CASE # 8

G.R. No. 1641. January 19, 1906

GERMAN JABONETA, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

IMPORTANCE:

 The court's decision was based on the principle that the true test of presence between the
testator and witnesses is not whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they could
have seen each other sign, considering their mental and physical condition and position at the
time of signing.

 The court applied this principle to determine whether Javellana's signature was valid and found
that it was affixed in the presence of Jena because Jena was still in the room when he saw
Javellana moving his hand and pen to sign the will.

 The court also emphasized that the purpose of the requirement for witnesses to sign in the
presence of the testator is to provide ocular evidence of the identity of the instrument subscribed
by the witness and the testator.

FACTS:

 The case involves the probate of the last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta.

 The lower court denied the probate of the will because one of the witnesses, Julio Javellana, did
not sign the will in the presence of another witness, Isabelo Jena.

 Evidence presented during the proceedings showed that Jena signed the will first, followed by
Aniceto Jalbuena and other witnesses.

 Jena then left the room in a hurry and saw Javellana with the pen in his hand, ready to sign.

 However, Jena did not actually see Javellana sign the will.

ISSUE:

 Whether Javellana's signature on the will was valid, considering that Jena did not witness him
sign it.

RULING:

 The court ruled in favor of admitting the will to probate.

 The court held that the true test of the presence of the testator and witnesses in the execution of
a will is not whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they could have seen each
other sign, considering their mental and physical condition and position with relation to each other
at the moment of signing.

 The court found that Javellana's signature was affixed in the presence of Jena because Jena was
still in the room when he saw Javellana moving his hand and pen to sign the will.

 The fact that Jena was in the act of leaving and had his back turned while a portion of Javellana's
signature was being written was deemed unimportant.
 The court emphasized that the purpose of the requirement for witnesses to sign in the presence
of the testator is to provide ocular evidence of the identity of the instrument subscribed by the
witness and the testator.

 The court cited cases that established the test of presence as vision and mental apprehension.

 The court held that the witnesses in this case were together for the purpose of witnessing the
execution of the will and in a position to actually see the testator write, if they chose to do so.

 Therefore, the court concluded that the statutory requisites for the execution of the will were
complied with, and the lower court erred in denying probate.