Gumban vs. Gorecho

An attestation clause that fails to state that the testator and the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof in the presence of the testator is defective, and the defect annuls the will, pursuant to the mandatory and prohibitory language of the statute governing execution and attestation of wills.

Petronilo Gumban was the proponent of the alleged last will of the deceased Eustaquio Hagoriles, opposed by the widow Inocencia Gorecho and eighteen other opponents. Probate of wills was governed entirely by statute, specifically Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645 on execution and attestation, and Section 634 of the same Code on disallowance of wills.

Petronilo Gumban presented for probate a document, Exhibit A, alleged to be the last will and testament of the deceased Eustaquio Hagoriles. Opposition was entered by the widow, Inocencia Gorecho, and eighteen other opponents. The document consisted of ten used pages, and its attestation clause stated in substance that the testator signed the will in the presence of the witnesses, that the witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other, and that the will consisted of ten used pages including the last page, but it did not state that the testator and the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof.

The will was formulated in a medley of three languages, Visayan, English, and Spanish. Suspicious circumstances surrounded its making by the bedridden old man who was alleged to have signed it.

The Court of First Instance of Iloilo found the alleged will to have been prepared in conformity with law and issued an order probating the document, prompting the opponents' appeal challenging the sufficiency of the attestation clause.

• Sufficiency by Inspection of Signatures: Petitioner maintained that the will complied with law under the line of authority beginning with Abangan vs. Abangan and culminating in Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar, under which the fact that the testator and witnesses signed each and every page can be proved by mere examination of the signatures on the document itself and omission of such evident fact from the attestation clause does not invalidate the will.

• Defective Attestation Clause: Respondents argued that the trial court erred in finding the will prepared in conformity with law notwithstanding that it did not contain an attestation clause stating that the testator and the witnesses signed all the pages of the will, relying on the line from In re Estate of Saguinsin through Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca and In re Estate of Neumark to Saño vs. Quintana, under which such omission renders the attestation defective and annuls the will.

• Sufficiency of Attestation Clause: Whether an attestation clause that does not recite that the testator and the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof in the presence of the testator is defective so as to annul the will.
• Controlling Precedent: Whether Saño vs. Quintana or Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar governs where the two decisions conflict on the required contents of the attestation clause.

• Sufficiency of Attestation Clause: Yes. The omission renders the attestation defective and annuls the will, the statute imperatively requiring the stated recital and directing disallowance if not executed and attested as provided.
• Controlling Precedent: Saño vs. Quintana controls. It was adopted and reaffirmed, while Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar was modified to the extent necessary, being earlier, concurred in by less than a majority, and less conformable to statute.

• Sufficiency of Attestation Clause: The right to dispose by will being governed entirely by statute, Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645 imperatively and negatively provides that no will shall be valid unless attested as required, including that the attestation state the number of sheets or pages used and that the testator and witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other, while Section 634 mandates disallowance if not executed and attested as provided. Because the attestation clause in Exhibit A did not state that the testator and witnesses signed the will and every page thereof, the mandatory formality was unmet. Legislative purpose so emphatically expressed in imperative and negative terms was not to be disregarded by the courts, and no pronouncement on language or testamentary capacity was required to disallow the will.
• Controlling Precedent: Saño vs. Quintana held that an attestation clause not reciting that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof on the left margin in the presence of the testator is defective and annuls the will, while Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar held that signing of each page could be proved by examination of the document and omission of that evident fact did not invalidate the will. The two were found fundamentally at variance and irreconcilable without extreme casuistry. Saño vs. Quintana was preferred because it was concurred in by seven members, a clear majority, against four with two strong dissents in Nayve; because it was subsequent in time to the December 1924 Nayve decision; and because it more nearly conformed to the applicable statutory provisions.

• Statutory Governance of Testation — The right to dispose of property by will is governed entirely by statute, not by judicial relaxation of formalities. Applied to require strict adherence to Sections 618 and 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure in determining validity and probate.
• Mandatory Attestation Recitals; Effect of Omission — The attestation must state the number of sheets or pages used and that the testator and the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other; an attestation clause omitting recital that the witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof in the presence of the testator is defective, and such defect annuls the will and compels disallowance. Applied to disallow Exhibit A, a ten-page instrument whose clause lacked the required signing-of-every-page recital.
• Resolution of Conflicting Precedents — Where two decisions are fundamentally at variance, the later decision concurred in by a clear majority and more conformable to statute is adopted and reaffirmed, and the earlier, less-supported decision is modified to the extent necessary. Applied to prefer Saño vs. Quintana over Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar.

• "The right to dispose of property by will is governed entirely by statute." — States the foundational premise foreclosing judicial disregard of the wills statute and anchoring the strict-compliance analysis.
• "The will shall be disallowed in either of the following cases: 1. If not executed and attested as in this Act provided." — Quotes the mandatory disallowance rule applied to annul the will for defective attestation.
• "We adopt and reaffirm the decision in the case of Saño vs. Quintana, supra, and, to the extent necessary, modify the decision in the case of Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar, supra." — Announces the resolution of the conflict of authority and the operative precedential holding.

• Saño vs. Quintana, 48 Phil., 506 — Controlling precedent adopted and reaffirmed; held that failure of the attestation clause to recite signing of the will and every page in the presence of the testator annuls the will.
• Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar, 47 Phil., 152 — Modified to the extent necessary; had held that signing of every page could be proved by inspection and omission from the clause did not invalidate, a view rejected as irreconcilable with Saño vs. Quintana.
• Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil., 405 — Prior strict-formality authority cited in Saño vs. Quintana and invoked by appellants in support of annulment for defective attestation.
• Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil., 476 — Head of the liberal line cited by appellee to sustain probate despite omissions provable from the instrument itself; not followed on the point at issue.

• Section 618, Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645 — Provides that no will shall be valid unless executed and attested as required, including that the attestation state the number of sheets or pages used and that the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other; applied as the mandatory measure of validity violated by Exhibit A.
• Section 634, Code of Civil Procedure, as unamended — Provides that the will shall be disallowed if not executed and attested as provided in the Act; applied to compel disallowance of the defectively attested document.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Ostrand and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

• Romualdez, J., dissenting, with Villamor, J., concurring — Maintained that the probate order should be affirmed because there was no true conflict between Nayve vs. Mojal and Aguilar and Saño vs. Quintana, the clause stated the ten-page total and mutual presence at signing, and actual signing of every page by testator and witnesses was indisputable on inspection; reasoned that solemnities aim to prevent fraud, substitution, and inauthenticity, that substantial compliance suffices absent any possibility of bad faith, and that strict construction frustrates the testator's last will, citing Abangan vs. Abangan, Avera vs. Garcia and Rodriguez, and Unson vs. Abella as instances of probate despite nonliteral compliance with margin, paging, and letter-paging requirements.