Scribd
Upload
187 views1 page

Digest 16. Merza Vs Porras

The Supreme Court denied probate of the last will and testament (Exhibit A) and codicil (Exhibit B) of Pilar Montealegre. Exhibit B disinherited some of the deceased's collateral relatives and husband. The opponents argued the attestation clause of Exhibit A was defective because it did not state the testatrix and witnesses signed each page or that she signed in their presence. While the attestation clause was poorly written, the Court found it implied the testatrix signed in the witnesses' presence, and admitted both Exhibits A and B to probate subject to the rights of the disinherited to contest.

Uploaded by

Loraine Ferrer
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
187 views1 page

Digest 16. Merza Vs Porras

The Supreme Court denied probate of the last will and testament (Exhibit A) and codicil (Exhibit B) of Pilar Montealegre. Exhibit B disinherited some of the deceased's collateral relatives and husband. The opponents argued the attestation clause of Exhibit A was defective because it did not state the testatrix and witnesses signed each page or that she signed in their presence. While the attestation clause was poorly written, the Court found it implied the testatrix signed in the witnesses' presence, and admitted both Exhibits A and B to probate subject to the rights of the disinherited to contest.

Uploaded by

Loraine Ferrer
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

L-4888, May 25, 1953 MerzavsPorras The Courtdenied the probate of the last will and testament and so-called codicil, identified as Exhibits A and B, of PilarMontealegre, deceased. The testatrix was survived by the husband and collateral relatives, some of whom, along with the husband, were disinherited in Exhibit B for the reasons set forth therein. The opposition to Exhibit A was predicated on alleged defects of the attestation clause. The opponent objected that this clause did not state that the tetratrix and the witnesses had signed each and every page of the will or that she had signed the instrument in the presence of the witnesses. The Appellate Court dismissed the first objection, finding that "failure to estate in the attestation clause in question that the testatrix and/or the witnesses had signed each and every page of Exhibit A were cured by the fact that each one of the page of the instrument appears to be signed by the testatrix and the three attesting witnesses but held the second objection well taken. Did the alleged defect in the attestation clause annul the will? It must be admitted that the attestation clause was very poor drawn, its language exceedingly ungrammatical to the point of being difficult to understand; but from a close examination of the whole context in relation to its purpose the implication seems clear that the testatrix signed in the presence of the witnesses. In consonance with the principle of liberal interpretation, the SC admitted to be constrained to hold the attestation clause under consideration sufficient and valid. Should exhibit B be admitted to probate? Exhibit B does partake of the nature of a will. The new Civil Code as "an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his death. Exhibit B comes within this definition. Being of testamentary character and having been made with all the formalities of law, Exhibit B is entitled to probate as an independent testamentary disposition. It is a well-established rule that two separate and distinct wills may be probated if one does not revoke the other. It also follows that Exhibit B is a legal and effective vehicle for excluding lawful heirs from testate or intestate succession. The SC held that the instruments Exhibit A and B admitted to probate, subject to the rights of the disinherited personto contest the disinheritance.

You might also like