In the Matter of the Probation of the Will of Jose Riosa

The formal validity of a will must be determined by the law in force at the time of its execution. A statute increasing formalities enacted after the execution but before the testator's death does not apply retroactively to invalidate the will.

Jose Riosa executed a will in January 1908. At that time, the governing law was Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In 1916, Act No. 2645 amended Section 618, adding new formalities (e.g., signing on the left margin of every page, specific attestation requirements). Riosa died in April 1917. His 1908 will complied with the old law but not with the new formalities of Act No. 2645.

• Filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Albay for probate.
• The CFI disallowed the will on December 29, 1917, for non-compliance with Act No. 2645.
• The applicant-appellant appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

• Jose Riosa died on April 17, 1917.
• He left a will executed in January 1908, disposing of an estate valued at over P35,000.
• The will was duly executed under the law in effect in 1908 (Section 618, Code of Civil Procedure).
• Act No. 2645, which amended Section 618 to require additional formalities (signing on the left margin of every page, specific attestation language), took effect on July 1, 1916.
• The will did not comply with the new formalities introduced by Act No. 2645.

• The will was validly executed under the law in force at the time of its execution (1908).
• Laws should not be applied retroactively unless expressly stated. Act No. 2645 contains no such express retroactivity clause.
• Applying the new law to invalidate a previously executed will would unjustly defeat the testator's intent and right of disposition.

• The will was disallowed by the lower court because it was "not executed and attested as in this Act provided" (per Section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645).
• A will is an ambulatory document that takes effect only at death; therefore, the law in force at death should control its formal validity.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether a will executed in accordance with the law at the time of its execution, but not in accordance with a stricter law enacted thereafter and in force at the testator's death, is valid.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner. The law governing the formal validity of a will is the law in force at the time of its execution. The SC adopted the rule that statutes increasing formalities for wills should not be given retroactive effect to invalidate wills already executed. The order of the CFI disallowing the will was reversed.

• Prospective Application of Statutes — Laws are presumed to operate prospectively only. A statute will not be given retroactive effect unless such intent is expressly declared or necessarily implied. The SC applied this to hold that Act No. 2645 did not apply to wills executed before its effectivity.
• Vested Right of Disposition — A testator's right to dispose of property via a will executed in compliance with existing law is a vested right. A subsequent law cannot impair this right by imposing new formalities retroactively.

• "Retrospective laws generally if not universally work injustice, and ought to be so construed only when the mandate of the legislature is imperative. When a testator makes a will, formally executed according to the requirements of the law existing at the time of its execution, it would unjustly disappoint his lawful right of disposition to apply to it a rule subsequently enacted, though before his death." (Citing Taylor vs. Mitchell)
• "The act of bequeathing or devising... takes place when the will is executed, though to go into effect at a future time."

• Bona vs. Briones (38 Phil. 276) — Cited to show the SC had previously held that Act No. 2645 did not apply to wills where the testator died before the law's operative date.
• Montilla vs. Corporacion de PP. Agustinos (24 Phil. 220) — Cited for the general rule of statutory construction that laws are presumed prospective.
• Taylor vs. Mitchell (57 Pa. St. 209) — Adopted as the persuasive authority and best-considered opinion supporting the rule that the law at execution controls.

• Section 618, Code of Civil Procedure (as originally enacted) — The law in force at the will's execution, which the will complied with.
• Act No. 2645 (Amendatory Act) — The law in force at the testator's death, which imposed additional formalities.
• Section 634, Code of Civil Procedure — Provides grounds for disallowing a will, including if not executed as provided by law. The SC interpreted this in harmony with the non-retroactivity principle.
• Article 3, Civil Code — Cited as corroborative of the principle that laws are not retroactive unless otherwise prescribed.