You are on page 1of 2

RULE 75

ICASIANO vs. ICASIANO


G.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE
OF THE LATE JOSEFA VILLACORTE.
CELSO
ICASIANO,
petitioner-appellee,
vs. NATIVIDAD ICASIANO, and ENRIQUE
ICASIANO, oppositors-appellants.

REYES,J.B.L., J.:

FACTS:
1. On October 2, 1958, Celso Icasiano,
filed a petition for the probate of the
will of the deceased Josefa Villacorte
and for his appointment as executor
thereof. It appears from the evidence
that the testatrix died on September
12, 1958. She executed a will in
Tagalog, and through the help of her
lawyer Atty. Fermin Samson, it was
prepared in duplicates, an original and
a carbon copy.

2. On October 31, 1958, Natividad


Icasiano, testatrixs daughter, opposed
this petition for probate and sought for
her
appointment
as
special
administrator.

3. The records show that the original of


the will which was surrendered
simultaneously with the filing of the
petition consists of 5 pages, and while
signed at the end and in every page, it
does not contain the signature of one

of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose V.


Natividad, on page 3 thereof; but the
duplicate copy attached to the
amended and supplemental petition
was signed by the testratix and her 3
attesting witnesses in each and every
page.
4. On the day that it was subscribed and
attested, the lawyer only brought the
original copy of the will while the
carbon duplicate (unsigned copy) was
left in Bulacan. Atty. Natividad failed to
sign one of the pages in the original
copy but admitted that he may have
just lifted 2 pages simultaneously
instead when he signed the will.
Nevertheless, he affirmed that the will
was signed by the testator and other
witnesses in his presence.

ISSUES:
1. WON the failure of one of the
subscribing witnesses to affix his
signature to a page is sufficient to
deny probate of the will.
2. WON the production and admission of
the carbon duplicate without new
publication affects the jurisdiction of
the probate court.

HELD:
1. NO. The failure to sign was entirely
through
pure
oversight
or
mere
inadvertence. Since the duplicated copy
bore the required signatures, this proves
that the omission was not intentional.

Even if the original is in existence, a


duplicate may still be admitted to
probate since the original is deemed to
be defective, then in law, there is no
other will but the duly signed carbon
duplicate and the same can be probated.

The law should not be strictly and literally


interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on
account of the inadvertence of a single
witness over whose conduct she has no
control of. Where the purpose of the law
is to guarantee the identity of the
testament and its component pages, no
intentional
or
deliberate
deviation
existed.

Note that this ruling should not be taken


as a departure from the rules that the will
should be signed by the witnesses on
every page. The carbon copy duplicate
was regular in all respects.

2. NO. That the signed carbon duplicate of a


will was produced and admitted without a
new publication of a will was produced
and admitted without a new publication
does not affect the jurisdiction of the
probate court, already conferred by the
original publication of the petition for
probate, where the amended petition did
not substantially alter the first one filed,
but merely supplemented it by disclosing
the
existence
of
said
duplicate.

Decision appealed from (Order of the CFI of


Manila admitting to probate the document
and its duplicate) is affirmed.