8/9/2019 035-Caneda v CA (1993)

1/10

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993

TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA, JUAN CABALLERO, AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA,HELEN CABALLERO, SANTOS CABALLERO, ABLO CABALLERO, !"CTOR RAGA, MAUR"C"A RAGA, #U"R"CA RAGA,RUERTO ABAO, $%&$%'%()%* +%$%( -y +' A))o$(%y(/a), ARMST"C"A ABAO !ELANO, a(* CONSESO CANEDA,$%&$%'%()%* +%$%( -y +' +%$', JESUS CANEDA, NAT"!"DAD CANEDA a(* ARTURO CANEDA, petitioners,vs.HON. COURT O/ AEALS a(* "LL"AM CABRERA, a' S&%a A*(')$a)o$ o )+% E')a)% o Ma)%o Ca-a%$o, respondents.

Palma, Palma & Associates for petitioners.

Emilio Lumontad, Jr. for private respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

Presented for resolution by this Court in the present petition for review on certiorariis the issue of whether or not the attestation clausecontained in the last will and testaent of the late !ateo Caballero coplies with the re"uireents of #rticle $%&, in relation to #rticle$%', of the Civil Code.

(he records show that on Deceber &, )'*$, !ateo Caballero, a widower without any children and already in the twili+ht years of hislife, eecuted a last will and testaent at his residence in (alisay, Cebu before three attestin+ witnesses, naely, Cipriano -abuca,re+orio Cabando and /laviano (ore+osa. (he said testator was duly assisted by his lawyer, #tty. Eilio -uontad, and a notary

public, #tty. /iloteo !ani+os, in the preparation of that last will. 1It was declared therein, aon+ other thin+s, that thetestator was leavin+ by way of le+acies and devises his real and personal properties to Presentacion aviola,

#n+el #batayo, 0o+elio #batayo, Isabelito #batayo, 1enoni . Cabrera and !arcosa #lcantara, all of who do notappear to be related to the testator.2

/our onths later, or on #pril 2, )'*', !ateo Caballero hiself filed a petition doc3eted as Special Proceedin+ No. 4$''50 before1ranch II of the then Court of /irst Instance of Cebu see3in+ the probate of his last will and testaent. (he probate court set thepetition for hearin+ on #u+ust 6%, )'*' but the sae and subse"uent scheduled hearin+s were postponed for one reason to another.

On !ay 6', )'$%, the testator passed away before his petition could finally be heard by the probate court. 3On /ebruary 6&, )'$),1enoni Cabrera, on of the le+atees naed in the will, sou+h his appointent as special adinistrator of thetestator7s estate, the estiated value of which was P62,%%%.%%, and he was so appointed by the probate court inits order of !arch 8, )'$).4

(hereafter, herein petitioners, claiin+ to be nephews and nieces of the testator, instituted a second petit ion, entitled 9In the !atter ofthe Intestate Estate of !ateo Caballero9 and doc3eted as Special Proceedin+ No. 4'8&50, before 1ranch I: of the aforesaid Court of/irst Instance of Cebu. On October )$, )'$6, herein petitioners had their said petition intestate proceedin+ consolidated with SpecialProceedin+ No. 4$''50 in 1ranch II of the Court of /irst Instance of Cebu and opposed thereat the probate of the (estator7s will andthe appointent of a special adinistrator for his estate. 5

1enoni Cabrera died on /ebruary $, )'$6 hence the probate court, now 3nown as 1ranch :V of the 0e+ional (rial Court of Cebu,appointed ;illia Cabrera as special adinistrator on

8/9/2019 035-Caneda v CA (1993)

2/10

On the other hand, one of the attestin+ witnesses, Cipriano -abuca, and the notary public #tty. /iloteo !ani+os, testified that thetestator eecuted the will in "uestion in their presence while he was of sound and disposin+ ind and that, contrary to the assertionsof the oppositors, !ateo Caballero was in +ood health and was not unduly influenced in any way in the eecution of his will. -abucaalso testified that he and the other witnesses attested and si+ned the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. (he othertwo attestin+ witnesses were not presented in the probate hearin+ as the had died by then. 8

On #pril &, )'$$, the probate court rendered a decision declarin+ the will in "uestion as the last will and testaent of the late !ateoCaballero, on the ratiocination that>

. . . (he self5servin+ testiony of the two witnesses of the oppositors cannot overcoe the positive testionies of#tty. /iloteo !ani+os and Cipriano -abuca who clearly told the Court that indeed !ateo Caballero eecuted the-ast ;ill and (estaent now ar3ed Ehibit 9C9 on Deceber &, )'*$. !oreover, the fact that it was !ateoCaballero who initiated the probate of his ;ill durin+ his lifetie when he caused the filin+ of the ori+inal petitionnow ar3ed Ehibit 9D9 clearly underscores the fact that this was indeed his -ast ;ill. #t the start, counsel for theoppositors anifested that he would want the si+nature of !ateo Caballero in Ehibit 9C9 eained by ahandwritin+ epert of the N1I but it would see that despite their avowal and intention for the eaination of thissi+nature of !ateo Caballero in Ehibit 9C9, nothin+ cae out of it because they abandoned the idea and insteadpresented #urea Caballero and ?elen Caballero Capo as witnesses for the oppositors.

#ll told, it is the findin+ of this Court that Ehibit 9C9 is the -ast ;ill and (estaent of !ateo Caballero and that itwas eecuted in accordance with all the re"uisites of the law.9

@ndaunted by the said =ud+ent of the probate court, petitioners elevated the case in the Court of #ppeals in C#5.0. CV No. )'88'.(hey asserted therein that the will in "uestion is null and void for the reason that its attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to

specifically state that the instruental witnesses to the will witnessed the testator si+nin+ the will in their presence and that they alsosi+ned the will and all the pa+es thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

On October )&, )''), respondent court proul+ated its decision 10affirin+ that of the trial court, and rulin+ that theattestation clause in the last will of !ateo Caballero substantially coplies with #rticle $%& of the Civil Code, thus>

(he "uestion therefore is whether the attestation clause in "uestion ay be considered as havin+ substantialycoplied with the re"uireents of #rt. $%& of the Civil Code. ;hat appears in the attestation clause which theoppositors clai to be defective is 9we do certify that the testaent was read by hi and the attestator, !ateoCaballero, has published unto us the fore+oin+ will consistin+ of (?0EE P#ES, includin+ the ac3nowled+ent,each pa+e nubered correlatively in letters of the upper part of each pa+e, as his -ast ;ill and (estaent, and hehas signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand marginin the presence of the said testator and in the presence of each and all of usAephasis suppliedB.

(o our thin3in+, this is sufficient copliance and no evidence need be presented to indicate the eanin+ that thesaid will was si+ned by the testator and by the Athe witnessesB in the presence of all of the and of one another.Or as the lan+ua+e of the law would have it that the testator si+ned the will 9in the presence of the instruentalwitnesses, and that the latter witnessed and si+ned the will and all the pa+es thereof in the presence of the testatorand of one another.9 If not copletely or ideally perfect in accordance with the wordin+s of #rt. $%& but AsicB thephrase as forulated is in substantial copliance with the re"uireent of the law.9 11

Petitioners oved for the reconsideration of the said rulin+ of respondent court, but the sae was denied in the latter7s resolution of

#rt. $%&. Every will, other than a holo+raphic will, ust be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator hiself orby the testator7s nae written by soe other person in his presence, and by his epress direction, and attested andsubscribed by three or ore credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

8/9/2019 035-Caneda v CA (1993)

3/10

(he testator or the person re"uested by hi to write his nae and the instruental witnesses of the will, shall alsosi+n, as aforesaid, each and every pa+e thereof, ecept the last, on the left ar+in, and all the pa+es shall benubered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each pa+e.

(he attestation should state the nuber of pa+es used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testatorsi+ned the will and every pa+e thereof, or caused soe other person to write his nae, under his epress direction,in the presence of the instruental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and si+ned the will and all the pa+esthereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

If the attestation clause is in a lan+ua+e not 3nown to the witness, it shall be interpreted to the.

In addition, the ordinary will ust be ac3nowled+ed before a notary public by a testator and the attestin+ witness. 15hence it isli3ewise 3nown as notarial will. ;here the attestator is deaf or deaf5ute, #rticle $%* re"uires that he ustpersonally read the will, if able to do so. Otherwise, he should desi+nate two persons who would read the will andcounicate its contents to hi in a practicable anner. On the other hand, if the testator is blind, the will shouldbe read to hi twice once, by anyone of the witnesses thereto, and then a+ain, by the notary public before whoit is ac3nowled+ed. 16

(he other 3ind of will is the holo+raphic will, which #rticle $)% defines as one that is entirely written, dated, and si+ned by the testatorhiself. (his 3ind of will, unli3e the ordinary type, re"uires no attestation by witnesses. # coon re"uireent in both 3inds of will isthat they should be in writin+ and ust have been eecuted in a lan+ua+e or dialect 3nown to the testator. 17

?owever, in the case of an ordinary or attested will, its attestation clause need not be written in a lan+ua+e or dialect 3nown to thetestator since it does not for part of the testaentary disposition. /urtherore, the lan+ua+e used in the attestation clause li3ewise

need not even be 3nown to the attestin+ witnesses. 18(he last para+raph of #rticle $%& erely re"uires that, in such acase, the attestation clause shall be interpreted to said witnesses.

#n attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will whereby the attestin+ witnesses certify that the instruent has been

eecuted before the and to the anner of the eecution the sae. 19It is a separate eorandu or record of the factssurroundin+ the conduct of eecution and once si+ned by the witnesses, it +ives affiration to the fact thatcopliance with the essential foralities re"uired by law has been observed. 20It is ade for the purpose ofpreservin+ in a peranent for a record of the facts that attended the eecution of a particular will, so that in caseof failure of the eory of the attestin+ witnesses, or other casualty, such facts ay still be proved. 21

@nder the third para+raph of #rticle $%&, such a clause, the coplete lac3 of which would result in the invalidity of the will,22shouldstate A)B the number of the pages used upon which the will is written A6B that the testator signed, or epresslycaused another to si+n, the will and every pa+e thereof in the presence of the attesting witnesses and A4B thatthe attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the willand all its pa+es, andthat saidwitnessesalso signed the will and every pa+e thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

(he purpose of the law in re"uirin+ the clause to state the nuber of pa+es on which the will is written is to safe+uard a+ainst possible

interpolation or oission of one or soe of its pa+es and to prevent any increase or decrease in the pa+es 23whereas thesubscription of the si+nature of the testator and the attestin+ witnesses is ade for the purpose of authenticationand identification, and thus indicates that the will is the very sae instruent eecuted by the testator andattested to by the witnesses.24

/urther, by attestin+ and subscribin+ to the will, the witnesses thereby declare the due eecution of the will as ebodied in the

attestation clause.25(he attestation clause, therefore, provide stron+ le+al +uaranties for the due eecution of a willand to insure the authenticity thereof.26#s it appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator, it need be

si+ned only by the.27;here it is left unsi+ned, it would result in the invalidation of the will as it would be possibleand easy to add the clause on a subse"uent occasion in the absence of the testator and its witnesses. 28

In its report, the Code Coission coented on the reasons of the law for re"uirin+ the foralities to be followed in the eecution ofwills, in the followin+ anner>

(he underlyin+ and fundaental ob=ectives pereatin+ the provisions on the law on wills in this Pro=ect consists inthe liberaliation of the anner of their eecution with the end in view of +ivin+ the testator ore freedo inepressin+ his last wishes, but with sufficient safe+uards and restrictions to prevent the coission of fraud andthe eercise of undue and iproper pressure and influence upon the testator.

8/9/2019 035-Caneda v CA (1993)

4/10

(his ob=ective is in accord with the odern tendency with respect to the foralities in the eecution of wills. . . . 29

6. #n eaination of the last will and testaent of !ateo Caballero shows that it is coprised of three sheets all of which have beennubered correlatively, with the left ar+in of each pa+e thereof bearin+ the respective si+natures of the testator and the threeattestin+ witnesses. (he part of the will containin+ the testaentary dispositions is epressed in the Cebuano5Visayan dialect and issi+ned at the foot thereof by the testator. (he attestation clause in "uestion, on the other hand, is recited in the En+lish lan+ua+e and

is li3ewise si+ned at the end thereof by the three attestin+ witnesses hereto. 30Since it is the proverbial bone of contention, wereproduce it a+ain for facility of reference>

;e, the undersi+ned attestin+ ;itnesses, whose 0esidences and postal addresses appear on the Opposite of ourrespective naes, we do hereby certify that the (estaent was read by hi and the testator, !#(EOC#1#--E0O has published unto us the fore+oin+ ;ill consistin+ of (?0EE P#ES, includin+ the#c3nowled+ent, each pa+e nubered correlatively in the letters on the upper part of each pa+e, as his -ast ;illand (estaent and he has the sae and every pa+e thereof, on the spaces provided for his si+nature and on theleft hand ar+in, in the presence of the said testator and in the presence of each and all of us.

It will be noted that #rticle $%& re"uires that the witness should both attest and subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator andof one another. 9#ttestation9 and 9subscription9 differ in eanin+. #ttestation is the act of senses, while subscription is the act of thehand. (he forer is ental, the latter echanical, and to attest a will is to 3now that it was published as such, and to certify the factsre"uired to constitute an actual and le+al publication but to subscribe a paper published as a will is only to write on the sae paperthe naes of the witnesses, for the sole purpose of identification. 31

In Taboada vs. i!al,32we clarified that attestation consists in witnessin+ the testator7s eecution of the will in order to

see and ta3e note entally that those thin+s are done which the statute re"uires for the eecution of a will andthat the si+nature of the testator eists as a fact. On the other hand, subscription is the si+nin+ of the witnesses7naes upon the sae paper for the purpose of identification of such paper as the will which was eecuted by thetestator. #s it involves a ental act, there would be no eans, therefore, of ascertainin+ by a physical eainationof the will whether the witnesses had indeed si+ned in the presence of the testator and of each other unless this issubstantially epressed in the attestation.

It is contended by petitioners that the afore"uoted attestation clause, in contravention of the epress re"uireents of the thirdpara+raph of #rticle $%& of the Civil Code for attestation clauses, fails to specifically state the fact that the attestin+ witnesses thetestator si+n the will and all its pa+es in their presence and that they, the witnesses, li3ewise si+ned the will and every pa+e thereof inthe presence of the testator and of each other. ;e a+ree.

;hat is fairly apparent upon a careful readin+ of the attestation clause herein assailed is the fact that while it recites that the testatorindeed si+ned the will and all its pa+es in the presence of the three attestin+ witnesses and states as well the nuber of pa+es that

were used, the sae does not epressly state therein the circustance that said witnesses subscribed their respective si+natures tothe will in the presence of the testator and of each other.

(he phrase 9and he has si+ned the sae and every pa+e thereof, on the spaces provided for his si+nature and on the left handar+in,9 obviously refers to the testator and not the instruental witnesses as it is iediately preceded by the words 9as his -ast ;illand (estaent.9 On the other hand, althou+h the words 9in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each and all of us9 ay,at first blush, appear to li3ewise si+nify and refer to the witnesses, it ust, however, be interpreted as referrin+ only to the testatorsi+nin+ in the presence of the witnesses since said phrase iediately follows the words 9hehas si+ned the sae and every pa+ethereof, on the spaces provided for hissi+nature and on the left hand ar+in.9 ;hat is then clearly lac3in+, in the final lo+icalanalysis , is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

It is our considered view that the absence of that stateent re"uired by law is a fatal defect or iperfection which ust necessarilyresult in the disallowance of the will that is here sou+ht to be aditted to probate. Petitioners are correct in pointin+ out that theaforestated defect in the attestation clause obviously cannot be characteried as erely involvin+ the for of the will or the lan+ua+eused therein which would warrant the application of the substantial copliance rule, as conteplated in the pertinent provision thereon

in the Civil Code, to wit>

#rt. $%'. In the absence of bad faith, for+ery, or fraud, or undue and iproper pressure and influence, defects andiperfections in theformof attestation or in the languageused therein shall not render the will invalid if it is notproved that the will was in fact eecuted and attested in substantial copliance with all the re"uireents of article$%&9 AEphasis supplied.B

;hile it ay be true that the attestation clause is indeed subscribed at the end thereof and at the left ar+in of each pa+e by the threeattestin+ witnesses, it certainly cannot be conclusively inferred therefro that the said witness affied their respective si+natures in thepresence of the testator and of each other since, as petitioners correctly observed, the presence of said si+natures only establishesthe fact that it was indeed si+ned, but it does not prove that the attestin+ witnesses did subscribe to the will in the presence of the

8/9/2019 035-Caneda v CA (1993)

5/10

testator and of each other. (he eecution of a will is supposed to be one act so that where the testator and the witnesses si+n onvarious days or occasions and in various cobinations, the will cannot be staped with the ipriatur of effectivity. 33

;e believe that the further coent of forer

8/9/2019 035-Caneda v CA (1993)

6/10

aguinsin,43-n re /ill of Andrada,44y 'o"ue vs. ioca,45In re Estate of +eumar#, 46and ano vs. 0uintana.47

%umban vs. %orecho, et al.,48provided the Court with the occasion to clarify the seein+ly conflictin+ decisions in theaforeentioned cases. In said case of %umban, the attestation clause had failed to state that the witnessessi+ned the will and each and every pa+e thereof on the left ar+in in the presence of the testator. (he will in"uestion was disallowed, with these reasons therefor>

In support of their ar+uent on the assi+nent of error above5entioned, appellants rely on a series of cases of

this court be+innin+ with AIBn the !atter of the AEBstate of Sa+uinsin A)'6%F, 2) Phil., $*&B, continuin+ with -n re ;illof #ndrada )'6)F, 26 Phil., )$%B, @y Co"ue vs. Navas -. Sioca )'66F, 24 Phil., 2%&B, and -n re Estate of Neuar3A)'64F, 28 Phil., $2)B, and endin+ with ano vs. 0uintana A)'6&F, 2$ Phil., &%8B. #ppellee counters with thecitation of a series of cases be+innin+ withAbangan vs. Abangan A)')'F, 2% Phil., 2*8B, continuin+ throu+hAldabavs. o"ue A)'66F, 24 Phil., 4*$B, and (ernande! vs. )ergel de *iosA)'62F, 28 Phil., '66B, and culinatin+in +ayve vs. o$al and Aguilar A)'62F, 2* Phil., )&6B. In its last analysis, our tas3 is to contrast and, if possible,conciliate the last two decisions cited by opposin+ counsel, naely, those of ano vs. 0uintana, supra, and +ayvevs. o$al and Aguilar, supra.

In the case of ano vs. 0uintana, supra, it was decided that an attestation clause which does not recite that thewitnesses si+ned the will and each and every pa+e thereof on the left ar+in in the presence of the testator isdefective, and such a defect annuls the will. (he case of y 'o"ue vs. ioca, supra, was cited, but the caseof +ayve vs. o$al and Aguilar, supra, was not entioned. In contrast, is the decision in +ayve vs. o$al andAguilar, supra, wherein it was held that the attestation clause ust estate the fact that the testator and thewitnesses reciprocally saw the si+nin+ of the will, for such an act cannot be proved by the ere ehibition of thewill, if it is not stated therein. It was also held that the fact that the testator and the witnesses si+ned each and everypa+e of the will can be proved also by the ere eaination of the si+natures appearin+ on the docuent itself,and the oission to state such evident facts does not invalidate the will.

It is a habit of courts to reaffir or distin+uish previous cases seldo do they adit inconsistency in doctrine. Gethere, unless aided ipossible to reconcile the !o=al and Huintana decisions. (hey are fundaentally at variance. Ifwe rely on one, we affir. If we rely on the other, we reverse.

In resolvin+ this pulin+ "uestion of authority, three outstandin+ points ay be entioned. In the first place, the!o=al, decision was concurred in by only four ebers of the court, less than a a=ority, with two stron+ dissentin+opinions the Huintana decision was concurred in by seven ebers of the court, a clear a=ority, with one foraldissent. In the second place, the !o=al decision was proul+ated in Deceber, )'62, while the Huintana decisionwas proul+ated in Deceber, )'6& the Huintana decision was thus subse"uent in point of tie. #nd in the thirdplace, the Huintana decision is believed ore nearly to confor to the applicable provisions of the law.

(he ri+ht to dispose of property by will is +overned entirely by statute. (he law of the case is here found in section8) of the Code of Civil Procedure as aended by #ct No. 682&, and in section 842 of the sae Code, asunaended. It is in part provided in section 8), as aended that 9No will. . .shall be valid. . .unless . . ..9 It isfurther provided in the sae section that 9(he attestation shallstate the nuber of sheets or pa+es used, uponwhich the will is written, and the fact that the testator si+ned the will and every pa+e thereof, or caused soe otherperson to write his nae, under his epress direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessedand si+ned the will and all pa+es thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.9 Codal section 842provides that 9(he will shallbe disallowed in either of the followin+ case> ). If noteecuted and attestedas in this#ct provided.9 (he law not alone carefully a3es use of the iperative, but cautiously +oes further and a3es useof the ne+ative, to enforce le+islative intention. It is not within the province of the courts to disre+ard the le+islativepurpose so ephatically and clearly epressed.

;e adopt and reaffir the decision in the case of ano vs. 0uintana, supra, and, to the etent necessary, odifythe decision in the case of +ayve vs. o$al and Aguilar, supra. AEphases in the ori+inal tetB.

1ut after the %umbanclarificatory pronounceent, there were decisions of the Court that once ore appeared to revive the seein+

diversity of views that was earlier threshed out therein. (he cases of 0uinto vs. orata,49odrigue! vs. Alcala,50Enchevarriavs. armiento,51and Testate Estate of Toray52went the way of the rulin+ as restated in %umban. 1ut*e %ala vs.%on!ales, et al.,53ey vs. 'artagena,54*e Ticson vs. *e %orosti!a,55ebastian vs. Panganiban,56odrigue! vs.1ap,57%rey vs. (abia,58Leyne! vs. Leyne!,59artir vs. artir,60Alcala vs. *e )illa,61abado vs.(ernande!,62endo!a vs. Pilapil, 63and Lope! vs. Liboro,64veered away fro the strict interpretation rule andestablished a trend toward an application of the liberal view.

(he Code Coission, co+niant of such a conflictin+ welter of views and of the undeniable inclination towards a liberal construction,recoended the codification of the substantial copliance rule, as it believed this rule to be in accord with the odern tendency to

8/9/2019 035-Caneda v CA (1993)

7/10

+ive a liberal approach to the interpretation of wills. Said rule thus becae what is now #rticle $%' of the Civil Code, with thiseplanation of the Code Coission>

(he present law provides for only one for of eecutin+ a will, and that is, in accordance with the foralitiesprescribed by Section 8)$ of the Code of Civil Procedure as aended by #ct No. 682&. (he Supree Court of thePhilippines had previously upheld the strict copliance with the le+al foralities and had even said that theprovisions of Section 8)$ of the Code of Civil Procedure, as aended re+ardin+ the contents of the attestationclause were andatory, and non5copliance therewith invalidated the will A@y Co"ue vs. Sioca, 24 Phil. 2%&B.(hese decisions necessarily restrained the freedo of the testator in disposin+ of his property.

?owever, in recent years the Supree Court chan+ed its attitude and has becoe ore liberal in the interpretationof the foralities in the eecution of wills. (his liberal view is enunciated in the cases ofodrigue! vs. 1ap, .0. No.2&'62, !ay )$, )'4' Leyne! vs. Leyne!, .0. No. 28%'*, October )$, )'4'artir vs. artir, .0. No. 28''&,

9#rt. $6'. In the absence of bad faith, for+ery, or fraud, or undue and iproper pressure andinfluence, defects and iperfections in the for of attestation or in the lan+ua+e used thereinshall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact eecuted and attested insubstantial copliance with all the re"uireents of article $6'.9 65

(he so5called liberal rule, the Court said in %il vs. urciano,669does not offer any pule or difficulty, nor does it open thedoor to serious conse"uences. (he later decisions do tell us when and where to stop they draw the dividin+ linewith precision. (hey do not allow evidence aliundeto fill a void in any part of the docuent or supply issin+details that should appear in the will itself. (hey only perit a probe into the will, an eploration into its confines, toascertain its eanin+ or to deterine the eistence or absence of the re"uisite foralities of law. (his clear, sharpliitation eliinates uncertainty and ou+ht to banish any fear of dire results.9

It ay thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that oissions which can be supplied by an eaination of the will itself, withoutthe need of resortin+ to etrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondin+ly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the willbein+ assailed. ?owever, those oissions which cannot be supplied ecept by evidencealiundewould result in the invalidation of theattestation clause and ultiately, of the will itself. 67

;?E0E/O0E, the petition is hereby 0#N(ED and the ipu+ned decision of respondent court is hereby 0EVE0SED and SE(#SIDE. (he court a "uois accordin+ly directed to forthwith DIS!ISS its Special Proceedin+ No. 4$''50 APetition for the Probate of the-ast ;ill and (estaent of !ateo CaballeroB and to 0EVIVE Special Proceedin+ No. 4'8&50 AIn the atter of the Intestate Estate of!ateo CaballeroB as an active case and thereafter duly proceed with the settleent of the estate of the said decedent.

SO O0DE0ED.

+arvasa, '.J., Padilla, egalado, and +ocon, JJ., concur.

/oo)(o)%'

(he first nae of this representative party petitioner is also spelled 9#ristica9 in the correspondin+ alle+ation of

the petition.

) Ori+inal 0ecord, )54.

6 Ehibit C /older of Ehibits in Special Proceedin+ No. 4$''50, *5$.

4 Ori+inal 0ecord, )54, *, 62, 46.

2 -bid., 46542.

8/9/2019 035-Caneda v CA (1993)

8/10

& -bid., 8$58', )&*.

8 -bid., '$, ))8, )24, )2$, )&*5)&'.

* (SN,

8/9/2019 035-Caneda v CA (1993)

9/10

42 -awyer7s

8/9/2019 035-Caneda v CA (1993)

10/10

86 *6 Phil. &4) A)'2)B.

84 *6 Phil. &28 A)'2)B.

82 $) Phil., 26' A)'2$B.

8& 0eport of the Code Coission, )%25)%&.

88 $$ Phil. 68%, 6$) A)'&)B.

8* (olentino, op. cit., supra, note )* at ))).