Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Jaboneta vs. Gustilo

    Uploaded by

    Nelia Mae S. Villena
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the statutory requirements for witnessing a will were met in this case. While one witness, Isabelo Jena, had begun to leave the room as another witness, Julio Javellana, was signing his name, Jena could still see Javellana moving his pen to sign from within the room. Additionally, the other witnesses testified that Javellana did sign the will in the presence of all. The purpose of the witness requirement is for the testator to have visual confirmation of the witnesses' identities and signatures, and this was satisfied even though Jena's back was briefly turned, as he remained in the room for the signing. Therefore, the lower

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jaboneta vs. Gustilo

    Uploaded by

    Nelia Mae S. Villena
    2K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the statutory requirements for witnessing a will were met in this case. While one witness, Isabelo Jena, had begun to leave the room as another witness, Julio Javellana, was signing his name, Jena could still see Javellana moving his pen to sign from within the room. Additionally, the other witnesses testified that Javellana did sign the will in the presence of all. The purpose of the witness requirement is for the testator to have visual confirmation of the witnesses' identities and signatures, and this was satisfied even though Jena's back was briefly turned, as he remained in the room for the signing. Therefore, the lower

    Original Description:

    Cases

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the statutory requirements for witnessing a will were met in this case. While one witness, Isabelo Jena, had begun to leave the room as another witness, Julio Javellana, was signing his name, Jena could still see Javellana moving his pen to sign from within the room. Additionally, the other witnesses testified that Javellana did sign the will in the presence of all. The purpose of the witness requirement is for the testator to have visual confirmation of the witnesses' identities and signatures, and this was satisfied even though Jena's back was briefly turned, as he remained in the room for the signing. Therefore, the lower

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Jaboneta vs. Gustilo

    Uploaded by

    Nelia Mae S. Villena
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the statutory requirements for witnessing a will were met in this case. While one witness, Isabelo Jena, had begun to leave the room as another witness, Julio Javellana, was signing his name, Jena could still see Javellana moving his pen to sign from within the room. Additionally, the other witnesses testified that Javellana did sign the will in the presence of all. The purpose of the witness requirement is for the testator to have visual confirmation of the witnesses' identities and signatures, and this was satisfied even though Jena's back was briefly turned, as he remained in the room for the signing. Therefore, the lower

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    1641 January 19, 1906


    German Jaboneta v. Ricardo Gustilo, et al.

    Facts:
    In these proceedings probate was denied the last will and testament of Macario
    Jaboneta, deceased, because the lower court was of the opinion from the evidence adduced
    at the hearing that Julio Javellana, one of the witnesses, did not attach his signature thereto
    in the presence of Isabelo Jena, another of the witnesses, as required by the provisions of
    section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    On the 26th day of December, 1901, Macario Jaboneta executed under the following
    circumstances the document in question, which has been presented for probate as his will:
    Being in the house of Arcadio Jarandilla, in Jaro, in this province, he ordered that the
    document in question be written, and calling Julio Javellana, Aniceto Jalbuena, and Isabelo
    Jena as witnesses, executed the said document as his will. They were all together, and were
    in the room where Jaboneta was, and were present when he signed the document, Isabelo
    Jena signing afterwards as a witness, at his request, and in his presence and in the presence
    of the other two witnesses. Aniceto Jalbuena then signed as a witness in the presence of the
    testator, and in the presence of the other two persons who signed as witnesses. At that
    moment Isabelo Jena, being in a hurry to leave, took his hat and left the room. As he was
    leaving the house Julio Javellana took the pen in his hand and put himself in position to sign
    the will as a witness, but did not sign in the presence of Isabelo Jena; but nevertheless, after
    Jena had left the room the said Julio Javellana signed as a witness in the presence of the
    testator and of the witness Aniceto Jalbuena.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of each other, as
    required by the statute.

    Ruling:
    Yes. The statutory requisites as to the execution of the instrument were complied with.

    We cannot agree with so much of the above finding of facts as holds that the signature
    of Javellana was not signed in the presence of Jena, in compliance with the provisions of
    section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that Jena was still in the room when he
    saw Javellana moving his hand and pen in the act of affixing his signature to the will, taken
    together with the testimony of the remaining witnesses which shows that Javellana did in
    fact there and then sign his name to the will, convinces us that the signature was affixed in
    the presence of Jena. The fact that he was in the act of leaving, and that his back was
    turned while a portion of the name of the witness was being written, is of no importance.
    He, with the other witnesses and the testator, had assembled for the purpose of executing
    the testament, and were together in the same room for that purpose,

    The purpose of a statutory requirement that the witness sign in the presence of the
    testator is said to be that the testator may have ocular evidence of the identity of the
    instrument subscribed by the witness and himself, and the generally accepted tests of
    presence are vision and mental apprehension.

    In a case, it was held that it is sufficient if the witnesses are together for the purpose of
    witnessing the execution of the will, and in a position to actually see the testator write, if
    they choose to do so; and there are many cases which lay down the rule that the true test of
    vision is not whether the testator actually saw the witness sign, but whether he might have
    seen him sign, considering his mental and physical condition and position at the time of the
    subscription. (Spoonemore vs. Cables, 66 Mo., 579.)

    The last will and testament of Macario Jaboneta must be admitted to probate. The
    judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed.

    You might also like