CUEVAS V.

ACHACOSO

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROBATE OF THE LAST WILL AND

TESTAMENT OF JOSE VENZON.
VALENTINA CUEVAS, petitioner and appellee, vs. PILAR ACHACOSO,
oppositor and appellant.
GR No. L-3497, May 18, 1951
DOCTRINE:
ON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE: The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution
of the wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.

SUMMARY:
Jose Venzon left a will. Pilar Achacosa, alleged heir in a previous will attacked the validity of his
2nd will. The attestation clause in this case was signed by the testator, but signed below his name
by the witnesses. The clause was made by the testator himself more than by the instrumental
witnesses. SC held that AC was valid and substantially complied with the statue. The apparent
anomaly is not serious to invalidate the will, it appearing that right under the signature of the
testator, there appear the signatures of the 3 witnesses.

FACTS:
1. On January 19, 1946, Jose Venzon died in Iba, Zambales, leaving a will executed in 1945
(2nd will). There, he instituted as his heirs, Valentina Cuevas, his widow and Rosario Asera
Venzon, his daughter. He named therein his Valentina as executrix of the will. Valentina
Cuevas filed a petition for the probate of said will.
2. Months later, one Pilar Achacoso filed an alternative petition for the probate of a previous
will (1st will) earlier executed by the deceased. She prayed that if the will submitted by the
widow be rejected, the other will be admitted to probate in lieu thereof. She objected to the
probate of the second will.
a. In the previous will there are other heirs instituted, among them petitioner Pilar.
3. Lower court ruled that the 2nd will was executed in accordance with law and ordered that it
be admitted to probate; Pilar took case to CA but CA forwarded it to SC because case
involves purely questions of law.
4. Pilar claims:
a. alleged lack of attestation clause in the will
b. or to the fact that, if there is such attestation clause, the same has not been signed by
the instrumental witnesses, but by the testator himself (and that this defect has the
effect of invalidating the will)

ISSUE:
W/N attestation clause is defective and invalid

HELD:

NO, there is substantial compliance.

The Court held that attestation clause substantially complies with its requirements.
CUEVAS V. ACHACOSO

● The only apparent anomaly we find is that it appears to be an attestation made by the
testator himself more than by the instrumental witnesses. This does not affect the
validity of the will as, there appear the signatures of the three instrumental witnesses.
● Instrumental witness - is one who takes part in the execution of an instrument or writing
● The fact that the three instrumental witnesses have signed the will immediately under
the signature of the testator, shows that they have in fact attested not only to the
genuineness of his signature but also to the due execution of the will as embodied in the
attestation clause.
● The attestation clause in question bears close similarity with the attestation clause in
Aldaba vs. Roque wherein the attestation clause formed part of the body of the will and
its recital was made by the testatrix himself and was signed by her and by the three
instrumental witnesses.
○ SC upheld its validity: it appears that it is the testatrix who makes the declaration
about the points in the last paragraph of the will; however, as the witnesses
together with the testatrix, have signed the said declaration, we are of the opinion
that the words above quoted of the testament constitute a sufficient compliance
with the requirements of Act No. 2645.

ON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE: the object of the solemnities surrounding the execution

of the wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.
● Laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends
● Also, one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and
curtail the exercise of the right to make a will.
● So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation
whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless
and frustrative of the testator's will, must be disregarded."
● Civil Code shares the liberal view; the ff. provisions, although not directly applicable, are
however, significant because they project the point of view of our legislature when it
adopted them having in view the existing law and jurisprudence on the matter.
○ Art. 788. If a testamentary disposition admits of different interpretations, in case of doubt,
that interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred.
○ Art. 791. The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every
expression inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred
which will prevent intestacy.