed his estate worth P35,000. It was in conformity with Sec. 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1 - Act No. 2645 took effect after July 1,1916, amending Sec. 618, and it added additional formalities for the signing and attestation of wills. - Thus, the will was in writing, signed by the testator, and attested and subscribed by three credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other; but was not signed by the testator and the witnesses on the left margin of each and every page, nor did the attestation state these facts. - Riosa died on April 17, 1917, without having left a will which conformed to the new law. The trial court disallowed the will. Ratio/ 1. Whether the law existing on the date of the execution of a will or that existing at the death of the Issues testator controls (The date of the will’s execution) COURT: a. The instant case presents a situation wherein the will was made prior to the new law and the testator died after said law took effect. However, there is a cleavage of authority among the cases and text- writers as to the effect of the change in the statutes. Three rules were considered, but in deciding which was to be applied, the Court depended more on reason than technicality.
b. First rule was that the statutes in force at the testator's death are controlling, and that a will not executed in conformity with such statutes is invalid, although its execution was sufficient at the time it was made. The reason for its application in other jurisdictions was that as until the testator’s death, the paper executed by him, expressing his wishes, is not a will, but a mere inchoate act which may or may not be a will.
c. Second rule states that the validity of the execution of a will must be tested by the statutes in force at the time of its execution and that statutes subsequently enacted have no retrospective effect. This was the old English view, as held in English cases, but also a modern view. On ruling out the retrospective effect of the law, it was held that retrospective laws generally work injustice and ought to be construed only when the mandate of the legislature is imperative. When a testator makes a will, formally executed according to the requirements of the law existing at 1 No will, except as provided in the preceding section, shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be in writing and signed by the testator, or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The attestation shall state the fact that the testator signed the will, or caused it to be signed by some other person, at his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and that they attested and subscribed it in his presence and in the presence of each other. But the absence of such form of attestation shall not render the will invalid if it is proven that the will was in fact signed and attested as in this section provided. the time of its execution, it would unjustly disappoint his lawful right of disposition to apply to it a rule subsequently enacted, though before his death. It is true, that every will is ambulatory until the death of the testator, and the disposition made by it does not actually take effect until then. General words apply to the property of which the testator dies possessed, and he retains the power of revocation as long as he lives. The act of bequeathing or devising, however, takes place when the will is executed, though to go into effect at a future time. This was applied by the Court. In doing so, it held that, citing the general rule of statutory construction, ‘all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the Legislature is to give them retrospective effect. The language of Act No. 2645 did not indicate a retrospective effect. Also, section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that a will shall be disallowed if not executed and attested as provided by this Code.
d. Third rule states that statutes relating to the execution of wills, when they increase the necessary formalities, should be construed so as not to impair the validity of a will already made and, when they lessen the formalities required, should be construed so as to aid wills defectively executed according to the law in force at the time of their making.
