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

The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made; a subsequent law with more liberal requirements cannot retroactively validate a will that was void at the time of its execution.

At the time the will was executed in 1923, the old Civil Code was in effect, which did not permit holographic wills and imposed strict formal requirements for attested wills (e.g., numbering pages in letters, signing the left margin of every page). The new Civil Code, which took effect later, allowed holographic wills and dispensed with some of these formalities. The core conflict is whether this new, more liberal law can be applied to validate a will that was defectively executed under the old, stricter law.

• Original Filing: CFI of Cebu (Probate petition filed by Andres Enriquez on October 2, 1946)
• Lower Court Decision: January 24, 1952 — CFI admitted the will to probate, applying the new Civil Code retroactively to validate the document as a holographic will.
• Appeal: Oppositors appealed to the CA; the CA certified the case to the SC as it involved only questions of law.
• SC Action: Direct appeal via certification from the CA.

• Execution of the Will: On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia executed a document (Exhibit "A") in Spanish, entirely written in his own longhand.
• Formalities Observed: Father Abadia signed the left-hand margin of the front page of each of the three folios/sheets, numbered them with Arabic numerals, and signed his name at the end of the writing on the last page. He declared it was his last will, and the three attesting witnesses signed the last page after the attestation clause in the presence of each other and the testator.
• Defects under the Old Law: The back pages of the first two folios were not signed by anyone and were not numbered. The three front pages were signed on the left margin only by the testator; the attesting witnesses did not sign the left margins.
• Death and Probate: Father Abadia died on January 14, 1943. A legatee filed for probate in 1946. Cousins and nephews (intestate heirs) opposed.
• Evidence Presented: One surviving attesting witness testified uncontradicted to the execution details. Oppositors presented no evidence.

• The testator's intention is the controlling factor and should override any defect in form.
• Under a liberal view, the new Civil Code—which permits holographic wills and was already in force at the time of the hearing and decision—should be applied to validate the will.

• The will is void for non-compliance with the formal requirements of the law in force at the time of its execution in 1923.
• The old law required numbering correlatively each page in letters and signing on the left-hand margin of every page by both the testator and the three attesting witnesses, which the document failed to satisfy.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the provisions of the new Civil Code allowing holographic wills may be applied retroactively to validate a will that was defectively executed under the old law in force at the time of its making.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: No. The SC held that the validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made, citing Article 795 of the new Civil Code. The will was executed in 1923 when holographic wills were not permitted. Because the will was invalid at the time of execution, upon the testator's death in 1943, he should be regarded as having died intestate, and his intestate heirs acquired vested rights over the estate. Applying a subsequent law with more liberal requirements to validate a defective will would divest these heirs of their vested rights, violating due process. The Legislature generally cannot validate void wills.

• Vested Rights of Intestate Heirs — When a person executes a will that is invalid for failing to observe legal requirements at the time of execution, upon their death they are declared to have died intestate, and their heirs inherit by intestate succession. This right becomes vested upon death and is protected under the due process clause against subsequent changes in the statute that would validate the defective will and divest the heirs.
• Temporal Rule on Validity of Wills — The validity of a will as to its form is judged by the law in force at the time the instrument was executed, not by the law in force at the time of the testator's death, the time of probate, or the time the petition is decided.

• Article 795, Civil Code — States that the validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made. The SC applied this to bar the retroactive application of the new Civil Code's holographic will provisions.
• Article 810, Civil Code — Allows the execution of holographic wills (entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator, needing no witnesses). The SC held this cannot be applied retroactively to validate the 1923 will.
• Old Civil Code / Act No. 2645 — Required numbering correlatively each page in letters and signing on the left-hand margin of every page by the testator and attesting witnesses. The SC noted these strict requirements were not met by the 1923 will.