One of the best lecturers I’ve encountered in my new law school so far is my teacher in Succession, Atty. Fretti Ganchoon. Believe me once you’re seated in her class you wouldn’t want to miss a single word you’d wish you’re wired or somethin', like you have that tiny high definitioned microphone planted in you that records everything she says. Not for the purpose of wire tapping of course but to record everything vital and worth taking down in that lecture. Or maybe you could at least had it tape recorded with her knowledge to be at least fair to the teacher right? Co’z the moment she starts discussing, man! legal insights after another would keep flowing like she've just handpicked for you the salient points from the Jurado book where I bet your pen could hardly keep up. And do take note, her lectures are mostly precise and logically arranged. Her scenarios of the cases are concise, direct and clearly pictured out, and if possible in relation with or in contrast to other cases. And the principles of the discussed applicable laws and potential remedies are always clearly delivered.
This is a case about formalities of wills. Since this case was partially discussed in a previous post, allow me to discuss it further and a little bit more fully. This is the "2 Room Blocked By Curtain" case. Basically what happened here is that the will was executed in a large room which was connected to a smaller room by a doorway covered by a curtain. The parties needed to the execution of this will as prerequisite were all present. We have the testator, and the three witnesses or more. Of course we all know the notarial part may be satisfied afterwards.
The thing was, one of the witnesses to the signing of the instrument was in the small room when all the other witnesses were attaching their signatures to the instrument in the large room together with the testator. So it’s a question of presence, or position of witnesses when the instrument was signed. The lower court did not consider that as of vital importance. It based its decision in an earlier ruling in the Jabonetta Case (Jabonetta vs. Gustillo) where the court held it was NOT sufficient to invalidate execution of the will. The CA affirmed the lower court ruling
So the ISSUE is.. is PRESENCE sufficient to INVALIDATE will?
The Supreme Court decided otherwise saying YES! It is sufficient to invalidate a will. You see presence is not one of those that could go under SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, this is a FATAL DEFECT that could not be cured by mere examination, since the law on succession expressly provides in
ART. 805 - “…attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses IN THE PRESENCE OF THE TESTATOR AND OF ONE ANOTHER”
In this case, the attaching of signature was not done in the presence of the witness in the other room (I wonder whut the hell the punk’s doin’ there?).
Well the court wanted to be liberal about it in the sense that I think it said somethin' like 'if there’s no curtain blocking the two rooms..' they might have considered it. Or maybe at least the.. you know those sleazy tassel curtains? those exotic ones we see on some Arab harems in movies where you hear sleazy music and see sultry women belly dancing? cobra rising and stuff (Lol). Well atleast it's see-through right? I mean you know like at least the other guy in the small room if he’s sneaking in on the lechon or somethin' in that small room could at least peek or somethin' and see “Oops! their signing it… that's hudas... woops that's barabas... I gotta finish this off right away it’s gonna be my turn.. my gawd so yummy”.. "hestaaas!!! where the hell are you?!! " LOL
But.. oh well. A thick dark curtain is a thick dark curtain.. so. The court held that the line of vision of witness to testator was BLOCKED by curtain. I mean you know, the rule books say their suppose to see each other sign.. so.. there’s nothin’ we can do with that.
Of course the Jabonetta Case was invoked here and here’s what the Supreme Court said:
In the Jabonetta Case the ruling was settled revolving in the principle that “The true test of presence is not whether or not they saw each other sign. But whether they might have seen each other sign if they chose to do so considering their physical, mental condition, and position in relation to each other at the moment of signing” (my lechon anecdote remember)
I think the invoked ruling even strengthened the superior court ruling.
So I guess it's clear, the court didn't find the Jabonetta Case applicable here. And though the court tried hard for the law not to be strictly construed and tried to be liberal about it, but what can it do, it’s the fuckin’ curtains man! This is no longer a question of substantial compliance, this is clearly a fatal defect, e wala syang makita eh.. barado.. so ofcourse the court would have no choice but to strictly construe.
The thing was, one of the witnesses to the signing of the instrument was in the small room when all the other witnesses were attaching their signatures to the instrument in the large room together with the testator. So it’s a question of presence, or position of witnesses when the instrument was signed. The lower court did not consider that as of vital importance. It based its decision in an earlier ruling in the Jabonetta Case (Jabonetta vs. Gustillo) where the court held it was NOT sufficient to invalidate execution of the will. The CA affirmed the lower court ruling
So the ISSUE is.. is PRESENCE sufficient to INVALIDATE will?
The Supreme Court decided otherwise saying YES! It is sufficient to invalidate a will. You see presence is not one of those that could go under SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, this is a FATAL DEFECT that could not be cured by mere examination, since the law on succession expressly provides in
ART. 805 - “…attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses IN THE PRESENCE OF THE TESTATOR AND OF ONE ANOTHER”
In this case, the attaching of signature was not done in the presence of the witness in the other room (I wonder whut the hell the punk’s doin’ there?).
Well the court wanted to be liberal about it in the sense that I think it said somethin' like 'if there’s no curtain blocking the two rooms..' they might have considered it. Or maybe at least the.. you know those sleazy tassel curtains? those exotic ones we see on some Arab harems in movies where you hear sleazy music and see sultry women belly dancing? cobra rising and stuff (Lol). Well atleast it's see-through right? I mean you know like at least the other guy in the small room if he’s sneaking in on the lechon or somethin' in that small room could at least peek or somethin' and see “Oops! their signing it… that's hudas... woops that's barabas... I gotta finish this off right away it’s gonna be my turn.. my gawd so yummy”.. "hestaaas!!! where the hell are you?!! " LOL
But.. oh well. A thick dark curtain is a thick dark curtain.. so. The court held that the line of vision of witness to testator was BLOCKED by curtain. I mean you know, the rule books say their suppose to see each other sign.. so.. there’s nothin’ we can do with that.
Of course the Jabonetta Case was invoked here and here’s what the Supreme Court said:
In the Jabonetta Case the ruling was settled revolving in the principle that “The true test of presence is not whether or not they saw each other sign. But whether they might have seen each other sign if they chose to do so considering their physical, mental condition, and position in relation to each other at the moment of signing” (my lechon anecdote remember)
I think the invoked ruling even strengthened the superior court ruling.
So I guess it's clear, the court didn't find the Jabonetta Case applicable here. And though the court tried hard for the law not to be strictly construed and tried to be liberal about it, but what can it do, it’s the fuckin’ curtains man! This is no longer a question of substantial compliance, this is clearly a fatal defect, e wala syang makita eh.. barado.. so ofcourse the court would have no choice but to strictly construe.
