Icasiano vs.

Icasiano
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOSEFA VILLACORTE.
CELSO ICASIANO, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
NATIVIDAD ICASIANO and ENRIQUE ICASIANO, oppositors-appellants.
Notes: (from business dictionary)
Definition of duplicate copy
The two classifications are: (1) copies produced for information purposes only and which may be
destroyed after use, and (2) copies that have administrative, fiscal, legal, or historical value.
Definition of duplicate original
A copy that has all the essential aspects of the original, including signatures.
Notes
A duplicate original of a letter may be created and sent by different routes to increase the
likelihood that at least one original copy arrives to the addressee.
FACTS:
1. JosefaVillacorta executed her last will and testament in duplicate on June 2, 1956 and she
died on Sept. 12, 1958. The will was:
* attested by three instrumental witnesses- Justo Torres Jr., Jose Natividad and VinicioDy
* acknowledged by the testatrix and the three instrumental witnesses on the same date
before Atty. Ong, Notary Public
* the will was actually prepared by Atty. Samson who was present during the execution
and signing of the decedents last will and testament.
* pages of the original and duplicate were duly numbered
* the attestation clause contains all the facts required by law to be recited therein and
signed by the attesting witnesses
* will is written in the language known to and spoken by the testatrix (Tagalog)
* will was executed in one single occasion in duplicate copies
* both original and duplicate copies were duly acknowledged before the Notary Public on
the same date.
2. The will consisted of five 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 Natividad on page 3 thereof; but
the duplicate copy attached was signed by the testatrix and the three attesting witnesses in each
and every page.

ISSUE: Does the failure of one of the attesting witnesses to sign on one page of the original
invalidate the will, and hence, denial of the probate?
HELD: NO.
1. The inadvertent failure of one of the witnesses to affix his signature to one page of a
testament, due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is not per se
sufficient to justify the denial of the probate. The impossibility of substituting this page is cured
since the testatrix and two other witnesses signed the defective page, and that the document bears
the imprint of the seal of the notary public before whom the testament was ratified by the
testatrix and all three witnesses.
2. 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, where the purpose
of the law to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently
attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation existence, and the evidence on record attests to the
full observance of the statutory requisites.
3. Despite the literal tenor of the law, the Court has held that in other cases that;
a. a testament with the only page signed at its foot by the testator and witnesses but not in the
left margin could be probated(Abangan vs. Abangan)
b. despite the requirement of correlative lettering of the pages of a will, the failure to make the
first page either by letters or numbers is not a fatal defect (Lopez vs. Liboro).
These precedents exemplify the Courts policy to require satisfaction of the legal requirements in
order to guard against fraud and bad faith, but without undue or unnecessary curtailment of the
testamentary privilege.
4. The appellants also argued that since the original of the will is in existence and available, the
duplicate is not entitled to probate. Since they opposed the probate of the original because of the
lacking signature on page 3, it is easily discerned that the oppositors-appellants run into a
dilemma. If the original is defective and invalid, then in the law, there is no other will but the
duly signed carbon duplicate, and the same is probatable. If the original is valid and can be
probated, then the objection to the signed duplicate need not be considered, being superfluous
and irrelevant. At any rate, said duplicate, serves to prove that the omission of one signature in
the third page of the original testament was inadvertent and not intentional.