Probate of the late Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil. ADRIAN MENDOZA, petitioner and appellee, vs.

Pilapil CALIXTO AND OTHERS, opponents and appellants. G. R. No. L-47931 June 27, 1941 D. Filemon Sotto and D. Numeriano G. Estenzo in representation of the appellants. Mr. Alonso and Alonso in appellee's representation. DIAZ, J.: The main issues we face opponents for resolution, to appeal the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, issued in the probate record No. 407 of the Court, can be reduced to arranged under the following. 1. If the Court of Cebu could name the March 4, 1939, the appellee as administrator of the estate of the late relict P. Eleuterio Pilapil (probate file No. 407), being as it was then acting as administrator of the same goods from the February 7, 1939, the appellant Calixto Pilapil, who promoted the day before, the record of the same deceased Intestate P. Eleuterio Pilapil, in this court (case No. 399, Court of Cebu) and Two. If legalization proceeded and proceeds as will or disposition of last will of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, the documents before the Court as Exhibit A is a duplicate to the coal of Exhibit C. The relevant facts to be taken into account to resolve issues are proposed, according to arise from the decision appealed and the same documents that the Court declare that I will and last will of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, which are recounted below: The P. Eleuterio Pilapil, being parish priest of Mualboal of Cebu Province, died in the city of that name on December 6, 1935. No product will his having been presented after his death, at least until early February 1939, his brother Calixto Pilapil promoted the 6th of said month and year, the case of intestacy No. 399 to request fuesenombrado property manager relict of the. Received test the application he had submitted to elindicado end, previous publications presritos notices by law, and the court hearing prior to the quecomparecieron to oppose it, among which were the same Simeona Pilapil appealed and the Court granted it, naming him

administrator thereupon said Intestate. Within a few days, or the March 4, 1939, the appellee in turn promoted file No. 407, which was previously made mention, to request the legalization as a testament of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, of Exhibit A is the duplicate to the coal of Exhibit C. Between the clauses of these two documents, which are inserted below for their relevance to the issues raised and also for the importance I, Eleuterio Pilapil, Priest of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, of sixty-eight years old, born in Liloan currently Parish Priest of the Parish of Mualboal, Cebu Province, IF, enjoying health and FULL USE OF MY MENTAL POWERS, hereby publish, declare and grant the following as MY LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT: ART. FIRST: I institute and appoint Mr. Adrian Mendoza, my nephew politician, married, of legal age and resident of the Municipality of Liloan, Cebu Province, IF, EXECUTOR-EXECUTOR of this my Last Will and Testament: Provided, That in case of inability, negligence or otherwise self-conscious that enforce this my Testament and Last Will, by deposit, I order and ordered to be replaced in the office of executor, executor of this my Testament and Last Will, my cousin, Jose Cabatingan, married, of legal age, resident of Mualboal Municipiop, Cebu Province, IF, who was in charge and will make compliance with these my following provisions: xxxxxxxxx Two. DECREE and command this my Testament and Last Will not be heard by the court, since this Testament and Last Will, simply confirms, affirms and assures the legitimacy of the documents for the sale of my property; xxxxxxxxx ART. SECOND: Hereby, I certify that this My Last Will and Testament, which confirms, affirms and assures the legitimacy of documents for my buyers granted consists of two items; contains sixteen provisions and is written on three pages; xxxxxxxxx Cebu, Cebu, IF, today November 27, 1935. (Signed) ELEUTERIO Pilapil Testator; at the end of the same (exhibits A and C), there witnessing this clause:

When shall read: HEALTH We who sign below, we state: That the pre-insert Testament and Last Will, has been subscribed and sworn declared by the Testator, Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil in the presence of us all of the testator and pray, each of us signed in the presence of us, here in Cebu, Cebu, IF, today November 27, 1935. (Signed) WENCESLAO Pilapil Witness MARCELO Pilapil Witness EUGENE K. Pilapil Witness The two documents, exhibits A and C, consist of three pages, and in the left margin of each of the first two, are the firms that are at the end of the main body of these documents and their attestation clause and that are, according to the evidence, signatures of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, and witnesses Wenceslas Pilapil, Marcelo Pilapil and Eugene K. Pilapil. In place of the date both of the two documents and their attestation clause, is written the word "Cebu" on that scraping treatment but still obvious that said "Mualboal" and are also the numeral "27" and more name: "November", the latter written on a word can be scraped that even without any difficulty also, at least in Exhibit A, which says: "October". In the last paragraph on page 2 which appears below in the first two lines of the next page (page 3), which is the last, there is the mention expresses' contains sixteen provisions and is written on three pages. " At the bottom of the pages (1) and (2) are respectively the notes: "Go to 2. Pages", "go to 3. Pages". And it should be noted that both in the one as in the other of the aforementioned Exhibits A and C, there are only two items ("Art First" and "Second Section"), and dieceseis provisions. The grounds on which the appellants rely to argue that legalization is not appropriate for any of the two documents expressed as a testament of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, are these: (A) They contain erasures and alterations that the respondent leave to explain; (B) has not been proved that the deceased, - prescindimiento of what is on the documents in exhibits A and C -, was competent to

test old; (C) has not been proved that the deceased owned the Spanish which is the language in which those documents are written; (D) In one of the clauses of these documents are the ban on the airing in slab Courts; (E) None of the two has been prepared, signed and witnessed in accordance with the provisions of Article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. With regard to the first question, it must be said that, according to tells us the same part of Appeal of the appellants, the two cases Nos. 399 and 407 were promoted in two different rooms of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The first was promoted in Division III, and the last, in Room II. Upon hearing the judge of one of those boards that there was a direct relationship between unto and another, provided that the two were known by a single judge, from there they both were considered as one to avoid what the judge said said: "incompatibility in the administration of the assets of the deceased ", referring to; late Fr Eleuterio Pilapil. Certainly not lacking Cebu reason the Court to appoint special manager in case No. 407, the appellee, because there are documents sought to legalize as will and disposition of last will of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, has an express mandate it was. Also, there was not no law that prohibits courts hearing a probate record or intestate, appoint an administrator over and, in the case in question happened to be left without effect the appointment of the appellant as administrator, after the two referred melted records. But still, if the purpose of the appellants to propose the matter of which we are speaking, is to rescind the appointment issued to appellee as special administrator, is vain and futile purpose has to be said, because the stress in the equivalent of be appealing a court order appointing a special administrator and the law does not allow appeal against orders of that nature. The disposition is strict law that says, "will not be allowed the appeal against the appointment of the special administrator". (Article 660, Law No. 190.) In addition to all this it must be said that if there was an error in the appointment of the respondent as special administrator, for the reason that other property was appointed by the court, the error, if such it may be called, has not been so nature that has caused any harm to anyone, especially to the probate of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil. Scratches and changes are noticed in exhibits A and C are some facts which now for the first time, and in this instance, is to llamr

attention, when it should have been done while the matter was still in court of their origin. We can not take them into account in the present stage of the proceedings because, assuming that already existed then, can and should be, but did not say in express terms the Court of Cebu, which I consider not vitiate such documents, it is rebuttable presumption that "all the facts relating to the issues discussed at trial were exposed to and appreciated by the court." (Art. 334, par. 16, Law No. 190.) And indeed vitiated not because it follows the same circumstances, you did just to put things in their proper place. The two exhibits A and C were prepared by the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil in Mualboal where he was parish priest before being transladado to be treated for his illness that caused her death, Cebu Southern Islands Hospital, where he died. Being based on these facts the court that were tested in court, declare as follows: "The intervention of the three instrumental witnesses of the document took place in a haphazard manner, on the occasion in which the same were to visit Eleuterio Pilapil who was ill in the Southern Islands Hospital, and there the now deceased begged them to act as witnesses of the document already had then prepared. " In preparing the, being in Mualboal, was no more than natural that expressed in it that there were prepared, and leave the date blank but still put the name of the month that were put into clean, ie October 1935. The age of the testator as to whether he spoke Spanish which is the language of the two exhibits are drawn or not be said that being a priest and parish priest of Mualboal, Cebu, must be presumed that had the old fundademente competent to make a will, and that he understood the Spanish spoken and therefore it is common knowledge that to be a parish priest of one must be a priest, and to be, it takes many years of study in seminars where Spanish is spoken is as official language like English. Moreover, no evidence has been proven that the testator did not understand that language. The disposition of the testator that his "Last Will Testament and not be heard by the Court" can not strip the courts of their authority to determine if your referral will is legalizable or not. They are not stakeholders in one way or another on an issue, which may confer or remove jurisdiction and authority to Trubunales to resolve and decide what it wants to resolve law and decide. Please note that the law requires under penalty, to be delivered to the Court wills made by a testator dies after this, by the person to whom custody has been entrusted, so it can certainly determine whether your legalization and can at the same time dispose of their property according to the demand in the same, or if the contract be declared died intestate, not being susceptible of which had been granted legalization. (Articles 626 to 631, Act No. 190.) Also, not being a lawyer the testator, no wonder that has been placed in his will the

ban that - using his own words - "is aired in court" . And insofar as the exhibits A and C can not be legalized because not prepared and signed in accordance with the law, saying that their pages are not numbered with letters, and because in its attestation clause is not expressed that they were signed by the three attesting witnesses in the presence of the testator, suffice to call attention to the fact that the bottom of the first page is in the note letter clearly says, "Go to 2. page" and the fact that the foot of the second page, there is this other note: "Pass through 3. page" and also call attention enough to the first two lines of the third page is the last, where, to complete the arrangement that is contained in the last paragraph of the previous page, or second, it states: . . . consists of two items; CONTAINS sixteen provisions and is written three pages, which agrees closely with the true facts as they appear in the aforementioned two exhibits, because they contain actually two articles and sixteen provisions, not more, not less. In the attestation clause and another copy on a subject matter Testament, is claimed by the three instrumental witnesses who signed it, which pre-insert Testament and Last Will has been subscribed and sworn declared by the testator, Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil in the presence of us all; row and followed, also stated by the same witnesses that: to beg of the testator, signed each of us, here in Cebu, Cebu, I.F., today November 27, 1935. The fraze "to beg of the testator" that attached to the signed and signed his will in the presence of the attesting witnesses, permits and justifies the inference that the testator was present when the last stamped their signatures there. The purpose of the law to establish the formalities required authenticity is undoubtedly ensure and guarantee their authenticity against bad faith and fraud, to prevent those who have no right of succession to the testator, and win-win will happen with the legalization of same. It has fulfilled that purpose in the event that there has been talk that, in the same body of the will and in the same page where it appears the attestation clause, or one third, it

expresses the will consists of three pages and because each one of the first two takes in hand the note in letters, and in part and second pages of it. These facts clearly excludes all fear, suspicion, or any hint of doubt has been replaced some of its pages to another. Something more in the case of Nayve against Mojal and Aguilar (47 Phil., 160), which was clarified by Gumban cause against Gorecho and others (50 Phil., 31), there is in this case because there there was but notes: "Pag 1", "Pag 2", "Pag 3" and "Pag 4" on the respective side of the four pages of which it consists, and in this there aforementioned data and perseverance are also inserted in the first two lines of the third page of the exhibits A and C, in that they are composed of three pages, and contain two sixteen articles and provisions. They are therefore perfect application of the case is what we said in the causes of Rodriguez against Yap, RG No. 45924, May 18, 1939, and Blessed against De Gorostiza (57 Phil., 456). We said in these cases, respectively, as follows: The wording of the attestation clause in this will not technically free repairs, but is substantially a law enforcement. We maintain the view that should be required strict compliance with the substantive requirements of the will, to ensure its authenticity, but at the same time we would not be taken into account defects that do not affect this purpose and the other part , to be taken into account, could thwart the will of the testator. (Rodriguez against Yap, supra.) It should not be allowed to hinder legal formalities using common sense in the consideration of wills and to frustrate the wishes of the deceased solemnly expressed in their wills, as to the granting of which there is not even a shadow of bad faith or fraud. (Blessed against De Gorostiza, supra.) For these reasons, finding according to law the appealed decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, hereby, confirm it, condemned to the appellants to pay the costs. So ordered. Avancea, CJ, Diaz, Laurel, and Horrilleno Moran, MM., Are satisfied. Separate Opinions MORAN, M., dissenting: The attestation clause is as follows:

We who sign below, we state: That the pre-insert Testament and Last Will, has been subscribed and sworn declared by the Testator, Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil in the presence of us all of the testator and pray, each of us signed in the presence of us, here in Cebu, Cebu, IF, today November 27, 1935. There is nothing in this clause that the attesting witnesses have signed the will in the presence of the testator and, therefore, the will can not be probated. But the majority argues that "the phrase 'to beg of the testator,' attached to it signed and signed his will in the presence of the attesting witnesses, allowed and justified inference that the testator was present when the last stamped there respective signatures. " But we have said repeatedly that the formalities of a will required by law can not be proved by evidence aliunde. Therefore, inference tests are inadmissible inference mostly if not fully adjusted to the logic. For these reasons, I dissent from the majority opinion.