ESTATE OF THE DECEASED CARIDAD ALCANTARA DE GOROSTIZA. CONSORCIA DICHOSO DE TICSON, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. MARINO DE GOROSTIZA, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

Estate of the Deceased Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza versus De Gorostiza

The Case

This is a case about a will that was refused probate because of the way its attestation clause was worded. The estate of the deceased Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza, through Consorcia Dichoso de Ticson as petitioner and appellant, asked the courts to admit the will to probate. Marino de Gorostiza, the oppositor and appellee, resisted probate on the ground that the attestation clause did not state, in so many words, that the testatrix signed every page of the will in the presence of the attesting witnesses. The case matters because it fixes the standard for reading attestation clauses in Philippine will law: not a parrot-like copy of the statute, but language from which reasonable compliance may be deduced, read together with the will itself.

Procedural History

The will was offered for probate in the trial court. That court denied probate, holding that the attestation clause failed to state that the testatrix signed every page of the will as required by section 618, as amended, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proponent appealed. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal, and the Supreme Court reversed the trial court, admitted the will to probate, and ordered the appellee to pay the costs of both instances. Three justices dissented, and one justice reserved his vote.

Facts

Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza executed a will consisting of two pages. The testatrix signed at the end of the will, and she and the attesting witnesses signed on the left-hand margin of the two pages. The witnesses signed at the end of the attestation clause.

The attestation clause itself read that the testatrix, whose name is signed hereinabove, published unto the witnesses the foregoing will consisting of two pages as her last will and testament, and signed the same in their presence, and that the witnesses each signed the same and each page thereof in the presence of the testatrix and in the presence of each other.

When the will was offered for probate, the trial court refused it precisely because the clause did not say that the testatrix signed every page. The contest turned on how to read two words in the clause: "hereinabove" and "same." The proponent argued that "hereinabove" covered the marginal signatures and that "same" referred to the two pages. The oppositor argued that the clause said only that the testatrix signed the will in the witnesses' presence, not that she signed every page.

Issues

• Whether or not the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that the testatrix signed every page of the will in the presence of the attesting witnesses.
• Whether or not the will itself may be examined to determine compliance with the formalities, where the attestation clause does not expressly supply every fact.

Applicable Provisions

Section 618, as amended, of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the Court and the dissent describe its requirement, provides:

The attestation shall state that the testator signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the witnesses, and that the attesting witnesses signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.

This is the provision against which the attestation clause was measured, and the whole case turns on whether the clause substantially satisfies it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the attestation clause is legally sufficient. Reading the clause under what it called the judicial microscope, the Court rejected the argument that "hereinabove" referred to the marginal signatures; it simply refers to the signature of the testatrix at the end of the will. The Court also rejected the argument that "same" refers back to "pages" rather than to "will," because that reading would be inconsistent with the later phrase describing the witnesses as signing "the same and each page thereof," meaning the will and each page thereof. When the clause states that the testatrix published the foregoing will consisting of two pages and "has signed the same," the word "same" signifies the foregoing will consisting of two pages, which necessarily implies the signature by the testatrix of the will and every page thereof. The Court added that an interpretation sustaining the validity of the clause is neither forced nor illogical.

The Court laid down the governing standard in these words:

Precision of language in the drafting of an attestation clause is desirable. However, it is not imperative that a parrot-like copy of the words of the statute be made. It is sufficient if from the language employed it can reasonably be deduced that the attestation clause fulfills what the law expects of it.

On the second issue, the Court held that while evidence may not be admitted to supply omissions in an attestation clause, and the clause must show on its face a compliance with the law, this does not preclude an examination of the will. Here the will itself shows that the testatrix and the witnesses signed on the left-hand margin of the two pages, that the testatrix signed at the end of the will, and that the witnesses signed at the end of the attestation clause.

The Court acknowledged two divergent tendencies in Philippine will law, strict construction as in Rodriguez versus Alcala and liberal construction as in Abangan versus Abangan, and chose the reasoned, liberal path. It noted that the clause was an exact transcription of a form in a standard legal forms book, save for a typographical error, so that a decision against the will might have far-reaching and disastrous results. Legalistic formalities, the Court said, should not be permitted to obscure good sound common sense and to frustrate the wishes of deceased persons solemnly expressed in testaments, where there is not even a hint of bad faith or fraud.

Doctrine

An attestation clause need not reproduce the statute word for word. It is sufficient if from the language employed it can reasonably be deduced that the clause fulfills what the law expects of it. A statement that the testatrix signed the will, described as consisting of two pages, necessarily implies that she signed the will and every page thereof. Evidence is not admissible to supply omissions in an attestation clause, which must show compliance on its face, but the will itself may be examined, and its physical features may confirm that the statutory formalities were observed. Formalities are construed to give effect to the testator's wishes absent bad faith or fraud.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, ordered the will of Caridad Alcantara de Gorostiza admitted to probate, and taxed the costs of both instances against the appellee.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an attestation clause need not be a parrot-like copy of the statute, so long as compliance can reasonably be deduced from its language. Examiners use this case to test the liberal versus strict construction of will formalities, and the rule that the will itself may be inspected even though evidence cannot fill gaps in the clause.