060 Gil v Murciano

Testate estate of CARLOS GIL, deceased. ISABEL HERRERO VDA. DE GIL, administratrix-ae!!ee, "s. #ILAR GIL VDA. DE $%RCIA&O, oositor-ae!!ant. 'ACTS(

Carl Carlos os Gil exec execut uted ed a last last will and testam testamen ent. t. Afte Afterr his his deat death, h, it was was presented for probate in the the Court of First Instance of Manila. Manila. This was opposed opposed by his nephew, Roberto Roberto Toledo Toledo y Gil and sister, ilar ilar !da. de Murciano. Toledo oledo was eliminated from the case since he has no le"al ri"ht to inter#ene. The will was initially initially destroy and was was reconstituted. The parties all all a"ree that the reconstitu reconstituted ted will is a copy of the ori"inal ori"inal will. In the said will, the attestation attestation clause clause does not state that that the testator testator si"ned the will. will. It only declares declares that it was si"ned by the witnesses. $espite this defect, defect, the Court of First Instance admitted to probate the will. ilar opposed such probate and appealed the decision of CFI to the %upreme Court. The latter, latter, re#ersed re#ersed the decision of the CFI. &ot contended contended with the deci decisi sion on,, Isab Isabel el 'err 'errer eros os !da. !da. de Gil, Gil, the the admin adminis istr trat atrix rix,, filed filed a moti motion on for  for  reconsideration to the %upreme Court. CO&TE&TIO&S( AD$I&ISTRATRI)-A##ELLEE(

Isabel Isabel 'errero 'erreros s !da. !da. de Gil, Gil, the admini administr stratr atrix, ix, conten contends ds that that defect defecti#e i#e attestation clause may be cured by inferrin" in the other parts of the will and insertin" a missin" phrase to complete the whole whole meanin" of the attestation clause. %he also claims that the court may correct clerical errors in a will as e#idence by the earlier  decisions of the %upreme Court. O##OSITOR-A##ELLA&T.

ilar, on the other hand, contends that the will should not be probated since the will will did not comply comply with with the re(uirem re(uirement ent of %ectio %ection n )*+ of the Code Code of Ci#il Ci#il rocedure, as amended, which pro#ides that The attestation clause shall state the number of sheets or pa"es used, upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator si"ned the will and e#ery pa"e thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and si"ned the will and all pa"es thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. other. %econdly, %econdly, the earlier decision of the %upreme %upreme Court in this case stated that the defect in the attestation clause is a fatal and not -ust a mere clerical error for it affects the #ery essence essence of the clause. Thus, the defect cannot cannot be cured by inference to the will itself  ISS%E(

hether or not the will is #alid despite its defecti#e attestation clause/ HELD(

The will is #alid. It seems ob#ious that the missin" phrase was left out from the copy. The problem posed by the omission in (uestion is "o#erned, not by the law of wills which re(uire certain formalities to be fulfilled in the execution but by the rules of construction applicable to statutes and documents in "eneral. The court may and should correct the error by supplyin" the omitted word or words. It has been said, and experience has shown, that the mechanical system of  construction has operated more to defeat honest wills than pre#ent fraudulent ones. That would be the effect in this case if the will under consideration were re-ected for  the ad#erse party now concedes the "enuineness of the document. The "enuineness is super ob#ious, and there is not the sli"htest insinuation of undue pressure, mental incapacity of the testator or fraud. Comin" to the execution of wills, the %upreme Court saw no le"itimate, practical reason for ob-ectin" to the testator instead of the witnesses certifyin" that he si"ned the will in the presence of the latter. The will is of the testator0s own ma1in", the inter#ention of attestin" witnesses bein" desi"ned merely to protect his interest.