Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 060 Gil V Murciano

    Uploaded by

    Rachelle Baggao
    27 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a case regarding the testate estate of Carlos Gil. Isabel Herrero, the administratrix, appealed the Supreme Court's decision to reverse the probate of Carlos Gil's will. The will was initially destroyed but later reconstituted, and the parties agreed the reconstituted will was a copy of the original. However, the attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will. The Supreme Court held the will was still valid, as it was obvious a phrase was left out of the copy by mistake. The court may correct such errors to give effect to the testator's intentions, especially since no one contested the will's genuineness.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    060 Gil v Murciano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a case regarding the testate estate of Carlos Gil. Isabel Herrero, the administratrix, appealed the Supreme Court's decision to reverse the probate of Carlos Gil's will. The will was initially destroyed but later reconstituted, and the parties agreed the reconstituted will was a copy of the original. However, the attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will. The Supreme Court held the will was still valid, as it was obvious a phrase was left out of the copy by mistake. The court may correct such errors to give effect to the testator's intentions, especially since no one contested the will's genuineness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views3 pages

    060 Gil V Murciano

    Uploaded by

    Rachelle Baggao
    This document summarizes a case regarding the testate estate of Carlos Gil. Isabel Herrero, the administratrix, appealed the Supreme Court's decision to reverse the probate of Carlos Gil's will. The will was initially destroyed but later reconstituted, and the parties agreed the reconstituted will was a copy of the original. However, the attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will. The Supreme Court held the will was still valid, as it was obvious a phrase was left out of the copy by mistake. The court may correct such errors to give effect to the testator's intentions, especially since no one contested the will's genuineness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Testate estate of CARLOS GIL, deceased. ISABEL HERRERO VDA.

    DE
    GIL, administratrix-ae!!ee,
    "s.
    #ILAR GIL VDA. DE $%RCIA&O, oositor-ae!!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(

    Isabel 'erreros !da. de Gil, the administratrix, contends that defecti#e


    attestation clause may be cured by inferrin" in the other parts of the will and
    insertin" a missin" phrase to complete the whole meanin" of the attestation clause.
    %he also claims that the court may correct clerical errors in a will as e#idence by
    the earlier decisions of the %upreme Court.

    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.

    You might also like