G.R. No.

L-20374             October 11, 1923

In re of Dolores Coronel, deceased. LORENZO PECSON, applicant-appellee,

vs. AGUSTIN CORONEL, ET AL., opponents-appellants.

Fisher, DeWitt, Perkins and Brady for appellants.

Ross and Lawrence and Guillermo Lualhati for appellee.

ROMUALDEZ, J.:

On November 28, 1922, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga probated as the last will and testament of Dolores
Coronel, the document Exhibit A, which translated is as follows:

In the name of God, Amen:

I, Dolores Coronel, resident of Betis, Guagua, Pampanga, Philippine Islands, in the full exercise of my
mental faculties, do hereby make my last will and testament, and revoke all former wills by me executed.

I direct and order that my body be buried in conformity with my social standing.

That having no forced heirs, I will all my properties, both movable and immovable, to my nephew, Lorenzo
Pecson, who is married to my niece Angela Coronel, in consideration of the good services with he has
rendered, and is rendering to me with good will and disinterestedness and to my full satisfaction.

I name and appoint my aforesaid nephew, Lorenzo Pecson, executor of all that is willed and ordained in
this my will, without bond. Should he not be able to discharge his duties as such executor for any reason
whatsoever, I name and appoint as substitute executor my grandson Victor Pecson, a native and resident of
the town of Betis, without requiring him to give bond. 1awph!l.net

All my real and paraphernal property as well as my credits for I declare that I have no debts, are specified
in an inventory.

In testimony whereof and as I do not know how to write my name, I have requested Vicente J. Francisco to
write my name at the foot hereof and on the left margin of each of its sheet before me and all the
undersigned witnesses this July 1, 1918.

VICENTE J. FRANCISCO          
"For the testatrix Dolores Coronel

The foregoing document was executed and declared by Dolores Coronel to be her last will and testament in
our presence, and as the testatrix does not know how to write her name, she requested Vicente J. Francisco
to sign her name under her express direction in our presence, at the foot, and on the left margin of each and
every sheet, hereof. In testimony whereof, each of us signed these presents in the presence of others and of
the testatrix at the foot hereof and on the margin of each and everyone of the two sheets of which this
document is composed, which are numbered "one" and "two" on the upper part of the face thereof.

(Sgd.)           "MAXIMO VERGARA           SOTERO DUMAUAL           MARCOS DE LOS SANTOS

                       MARIANO L. CRISOSTOMO           PABLO BARTOLOME           MARCOS DE LA
CRUZ           DAMIAN CRISOSTOMO

On the left margin of the two sheets of the will the following signatures also appear:

Mariano L. Crisostomo, Vicente J. Francisco for the testatrix Dolores Coronel, M. Vergara, Pablo
Bartolome, Sotero Dumaual Crisostomo, Marcos de la Cruz, Marcos de los Santos.

The petitioner for the probate of the will is Lorenzo Pecson, husband of Angela Coronel, who is a niece of the
deceased Dolores Coronel.

The opponents are: Eriberto Coronel, Tito Coronel, Julian Gozum, Cirila Santiago, widow of the deceased Macario
Gozum, in her own behalf and that of her three minor children, Hilarion Coronel, Geronimo Coronel, Maria Coronel
and her husband Eladio Gongco, Juana Bituin, widow of the deceased Hipolito Coronel, in her own behalf and that
of her three children, Generosa, Maria, and Jose, all minors, Rosario Coronel, Agustin Coronel, Filomeno Coronel,
Casimiro Coronel, Alejo Coronel, Maria Coronel, Severina Coronel, Serapia Coronel, Maria Juana de Ocampo,
widow of the deceased Manuel Coronel, Dionisia Coronel, and her husband Pantaleon Gunlao.

The probate of this will is impugned on the following grounds: (a) That the proof does not that the document Exhibit
A above copied contains the last will of Dolores Coronel, and (b) that the attestation clause is not in accordance with
the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645.

These are the two principal questions which are debated in this case and which we will now examine separately.

As to the first, which is the one raised in the first assignment of error, the appellants argue: First, that it was
improbable and exceptional that Dolores Coronel should dispose of her estate, as set forth in the document Exhibit
A, her true being that the same be distributed among her blood relatives; and second, that if such will not expressed
in fact, it was due to extraneous illegal influence.

Let us examine the first point.

The opponents contend that it was not, nor could it be, the will of the testatrix, because it is not natural nor usual that
she should completely exclude her blood relatives from her vast estate, in order to will the same to one who is only a
relative by affinity, there appearing no sufficient motive for such exclusion, inasmuch as until the death of Dolores
Coronel, she maintained very cordial relations with the aforesaid relatives who had helped her in the management
and direction of her lands. It appears, however, from the testimony of Attorney Francisco (page 71, transcript of the
stenographic notes) that Dolores Coronel revealed to him her suspicion against some of her nephews as having been
accomplices in a robbery of which she had been a victim.

As to whether or not Lorenzo Pecson rendered services to Dolores Coronel, the opponents admit that he rendered
them at least from the year 1914, although there is proof showing that he rendered such services long before that
time.

The appellants emphasize the fact that family ties in this country are very strongly knit and that the exclusion of
relative one's estate an exceptional case. It is true that ties of relationship in the Philippines are very strong, but we
understand that cases of preterition of relatives from the inheritance are not rare. The liberty to dispose of one's
estate by will when there are no forced heirs is rendered sacred by the civil Code in force in the Philippines since
1889. It is so provided in the first paragraph of article in the following terms:

Any person who was no forced heirs may dispose by will of all his property or any part of it in favor of any
person qualified to acquire it.
Even ignoring the precedents of this legal precept, the Code embodying it has been in force in the Philippines for
more than a quarter of a century, and for this reason it is not tenable to say that the excercise of the liberty thereby
granted is necessarily exceptional, where it is not shown that the inhabitants of this country whose customs must
have been take into consideration by the legislator in adopting this legal precept, are averse to such a liberty.

As to preference given to Lorenzo Pecson, it is not purely arbitrary, nor a caprice or a whim of the moment. The
proof adduced by this appelle, although contradicted, shows by a preponderance of evidence that besides the
services which the opponents admit had been rendered by him to Dolores Coronel since the year 1914, he had also
rendered services prior to that time and was the administrator and manager of the affairs of said Dolores in the last
years of her life. And that this was not a whim of the moment is shown by the fact that six years before the execution
of the will in question, said Lorenzo Pecson was named and appointed by Dolores Coronel as her sole heir in the
document Exhibit B, which, translated, is as follows:

1. That my present property was acquired by me by inheritance from my parents, but a great part thereof
was acquired by me by my own efforts and exertions;

2. That I have made no inventory of my properties, but they can be seen in the title deeds in my possession
and in the declarations of ownership;

3. That I institute Lorenzo Pecson, married to Angela Coronel, and a known resident of the town, my heir
to succeed to all my properties;

4. That I appoint my said heir, Lorenzo Pecson, as executor, and, in his default, Victor Pecson, a resident of
the same town;

5. That as to my burial and other things connected with the eternal rest of my soul, I leave them to the
sound direction of the aforesaid Lorenzo Pecson;

6. That as I cannot write I requested Martin Pangilinan, a native and resident of this town, to write this will
in accordance with my wishes and precise instructions.

In testimony whereof I had the said Martin Pangilinan write my name and surname, and affixed my mark
between my name and surname, and don Francisco Dumaual, Don Mariano Sunglao, Don Sotero Dumaual,
Don Marcos de la Cruz and Don Martin Pangilinan signed as witnesses, they having been present at the
beginning of, during, and after, the execution of this my last will.

(Sgd.)          "DOLORES CORONEL          

Witnesses:

(Sgd.)          "MARIANO SUNGLAO

                    MARCOS DE LA CRUZ
                    FRANCISCO DUMAUAL
                    SOTERO DUMAUAL
                    MARTIN PANGILINAN"

The appellants find in the testament Exhibit B something to support their contention that the intention of Dolores
Coronel was to institute the said Pecson not as sole beneficiary, but simply as executor and distributor of all her
estate among her heirs, for while Lorenzo Pecson's contention that he was appointed sold beneficiary is based on the
fact that he enjoyed the confidence of Dolores Coronel in 1918 and administered all her property, he did not
exclusively have this confidence and administration in the year 1912. Although such administration and confidence
were enjoyed by Pecson always jointly with others and never exclusively, this fact does not show that the will of the
testatrix was to appoint Pecson only as executor and distributor of her estate among the heirs, nor does it prevent
her, the testatrix, from instituting him in 1912 or 1918 as sole beneficiary; nor does it constitute, lastly, a test for
determining whether or not such institution in favor of Pecson was the true will of the testatrix.

We find, therefore, nothing strange in the preterition made by Dolores Coronel of her blood relatives, nor in the
designation of Lorenzo Pecson as her sole beneficiary. Furthermore, although the institution of the beneficiary here
would not seem the most usual and customary, still this would not be null per se.

In the absence of any statutory restriction every person possesses absolute dominion over his property, and
may bestow it upon whomsoever he pleases without regard to natural or legal claim upon his bounty. If the
testator possesses the requisite capacity to make a will, and the disposition of his property is not affected by
fraud of undue influence, the will is not rendered invalid by the fact that it is unnatural, unreasonable, or
unjust. Nothing can prevent the testator from making a will as eccentric, as injudicious, or as unjust as
caprice, frivolity, or revenge can dictate. However, as has already been shown, the unreasonable or
unjustice of a will may be considered on the question of testamentary capacity. (40 Cyc., 1079.)

The testamentary capacity of Dolores Coronel is not disputed in this case.

Passing to the second question, to wit, whether or not the true last will of Dolores Coronel was expressed in the
testament Exhibit A, we will begin with expounding how the idea of making the aforesaid will here controverted
was borne and carried out.

About the year 1916 or 1917, Dolores showed the document Exhibit B to Attorney Francisco who was then her legal
adviser and who, considering that in order to make the expression of her last will more legally valid, though it
necessary that the statement be prepared in conformity with the laws in force at time of the death of the testatrix, and
observing that the will Exhibit B lacked the extrinsic formalities required by Act No. 2645 enacted after its
execution, advised Dolores Coronel that the will be remade. She followed the advice, and Attorney Francisco, after
receiving her instructions, drew the will Exhibit A in accordance therewith, and brought it to the house of Dolores
Coronel for its execution.

Pablo Bartolome read Exhibit A to Dolores Coronel in her presence and that of the witnesses and asked her whether
the will was in accordance with her wishes. Dolores Coronel answer that it was, and requested her attorney, Mr.
Francisco, to sign the will for her, which the attorney accordingly did in the presence of the witnesses, who in turn
signed it before the testatrix and in the presence of each other.

Upon the filing of the motion for a rehearing on the first order allowing the probate of the will, the opponents
presented an affidavit of Pablo Bartolome to the effect that, following instructions of Lorenzo Pecson, he had
informed the testatrix that the contents of the will were that she entrusted Pecson with the distribution of all her
property among the relatives of the said Dolores. But during the new trial Pablo Bartolome, in spite of being present
in the court room on the day of the trial, was not introduced as a witness, without such an omission having been
satisfactorily accounted for.

While it is true that the petitioner was bound to present Pablo Bartolome, being one of the witnesses who signed the
will, at the second hearing when the probate was controverted, yet we cannot consider this point against the appellee
for this was not raised in any of the assignments of error made by the appellants. (Art. 20, Rules of the Supreme
Court.)

On the other hand, it was incumbent upon the opponents to present Pablo Bartolome to prove before the court the
statement by him in his affidavit, since it was their duty to prove what they alleged, which was that Dolores Coronel
had not understood the true contents of the will Exhibit A. Having suppressed, without explanation, the testimony of
Pablo Bartolome, the presumption is against the opponents and that is, that such a testimony would have been
adverse had it been produced at the hearing of the case before the court. (Sec 334, subsec. 5, Code of Civil
Procedure.)
The opponents call our attention to the fourth clause of the document which says: "I name and appoint my aforesaid
nephew, Lorenzo Pecson, executor of all that is willed and ordained in this my will, without bond. Should he not be
able to discharge his duties as such executor for any reason whatsoever, I name and appoint as a substitute executor
my grandson Victor Pecson, resident of the town of Betis, without requiring him to give bond," and contend that this
clause is repugnant to the institution of Lorenzo Pecson as sole beneficiary of all her estate, for if such was the
intention of the testatrix, there would have been no necessity of appointing an executor, nor any reason for
designating a substitute in case that the first one should not be able to discharge his duties, and they perceived in this
clause the idea which, according to them, was not expressed in the document, and which was that Pecson was
simply to be a mere executor entrusted with the distribution to the estate among the relatives of the testatrix, and that
should he not be able to do so, this duty would devolved upon his substitutes.

But it is not the sole duty of an executor to distribute the estate, which in estate succession, such as the instant case,
has to be distributed with the intervention of the court. All executor has, besides, other duties and general and
special powers intended for the preservation, defense, and liquidation of the estate so long as the same has not
reached, by order of the court, the hands of those entitled thereto.

The fact that Dolores Coronel foresaw the necessity of an executor does not imply a negation of her desire to will all
her estate to Lorenzo Pecson. It is to be noted, furthermore, that in the will, it was ordered that her body be given a
burial in accordance with her social standing and she had a perfect right to designate a person who should see to it
that this order was complied with. One of the functions of an executor is the fulfillment of what is ordained in the
will.

It is argued that the will of the testatrix was to will her estate to her blood relatives, for such was the promise made
to Maria Coronel, whom Rosario Coronel tends to corroborate. We do not find such a promise to have been
sufficiently proven, and much less to have been seriously made and coupled with a positive intention on the part of
Dolores Coronel to fulfill the same. In the absence of sufficient proof of fraud, or undue influence, we cannot take
such a promise into account, for even if such a promise was in fact made, Dolores Coronel could retract or forget it
afterwards and dispose of her estate as she pleased. Wills themselves, which contain more than mere promises, are
essentially revocable.

It is said that the true will of Dolores Coronel not expressed in the will can be inferred from the phrase used by Jose
M. Reyes in his deposition when speaking of the purpose for which Lorenzo Pecson was to receive the estate, to wit:

in order that the latter might dispose of the estate in the most appropriate manner

Weight is given to this phrase from the circumstance that its author was requested by Attorney Francisco to explain
the contents of Exhibit B and had acted as interpreter between Dolores Coronel and Attorney Francisco at their
interviews previous to the preparation of Exhibit A, and had translated into the Pampango dialect this last document,
and, lastly, was present at the execution of the will in question.

The disputed phrase "in order that the latter might dispose of the estate in the most appropriate manner" was used by
the witness Reyes while sick in a hospital and testifying in the course of the taking of his deposition.

The appellants interpret the expression "dispose in the most appropriate manner" as meaning to say "distribute it
among the heirs." Limiting ourselves to its meaning, the expression is a broad one, for the disposition may be
effected in several and various ways, which may not necessarily be a "distribution among the heirs," and still be a
"disposition in the most appropriate manner." "To dispose" is not the same as "to distribute."

To judge correctly the import of this phrase, the circumstances under which it was used must be taken into account
in this particular instance. The witness Reyes, the author of the phrase, was not expressing his own original ideas
when he used it, but was translating into Spanish what Dolores Coronel had told him. According to the facts, the
said witness is not a Spaniard, that is to say, the Spanish language is not his native tongue, but, perhaps, the
Pampango dialect. It is an admitted fact based on reason and experience that when a person translates from one
language to another, it is easier for him to express with precision and accuracy when the version is from a foreign
language to a native one than vice-versa. The witness Reyes translated from the Pampango dialect, which must be
more familiar to him, to the Spanish language which is not his own tongue. And judging from the language used by
him during his testimony in this case, it cannot be said that this witness masters the Spanish language. Thus is
explained the fact that when asked to give the reason for the appointment of an executor in the will, he should say at
the morning session that "Dolores Coronel did appoint Don Lorenzo Pecson and in his default, Victor Pecson, to
act during her lifetime, but not after he death," which was explained at the afternoon session by saying "that
Dolores Coronel did appoint Don Lorenzo Pecson executor of all her estate during his lifetime and that in his
default, either through death or incapacity, Mr. Victor Pecson was appointed executor." Taking into account all the
circumstances of this witness, there is ground to attribute his inaccuracy as to the discharge of the duties of an
executor, not to ignorance of the elementary rule of law on the matter, for the practice of which he was qualified, but
to a non-mastery of the Spanish language. We find in this detail of translation made by the witness Reyes no
sufficient reason to believe that the will expressed by Dolores Coronel at the said interview with Attorney Francisco
was to appoint Lorenzo Pecson executor and mere distributor of her estate among her heirs.

As to whether or not the burden of proof was on the petitioner to establish that he was the sole legatee to the
exclusion of the relatives of Dolores Coronel, we understand that it was not his duty to show the reasons which the
testatrix may have had for excluding her relatives from her estate, giving preference to him. His duty was to prove
that the will was voluntary and authentic and he, who alleges that the estate was willed to another, has the burden of
proving his allegation.

Attorney Francisco is charged with having employed improper means of making Lorenzo Pecson appear in the will
as sole beneficiary. However, after an examination of all the proceedings had, we cannot find anything in the
behavior of this lawyer, relative to the preparation and execution of the will, that would justify an unfavorable
conclusion as to his personal and professional conduct, nor that he should harbor any wrongful or fraudulent
purpose.

We find nothing censurable in his conduct in advising Dolores Coronel to make a new will other than the last one,
Exhibit B (in the drawing of which he does not appear to her intervened), so that the instrument might be executed
with all the new formalities required by the laws then in force; nor in the preparation of the new will substantially in
accordance with the old one; nor in the selection of attesting witnesses who were persons other than the relatives of
Dolores Coronel. Knowing, as he did, that Dolores was excluding her blood relatives from the inheritance, in spite
of her having been asked by him whether their exclusion was due to a mere inadvertence, there is a satisfactory
explanation, compatible with honorable conduct, why said attorney should prescind from such relatives in the
attesting of the will, to the end that no obstacle be placed in the way to the probating thereof.

The fact that this attorney should presume that Dolores was to ask him to sign the will for her and that he should
prepare it containing this detail is not in itself fraudulent. There was in this case reason so to presume, and it appears
that he asked her, through Pablo Bartolome, whom she wanted to sign the document in her stead.

No imputation can be made to this attorney of any interest in favoring Lorenzo Pecson in the will, because the latter
was already his client at the execution of said will. Attorney Francisco denied this fact, which we cannot consider
proven after examining the evidence.

The conduct observed by this attorney after the death of Dolores Coronel in connection with the attempted
arrangement between Lorenzo Pecson and the opponents, does not, in our opinion, constitute any data leading to the
conclusion that an heir different from the true one intended by the testatrix should have been fraudulently made to
appear instituted in the will exhibit A. His attitude towards the opponents, as can be gathered from the proceedings
and especially from his letter Exhibit D, does not show any perverse or fraudulent intent, but rather a conciliatory
purpose. It is said that such a step was well calculated to prevent every possible opposition to the probate of the will.
Even admitting that one of his objects in entering into such negotiations was to avoid every possible to the probate
of the will, such object is not incompatible with good faith, nor does it necessarily justify the inference that the heir
instituted in the instrument was not the one whom the testatrix wanted appointed.
The appellants find rather suspicious the interest shown by the said attorney in trying to persuade Lorenzo Pecson to
give them some share of the estate. These negotiations were not carried out by the attorney out of his own initiative,
but at the instance of the same opponent, Agustin Coronel, made by the latter in his own behalf and that of his
coopponents.

As to Lorenzo Pecson, we do not find in the record sufficient proof to believe that he should have tried, through
fraud or any undue influence, to frustrate the alleged intention of the testatrix to leave her estate to her blood
relatives. The opponents insinuate that Lorenzo Pecson employed Attorney Francisco to carry out his reproachable
designs, but such depraved instrumentality was not proven, nor was it shown that said lawyer, or Lorenzo Pecson,
should have contrived or put into execution any condemnable plan, nor that both should have conspired for illegal
purposes at the time of the preparation and execution of the will Exhibit A.

Although Norberto Paras testified having heard, when the will was being read to Dolores Coronel, the provision
whereby the estate was ordered distributed among the heirs, the preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that
said Norberto Paras was not present at such reading of the will. Appellant do not insist on the probative force of the
testimony of this witness, and do not oppose its being stricken out.

The data furnished by the case do not show, to our mind, that Dolores Coronel should have had the intention of
giving her estate to her blood relatives instead of to Lorenzo Pecson at the time of the execution of the will Exhibit
A, nor that fraud or whatever other illegal cause or undue influence should have intervened in the execution of said
testament. Neither fraud nor evil is presumed and the record does not show either.

Turning to the second assignment of error, which is made to consist in the will having been probated in spite of the
fact that the attestation clause was not in conformity with the provision of section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645, let us examine the tenor of such clause which literally is as follows:

The foregoing document was executed and declared by Dolores Coronel to be her last will testament in our
presence, and as testatrix does not know how to write her name, she requested Vicente J. Francisco to sign
her name under her express direction in our presence at the foot and on the left margin of each and every
sheet hereof. In testimony whereof, each of us signed these presents in the presence of others of the
testatrix at the foot hereof and on the margin of each and everyone of the two pages of which this document
is composed. These sheets are numbered correlatively with the words "one and "two on the upper part of
the face thereof.

(Sgd.)          "Maximo Vergara,          Sotero Dumaual,          Marcos de los Santos,          Mariano L. Crisostomo,          
Pablo Bartolome,           Marcos de la Cruz,           Damian Crisostomo."

Appellants remark that it is not stated in this clause that the will was signed by the witnesses in the presence of the
testatrix and of each other, as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, which on this
particular point provides the following:

The attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the will is written, and the fact
that the testator signed the will and every page 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 signed the will
and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.

Stress is laid on the phrase used in the attestation clause above copied, to wit:

each of us signed in the presence of others.

Two interpretations can absolutely be given here to the expression "of others." One, that insinuated by the
appellants, namely, that it is equivalent to "of other persons," and the other, that contended by the appellee, to wit,
that the phrase should be held to mean "of the others," the article "the" having inadvertently been omitted.
Should the first interpretation prevail and "other persons" be taken to mean persons different from the attesting
witnesses, then one of the solemnities required by law would be lacking. Should the second be adopted and "of
others" construed as meaning the other witnesses to the will, then the law would have been complied with in this
respect.

Including the concomitant words, the controverted phrase results thus: "each of us signed these presents in the
presence of others and of the testatrix."

If we should omit the words "of others and," the expression would be reduced to "each of us signed these presents
in the presence of the testatrix," and the statement that the witnesses signed each in the presence of the others would
be lacking. But as a matter of fact, these words "of others and" are present. Then, what for are they there? Is it to say
that the witnesses signed in the presence of other persons foreign to the execution of the will, which is completely
useless and to no purpose in the case, or was it for some useful, rational, necessary object, such as that of making it
appear that the witnesses signed the will each in the presence of the others? The first theory presupposes that the one
who drew the will, who is Attorney Francisco, was an unreasonable man, which is an inadmissible hypothesis, being
repugnant to the facts shown by the record. The second theory is the most obvious, logical and reasonable under the
circumstances. It is true that the expression proved to be deficient. The deficiency may have been caused by the
drawer of the will or by the typist. If by the typist, then it must be presumed to have been merely accidental. If by
the drawer, it is explainable taking into account that Spanish is not only not the native language of the Filipinos,
who, in general, still speak until nowadays their own dialects, but also that such language is not even the only
official language since several years ago.

In Re will of Abangan (40 Phil., 476), this court said:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and
fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. Therefore
the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the
other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail
the exercise of the right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any
other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisite entirely unnecesary, useless
and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be disregarded.

We believe it to be more reasonable to construe the disputed phrase "of others" as meaning "of the other
witnesses," and that a grammatical or clerical error was committed consisting in the omission of the article "the".

Grammatical or clerical errors are not usually considered of vital importance when the intention is manifest in the
will.

The court may correct clerical mistakes in writing, and disregard technical rules of grammar as to the
construction of the language of the will when it becomes necessary for it to do so in order to effectuate the
testators manifest intention as ascertained from the context of the will. But unless a different construction is
so required the ordinary rules of grammar should be adhered to in construing the will. (40 Cyc., 1404).

And we understand that in the present case the interpretation we adopt is imperative, being the most adequate and
reasonable.

The case of In the matter of the estate of Geronima Uy Coque (43 Phil., 405), decided by this court and invoked by
the appellants, refers so far as pertinent to the point herein at issue, to an attestation clause wherein the statement
that the witnesses signed the will in the presence of each other is totally absent. In the case at bar, there is the
expression "in the presence of others" whose reasonable interpretation is, as we have said, "in the presence of
the other witnesses." We do not find any party between the present case and that of Re Estate of Geronima Uy
Coque above cited.
Finally, we will take up the question submitted by the opponents as to the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to
show that the attesting witnesses Damian Crisostomo and Sotero Dumaual were present at the execution of the will
in controversy. Although this point is raised in the first assignment of error made by the appellants, and not in the
second, it is discussed in this place because it refers to the very fact of attestation. However, we do not believe it
necessary to analyze in detail the evidence of both parties on this particular point. The evidence leads us to the
conclusion that the two witnesses aforementioned were present at the execution and signing of the will. Such is also
the conclusion of the trial judge who, in this respect, states the following, in his decision:

As to the question of whether or not the testatrix and witnesses signed the document Exhibit A in accordance with
the provisions of law on the matter, that is, whether or not the testatrix signed the will, or caused it to be signed, in
the presence of the witnesses, and the latter in turn signed in her presence and that of each other, the court, after
observing the demeanor of the witnesses for both parties, is of the opinion that those for the petitioner spoke the
truth. It is neither probable nor likely that a man versed in the law, such as Attorney Francisco, who was present at
the execution of the will in question, and to whose conscientiousness in the matter of compliance with all the
extrinsic formalities of the execution of a will, and to nothing else, was due the fact that the testatrix had cancelled
her former will (Exhibit B) and had new one (Exhibit A) prepared and executed, should have consented the omission
of formality compliance with which would have required little or no effort; namely, that of seeing to it that the
testatrix and the attesting witnesses were all present when their respective signatures were affixed to the will." And
the record does not furnish us sufficient ground for deviating from the line reasoning and findings of the trial judge.

In conclusion we hold that the assignments of error made by the appellants are not supported by the evidence of
record.

The judgment appealed from if affirmed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor and Johns, JJ., concur.