IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF PETRONILA TAMPOY, DECEASED, VS. DIOSDADA ALBERASTINE, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT.

This concerns the probate of a document which purports to be the
last will and testament of one Petronila Tampoy. After the petition was
published in accordance with law and petitioner had presented oral and
documentary evidence, the trial court denied the petition on the ground
that the left hand margin of the first page of the will does not bear
the thumbmark of the testatrix. Petitioner appealed from this ruling
but the Court of Appeals certified the case to us because it involves
purely a question of law.

The facts of this case as found by the trial court are as follows:

“De las pruebas resulta que Petronila Tampoy, ya
viuda y sin hijos, rogo a Bonifacio Miñoza que la leyera el testamento
Exhibito A y la explicara su contenido en su casa en la calle San
Miguel, del municipio de Argao, provincia de Cebu, en 19 de noviembre
de 1939, y asi lo hizo Bonifacio Miñoza en presencia de los tres
testigos instrumentales, Rosario K. Chan, Mauricio de la Peña y Simeona
Omboy, y despues de conformarse con el contendido del testamento, ella
rogo a Bonifacio Miñoza, que escribiera su nombre al pie del
testamento, en la pagina segunda, y asi lo hizo Bonifacio Miñoza, y
despues ella estampo su marca digital entra su nombre y apellido en
presencia de todos y cada uno de los tres testigos instrumentales,
Rosario K. Chan, Mauricio de la Peña y Simeon Omboy y de Bonifacio
Miñoza, y despues, Bonifacio Miñoza firmo tambien al pie del
testamento, en la pagina 2, en presencia de la testadora y de todos y
cada uno de los tres testigos arriba nombrados. La testadora asi como
Bonifacio Miñoza no firmaron, sin embargo, en la margen izquierda ni en
ninguna parte de la primera pagina del testamento que se halla
compuesto de dos paginas. Todos y cada uno de los tres testigos
instrumentales, Rosario K. Chan, Mauricio de la Peña y Simeon Omboy,
firmaron al pie de la clausula de atestiguamiento que esta escrita en
la pagina segunda del testamento y en la margen izquierda de la misma
pagina 2 y de la pagina primera en presencia de la testadora, de
Bonifacio Miñoza, del abogado Kintanar y de todos y cada uno de ellos.
El testamento fue otorgado por la testadora libre y expontaneamente,
sin haber sido amenazada, forzada o intimidada, y sin haberse ejercido
sobre ella influencia indebida, estando la misma en pleno uso de sus
facultades mentales y disfrutando de buena salud. La testadora fallecio
en su casa en Argao en 22 de febrero de 1957 (Vease certificado de
defuncion Exhibito B). La heredera instituida en el testamento, Carmen
Alberastine, murio dos semanas despues que la testadora, o sea en 7 de
Marzo de 1957, dejando a su madre, la solicitante Diosdada Alberastine.”

The above facts are not controverted, there being no. opposition to
the probate of the will. However, the trial court denied the petition
on the ground that the first page of the will does not bear the
thumbmark of the testatrix. Petitioner now prays that this ruling be
set aside for the reason that, although the first page of the will does
not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix, the same however expresses her
true intention to give the property to her whose claims remains
undisputed. She wishes to emphasize that no one has filed any
opposition to the probate of the will and that while the first page
does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix, the second however bears
her thumbmark and both pages were signed by the three testimonial
witnesses. Moreover, despite the fact that the petition for probate is
unopposed, the three testimonial witnesses testified and manifested to
the court that the document expresses the true and voluntary will of
the deceased.

This contention cannot be sustained as it runs counter to the
express provision of the law. Thus, Section 618 of Act 190, as amended,
requires that the testator sign the will and each and every page
thereof in the presence of the witnesses, and that the latter sign the
will and each and every page thereof in the presence of the testator
and of each other, which requirement should be expressed in the
attestation clause, This requirement is mandatory, for failure to
comply with it is fatal to the validity of the will (Rodriguez vs.
Alcala, 55 Phil., 150). Thus, it has been held that “Statutes
prescribing the formalities to be observed in the execution of wills
are very strictly construed. As stated in 40 Cyc., at page 1097, ‘A
will must be executed in accordance with the statutory requirements;
otherwise it is entirely void.’ All these requirements stand as of
equal importance and must be observed, and courts cannot supply the
defective execution of a will. No power or discretion is vested in
them, either to superadd other conditions or dispense with those
enumerated in the statutes” (Uy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil., 405, 407; See also Saño vs. Quintana, 48 Phil., 506; Gumban vs. Gorecho, 50 Phil, 30; Quinto vs. Morata, 54 Phil., 481).

Since the will in question suffers from the fatal defect that it
does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix on its first page even if
it bears the signature of the three instrumental witnesses, we cannot
escape, the conclusion that the same fails to comply with the law and
therefore, cannot be admitted to probate.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.