Enriquez, et al. vs. Abadia, et al.

The formal validity of a will is determined by the law in force at the time the instrument was executed, and a subsequent law with more liberal requirements cannot validate a will that was void for failure to comply with the legal formalities existing at the time of its creation.

In 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, a parish priest in Cebu, wrote a document intended to be his last will and testament, disposing of properties valued at approximately P8,000. He died in 1943, but the petition for probate was not filed until 1946. At both the time of the will's execution and the testator's death, the law (Act No. 2645) required strict formalities for wills, including marginal signatures by the testator and witnesses on every page and numbering of pages in letters, while holographic wills were entirely unrecognized.

• On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia executed Exhibit "A," a document written entirely in his own hand in Spanish.
• The document consisted of three folios; the testator signed the left-hand margin of the front page of each folio and at the end of the document.
• The testator numbered the pages with Arabic numerals rather than letters.
• Three attesting witnesses were present and signed the last page of the document after the attestation clause, but they did not sign the left-hand margins of any pages.
• The back pages of the first two folios were neither signed nor numbered.
• Father Abadia died on January 14, 1943, prior to the enactment of the New Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386).
• The trial court admitted the will to probate in 1952, reasoning that the New Civil Code, which was in force at the time of the hearing, allowed holographic wills and that the testator's intention should override formal defects.

• The New Civil Code should be applied because it was the law in force at the time the court was deciding on the probate of the will.
• The intention of the testator is the paramount and controlling factor in probate proceedings and should override technical defects in the form of the will.
• A liberal interpretation of the law is necessary to give effect to the wishes of the deceased regarding the disposition of his estate.

• The validity of the will must be judged according to the law in force at the time of its execution in 1923.
• Under the law existing in 1923, holographic wills were not permitted, and the document failed to comply with the mandatory formal requirements for attested wills.
• The failure of the witnesses to sign the margins and the failure to number the pages in letters as required by Act No. 2645 are fatal defects that invalidate the will.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the provisions of the New Civil Code regarding holographic wills can be applied retroactively to validate a will executed in 1923 by a testator who died in 1943.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision and denied the probate of the will.
  • The Court ruled that under Article 795 of the New Civil Code, the formal validity of a will depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made.
  • Because the law in 1923 (Act No. 2645) did not recognize holographic wills and required witnesses to sign all margins—a requirement not met here—the will was void at the time of its execution.
  • The Court emphasized that the rights of the heirs to the inheritance are vested at the moment of the testator's death; since the will was void in 1943, the heirs' rights to intestate succession vested immediately and cannot be divested by a subsequent law with more liberal formal requirements.

• Lex Loci Celebrationis (Formalities of Wills) — The principle that the extrinsic or formal validity of a will is governed by the law in force at the time of its execution. In this case, the Court used this to hold that the 1923 law, not the 1950 law, governed the will's validity.
• Vested Rights in Succession — The doctrine that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. The Court applied this to protect the rights of legal heirs who stood to inherit via intestacy because the will was void under the law at the time of the testator's death.
• Non-Retroactivity of Laws Validating Void Wills — The principle that the legislature cannot validate a void will through subsequent legislation if doing so would disturb rights that have already vested in the heirs upon the death of the decedent.

• "The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made."
• "From the day of the death of the testator, if he leaves a will, the title of the legatees and devisees under it becomes a vested right, protected under the due process clause of the constitution against a subsequent change in the statute."
• "When one executes a will which is invalid for failure to observe and follow the legal requirements at the time of its execution then upon his death he should be regarded and declared as having died intestate."

• In re Estate of Saguinsin, 41 Phil. 875 — Cited to demonstrate that the failure of the testator and witnesses to sign the left-hand margin of every page is a radical defect that totally vitiates the testament.
• Aspe vs. Prieto, 46 Phil. 700 — Referenced to affirm that the non-compliance of attesting witnesses with the requirement to sign the left margin of each page is a fatal defect.
• In re Will of Riosa, 39 Phil. 23 — Followed as the established precedent that the law at the time of execution, not the law at the time of death or probate, determines the formal validity of a will.

• Article 795, New Civil Code — This is the primary statutory basis for the ruling, stating that the validity of a will as to form is governed by the law in force at the time of execution.
• Article 810, New Civil Code — Cited to describe the requirements of a holographic will under the new law, which the trial court had incorrectly applied.
• Section 2, Act No. 2645 — The law in force in 1923 which mandated specific formalities for wills that the document in question failed to satisfy.