Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 192 views

    Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Hernandez
    This case involves a will being contested on probate. One of the attesting witnesses inadvertently failed to sign one page of the original will, but did sign the duplicate copy. The court held that this minor omission did not invalidate the will, as the purpose of witness signatures was still fulfilled. The court also found no evidence the will was executed under undue influence. The probate court properly admitted both the original and duplicate will. The decision upholding the validity of the will was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Hernandez
    192 views2 pages
    This case involves a will being contested on probate. One of the attesting witnesses inadvertently failed to sign one page of the original will, but did sign the duplicate copy. The court held that this minor omission did not invalidate the will, as the purpose of witness signatures was still fulfilled. The court also found no evidence the will was executed under undue influence. The probate court properly admitted both the original and duplicate will. The decision upholding the validity of the will was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Wills Case Digest

    Original Title

    28. Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a will being contested on probate. One of the attesting witnesses inadvertently failed to sign one page of the original will, but did sign the duplicate copy. The court held that this minor omission did not invalidate the will, as the purpose of witness signatures was still fulfilled. The court also found no evidence the will was executed under undue influence. The probate court properly admitted both the original and duplicate will. The decision upholding the validity of the will was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    192 views2 pages

    Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Hernandez
    This case involves a will being contested on probate. One of the attesting witnesses inadvertently failed to sign one page of the original will, but did sign the duplicate copy. The court held that this minor omission did not invalidate the will, as the purpose of witness signatures was still fulfilled. The court also found no evidence the will was executed under undue influence. The probate court properly admitted both the original and duplicate will. The decision upholding the validity of the will was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Icasiano vs.

    Icasiano
    Specific Requirements
    G.R. No. Ponente Date
    L-18979 REYES J.B.L., J. June 30, 1964
    Petitioners Respondents
    IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and
    ESTATE OF THE LATE JOSEFA ENRIQUE ICASIANO, oppositors-
    VILLACORTE. appellants.
    CELSO ICASIANO, petitioner-appellee

    DOCTRINE: Inadvertent failure of an attesting witness to affix his signature to one page of a will not
    fatal.—The inadvertent failure of an attesting witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament,
    due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is not per se sufficient to justify
    denial of probate lcasiano vs. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422, No. L-18979 June 30, 1964

    I. Facts of the case

    • On October 2, 1958 a petition for the allowance and admission to probate of the original will of
    Josefa Villacorte, deceased, and for the appointment of Celso Icasiano as executor thereof was filed
    before the Court of First Instance of Manila.
    • On October 31, 1958, Natividad Icasiano, a daughter of the testatrix, filed her opposition; and on
    November 10, 1958, she petitioned to have herself appointed as a special administrator. Another
    sibling on February 18, 1959, Enrique Icasiano, filed a manifestation adopting as his own
    Natividad's opposition to the probate of the alleged will
    • On March 19, 1959, the Celso Icasiano commenced the introduction of his evidence; but on June
    1, 1959, he filed a motion for the admission of an amended and supplemental petition, alleging
    that the decedent left a will executed in duplicate with all the legal requirements, and that he was,
    on that date, submitting the signed duplicate (Exhibit "A-1"), which he allegedly found only on or
    about May 26, 1959.
    • On June 17, 1959, oppositors Natividad Icasiano de Gomez and Enrique Icasiano filed their joint
    opposition to the admission of the amended and supplemental petition, but by order of July 20,
    1959, the court admitted said petition, and on July 30, 1959, oppositor Natividad Icasiano filed
    her amended opposition.
    • Both parties subsequently presented their respective evidence, and after several hearings the
    Court of First Instance issued the order admitting the will and its duplicate to probate, essentially
    siding with Celso. From this order, the oppositors namely Natividad and Enrique appealed
    directly to this Court, the amount involved being over P200,000.00, on the ground that the same
    is contrary to law and the evidence.
    • Records showed that the original will does not contain the signature of one of the attesting
    witnesses, Atty. Natividad on page three out of the five pages, but the duplicate copy attached is
    signed by the attesting witness. Witness Natividad admits that he may have lifted two pages
    instead of one when he signed the same.
    • Oppositors also contended that the signatures of the testatrix in the duplicate are not genuine nor
    were they written or affixed on the same occasion as the original and that they were executed
    through mistake and with undue influence and pressure because the testatrix was deceived into
    adopting as her last will and testament the wishes of those who will stand to benefit from the
    provisions of the will.
    II. Issue/s

    Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a page is
    sufficient to deny probate of the will?

    III. Ratio/Legal Basis

    ● NO, the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a page is NOT a
    sufficient ground to deny probate of the will.
    ● The inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament, due to the
    simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is not per se sufficient to justify denial
    of probate. Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured not only the fact that the testatrix
    and two other witnesses did sign the defective page, but also by its bearing the coincident imprint
    of the seal of the notary public before whom the testament was ratified by testatrix and all three
    witnesses.
    ● The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account
    of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she had no control, where the purpose
    of the law to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently
    attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation existed, and the evidence on record attests to the
    full observance of the statutory requisites.
    ● That the failure of witness Natividad to sign page three (3) was entirely through pure oversight is
    shown by his own testimony as well as by the duplicate copy of the will, which bears a complete
    set of signatures in every page. The text of the attestation clause and the acknowledgment before
    the Notary Public likewise evidence that no one was aware of the defect at the time.
    ● That the carbon duplicate of the purported will, was produced and admitted without a new
    publication does not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court, already conferred by the original
    publication of the petition for probate. The amended petition did not substantially alter the one
    first filed, but merely supplemented it by disclosing the existence of the duplicate, and no showing
    is made that new interests were involved; and appellants were duly notified of the proposed
    amendment. It is nowhere proved or claimed that the amendment deprived the appellants of any
    substantial right, and we see no error in admitting the amended petition.
    ● There is also no satisfactory proof that the will was executed under circumstances constituting
    fraud and undue influence and pressure: that the testatrix signed both original and duplicate
    copies (Exhibits "A" and "A-1", respectively) of the will spontaneously, on the same in the
    presence of the three attesting witnesses, the notary public who acknowledged the will; and Atty.
    Samson, who actually prepared the documents; that the will and its duplicate were executed in
    Tagalog, a language known to and spoken by both the testator and the witnesses, and read to and
    by the testatrix and Atty. Fermin Samson, together before they were actually signed; that the
    attestation clause is also in a language known to and spoken by the testatrix and the witnesses

    IV. Disposition

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
    appellants.

    V. Notes

    You might also like