CANEDA v CA

222 SCRA 781, May 28, 1993

REGALADO J;

FACTS:

Mateo Caballero executed a last will and testament on December 5, 1978 leaving
by way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to persons not
appearing to be related to him. In the course of the probate proceedings, herein
petitioners, who claim to be nephews and nieces of the deceased, appeared as
oppositors raising the issue of genuineness of the signature of the testator.The probate
court found the last will and testament to be in order.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), petitioners assert that the will in
question is null and void for the reason that its attestation clause is fatally defective
since it fails to specifically state that the instrumental witnesses to the will witnessed the
testator signing the will in their presence and that they also signed the will and all the
pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
What appears in the attestation clause is as follows: "we do certify that the
testament was read by him and the attestator, Mateo Caballero, has published unto us
the foregoing will consisting of THREE PAGES, including the acknowledgment, each
page numbered correlatively in letters of the upper part of each page, as his Last Will
and Testament, and he has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces
provided for his signature and on the left hand margin in the presence of the said
testator and in the presence of each and all of us.”
The CA found the quoted clause in order and affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the above attestation clause is in substantial compliance with the
requirements of the Civil Code and merits the allowance of the wills.

RULING: NO.

Among the requirements of the contents of the attestation under Article 805 of
the Civil Code is the it must state that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by
the testator of the will and all its pages, and that said witnesses also signed the will and
every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

The subscription of the signature of the testator and the attesting witnesses is
made for the purpose of authentication and identification, and thus indicates that the will
is the very same instrument executed by the testator and attested to by the witnesses.
The attestation clause, therefore, provide strong legal guaranties for the due execution
of a will and to insure the authenticity thereof. Where it is left unsigned, it would result in
the invalidation of the will as it would be possible and easy to add the clause on a
subsequent occasion in the absence of the testator and its witnesses.

Careful reading of the attestation clause shows that the same does not expressly
state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective
signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.

Petitioners are correct in pointing out that the aforestated defect in the attestation
clause obviously cannot be characterized as merely involving the form of the will or the
language used therein which would warrant the application of the substantial
compliance rule.

The rule on substantial compliance in Art. 809 does not apply to the present case
because the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed
each and every page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. The
defect in this case is not only with respect to the form or the language of
the attestation clause. The defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by
the will itself which is clearly lacking in this case.

Therefore, the probate of the will is set aside and the case for the intestate
proceedings shall be revived.