c.
) TESTATE ESTATE of the LATE ALIPIO ABADA vs ABAJA
FACTS:
Respondent Abaja filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of Abada who died
sometime in 1940. His widow Toray died three years thereafter wherein both of them died without legitimate
children. Abada allegedly named as his testamentary heirs his natural children Eulogio Abaja and Rosario
Cordova. Alipio Baja is the son of Eulogio.
However, this petition was opposed by Caponong on the ground that Abada left no will when he died in
1940. He further alleged that the will should be disallowed for the following reasons such as it was not
executed and attested as required by law; it was not intended as the last will of the testator and it was procured
by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries. Sometime in 1968, Alipio filed
another petition regarding the probate of the will of Toray again this was opposed by Caponong and the
intestate heirs.
The trial court admitted the probate of the will of Toray and the order allowing the probate of Torays will
became final and executory since there was no motion for reconsideration filed against it. Caponong-Noble
moved for the dismissal of the petition for the probate of the will of Abada but this was denied. Furthermore, the
RTC ruled that there is substantial compliance with the formalities of the will as the law directs thus, the last will
and testament of Alipio Abada is admitted and allowed probate. The resolution of the trial court was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals and found that the probate of the will of Abada was properly admitted.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision of sustaining the trial courts decision in admitting the
probate of the will of Abada
RULING:
NO. The Court of Appeals is correct when it affirmed the resolution made by the trial court in admitting the
probate of the will of Abada. The defects contented to be present in the will have no merit since these were
rebutted by the laws provided in the execution of the will.
As to the applicable law that must be enforced in the case at hand, the laws in force at that time are the
Civil Code of 1889 and the Code of Civil Procedure which governed the execution of wills before the
enactment of the New Civil Code. The matter in dispute in this case is the attestation clause. As to the matter
of lack of acknowledgement before a notary public, considering that the applicable laws governing the will of
Abada are the Old Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure, it was stated in the latter law that prevention of
a notary is not necessary in the execution of any will. Thus, Abadas will does not require acknowledgement
before a notary public. As to the fact that the language or dialect used in the will must be known to the testator,
Caponong-Noble claimed that there is no part of the will that can discern whether Abada knew the Spanish
language. On this issue, the CA held that the matter was not raised in the motion to dismiss and it is too late to
raise the issue on appeal. It has to be noted that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply in probate
proceedings but still the contenton will still fail since there is no statutory requirement with regard to the matter
that the testator knew the language or dialect known to the will and this will be proven by proof aliunde.
As to matter whether there is an attestation clause in Abadas will, it is evident that there is. CaponongNoble alleged that it failed to state the number of pages used in the will but this contention has no merit
because of this phrase "en el margen izquierdo de todas y cada una de las dos hojas de que esta compuesto
el mismo" which means "in the left margin of each and every one of the two pages consisting of the same"
shows that the will consists of two pages. The pages are numbered correlatively with the letters "ONE" and
"TWO" as can be gleaned from the phrase "las cuales estan paginadas correlativamente con las letras "UNO"
y "DOS.
However, Caponong-Noble is correct in saying that the attestation clause does not indicate the number
of witnesses. On this issue, the rule on substantial compliance can be applied to determine the number of the
witnesses. Liberate construction in the probate of Abadas will shall be applied. In this case, the decision of the
Court of Appeals has been granted.
