Herreros Vda. de Gil vs. Gil Vda. de Murciano

A will is admissible to probate where an incomplete attestation clause in an agreed reconstituted copy is shown to be a mere clerical copying error, and, in any event, where the testator's signed declaration in the body of the will and the witnesses' signatures together establish substantial compliance with the formalities. The formalities are means to prevent fraud and ensure authenticity, not to frustrate a genuine and uncontested testamentary intent by literalism.

Carlos Gil died leaving a two-page will in Spanish disposing of properties in Manila and Pampanga in favor of his childless widow Isabel Herreros Vda. de Gil, with remainder to Don Carlos Worrel, and naming Dr. Galicano Coronel as executor. Pilar Gil Vda. de Murciano, the decedent's sister, opposed probate, while a nephew, Roberto Toledo y Gil, had earlier attempted to intervene. Execution of wills was governed by Section 618 of Act No. 190, as amended by Act No. 2645, which prescribes the contents of the attestation clause and, after the 1916 amendment, eliminated the former saving clause for defective form.

Carlos Gil, 66 years old and resident of Porac, Pampanga, executed a will in Spanish declared to be his last will, stating he was of sound mind and acting freely. The instrument declared his childless marriage to Isabel Herreros, described properties in Manila and Pampanga, bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties to his wife under condition that any remainder at her death pass to Don Carlos Worrel, and named Dr. Galicano Coronel as executor without bond. The closing paragraph of the body stated that in witness thereof he signed the will and on the left margin of each of its two pages together with the attestation clause in the presence of the witnesses, who in turn signed each page and the attestation clause in his presence and in the presence of each other, dated May 27, 1939 in Porac. The attestation clause was signed by Alfredo T. Rivera, Ramon Mendiola and Mariano Omaña, the latter being the drafter.

The original will was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila in 1943. Early in 1945, before the application was heard on the merits, the record with the will was destroyed by fire or looters. After liberation the record was reconstituted upon an agreed statement in which both parties agreed that the will as transcribed in the record on appeal in G.R. No. L-254 was a true and correct copy. As thus copied, the attestation clause certified that the preceding will in Castilian, composed of two useful pages with the attestation clause consecutively paged, as well as all its sheets, in the witnesses' presence and that each witness attested and signed the document and all its sheets in the presence of the testator and of each other, but the compound sentence was truncated and meaningless for lack of the phrase that the sheets had been signed by the testator in their presence. The copy also omitted the testator's signature on the first page and used "la testadora" instead of "el testador."

Trial proceeded with Pilar Gil Vda. de Murciano as oppositor after Toledo's elimination, and the probate court admitted the will, discussing only the alleged non-signing of the first page. On appeal on questions of law, the oppositor assigned as errors the failure to declare the will not executed according to law and the allowance thereof. Genuineness of the document was conceded and no fraud, undue pressure or mental incapacity was insinuated.

• Non-compliance with statutory formalities: Oppositor-appellant Pilar Gil Vda. de Murciano argued that the alleged will was not executed in accordance with law and should not have been legalized, the attestation clause failing to state the essential fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the witnesses.
• Absence of signature on first page: Oppositor maintained that the first page or sheet did not bear the testator's signature, as shown by the agreed copy, warranting denial of probate.

• Clerical copying error: Proponent-appellee Isabel Herreros Vda. de Gil contended that the phrase "han sido firmadas por el testador" or equivalent between "del mismo" and "en nuestra presencia" was inadvertently omitted in transcription and must be supplied to complete the sense, the error being proved by the senseless truncation, the immateriality of form in the prior appeal, the missing first-page signature in the copy, and the "la testadora" slip.
• Cure by testator's declaration and substantial compliance: Proponent argued that the testator's own signed declaration that he signed both pages in the witnesses' presence, together with the witnesses' signatures, satisfied the law in substance, with no extrinsic evidence needed and with the presumption that the will was drawn in accordance with law by a lawyer-draftsman.
• Non-conclusiveness of stipulation as to mistake: Proponent maintained that agreement to the copy did not bar correction of clear clerical mistake, which counsel could not have knowingly accepted.

• Correctability of copy: Whether the apparent omission in the attestation clause of the stipulated reconstituted copy may be corrected by supplying omitted words under rules of construction.
• Substantial compliance by testator's declaration: Whether, even as copied, the defect is cured by the testator's declaration in the body of the will that he signed in the witnesses' presence, the witnesses having signed the instrument.
• Signature on each page: Whether the absence of the testator's signature on the first page in the copy invalidates the will.
• Binding effect of stipulation: Whether the stipulation that the G.R. No. L-254 transcription is true and correct precludes impeachment for clerical error.

• Correctability of copy: Yes. The omission rendering the sentence senseless may be supplied by construction confined within the will, the error being manifest and not requiring evidence aliunde.
• Substantial compliance by testator's declaration: Yes. The testator's signed certification, joined by the witnesses' signatures, constitutes substantial compliance under the liberal rule, the formalities being means to prevent fraud rather than ends in themselves.
• Signature on each page: No. Invalidity was not established, both testator and witnesses having stated that both pages were signed and the copy's omission being explained by careless transcription.
• Binding effect of stipulation: No. A stipulation does not bar correction of indubitable clerical mistake or clear error.

• Correctability of copy: Omitted words rendering an attestation clause incomplete and meaningless may be supplied where necessary to effectuate intent as expressed in the instrument, without altering unequivocal language, and where context shows inadvertent omission from a statute or document. Applied here, insertion of "han sido firmadas por el testador" completes the truncated compound sentence. Carelessness was inferred from the fact that form was immaterial in G.R. No. L-254, from omission of the first-page signature in the copy, from "la testadora" for "el testador," and from the improbability that Attorney Omaña, presumed to know the law and grammar, would draft a senseless clause. Testamentaria del finado Emiliano Alcala was invoked for correcting substantial yet grammatical omissions by interpretation to give effect to intent absent fraud.
• Substantial compliance by testator's declaration: Assuming the clause was drawn as copied, validity was sustained under Aldaba vs. Roque, where an attestation signed by witnesses besides the testator was valid substantial compliance though recitals appeared made by the testator, a departure more radical than here where only a small part was left to the testator's declaration. The liberal trend from Abangan vs. Abangan through Avera vs. Garcia, Pecson vs. Coronel, Grey vs. Fabia, Leynez vs. Leynez, Mendoza vs. Pilapil, Alcala vs. De Villa, and Lopez vs. Liboro permits probing within the will to determine compliance but forbids evidence aliunde to supply missing details. Here no extrinsic proof was needed because the testator stated he signed both pages in the witnesses' presence and the witnesses by signing affirmed it, achieving the statutory purpose of certainty, authenticity and prevention of substitution.
• Signature on each page: The objection was answered by the same transcription-error analysis, strengthened by positive statements in both body and attestation that the former signed both pages or sheets. Genuineness being conceded and super obvious, with no suggestion of fraud or incapacity, mechanical rejection would defeat an honest will rather than prevent a spurious one.
• Binding effect of stipulation: Stipulations bind except as to clerical error or clear mistake. Oppositor herself had not noticed the flaw below, attacking only the first-page signature, and proponent's counsel could not have knowingly subscribed to a senseless clause without reservation, bringing the case within the exception.

• Substantial compliance in attestation — Aldaba vs. Roque rule — When the attestation clause is signed by the witnesses besides the testator, it is valid and constitutes substantial compliance with Section 1 of Act No. 2645 even though the facts recited appear to have been made by the testator himself. Applied to sustain the Gil will where the testator certified his own signing in the witnesses' presence and the three witnesses signed.
• Liberal construction to effectuate intent — Abangan vs. Abangan principle — Solemnities surround execution to close the door against bad faith and fraud, avoid substitution, and guaranty truth and authenticity; laws on the subject are to be interpreted to attain those ends, but not to restrain the right to make a will by demanding unnecessary requisites frustrative of the testator's last will. Applied to prefer substance over literal enforcement.
• Correction of omissions by construction within the instrument — Words inadvertently omitted from a will or from a statute may be supplied by the court where necessary to complete the sense and effectuate intent as expressed, but not where insertion would alter or defeat intent or change clear unequivocal meaning; exploration is confined within the will and evidence aliunde to fill voids is barred. Applied to insert the missing signing-by-testator phrase.
• Impeachment of stipulation for clerical error — The binding effect of a stipulation does not extend to barring a party from impeaching it on the score of clerical error or clear mistake. Applied to permit challenge to the agreed copy despite agreement that it was true and correct.
• Presumption of regularity of will — A will is presumed to have been drawn in accordance with law, reinforced where the draftsman-witness is a lawyer presumed to know formalities and grammar. Applied to support that the senseless omission could not have existed in the original.

• "The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity." — States the purpose of formalities underlying the liberal Abangan construction favoring testacy absent fraud.
• "When the attestation clause is signed by the witnesses to the instruments, besides the testator, such attestation clause is valid and constitutes a substantial compliance with the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 2645, even though the facts recited in said attestation clause appear to have been made by the testator himself." — Recites the controlling Aldaba vs. Roque syllabus applied to cure the testator-certified signing.
• "Words omitted from a will may be supplied by the court whenever necessary to effectuate the testator's intention as expressed in the will: but not where the effect of inserting the words in the will would alter or defeat such intention, or change the meaning of words that are clear and unequivocal." — Defines the limit for judicial supply of omitted words, applied to complete the truncated attestation sentence.
• "Where it appears from the context that certain words have been inadvertently from a statute, the court may supply such words as are necessary to complete the sense, and to express the legislative intent." — Extends statutory-construction correction to documents, justifying insertion of the missing phrase.

• Aldaba vs. Roque, 43 Phil., 378 — Controlling precedent for substantial compliance; followed to hold testator-written recitals signed also by witnesses valid.
• Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil., 476 — Basic liberal-construction authority predicated on reason; followed and oft-cited approvingly.
• Dichoso de Ticson vs. De Gorostiza, 57 Phil., 437 — Noted two divergent tendencies toward strict and liberal construction; cited for framework adopting Abangan.
• Grey vs. Fabia, 68 Phil., 128; Leynez vs. Leynez, 68 Phil., 745; Mendoza vs. Pilapil, 72 Phil., 546; Alcala vs. De Villa, 71 Phil., 561; Lopez vs. Liboro, 81 Phil., 429 — Liberal line permitting cure by language within will; followed, with Alcala expressly quoted on correcting grammatical omissions including insertion of omitted verb.
• Avera vs. Garcia, 42 Phil., 145; Unson vs. Abella, 43 Phil., 494; Pecson vs. Coronel, 45 Phil., 216; Fernandez vs. Vergel de Dios, 46 Phil., 922; Neyve vs. Mojal, 47 Phil., 152; De Gala vs. Gonzales, 53 Phil., 104; Rey vs. Cartagena, 56 Phil., 282; Rodriguez vs. Yap, 68 Phil., 126; Martir vs. Martir, 70 Phil., 89; Sabado vs. Fernandez, 72 Phil., 531 — Cited as subsequent decisions adopting Abangan principle.
• Gumban vs. Gorecho, 50 Phil., 30; Sano vs. Quintana, 48 Phil., 506; Quinto vs. Morata, 54 Phil., 481; Rodriguez vs. Alcala, 55 Phil., 150 — Strict-construction authorities relied upon in the reversed March 1, 1951 opinion; abandoned in the prevailing resolution in favor of liberal rule.

• Section 618, Act No. 190, as amended by Section 1, Act No. 2645 — Requires attestation clause to state number of pages, fact testator signed will and every page or caused another to write his name under express direction in presence of three witnesses, and witnesses witnessed and signed in presence of testator and each other; applied strictly in reversed opinion but construed liberally in prevailing resolution to sustain substantial compliance.
• Article 286 [cited as 288 in Alcala quotation], Code of Civil Procedure; Pecson vs. Coronel, 45 Phil., 216 — Requires that intention of drafter prevail in interpretation of documents; invoked to correct grammatical omissions in attestation clause.

Paras, Feria, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

• Jugo, J., joined by Pablo and Bengzon, JJ. — Dissented on the grounds set forth in the March 1, 1951 opinion that the attestation clause fatally omitted certification that the testator signed, which could not be supplied by inference or by the testator's self-certification, the right to dispose by will being purely statutory and strictly construed after removal of the saving clause by Act No. 2645.
• Padilla and Reyes, JJ. — Dissented from affirmance on reconsideration, without separate extended reasoning reproduced in the text.