Icasiano v.

Icasiano
J.B.L. Reyes, J:

G.R. No. L-18979

June 30, 1964

Doctrine:
The purpose of the law is to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component
pages, and there is no intentional or deliberate deviation existed.
Law:
Art. 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:
(1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;
(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the
time of its execution;
(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the
beneficiary or of some other person;
(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;
(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed
should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto.

Facts:
Celso Icasiano (petitioner-appelle), filed a petition for the probate of the will of Josefa
Villacorte and for his appointment as executor thereof. It appears from the evidence that the
testatrix died on September 12, 1958. She executed a will in Tagalog, and through the help of her
lawyer, it was prepared in duplicates, an original and a carbon copy.
On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only brought the original copy
of the will while the carbon duplicate (unsigned) was left in Bulacan. One of the witnesses failed
to sign one of the pages in the original copy but admitted he may have lifted 2 pages
simultaneously instead when he signed the will. Nevertheless, he affirmed that the will was
signed by the testator and other witnesses in his presence.
On the other hand, Natividad Icasiano de Gomez and Enrique Icasiano (oppositorappellants) filed their joint opposition to the admission of the amended and supplemental
petition, but by order of July 20, 1959, the court admitted said petition, and on July 30, 1959,
oppositor Natividad Icasiano filed her amended opposition. Thereafter, the parties presented their
respective evidence, and after several hearings the court issued the order admitting the will and
its duplicate to probate. From this order, the oppositors appealed directly to this Court, the
amount involved being over P200,000.00, on the ground that the same is contrary to law and the
evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a
page is sufficient to deny probate of the will?

Held:
No, failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a page is sufficient
to deny probate of the will
Ratio:
The failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or mere inadvertence. Since the
duplicated bore the required signatures, this proves that the omission was not intentional. Even if
the original is in existence, a duplicate may still be admitted to probate since the original is
deemed to be defective, then in law, there is no other will bu the duly signed carbon duplicate
and the same can be probated.
The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on
account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she has no control of. Where
the purpose of the law is to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages, and
there is no intentional or deliberate deviation existed.
Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the rules that the will should
be signed by the witnesses on every page. The carbon copy duplicate was regular in all respects.