G.R. No. 16008 - SEPTEMBER 1921 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 16008September 29, 1921 In Re Lucina Andrada. Lucila Arce G.R. No. 16454September 29, 1921 George A. Kauffman vs. Philippine National Bank G.R. No. L-17144September 29, 1921 United States vs. Lamberto A. Geta G.R. No. 16256September 28, 1921 Dionisia Valencia, et al. vs. Honorio Acala, et al. G.R. No. 14904September 19, 1921 Francisco D. Lunsod, et al. vs. Sinforoso Ortega, et al. G.R. No. 16257September 19, 1921 Esteban Cabuhat vs. Casiano Ansay G.R. No. L-16961September 19, 1921 United States vs. Nieves G. de Vera G.R. No. 16805September 16, 1921 United States vs. Calixto D. Berbari G.R. No. 15566September 14, 1921 Eutiquia Avera vs. Marino Garcia, et al. G.R. No. 15823September 12, 1921 Julio Danon vs. Antonio A. Brimo & Co. G.R. No. 16703September 12, 1921 Ichisuke Agari vs. Government of the Philippine Islands G.R. No. 16077September 10, 1921 Corporacion de PP. Dominicos vs. Maria Lazaro G.R. No. 16798September 10, 1921 Gavino Tan Yungquip vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 17274September 9, 1921 United States vs. Gregorio Perfecto G.R. No. 17218September 8, 1921 People of the Philippine vs. Narciso C. Vistan G.R. No. 15915September 7, 1921 Leoncio M. Seña vs. Manila Railroad Company G.R. No. 17374September 1, 1921 United States vs. Juan Mananquil G.R. No. 17870September 1, 1921 Matea Pampolina vs. Maria Nieves Suiza The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. In Re Lucina Andrada. Lucila Arce George A. Kauffman vs. Philippine National Bank United States vs. Lamberto A. Geta Dionisia Valencia, et al. vs. Honorio Acala, et al. Francisco D. Lunsod, et al. vs. Sinforoso Ortega, et al. Esteban Cabuhat vs. Casiano Ansay United States vs. Nieves G. de Vera United States vs. Calixto D. Berbari Eutiquia Avera vs. Marino Garcia, et al. Julio Danon vs. Antonio A. Brimo & Co. Ichisuke Agari vs. Government of the Philippine Islands Corporacion de PP. Dominicos vs. Maria Lazaro Gavino Tan Yungquip vs. Director of Lands United States vs. Gregorio Perfecto People of the Philippine vs. Narciso C. Vistan Leoncio M. Seña vs. Manila Railroad Company United States vs. Juan Mananquil Matea Pampolina vs. Maria Nieves Suiza The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 16008           September 29, 1921

IN RE WILL OF THE DECEASED LUCINA ANDRADA, LUCILA ARCE,petitioner-appellant.

J. Dorado, J. Tirol, and J. Hontiveros for appellant.

STREET,J.:

Lucina Andrada died on June 5, 19919, in the Municipality of Capiz, Province of Capiz; and soon thereafter a petition was presented to the Cour of First Instance of Capiz by Lucila Arce to establish a document purporting to be the last will and testament of the deceased. Upon hearing the petition, his Honor, Judge Antonio Villareal, declared that the document in question had not been executed in conformity with the requirements of section 618 of the Coe of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645 of the Philippine Legislature. He therefore refused to admit the purported will to probate, and the petitioner appealed.

The attesting clause of the will in question is incorporated in the will itself, constituting the last paragraph thereof; and its defect consists in the fact that it does not state the number of sheets or pages upon which the will is written, though it does state that the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses signed on every page, as is in fact obvious from an inspection of the instrument. Each of the pages moreover bears successively the Visayan words, "isa," "duha," "tatlo," "apat," "lima," which mean respectively "one," "two," "three," "four," "five," Visayan being the dialect in which the instrument is written.

By section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645, it is required that each and every page of the will shall be numbered correlatively in letters and that the attesting clause shall state the number of sheets or pages used.

Without decising in this case whether the will in question is rendered invalid by reason of the manner in which the pages are numbered, the court is unanimous upon the point that the defect pointed out in the attesting clause is fatal. The law plainly says that the attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, the eident purpose being to safeguard the document from the possiblity of the interpolation of additional pages or the omission of some of the pages actually used. It is true that this point is also safeguarded by the other two requirements that the pages shall be consecutively lettered and that each page shall be singed on the left margin by the testator and the witnesses. In light of these requirements it is really difficult to see any practical necessity for the additional requirement that the attesting clause shall state the number of sheets or pages used. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the last mentioned requirement affords additional secuirty against the danger that the will may be tampered with; and as the Legislature has seen fit to prescribe this requirement, it must be considered material.

In two cases we have held that the failure to comply with the strict requirements of this law does not invalidate the instrument, but the irregularities presented in those cases were entirely rivial, the defect in one case being that a willin which the dispositive part consisted of a single sheet was not signed in the margin in addition to being signed at the bottom (In rewill of Abangan, 40 Phil., 476); in the others, that the pages comprising the body of the will were signed by the testator and witnesses on the right margin instead of the left (Averavs.Garcia and Rodriguez, p. 145,ante). In the case now before us the defect is, in our opinion, of more significance; and the rule here applicable is that enunciated inCaraig vs. Tatlonghari, R.G. No. 12558, decided March 23, 1918, not reported, and (In reestate of Saguinsim, 41 Phil., 875), in each of which the will was held to be invalid.

It results that the trial judge did not err in refusing probate of the will, and the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered, with costs against the appellant.

Johnson, Araullo, Avanceña and Villamor, JJ.,concur.