Case Digest Sux Javellana Sano

G.R. No.
L-13781 January 30, 1960
Testate Estate of JOSE J. JAVELLANA, Deceased. CRISTETA JIMENEA

VDA. DE JAVELLANA, and BENJAMIN JAVELLANA, petitioners-appellees,
vs. JOSE JAVELLANA y AZAOLA and JOSE JAVELLANA, JR., oppositors-
appellants.
Facts:
On June 29, 1957, a petition to probate the alleged last will and
testament of Jose J. Javellana, who died on May 24 of the same year, was
presented in the Court of First Instance of Rizal by Cristeta Jimenea Vda. de
Javellana and Benjamin Javellana.
They alleged that at the time of his death, he left properties with an
approximate value of P400,000.00; that he also left a will which was
delivered to the clerk of court pursuant to the Rules of Court.
However, Jose Javellana y Azaola and Jose Javellana, Jr. (Pepito) filed
separate oppositions, both claiming that the alleged will of Jose J. Javellana
deposited by petitioners with the clerk of court was null and void, the same
not having been executed "in accordance with the formalities required by
law" and that "the legal requirements necessary for its validty" had not been
complied with.
At the hearing, petitioners introduced as evidence in support of the

petition, a copy of the will; certification of the date and cause of death of the
testator; proof of publication of the petition, once a week for 3 consecutive
weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation, and three testimonies of Jose
G. Guevarra, Eloisa Villanueva and Jose Yulo, Jr., the 3 instrumental
witnesses to the will, which, in substance, testified that sometime in April,
1956, they were asked to witness the execution of the will of the late Jose.
J. Javellana; that on the said occasion, Jose J. Javellana signed the 4 pages
of the will in their presence, and they, in turn, also signed each and evey
page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another; and that
these acts were acknowledge before notary public Fernando Grey, Jr. on the
same occasion.
The oppositor limited their evidence to the presentation of two letters

in the Visayan dialect allegedly written by the deceased, the signatures
appearing thereon being identified by Jose Javellana, Jr. (Pepito) and Manuel
Azaola, as those of the deceased, for the sole purpose of comparing said
signatures with those appearing in the will.
Issue:
Whether or not the will was which was executed in a language or

dialectnot known to the testator be probated.
Ruling:
No. Although, the Supreme Court found that that all the formal
requisites for the validity of the will have been satisfactorily establishment,
except the language requirement, the Court deems it in the interest of
justice to afford the parties an opportunity to present evidence, if they so
desire, on this controverted issue.
There is some merit in appellant's contention that the language

requirement of the law on wills has not been satisfactorily complied with in
this case. Admittedly, there is want of expression in the body of the will itself
or in its attestation clause that the testator knew Spanish, the language in
which it is written. It is true that there is no statutory provision requiring this
and that proof thereof may be established by evidence aliunde.
But here, there is absolutely no such evidence presented by the

petitioners-appellees. Not even the petition for probate contains any
allegation to this effect. No reference to it whatsoever is made in the
appealed order. In some cases, it is true, this lack of evidence was
considered cured by presumption of knowledge of the language or dialect
used in the will, as where the will is executed in a certain province or
locality, in the dialect currently used in such province or locality in which the
testator is a native or resident, the presumption arises that the testator
knew the dialect so used, in the absence of evidence to the contrary; 3 or
where the will is in Spanish, the fact that the testatrix was a "mestiza
espanola", was married to a Spaniard, made several trips to Spain, and
some of her letters in her own handwriting submitted as evidence by the
oppositor, are in Spanish, give rise to the presumption that she knew the
language in which the will was written, in the absence of proof to the
contrary. In the case before us, no such or similar circumstances exist. On
the contrary, there is evidence that the testator is a Visayan although
residing in San Juan, Rizal at the time of his death. The will was executed in
the City of Manila. Undoubtedly, it cannot be said, and there is no evidence,
that Spaniards is the language currently used either in San Juan, Rizal, or
Manila. It follows, therefore, that no presumption can rise that the testator
knew the Spanish Language. Therefore, the case was remanded to the court
of origin for further proceedings.
G.R. No. 24556, December 18, 1925 ]
IN RE WILL OF VICTORIA QUINTANA, DECEASED. EMILIANO S. SAÑO,

PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. MAMERTO QUINTANA ET AL., OPPONENTS
AND APPELLANTS.
DECISION
AVANCEÃ'A, C.J.:
The judgment appealed from allowed the probate of the will of the deceased
Victoria Quintana executed on March 22, 1924. Without going into a
discussion of the points raised by the parties as to the formalities of this will
we find a sufficient reason for reversing the judgment appealed from and
denying the probate thereof.
In the attestation clause there is no statement that the witnesses to the will
have signed on the left margin of each page of the will in the presence of the
testatrix. Section 618 of Act No. 190, as amended by Act No. 2645, provides
that the attestation clause shall state the fact that the testator signed the
will and all the pages thereof, or caused another person to place his name
thereon at his expressed direction in the presence of the three witnesses to
the will, and that the latter signed the will and all its pages in the presence
of the testator and of each other.
In the case of Vy Coque vs. Navas L. Sioca (43 Phil., 405), this court has
held that the requirement that the attestation clause must contain the
statement that the witnesses signed in the presence of each other is
imperative and non-compliance with it annuls the will. The same argument
set forth in said case in support of this doctrine may be adduced for holding
that the will is also null and void when in the attestation clause it does not
appear that the witnesses to the will signed it and every page thereof on the
left margin and in the presence of the testatrix. In order to insure the
authenticity of a will, which is the object of the law, it is just as important, if
not the most important, that the witnesses should sign in the presence of
the testator and of each other.
The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the probate of the will of
Victoria Quintana is denied, without special pronouncement as to costs. So
ordered.

Case Digest Sux Javellana Sano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Sux Javellana Sano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Sux Javellana Sano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-13781 January 30, 1960

Testate Estate of JOSE J. JAVELLANA, Deceased. CRISTETA JIMENEA

At the hearing, petitioners introduced as evidence in support of the

The oppositor limited their evidence to the presentation of two letters

Whether or not the will was which was executed in a language or

There is some merit in appellant's contention that the language

But here, there is absolutely no such evidence presented by the

G.R. No. 24556, December 18, 1925 ]

IN RE WILL OF VICTORIA QUINTANA, DECEASED. EMILIANO S. SAÑO,

You might also like