EN BANC

G.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOSEFA VILLAORTE.
ELSO IASIANO, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
NATIVI!A! IASIANO "n# ENRI$%E IASIANO, oppositors-appellants.
Jose W. Diokno for petitioner-appellee.
Rosendo J. Tansinin for oppositor-appellant Natividad Icasiano.
Jaime R. Nuevas for oppositor-appellant Enrique Icasiano.
RE&ES, J.'.L., J.:
Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila admitting to probate the document
and its duplicate, mared as E!hibits "A" and "A-#", as the true last $ill and testament of %osefa
&illacorte, deceased, and appointing as e!ecutor Celso Icasiano, the person named therein as
such.
'his special proceeding $as begun on (ctober ), #*+, b- a petition for the allo$ance and
admission to probate of the original, E!hibit "A" as the alleged $ill of %osefa &illacorte, deceased,
and for the appointment of petitioner Celso Icasiano as e!ecutor thereof.
'he court set the proving of the alleged $ill for November ,, #*+,, and caused notice thereof to
be published for three ./0 successive $ees, previous to the time appointed, in the ne$spaper
"Manila chronicle", and also caused personal service of copies thereof upon the no$n heirs.
(n (ctober /#, #*+,, Natividad Icasiano, a daughter of the testatri!, filed her opposition1 and on
November #2, #*+,, she petitioned to have herself appointed as a special administrator, to $hich
proponent ob3ected. 4ence, on November #,, #*+,, the court issued an order appointing the
5hilippine 'rust Compan- as special administrator. 1p!"1.#$t
(n Februar- #,, #*+*, Enri6ue Icasiano, a son of the testatri!, also filed a manifestation adopting
as his o$n Natividad7s opposition to the probate of the alleged $ill.
(n March #*, #*+*, the petitioner proponent commenced the introduction of his evidence1 but on
%une #, #*+*, he filed a motion for the admission of an amended and supplemental petition,
alleging that the decedent left a $ill e!ecuted in duplicate $ith all the legal re6uirements, and that
he $as, on that date, submitting the signed duplicate .E!hibit "A-#"0, $hich he allegedl- found
onl- on or about Ma- )8, #*+*. (n %une #9, #*+*, oppositors Natividad Icasiano de :ome; and
Enri6ue Icasiano filed their 3oint opposition to the admission of the amended and supplemental
petition, but b- order of %ul- )2, #*+*, the court admitted said petition, and on %ul- /2, #*+*,
oppositor Natividad Icasiano filed her amended opposition. 'hereafter, the parties presented their
respective evidence, and after several hearings the court issued the order admitting the $ill and
its duplicate to probate. From this order, the oppositors appealed directl- to this Court, the
amount involved being over 5)22,222.22, on the ground that the same is contrar- to la$ and the
evidence.
'he evidence presented for the petitioner is to the effect that %osefa &illacorte died in the Cit- of
Manila on <eptember #), #*+,1 that on %une ), #*+8, the late %osefa &illacorte e!ecuted a last
$ill and testament in duplicate at the house of her daughter Mrs. Felisa Icasiano at 5edro
:uevara <treet, Manila, published before and attested b- three instrumental $itnesses, namel-=
attorne-s %usto 5. 'orres, %r. and %ose &. Natividad, and Mr. &inicio B. >i-1 that the $ill $as
acno$ledged b- the testatri! and b- the said three instrumental $itnesses on the same date
before attorne- %ose (-engco (ng, Notar- 5ublic in and for the Cit- of Manila1 and that the $ill
$as actuall- prepared b- attorne- Fermin <amson, $ho $as also present during the e!ecution
and signing of the decedent7s last $ill and testament, together $ith former :overnor Emilio ?ustia
of Bulacan, %udge ?amon Icasiano and a little girl. (f the said three instrumental $itnesses to the
e!ecution of the decedent7s last $ill and testament, attorne-s 'orres and Natividad $ere in the
5hilippines at the time of the hearing, and both testified as to the due e!ecution and authenticit-
of the said $ill. <o did the Notar- 5ublic before $hom the $ill $as acno$ledged b- the testatri!
and attesting $itnesses, and also attorne-s Fermin <amson, $ho actuall- prepared the
document. 'he latter also testified upon cross e!amination that he prepared one original and t$o
copies of %osefa &illacorte last $ill and testament at his house in Baliuag, Bulacan, but he brought
onl- one original and one signed cop- to Manila, retaining one unsigned cop- in Bulacan.
'he records sho$ that the original of the $ill, $hich $as surrendered simultaneousl- $ith the
filing of the petition and mared as E!hibit "A" consists of five pages, and $hile signed at the end
and in ever- page, it does not contain the signature of one of the attesting $itnesses, Att-. %ose &.
Natividad, on page three ./0 thereof1 but the duplicate cop- attached to the amended and
supplemental petition and mared as E!hibit "A-#" is signed b- the testatri! and her three
attesting $itnesses in each and ever- page.
'he testimon- presented b- the proponents of the $ill tends to sho$ that the original of the $ill
and its duplicate $ere subscribed at the end and on the left margin of each and ever- page
thereof b- the testatri! herself and attested and subscribed b- the three mentioned $itnesses in
the testatri!7s presence and in that of one another as $itnesses .e!cept for the missing signature
of attorne- Natividad on page three ./0 of the original01 that pages of the original and duplicate of
said $ill $ere dul- numbered1 that the attestation clause thereof contains all the facts re6uired b-
la$ to be recited therein and is signed b- the aforesaid attesting $itnesses1 that the $ill is $ritten
in the language no$n to and spoen b- the testatri! that the attestation clause is in a language
also no$n to and spoen b- the $itnesses1 that the $ill $as e!ecuted on one single occasion in
duplicate copies1 and that both the original and the duplicate copies $ere dul- acno$ledged
before Notar- 5ublic %ose (-engco of Manila on the same date %une ), #*+8.
@itness Natividad $ho testified on his failure to sign page three ./0 of the original, admits that he
ma- have lifted t$o pages instead of one $hen he signed the same, but affirmed that page three
./0 $as signed in his presence.
(ppositors-appellants in turn introduced e!pert testimon- to the effect that the signatures of the
testatri! in the duplicate .E!hibit "A-#"0 are not genuine nor $ere the- $ritten or affi!ed on the
same occasion as the original, and further aver that granting that the documents $ere genuine,
the- $ere e!ecuted through mistae and $ith undue influence and pressure because the testatri!
$as deceived into adopting as her last $ill and testament the $ishes of those $ho $ill stand to
benefit from the provisions of the $ill, as ma- be inferred from the facts and circumstances
surrounding the e!ecution of the $ill and the provisions and dispositions thereof, $hereb-
proponents-appellees stand to profit from properties held b- them as attorne-s-in-fact of the
deceased and not enumerated or mentioned therein, $hile oppositors-appellants are en3oined not
to loo for other properties not mentioned in the $ill, and not to oppose the probate of it, on
penalt- of forfeiting their share in the portion of free disposal.
@e have e!amined the record and are satisfied, as the trial court $as, that the testatri! signed
both original and duplicate copies .E!hibits "A" and "A-#", respectivel-0 of the $ill spontaneousl-,
on the same in the presence of the three attesting $itnesses, the notar- public $ho
acno$ledged the $ill1 and Att-. <amson, $ho actuall- prepared the documents1 that the $ill and
its duplicate $ere e!ecuted in 'agalog, a language no$n to and spoen b- both the testator and
the $itnesses, and read to and b- the testatri! and Att-. Fermin <amson, together before the-
$ere actuall- signed1 that the attestation clause is also in a language no$n to and spoen b- the
testatri! and the $itnesses. 'he opinion of e!pert for oppositors, Mr. Felipe Aogan, that the
signatures of the testatri! appearing in the duplicate original $ere not $ritten b- the same had
$hich $rote the signatures in the original $ill leaves us unconvinced, not merel- because it is
directl- contradicted b- e!pert Martin ?amos for the proponents, but principall- because of the
paucit- of the standards used b- him to support the conclusion that the differences bet$een the
standard and 6uestioned signatures are be-ond the $riter7s range of normal scriptural variation.
'he e!pert has, in fact, used as standards onl- three other signatures of the testatri! besides
those affi!ed to the original of the testament .E!h. A01 and $e feel that $ith so fe$ standards the
e!pert7s opinion and the signatures in the duplicate could not be those of the testatri! becomes
e!tremel- ha;ardous. 'his is particularl- so since the comparison charts Nos. / and B fail to sho$
convincingl- that the are radical differences that $ould 3ustif- the charge of forger-, taing into
account the advanced age of the testatri!, the evident variabilit- of her signatures, and the effect
of $riting fatigue, the duplicate being signed right the original. 'hese, factors $ere not discussed
b- the e!pert.
<imilarl-, the alleged slight variance in blueness of the in in the admitted and 6uestioned
signatures does not appear reliable, considering the standard and challenged $ritings $ere
affi!ed to different inds of paper, $ith different surfaces and reflecting po$er. (n the $hole,
therefore, $e do not find the testimon- of the oppositor7s e!pert sufficient to overcome that of the
notar- and the t$o instrumental $itnesses, 'orres and Natividad .>r. >i- being in the Cnited
<tates during the trial, did not testif-0.
Nor do $e find ade6uate evidence of fraud or undue influence. 'he fact that some heirs are more
favored than others is proof of neither .see In reButalid, #2 5hil. )91 Bugnao vs. Cbag, #B 5hil.
#8/1 5ecson vs. Coronal, B+ 5hil. )#80. >iversit- of apportionment is the usual reason for maing
a testament1 other$ise, the decedent might as $ell die intestate. 'he testamentar- dispositions
that the heirs should not in6uire into other propert- and that the- should respect the distribution
made in the $ill, under penalt- of forfeiture of their shares in the free part do not suffice to prove
fraud or undue influence. 'he- appear motivated b- the desire to prevent prolonged litigation
$hich, as sho$n b- ordinar- e!perience, often results in a si;eable portion of the estate being
diverted into the hands of non-heirs and speculators. @hether these clauses are valid or not is a
matter to be litigated on another occassion. It is also $ell to note that, as remared b- the Court
of Appeals in %ideco vs. %ideco, B+ (ff. :a;. #8,, fraud and undue influence are mutuall-
repugnant and e!clude each other1 their 3oining as grounds for opposing probate sho$s absence
of definite evidence against the validit- of the $ill.
(n the 6uestion of la$, $e hold that the inadvertent failure of one $itness to affi! his signature to
one page of a testament, due to the simultaneous lifting of t$o pages in the course of signing, is
not per se sufficient to 3ustif- denial of probate. Impossibilit- of substitution of this page is assured
not onl- the fact that the testatri! and t$o other $itnesses did sign the defective page, but also b-
its bearing the coincident imprint of the seal of the notar- public before $hom the testament $as
ratified b- testatri! and all three $itnesses. 'he la$ should not be so strictl- and literall-
interpreted as to penali;e the testatri! on account of the inadvertence of a single $itness over
$hose conduct she had no control, $here the purpose of the la$ to guarantee the identit- of the
testament and its component pages is sufficientl- attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation
e!isted, and the evidence on record attests to the full observance of the statutor- re6uisites.
(ther$ise, as stated in &da. de 'il. vs. (urciano, B* (ff. :a;. #B+*, at #B9* .decision on
reconsideration0 "$itnesses ma- sabotage the $ill b- muddling or bungling it or the attestation
clause".
'hat the failure of $itness Natividad to sign page three ./0 $as entirel- through pure oversight is
sho$n b- his o$n testimon- as $ell as b- the duplicate cop- of the $ill, $hich bears a complete
set of signatures in ever- page. 'he te!t of the attestation clause and the acno$ledgment before
the Notar- 5ublic lie$ise evidence that no one $as a$are of the defect at the time.
'his $ould not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict and literal application of the
statutor- re6uirements, $here the purposes of the la$ are other$ise satisfied. 'hus, despite the
literal tenor of the la$, this Court has held that a testament, $ith the onl- page signed at its foot
b- testator and $itnesses, but not in the left margin, could nevertheless be probated .Abangan vs.
Abangan, B# 5hil. B9801 and that despite the re6uirement for the correlative lettering of the pages
of a $ill, the failure to mae the first page either b- letters or numbers is not a fatal defect .Aope;
vs. Aiboro, ,# 5hil. B)*0. 'hese precedents e!emplif- the Court7s polic- to re6uire satisfaction of
the legal re6uirements in order to guard against fraud and bid faith but $ithout undue or
unnecessar- curtailment of the testamentar- privilege.
'he appellants also argue that since the original of the $ill is in e!istence and available, the
duplicate .E!h. A-#0 is not entitled to probate. <ince the- opposed probate of original because it
laced one signature in its third page, it is easil- discerned that oppositors-appellants run here
into a dilemma1 if the original is defective and invalid, then in la$ there is no other $ill but the dul-
signed carbon duplicate .E!h. A-#0, and the same is probatable. If the original is valid and can be
probated, then the ob3ection to the signed duplicate need not be considered, being superfluous
and irrelevant. At an- rate, said duplicate, E!hibit A-#, serves to prove that the omission of one
signature in the third page of the original testament $as inadvertent and not intentional.
'hat the carbon duplicate, E!hibit A-#, $as produced and admitted $ithout a ne$ publication
does not affect the 3urisdiction of the probate court, alread- conferred b- the original publication of
the petition for probate. 'he amended petition did not substantiall- alter the one first filed, but
merel- supplemented it b- disclosing the e!istence of the duplicate, and no sho$ing is made that
ne$ interests $ere involved .the contents of E!hibit A and A-# are admittedl- identical01 and
appellants $ere dul- notified of the proposed amendment. It is no$here proved or claimed that
the amendment deprived the appellants of an- substantial right, and $e see no error in admitting
the amended petition.
IN &IE@ (F '4E F(?E:(IN:, the decision appealed from is affirmed, $ith costs against
appellants.
)en*+on, -.J., .adilla, )autista /n*elo, 0a1rador, -oncepcion, .aredes, Re*ala and (akalintal,
JJ., concur.
)arrera and Di+on, JJ., took no part.