(1) in writing;
In the matter of the probation of the will of Jose Riosa (Vi)
November 7, 1918| Malcolm, J. | Rules of Construction and Interpretation
PETITIONER: Vicente De Vera
SUMMARY: Jose Riosa died on April 17, 1917. He left a will which was
made in January 1908. The will followed the rules in Section 618 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Act No. 2645 amended Section 618 on July 1,
1916 prescribing additional formalities. The new law took effect before
the death but after the will was made and Riosa did not create a new will
that would conform with the additional requirements.
Issue: Whether the will of Jose Riosa is valid even if it did not conform
with the additional requirements in Act No. 2645 – YES
There are three views regarding effects of change in statutes prescribing
formalities of wills: (1) The statutes in force at the testator's death are
controlling; (2) The statutes in force at the time of its execution are
controlling and that statutes subsequently enacted have no retrospective
effect; and (3) When statutes increase the formalities, it should be
construed in favor of the will already executed and not impair it, but if it
decreases the formalities, it should be construed in favor of wills which
were defectively executed. The first view was rejected because when a
will is executed, then the act is completed. The Court applied the second
rule and held that the will is valid. The general rule is that statutes are
prospective unless it is the Legislature’s intention to give it retrospective
effect. The Civil Code says that laws do not have retroactive effect unless
otherwise prescribed. The language of Act No. 2645 gives no indication
of retrospective effect.
DOCTRINE: Extrinsic validity of will is determined by the law in force
when the will was executed.
FACTS:
1. Jose Riosa died on April 17, 1917. He left a will which was made
in January 1908 disposing of his estate worth P35,000.
2. The will followed the rules in Section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure1 which were that the will should be:
1
"No will, except as provided in the preceding section, shall be valid to pass any
estate, real or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be in writing and
signed by the testator, or by the testator's name written by some other person in his
presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The attestation
shall state the fact that the testator signed the will, or caused it to be signed by some
(2) signed by the testator; and
(3) attested and subscribed by three credible witnesses in the
presence of the testator and of each other.
3. Act No. 26452 amended Section 618 on July 1, 1916 prescribing
additional formalities that it should be:
(1) signed by the testator and the witnesses on the left margin of
each and every page;
(2) the pages should be numbered correlatively by letters in the
upper part of the page;
(3) the attestation should state the number of pages used, that the
testator signed, and that it was in the presence of 3 witnesses.
4. The new law took effect before the death but after the will was
made and Riosa did not create a new will that would conform with
the additional requirements.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the will of Jose Riosa is valid even if it did not conform
with the additional requirements in Act No. 2645 – YES
RATIO:
1. The will of Jose Riosa is valid. There are three views regarding
effects of change in statutes prescribing formalities of wills:
a. The statutes in force at the testator's death are controlling,
and that a will not executed in conformity with such statutes is
other person, at his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and that
they attested and subscribed it in his presence and in the presence of each other. But
the absence of such form of attestation shall not render the will invalid if it is proven
that the will was in fact signed and attested as in this section provided."
2
"SEC. 618. Requisites of will.— No will, except as provided in the preceding
section, shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal, nor charge or affect the
same, unless it be written in the language or dialect known by the testator and signed
by him, or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and
by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The testator or the person
requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall
also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, on the left margin, and said
pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each
sheet. 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."
 invalid. This considers the right to transfer property as an
inchoate right.
b. The validity of the execution of a will must be tested by the
statutes in force at the time of its execution and that statutes
subsequently enacted have no retrospective effect – Old
English view in Downs v. Townsend
c. When statutes increase the formalities, it should be construed
in favor of the will already executed and not impair it. When
statutes decrease the formalities, it should be construed in
favor of wills which were defectively executed – supported in
the States of Alabama and New York (The Court did not
directly address this part).
2. First view – Court said it was wrong because when a will is
executed, then the act is completed already. It is more than just
an inchoate or ambulatory right.
3. Second view - The Court adopts the second view. The general rule
is that statutes are prospective unless it is the Legislature’s
intention to give it retrospective effect. The Civil Code says that
laws do not have retroactive effect unless otherwise prescribed.
The language of Act No. 2645 gives no indication of
retrospective effect. There is also a positive rule in the statute that
transferring property is a completed act at the time of execution for
all testaments made after the enactment of Act No. 2645, but the
rule is not effective for testaments made before Act No. 2645.
4. Therefore, in accordance with the second rule, the will of Jose
Riosa is valid.