Jaboneta vs. Gustilo

The statutory requirement that a will be signed by witnesses "in the presence of" each other is satisfied if the witnesses are so positioned that they could have seen the signing by simply looking, without any physical obstruction, regardless of whether they actually saw it.

The case concerns the formal requirements for executing a will under the Code of Civil Procedure. The dispute centered on whether the attestation clause was properly complied with regarding the mutual presence of witnesses during signing.

• Filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo (probate court).
• The CFI denied probate of the will.
• The proponent (plaintiff-appellant German Jaboneta) appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

• Macario Jaboneta executed a document as his last will and testament in a house in Jaro, Iloilo.
• He called three witnesses: Isabelo Jena, Aniceto Jalbuena, and Julio Javellana.
• Jena signed first as a witness, then Jalbuena signed.
• As Jena was in a hurry, he asked permission to leave after signing. As he was leaving the room, he saw Javellana with a pen in hand, positioned to sign.
• Jena testified he saw Javellana's hand moving as if signing but did not actually see the pen touch the paper.
• The lower court found that Javellana signed after Jena had left the room.
• The SC, reviewing the testimony, found that Jena was still physically present in the room when Javellana was in the act of signing.

• The appellant argued that the testimony of Isabelo Jena, taken as a whole, showed that Julio Javellana was in the act of signing while Jena was still present in the room.
• The appellant contended that the statutory requirement of signing "in the presence of" another witness is met if the witness is physically present and could have seen the signing, even if their back was turned or they did not actually witness the entire act.

• The appellees (contestants of the will) relied on the lower court's factual finding that Javellana did not sign in Jena's presence.
• Their core argument was that Jena had already left the room before Javellana completed his signature, thus failing the strict statutory requirement.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the signature of witness Julio Javellana was affixed "in the presence of" witness Isabelo Jena, as required by Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The SC ruled yes. The SC disagreed with the lower court's factual finding. Based on the evidence, Jena was still in the room when Javellana began signing. The SC held that "presence" is determined by the capacity for vision, not actual sight. Since Jena was in a position where he could have seen the signing by merely looking, the requirement was satisfied.

• Test of "Presence" for Will Execution — The SC applied the principle that the statutory requirement of signing "in the presence of" the testator or another witness is met if the person is so positioned that they could have seen the act of signing by looking, considering their physical and mental state. There must be no physical obstruction to vision. The purpose is to provide "ocular evidence" of the identity of the instrument.

• "The fact that he was in the act of leaving, and that his back was turned while a portion of the name of the witness was being written, is of no importance."
• "He... was actually and physically present and in such position with relation to Javellana that he could see everything which took place by merely casting his eyes in the proper direction, and without any physical obstruction to prevent his doing so..."

• In the matter of Bedell (2 Connoly (N.Y.), 328) — Cited for the rule that it is sufficient if witnesses are together for the purpose of witnessing the will and in a position to actually see the testator (or another witness) write if they choose to do so.
• Spoonemore vs. Cables (66 Mo., 579) — Cited for the rule that the true test of vision is not whether the testator actually saw the witness sign, but whether he might have seen him sign.

• Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure — The statute governing the execution of wills, which required that the will be signed by the testator and attested by witnesses who sign "in the presence of the testator and of each other."