Carlos Gil executed a last will and testament in 1945. However, the record containing the will was later destroyed during the war, necessitating its reconstitution. Carlos Gil's nephew and sister contested the will's validity, arguing that the attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will. The Supreme Court ruled the will invalid, as the attestation clause only declared that the witnesses signed it, without certifying that the testator signed as required. The purpose of the attestation clause is to certify the testator's signature, and without this the clause provides no attestation at all.
Carlos Gil executed a last will and testament in 1945. However, the record containing the will was later destroyed during the war, necessitating its reconstitution. Carlos Gil's nephew and sister contested the will's validity, arguing that the attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will. The Supreme Court ruled the will invalid, as the attestation clause only declared that the witnesses signed it, without certifying that the testator signed as required. The purpose of the attestation clause is to certify the testator's signature, and without this the clause provides no attestation at all.
Carlos Gil executed a last will and testament in 1945. However, the record containing the will was later destroyed during the war, necessitating its reconstitution. Carlos Gil's nephew and sister contested the will's validity, arguing that the attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will. The Supreme Court ruled the will invalid, as the attestation clause only declared that the witnesses signed it, without certifying that the testator signed as required. The purpose of the attestation clause is to certify the testator's signature, and without this the clause provides no attestation at all.
Ponente: JUGO, J. FACTS: A last will and testament was executed by Carlos Gil. Early in 1945, before the application was heard on the merit, the record, along with the will, was destroyed, necessitating its reconstitution after liberation. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts agreeing “that the will as transcribed in the record of appeal” in another case is “a true and correct copy.” CFI Manila admitted to probate the alleged will and testament. Carlos Gil’s nephew and sister contended that the will is invalid since the attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will, it declared only that it was signed by the witnesses. ISSUE: Whether or not the will is valid. RULING: No. It will be noted that the attestation clause above quoted does not state that the alleged testator signed the will. It declares only that it was signed by the witnesses. This is a fatal defect, for the precise purpose of the attestation clause is to certify that the testator signed the will, this being the most essential element of the clause. Without it there is no attestation at all.