G.R.No.

L14074,InrewillofRiosa
RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
DECISION
November7,1918
G.R.No.L14074
InthematteroftheprobationofthewillofJoseRiosa.MARCELINOCASAS,
applicantappellant,
VicentedeVeraforpetitionerappellant
MALCOLM,J.:
TheissuewhichthisappealpresentsiswhetherinthePhilippineIslandsthelawexistingon
thedateoftheexecutionofawill,orthelawexistingatthedeathofthetestator,controls.
JoseRiosadiedonApril17,1917.HeleftawillmadeinthemonthofJanuary,1908,in
whichhedisposedofanestatevaluedatmorethanP35,000.Thewillwasdulyexecutedin
accordancewiththelawtheninforce,namely,section618oftheCodeofCivilProcedure.
ThewillwasnotexecutedinaccordancewithActNo.2645,amendatoryofsaidsection618,
prescribingcertainadditionalformalitiesforthesigningandattestationofwills,inforceon
andafterJuly1,1916.Inotherwords,thewillwasinwriting,signedbythetestator,and
attestedandsubscribedbythreecrediblewitnessesinthepresenceofthetestatorandofeach
other;butwasnotsignedbythetestatorandthewitnessesontheleftmarginofeachand
everypage,nordidtheattestationstatethesefacts.Thenewlaw,therefore,wentintoeffect
afterthemakingofthewillandbeforethedeathofthetestator,withoutthetestatorhaving
leftawillthatconformstothenewrequirements.
Section618oftheCodeofCivilProcedurereads:
Nowill,exceptasprovidedintheprecedingsection,shallbevalidtopassanyestate,realor
personal,norchargeoraffectthesame,unlessitbeinwritingandsignedbythetestator,orby
thetestator'snamewrittenbysomeotherpersoninhispresence,andbyhisexpressdirection,
andattestedandsubscribedbythreeormorecrediblewitnessesinthepresenceofthetestator
andofeachother.Theattestationshallstatethefactthatthetestatorsignedthewill,orcaused
ittobesignedbysomeotherperson,athisexpressdirection,inthepresenceofthree
witnesses,andthattheyattestedandsubscribeditinhispresenceandinthepresenceofeach
other.Buttheabsenceofsuchformofattestationshallnotrenderthewillinvalidifitis
proventhatthewillwasinfactsignedandattestedasinthissectionprovided.
ActNo.2645hasamendedsection618oftheCodeofCivilProceduresoastomakesaid
sectionreadasfollows:

SEC.618.Requisitesofwill.Nowill,exceptasprovidedintheprecedingsection,shallbe
validtopassanyestate,realorpersonal,norchargeoraffectthesame,unlessitbewrittenin
thelanguageordialectknownbythetestatorandsignedbyhim,orbythetestator'sname
writtenbysomeotherpersoninhispresence,andbyhisexpressdirection,andattestedand
subscribedbythreeormorecrediblewitnessesinthepresenceofthetestatorandofeach
other.Thetestatororthepersonrequestedbyhimtowritehisnameandtheinstrumental
witnessesofthewill,shallalsosign,asaforesaid,each,andeverypagethereof,ontheleft
margin,andsaidpagesshallbenumberedcorrelativelyinlettersplacedontheupperpartof
eachsheet.Theattestationshallstatethenumberofsheetsorpagesused,uponwhichthewill
iswritten,andthefactthatthetestatorsignedthewillandeverypagethereof,orcausedsome
otherpersontowritehisname,underhisexpressdirection,inthepresenceofthreewitnesses,
andthelatterwitnessedandsignedthewillandallpagesthereofinthepresenceofthe
testatorandofeachother.
ThiscourthasheretoforeheldinadecisionhandeddownbytheChiefJustice,astoawill
madeafterthedateActNo.2645wentintoeffect,thatitmustcomplywiththeprovisionsof
thislaw.(CaraigvsTatlonghari,R.G.No.12558,datedMarch23,1918[notpublished].)
ThecourthasfurtherheldinadecisionhandeddownbyJusticeTorres,astowillexecutedby
atestatorwhosedeathtookplacepriortotheoperativedateofActNo.2645,thatthe
amendatoryactisinapplicable.(Bonavs.Briones,[1918],38Phil.,276.)Theinstantappeal
presentsanentirelydifferentquestion.ThewillwasexecutepriortotheenactmentofActNo.
2645andthedeathoccurredaftertheenactmentofthislaw.
Thereisaclearcleavageofauthorityamongthecasesandthetextwriters,astotheeffectof
achangeinthestatutesprescribingtheformalitiesnecessarytobeobservedintheexecution
ofawill,whensuchchangeismadeintermediatetotheexecutionofawillandthedeathofa
testator.(Seegenerally40Cyc.,1076.andanytextbookonWills,andLane'sAppealfrom
Probate[1889],57Conn.,182.)Therulelaiddownbythecourtsinmanyjurisdictionsisthat
thestatutesinforceatthetestator'sdeatharecontrolling,andthatawillnotexecutedin
conformitywithsuchstatutesisinvalid,althoughitsexecutionwassufficientatthetimeit
wasmade.Thereasonsassignedforapplyingthelaterstatutearethefollowing:"Asuntilthe
deathofthetestatorthepaperexecutedbyhim,expressinghiswishes,isnotawill,buta
mereinchoateactwhichmayormaynotbeawill,thelawinforceatthetestator'sdeath
appliesandcontrolstheproofofthewill."(Suttonvs.Chenault[1855],18Ga.,1.)Werewe
toaccepttheforegoingpropositionandthereasonsassignedforit,itwouldlogicallyresult
thatthewillofJoseRiosawouldhavetobeheldinvalid.
Theruleprevailinginmanyotherjurisdictionsisthatthevalidityoftheexecutionofawill
mustbetestedbythestatutesinforceatthetimeofitsexecutionandthatstatutes
subsequentlyenactedhavenoretrospectiveeffect.Thisdoctrineisbelievedtobesupported
bytheweightofauthority.ItwastheoldEnglishview;inDowns(orDowning)vs.Townsend
(Ambler,280),LordHardwickeisreportedtohavesaidthat"thegeneralruleastotestaments
is,thatthetimeofthetestament,andnotthetestator'sdeath,isregarded."Itisalsothe
modernview,includingamongotherdecisionsoneoftheSupremeCourtofVermontfrom
whichStatemanyofthesectionsoftheCodeifCivilProcedureofthePhilippineIslands
relatingtowillsaretaken.(Giddingsvs.Turgeon[1886],58Vt.,103.)
Ofthenumerousdecisionsofdivergenttendencies,theopinionbythelearnedJustice
Sharswood(Taylorvs.Mitchell[1868],57Pa.St.,209)isregardedtobethebestconsidered.
Inthisopinionisfoundthefollowing:

Retrospectivelawsgenerallyifnotuniversallyworkinjustice,andoughttobesoconstrued
onlywhenthemandateofthelegislatureisimperative.Whenatestatormakesawill,formally
executedaccordingtotherequirementsofthelawexistingatthetimeofitsexecution,it
wouldunjustlydisappointhislawfulrightofdispositiontoapplytoitarulesubsequently
enacted,thoughbeforehisdeath.
Whileitistruethateveryoneispresumedtoknowthelaw,themaximinfactisinapplicable
tosuchacase;forhewouldhaveanequalrighttopresumethatnonewlawwouldaffecthis
pastact,andrestsatisfiedinsecurityonthatpresumption....Itistrue,thateverywillis
ambulatoryuntilthedeathofthetestator,andthedispositionmadebyitdoesnotactuallytake
effectuntilthen.Generalwordsapplytothepropertyofwhichthetestatordiespossessed,and
heretainsthepowerofrevocationaslongashelives.Theactofbequeathingordevising,
however,takesplacewhenthewillisexecuted,thoughtogointoeffectatafuturetime.
Athirdview,somewhatlargerinconceptionthantheprecedingone,findingsupportinthe
StatesofAlabamaandNewYork,isthatstatutesrelatingtotheexecutionofwills,whenthey
increasethenecessaryformalities,shouldbeconstruedsoasnottoimpairthevalidityofa
willalreadymadeand,whentheylessentheformalitiesrequired,shouldbeconstruedsoasto
aidwillsdefectivelyexecutedaccordingtothelawinforceatthetimeoftheirmaking
(Hoffmanvs.Hoffman,[1855],26Ala.,535;Pricevs.Brown,1Bradf.,Surr.N.Y.,252.)
Thiscourtisgiventheopportunitytochoosebetweenthethreerulesabovedescribed.Our
selection,undersuchcircumstances,shouldnaturallydependmoreonreasonthanon
technicality.Aboveall,wecannotlosesightofthefactthatthetestatorhasprovidedindetail
forthedispositionofhispropertyandthathisdesiresshouldberespectedbythecourts.
Justiceisapowerfulpleaderforthesecondandthirdrulesonthesubject.
Theplausiblereasoningoftheauthoritieswhichbackthefirstpropositionis,wethink,
fallacious.Theactofbequeathingordevisingissomethingmorethaninchoateorambulatory.
Inreality,itbecomesacompletedactwhenthewillisexecutedandattestedaccordingtothe
law,althoughitdoesnottakeeffectonthepropertyuntilafuturetime.
Itis,ofcourse,ageneralruleofstatutoryconstruction,asthiscourthassaid,that"allstatutes
aretobeconstruedashavingonlyaprospectiveoperationunlessthepurposeandintentionof
theLegislaturetogivethemaretrospectiveeffectisexpresslydeclaredorisnecessarily
impliedfromthelanguageused.Ineverycaseofdoubt,thedoubtmustberesolvedagainst
therestrospectiveeffect."(Montillavs.CorporaciondePP.Agustinos[1913],24Phil.,220.
SeealsoChewHeongvs.U.S.[1884],112U.S.,536;U.S.vsAmericanSugarRef.Co.
[1906],202U.S.,563.)Statutelaw,asfoundintheCivilCode,iscorroborative;article3
thereofprovidesthat"lawsshallnothavearetroactiveeffect,unlessthereinotherwise
prescribed."ThelanguageofActNo.2645givesnoindicationofretrospectiveeffect.Such,
likewise,hasbeentheuniformtendencyoftheSupremeCourtofthePhilippineIslandson
caseshavingspecialapplicationtotestamentarysuccession.(Abellovs.KockdeMonaterio
[1904],3Phil.,558;Timbolvs.Manalo[1906],6Phil.,254;Bonavs.Briones,supra;Inthe
MatteroftheProbationoftheWillofBibianaDiqui?a[1918],R.G.No.13176,1concerning
thelanguageoftheWill.Seealsosection617,CodeofCivilProcedure.)
Thestrongestargumentagainstouracceptingthefirsttworulescomesoutofsection634of
theCodeofCivilProcedurewhich,innegativeterms,providesthatawillshallbedisallowed
ineitheroffivecases,thefirstbeing"ifnotexecutedandattestedasinthisActprovided."
ActNo.2645has,ofcourse,becomepartandparceloftheCodeofCivilProcedure.Thewill
inquestionisadmittedlynotexecutedandattestedasprovidedbytheCodeofCivil

Procedureasamended.Nevertheless,itispropertoobservethatthegeneralprincipleinthe
lawofwillsinsertsitselfevenwithintheprovisionsofsaidsection634.Ourstatute
announcesapositiveruleforthetransferenceofpropertywhichmustbecompliedwithas
completedactatthetimeoftheexecution,sofarastheactofthetestatorisconcerned,asto
alltestamentsmadesubsequenttotheenactmentofActNo.2645,butisnoteffectiveasto
testamentsmadeantecedenttothatdate.
Toanswerthequestionwithwhichwebeganthisdecision,weadoptasourownthesecond
rule,particularlyasestablishedbytheSupremeCourtofPennsylvania.ThewillofJoseRiosa
isvalid.
TheorderoftheCourtofFirstInstancefortheProvinceofAlbayofDecember29,1917,
disallowingthewillofJoseRiosa,isreversed,andtherecordshallbereturnedtothelower
courtwithdirectiontoadmitthesaidwilltoprobate,withoutspecialfindingsastocosts.So
ordered.
Arellano,C.J.,Torres,Johnson,Street,Avance?aandFisher,JJ.,concur.