Caneda Vs CA

Caneda v.
CA
222 SCRA 781
FACTS:
On December 5, 1978, Mateo Caballero, a widower
without any children and already in the twilight
years of his life, executed a last will and testament at
his residence before 3 witnesses.
He was assisted by his lawyer, Atty. Emilio
Lumontad.
In the will, it was declared that the TESTATOR
leaves to several people all of whom do not appear to
be related to the testator.
4 months later, Mateo Caballero filed to probate. On
May 29, 1980, the testator passed away.
Thereafter one of the legatees, Benoni Cabrera,
sought his appointment as special administrator of
the testator’s estate.
Thereafter, the petitioners, claiming to be nephews
and nieces of the testator, instituted a second
petition for intestate proceedings. They also opposed
the probate of the testator’s will and the
appointment of a special administrator for his estate.
Benoni Cabrera died and was replaced by William
Cabrera as special administrator and gave an order
that the testate proceedings for the probate of the
will had to be heard and resolved first.
petitioners opposed to the allowance of the testator’s
will on the ground that on the alleged date of its
execution, the testator was already in poor state of
health such that he could not have possibly
executed the same. Also the genuineness of the
signature of the testator is in doubt.
On the other hand, one of the attesting witnesses
and the notary public testified that the testator
executed the will in question in their presence while
he was of sound and disposing mind and that the
testator was in good health and was not unduly
influenced in any way in the execution of his will.
Probate court then rendered a decision declaring the
will in question as the last will and testament of the
late Mateo Caballero.
CA affirmed the probate court’s decision stating that
it substantially complies with Article 805. Hence this
appeal.
ISSUE:
W/N the attestation clause in the will of the testator
is fatally defective or can be cured under the art.
809.
HELD:
No. It does not comply with the provisions of the law.
Ordinary or attested wills are governed by Arts. 804
to 809. The will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the attesting
witnesses. The attestation clause need not be written
in a language known to the testator or even to the
attesting witnesses.
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.
The attestation clause, therefore, provides strong
legal guaranties for the due execution of a will and to
insure the authenticity thereof.
It is contended by petitioners that the attestation
clause in the will failed to specifically state the fact
that the attesting witnesses witnessed the testator
sign the will and all its pages in their presence and
that they, the witnesses, likewise signed the will and
every page thereof in the presence of the testator and
of each other. And the Court agrees.
The attestation clause 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.
The phrase, “and he has signed the same and every
page thereof, on the space provided for his signature
and on the left hand margin,” obviously refers to the
testator and not the instrumental witnesses as it is
immediately preceded by the words” as his last will
and testament.”
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. That 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 probated.
Also, Art. 809 does not apply to the present case
because 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. The defect in this case is not only with
respect to the form or the language of the attestation
clause. The defects must be remedied by intrinsic
evidence supplied by the will itself which is clearly
lacking in this case.
Therefore, the probate of the will is set aside and the
case for the intestate proceedings shall be revived.
Article 809 cannot be used to cure the defects of the
will when it does not pertain to the form or language
of the will. This is because there is not substantial
compliance with Article 805.

Caneda Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caneda Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caneda Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caneda v.

You might also like