G.R. No.

L-47931 June 27, 1941

Rev. P. Testamentary the late Eleuterio Pilapil. ADRIANO MENDOZA, applicant and
respondent,
vs.
CALIXTO Pilapil AND OTHERS opponents and appellants.

Filemon Sotto D. and D. G. Estenzo Numeriano representing the appellants.

Messrs. Alonso and Alonso for appellee.

DIAZ, J .:

The main issues that opponents present us for resolution, to appeal the decision of
the Court of First Instance of Cebu, issued in the record of testamentary No. 407 of
the Court, may be reduced to following the vessel.

1st Cebu If the court could appoint the March 4, 1939, the appellee as special
administrator of estate of the decedent relict P. Eleuterio Pilapil (testamentary
record 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 same record Intestate decedent P. Eleuterio Pilapil, in this Court (file No.
399, Court of Cebu); Y

2nd If proceeded and proceeds legalization as a will or living will of the late P.
Eleuterio Pilapil, the car obrante document as Exhibit A that is a duplicate of the
coal Exhibit C.

The relevant facts must be taken into account in resolving the issues proposed are,
as reflected by the appealed decision and the same documents as the Court declare
to be last will and testament of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, those below are related :

Father Eleuterio Pilapil, being priest of the parish of Mualboal of the Province of
Cebu, died in the city of that name on 6 December 1935. absence of any submitted
his will after his death, at least until early February 1939, his brother Calixto Pilapil
promoted the 6th of such month and year, the record of intestacy No. 399 to ask
fuesenombrado manager of the relict goods. Received test the request submitted to
elindicado end prior publication of notices presritos by law, and hearing the court
prior to the quecomparecieron to oppose it, among which were the same appeal
and Simeona Pilapil, the Court He granted it, immediately afterwards naming him
administrator of the Intestate. Within a few days, or the March 4, 1939, the
respondent promoted in turn file No. 407 previously has been mentioned, to call for
the legalization as a testament of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, of Exhibit A that is
doubled to carbon Exhibit C. There are between the clauses of these two
documents, which are then inserted by its relevance to the issues raised and also
the importance

I, Eleuterio Pilapil, Priest of natural Roman Catholic Church, sixty-eight years old, of
Liloan, currently pastor of the Parish of Mualboal, Province of Cebu, IF, enjoying
health and being of sound mental faculties, hereby, publish, declare and grant the
following as MY LAST WILL aND TESTAMENT:

ART. FIRST: I institute and appointed Mr. Adrian Mendoza, my nephew, married, of
legal age and resident of the Municipality of Liloan, Cebu Province, IF, EXECUTORexecutor of this my last will and testament: Provided, That in case of impossibility,
negligence or other cause with that embarrasses enforce this my last will and
testament, through bail, dispose and ordered it to be replaced in the position of
executor-executor of this my last will and testament, by my cousin, Jose Cabatingan,
married, of legal age, resident Municipiop of Mualboal, Cebu Province, IF, who is
responsible and will make these my following provisions are met:

xxxxxxxxx

2nd do I have and command this my Last Will and Testament not be heard by the
Court, since this last will and testament, simply corroborates claims and ensures the
legitimacy of the documents for the sale of my property;

xxxxxxxxx

ART. SECOND: Hereby, I note that this My Last Will and Testament, which
corroborates claims and ensures the legitimacy of documents by my granted to
buyers consists of two articles; It contains sixteen provisions and is written on three
pages;

xxxxxxxxx

Cebu, Cebu, I.F., nowadays November 27, 1935.

(Signed) ELEUTERIO Pilapil

Testator;

at the end thereof (exhibits A and C), there is this clause Witnessing:

When shall read:

HEALTH,

We who have signed below, we state: That the pre-insert Last Will and Testament,
has been signed, and jury declared by the testator, Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil in the
presence of all of us and beg of the testator, we signed each of us in the presence
of us, here in Cebu, Cebu, IF, nowadays 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 on the left of each
of the first two margin; firms that are at the end of the main body of these
documents and their attestation clause appear; and they are, according to the
evidence, signatures of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, and witnesses Pilapil Wenceslas,
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" about which try to scrape but may even be that said
"Mualboal"; and also shows the numeral "27" and the name of more "November",
written the latter on a scraped word that can even be too without any difficulty, 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 following explicit reference: "contains sixteen provisions and is written
on three pages." At the bottom of the pages (1) and (2) there is respectively these
notes: "Go to page 2."; "Go to page 3.". And it should be noted that both the one
and the other of the aforementioned Exhibits A and C, no more than two articles
( "Art. First" and "Art. Second"), and dieceseis provisions.

The reasons for 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 explain the respondent stopped;

(B) That has not been proven that the decedent - prescindimiento of what is stated
in those documents exhibits A and C - age was competent to test;

(C) That has not proved that the deceased possessed the Spanish is the language in
which these documents are written;

(D) in one of the clauses of these documents is no prohibition that aired in slab
Courts;

(E) That neither 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
piece of Appeal of the appellants, both Nos. 399 and 407 records were promoted in
two different Chambers of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The first was
promoted in Room III; and the last, in Room II. Upon hearing the Judge of one of
those boards that there was a direct relationship between daub and another,
provided that the two were known by a single judge; hence both are considered as
one to avoid what the judge said said, "inconsistency in the administration of the
property of the deceased," referring to; P. Eleuterio late Pilapil.

Certainly did not lack reason to Cebu court to appoint special administrator in file
No. 407, the appellee, because there are documents sought to legalize as a
testament and living will of the late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, has commissioned express it
to be. In addition, there was not no law that prohibits the courts hearing a record of
testamentary or intestate, appoint more than one administrator; and, if I happened
is that annulled the appointment of the appellant as an administrator, then the two
mentioned records were melted. But still; If the purpose of the appellants in
proposing the question of which we are speaking, is nullifying the appointment
issued to appellee as special administrator, is vain and futile must be said purpose,
because insisting on the amounts to be appealing to a court order appointing a
special administrator; and the law does not allow for appeal against orders of this
nature. It is final disposition of the law that says, "Do not allow appeal against the
appointment of the special manager." (Art. 660, Law No. 190.)

In addition to all this 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
already appointed by the court, the error, if such it can be called, has not been such
nature that has caused any harm to anyone, least of late Probate P. Eleuterio Pilapil.

Scratches and changes that are noted in Exhibits A and C are some facts that now,
for the first time, and in this instance, want llamr attention, when it should have
been done while the case was still in court of its origin. We can not take them into

account in the present state of the proceedings because, assuming that already
existed then, can and should be, though not the Court of Cebu, I believe that these
documents did not vitiate said in express terms; it is rebuttable presumption that
"all facts concerning the points 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 from the same circumstances, they 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 his death, the Southern Islands Hospital of Cebu, where he died.
Being based the Court on these facts proved at trial, I stated the following: "The
intervention of the three attesting witnesses of the document took place in a
haphazard way, on the occasion in which they were to visit Eleuterio Pilapil who was
ill at the Southern Islands Hospital, where the decedent today begged them to act
as witnesses of the document and had then prepared ".

To prepare the, being in Mualboal, was no more than natural that expressed in it
that there were prepared, and leave blank the date but still put the name of the
month they were placed in clean, ie October 1935.

As for the age of the testator and as to whether he spoke Spanish is the language in
which they are written the two exhibits, or not, it should be said that being a priest
and parish priest of Mualboal, Cebu, must be presumed fundademente who had age
competent to test, and understood and spoken the Spanish, then, is generally
known that to be a parish priest, one must be a priest, and to be, many years of
study in seminaries where Spanish is spoken it is necessary a language as official as
English. Moreover, no evidence has been proved that the testator did not
understand that language.

The disposition of the testator that his "Last Will and Testament not be heard by the
court" can not strip the courts of their authority to determine whether your will is
referred legalizable or not. They are stakeholders in one way or another on an issue,
which can confer or remove jurisdiction and authority to Trubunales to resolve and
decide what it wants law to be resolved and decided. It should be noted that the law
mandates under penalty, to be delivered to the court the Wills made by a testator,
then this die by the person to whom custody has been entrusted, so certainly that
can determine whether your legalization and at the same time to dispose of their
property as mandated therein; or if the contract must be declared died intestate,
not be subject to legalization which has been granted. (. 626 631 Arts, Law No.
190.) Furthermore, the testator not being a lawyer, it is not surprising that has been
entered in his will the ban that - using his own words - "it is aired in court" .

And as to the exhibits A and C can not be legalized because they were not prepared
or were signed in accordance with the law, saying that their pages are not
numbered with letters; and because in its clause Witnessing 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 letters note
that says clearly: " Go to the 2nd page "; and the fact that, at the bottom of the
second page, there is this other note: "Go to the 3rd page"; and suffice also draw
attention to the first two lines of said third page is the last, where, to complete the
provision that is contained in the last paragraph of the previous page, or second, it
is stated:

. . . It consists of two articles; contien

Sixteen provisions and is written
three pages,

which agrees faithfully with the true facts as they appear in the aforementioned two
exhibits, because actually contain two articles and sixteen provisions, not more, not
less.

Witnessing the clause in one and another copy of the subject matter Testament, by
the three attesting witnesses who signed states that

pre-insert the Last Will and Testament,

She has been signed, declared and sworn by
The testator, Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil
in the presence of all of us;

And immediately afterwards, it is also stated by the same witnesses that:

to beg of the testator, we signed

each of us, here in Cebu, Cebu,

I.F., nowadays November 27, 1935.

The fraze "to beg of the testator", coupled with that signed and signed his will in the
presence of attesting witnesses, permits and justifies the inference that the testator
was present when the last there affixed their respective signatures.

The purpose of the law to establish the formalities authenticity required, is

undoubtedly ensure and guarantee their authenticity against bad faith and fraud, to
prevent those who have no right to succeed the testator will happen and win-win
with the legalization of same. Has fulfilled that purpose in the case that has been
talked about because, in the same body of the will and in the same page where the
clause Witnessing appears, that is the third, expresses the will consists of three
pages and that each one of the first two leads in part the note in letters, and partly
and second pages of it. These facts clearly excluded all fear, suspicion, or any hint
of doubt that has replaced some of its pages with another.

Something more than in the case of Nayve against Mojal and Aguilar (47 Phil. Rep.,
160), which was clarified by the cause of Gumban against Gorecho and other (50
Phil. Rep., 31), there is in this case because there there was but notes: "Pag. 1";
"Page 2."; "Page 3."; and "Pag. 4" on the respective side of the four pages of which
it is composed, and present no data already mentioned and there is also the record
inserted into the first two lines of the third page of the exhibits A and C, that they
are composed of three pages, and contain two sixteen articles and provisions.

They are therefore perfect application to the case that is what we said in the causes
of Rodriguez against Yap, R. G. No. 45924, May 18, 1939; and Fortunate against De
Gorostiza (57 Phil. Rep., 456). We said in these causes, respectively, the following:

The wording of the clause Witnessing this will not technically free repairs, but is
essentially 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 believe
that they should not be considered defects that can not affect this end and, on the

other part , be taken into account, could thwart the will of the testator. (Rodriguez
against Yap, supra.)

It should not be allowed to legal formalities hinder the use of good common sense in
considering wills and frustrate the wishes of the deceased solemnly expressed in
their wills, regarding the granting of which there is not even the shadow of bad faith
or fraud. (Fortunate against De Gorostiza, supra.)

For these reasons, finding appealed according to law the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Cebu, hereby confirm it, condemned the appellants to pay the
costs. So it is ordered.

Avancea, Pres., Diaz, Laurel, and Horrilleno Moran, JJ., Concur.

Separate Opinions

MORAN, M., dissenting:

The attestation clause is as follows:

We who have signed below, we state: That the pre-insert Last Will and Testament,
has been signed, and jury declared by the testator, Rev. P. Eleuterio Pilapil in the
presence of all of us and beg of the testator, we signed each of us in the presence
of us, here in Cebu, Cebu, IF, nowadays 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 legalized. But most it
argues that "the phrase 'to beg of the testator,' attached to that signed and signed
his will in the presence of attesting witnesses, allowed and justified inference that
the testator was present when the last alli signed their respective firms." But, as we
have said repeatedly that the solemnities of a will required by law can not be

proven by tests aliunde. Therefore, inference tests are inadmissible inference mostly
if not entirely set to logic.

For these reasons, I dissent from the majority opinion.