Professional Documents
Culture Documents
060 Gil V Murciano
060 Gil V Murciano
DE
GIL, administratrix-ae!!ee,
"s.
#ILAR GIL VDA. DE $%RCIA&O, oositor-ae!!ant.
'ACTS(
Carlos Gil executed a last will and testament. After his death, it was
presented for probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila. This was opposed by
his nephew, Roberto Toledo y Gil and sister, ilar !da. de Murciano. Toledo was
eliminated from the case since he has no le"al ri"ht to inter#ene.
The will was initially destroy and was reconstituted. The parties all a"ree that
the reconstituted will is a copy of the ori"inal will. In the said will, the attestation
clause does not state that the testator si"ned the will. It only declares that it was
si"ned by the witnesses. $espite this defect, the Court of First Instance admitted to
probate the will. ilar opposed such probate and appealed the decision of CFI to
the
%upreme Court. The latter, re#ersed the decision of the CFI. &ot contended with
the decision, Isabel 'erreros !da. de Gil, the administratrix, filed a
motion for reconsideration to the %upreme Court.
CO&TE&TIO&S( AD$I&ISTRA
TRI)-A##ELLEE(
O##OSITOR-A##ELLA&T.
ilar, on the other hand, contends that the will should not be probated since
the will did not comply with the re(uirement of %ection )*+ of the Code of Ci#il
rocedure, as amended, which pro#ides that The attestation clause shall state the
number of sheets or pa"es used, upon which the will is written, and the fact that the
testator si"ned the will and e#ery pa"e thereof, or caused some other person to
write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and
the latter witnessed and si"ned the will and all pa"es thereof in the presence of
the testator and of each other. %econdly, the earlier decision of the %upreme
Court in this case stated that the defect in the attestation clause is a fatal and not
-ust a mere clerical error for it affects the #ery essence of the clause. Thus, the
defect cannot be cured by inference to the will itself
ISS%E(
hether or not the will is #alid despite its defecti#e attestation clause/
HELD(
The will is #alid. It seems ob#ious that the missin" phrase was left out from the
copy. The problem posed by the omission in (uestion is "o#erned, not by the
law of wills which re(uire certain formalities to be fulfilled in the execution but by the
rules of construction applicable to statutes and documents in "eneral. The court
may and should correct the error by supplyin" the omitted word or words.
It has been said, and experience has shown, that the mechanical system
of construction has operated more to defeat honest wills than pre#ent fraudulent ones.
That would be the effect in this case if the will under consideration were re-ected
for the ad#erse party now concedes the "enuineness of the document. The
"enuineness is super ob#ious, and there is not the sli"htest insinuation of undue
pressure, mental incapacity of the testator or fraud.
Comin" to the execution of wills, the %upreme Court saw no le"itimate, practical
reason for ob-ectin" to the testator instead of the witnesses certifyin" that he si"ned
the will in the presence of the latter. The will is of the testator0s own ma1in", the
inter#ention of attestin" witnesses bein" desi"ned merely to protect his interest.