FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 13431. November 12, 1919.]

In re will of Ana Abangan. GERTRUDIS ABANGAN,

executrix-appellee, vs. ANASTACIA ABANGAN, ET AL.,
opponents-appellants.

Filemon Sotto for appellants.

M. Jesus Cuenco for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. WILLS; ATTESTATION. — In a will consisting of two sheets the

first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom
by the testator and three witnesses and the second contains only the attestation
clause and is signed also at the bottom by the three witnesses, it is not necessary
that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator and the
witnesses, or be paged.

2. ID.; ID; TESTATOR'S SIGNATURE. — The testator's signature is

not necessary in the attestation clause because this, as its name implies, appertains
only to the witnesses and not to the testator.

3. ID.; DIALECT IN WHICH WRITTEN; PRESUMPTION. — The

circumstance appearing in the will itself that same was executed in the city of
Cebu and in the dialect of this locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is
enough, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, to presume that she knew this
dialect in which her will is written.

DECISION

AVANCEÑA, J : p

On September 19, 1917, the Court of First Instance of Cebu admitted to

probate Ana Abangan's will executed July, 1916. From this decision the opponents

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 1
 appealed.

Said document, duly probated as Ana Abangan's will, consists of two

sheets, the first of which contains all of the disposition of the testatrix, duly signed
at the bottom by Martin Montalban (in the name and under the direction of the
testatrix) and by three witnesses. The following sheet contains only the attestation
clause duly signed at the bottom by the three instrumental witnesses. Neither of
these sheets is signed on the left margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses,
nor numbered by letters; and these omissions, according to appellants' contention,
are defects whereby the probate of the will should have been denied. We are of the
opinion that the will was duly admitted to probate.

In requiring that each and every sheet of the will should also be signed on
the left margin by the testator and three witnesses in the presence of each other,
Act No. 2645 (which is the one applicable in the case) evidently has for its object
(referring to the body of the will itself) to avoid the substitution of any of said
sheets, thereby changing the testator's dispositions. But when these dispositions
are wholly written on only one sheet signed at the bottom by the testator and three
witnesses (as the instant case), their signatures on the left margin of said sheet
would be completely purposeless. In requiring this signature on the margin, the
statute took into consideration, undoubtedly, the case of a will written on several
sheets and must have referred to the sheets which the testator and the witnesses do
not have to sign at the bottom. A different interpretation would assume that the
statute requires that this sheet, already signed at the bottom, be signed twice. We
cannot attribute to the statute such an intention. As these signatures must be
written by the testator and the witnesses in the presence of each other, it appears
that, if the signatures at the bottom of the sheet guaranties its authenticity, another
signature on its left margin would be unnecessary; and if they do not guaranty,
same signatures, affixed on another part of same sheet, would add nothing. We
cannot assume that the statute regards of such importance the place where the
testator and the witnesses must sign on the sheet that it would consider that their
signatures written on the bottom do not guaranty the authenticity of the sheet but,
if repeated on the margin, give sufficient security.

In requiring that each and every page of a will must be numbered

correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of the sheet, it is likewise clear that
the object of Act No. 2645 is to know whether any sheet of the will has been
removed. But, when all the dispositive parts of a will are written .on one sheet
only, the object of the statute disappears because the removal of this single sheet,
although unnumbered, cannot be hidden.

What has been said is also applicable to the attestation clause. Wherefore,
without considering whether or not this clause is an essential part of the will, we
hold that in the one accompanying the will in question, the signatures of the
testatrix and of the three witnesses on the margin and the numbering of the pages
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 2
 of the sheet are formalities not required by the statute. Moreover, referring
specially to the signature of the testatrix, we can add that same is not necessary in
the attestation clause because this, as its name implies, appertains only to the
witnesses and not to the testator since the latter does not attest, but executes, the
will.

Synthesizing our opinion, we hold that in a will consisting of two sheets the
first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom
by the testator and three witnesses and the second contains only the attestation
clause and is signed also at the bottom by the three witnesses, it is not necessary
that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator and the
witnesses, or be paged.

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 guaranty 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 requisites entirely unnecessary,
useless and frustrative of the testator's last will, must be disregarded.

As another ground for this appeal, it is alleged the records do not show that
the testatrix knew the dialect in which the will is written. But the circumstance
appearing in the will itself that same was executed in the city of Cebu and in the
dialect of this locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is enough, in the absence
of any proof to the contrary, to presume that she knew this dialect in which this
will is written.

For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby

affirmed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 3