Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 127 views

    Subsection 3: Forms of Wills Case Citation: Date: January 19, 1906 Petitioners: German Jaboneta Respondents: Ricardo Gustilo Et Al Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Carie Lawyerr
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1906 regarding the proper execution of wills. The key issues were whether a witness signed "in the presence" of another witness as required by law, even if they did not actually see each other sign. The Supreme Court ruled that the legal requirement was met if the witnesses could have seen each other sign based on their positions, overriding the lower court's decision. Proper execution of wills requires witnesses to be together and able to see the signing, even if they do not actually witness each signature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Subsection 3: Forms of Wills Case Citation: Date: January 19, 1906 Petitioners: German Jaboneta Respondents: Ricardo Gustilo Et Al Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Carie Lawyerr
    127 views1 page
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1906 regarding the proper execution of wills. The key issues were whether a witness signed "in the presence" of another witness as required by law, even if they did not actually see each other sign. The Supreme Court ruled that the legal requirement was met if the witnesses could have seen each other sign based on their positions, overriding the lower court's decision. Proper execution of wills requires witnesses to be together and able to see the signing, even if they do not actually witness each signature.

    Original Title

    17. Jaboneta v Gustilo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1906 regarding the proper execution of wills. The key issues were whether a witness signed "in the presence" of another witness as required by law, even if they did not actually see each other sign. The Supreme Court ruled that the legal requirement was met if the witnesses could have seen each other sign based on their positions, overriding the lower court's decision. Proper execution of wills requires witnesses to be together and able to see the signing, even if they do not actually witness each signature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    127 views1 page

    Subsection 3: Forms of Wills Case Citation: Date: January 19, 1906 Petitioners: German Jaboneta Respondents: Ricardo Gustilo Et Al Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Carie Lawyerr
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1906 regarding the proper execution of wills. The key issues were whether a witness signed "in the presence" of another witness as required by law, even if they did not actually see each other sign. The Supreme Court ruled that the legal requirement was met if the witnesses could have seen each other sign based on their positions, overriding the lower court's decision. Proper execution of wills requires witnesses to be together and able to see the signing, even if they do not actually witness each signature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SUBSECTION 3: FORMS OF WILLS

    Case Citation: GR No. 1641

    Date: January 19, 1906

    Petitioners: German Jaboneta

    Respondents: Ricardo Gustilo et al

    Doctrine: The true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the execution of
    a will is not whether they actually saw each other sign, but whether they might
    have seen each other sign, had they chosen to do so, considering their
    mental and physical condition and position with relation to each other at the
    moment of inscription of each signature.

    Subject matter of The attachment of Javellana’s signature as witness to Macario Jaboneta’s last
    controversy: will and testament in the presence of Jena.

    Antecedent ● Probate of Macario Jaboneta’s last will and testament was denied
    Facts: because the lower court was of the opinion, from the evidence
    adduced, that Javellana did not attach his signature in the presence of
    Isabelo Jena as required by Sec. 618 of Code of Civil Procedure.
    ● According to the testimony, Jena was in a hurry to leave and as he
    was leaving the room, Javellana took the pen in his hand and put
    himself in position to sign the will as witness, but did not sign in the
    presence of Jena.
    ● After Jena left the room, Javellana signed in the presence of the
    testator and of Aniceto (witness)

    MTC/RTC Ruling: Denied the probate of Macario Jaboneta’s last will and testament as it opined
    that Julio did not attach his signature in the presence of Jena as required by
    Code of Civil Procedure.

    Issue: Whether or not the last will and testament of Jaboneta complied with the
    requirements under Sec. 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    SC Ruling: ● The Court does not agree with the lower court’s findings and is of the
    opinion that the statutory requisites as to the execution of the
    instrument were complied with.
    ● The fact that Jena was still in the room when he saw Javellana moving
    his hand and pen in the act of affixing his signature alongside the
    testimony of the remaining witnesses convinces the court that
    Javellana’s signature was affixed in the presence of Jena.
    ● The purpose of a statutory requirement that the witness sign in the
    presence of the testator is that the latter have ocular evidence of the
    identity of the instrument subscribed to by the witness and himself.
    General accepted tests of presence are vision and mental
    apprehension.
    ● In Bedell, it was held that it is sufficient if witnesses are together for
    the purpose of witnessing the execution of the will and in a position to
    actually see the testator write.
    ○ Many cases lay down the rule that the true test of vision is not
    whether the testator actually saw the witness sign but whether
    he might have seen him sign considering his mental and
    physical condition and position at the time of subscription.
    ● Judgment of trial court is reversed.

    You might also like