Facts:
The plaintiff is one of the next of kin, and the defendant the testamentary heir, of Santiago Velasco, who died at Namacpacan, in La Union, December 4, 1895. The plaintiff seeks a declaration that Velasco’s will is void.
The will in question was an open one, executed before a notary and three witnesses. The date of the execution of the will is expressed therein in the following words, viz: "In San Fernando, on the twenty-second of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-three." The hour is not stated. It is claimed that this omission invalidates the will.
Legal Basis:
Book III, Title III, Chapter I, article 695, of the Civil Code, provides with reference to open wills as follows: "The testator shall express his last will to the notary and to the witnesses. After the testament has been drafted in accordance with the same, stating the place, year, month, day, and hour of its execution, it shall be read adoud," etc. Book III, Title III, Chapter I, article 687, provides that "Any will, in the execution of which the formalities respectively established in this chapter have not been observed, shall be void."
StatCon:
Where a statute is plain and unambiguous the court cannot consider the expediency or practical utility thereof in giving effect thereto.
“The word "formalities," in the connection in which it is here used, refers to the mode or form in which the juristic act of executing a will is to be performed. Article 687, establishing a sanction to secure the observance of these rules, provides that if they are not followed, the will shall have no legal existence.
The sanction of article 687 is general. No exceptions are recognized. Its language excludes the idea of a distinction between essential and nonessential formalities. All the formalities prescribed are equally essential, and in order that an expression of testamentary intention may operate as a will, producing legal results as such, it must be clothed with all these formalities, however insignificant they may be in themselves, or however meaningless they may be when considered in relation to the circumstances of the particular case. Such is obviously the effect of article 687 considered independently, and we find nothing in the other provisions of the Code on the subject of wills which directly modifies the meaning of this article or inferentially indicates a different legislative intent.”
“…we must administer the law not as we think it ought to be but as we find it and without regard to consequences. We are not authorized to distinguish where the law has made no distinction.”
Note:
The time in which a will was executed may appear insignificant but “It is to provide against such contingencies as that of two competing wills executed on the same day or of a testator becoming insane on the day on which the will was executed”
Ruling:
Court ruled in favour of plaintiff-appellee rendering the will null and void.
The plaintiff is one of the next of kin, and the defendant the testamentary heir, of Santiago Velasco, who died at Namacpacan, in La Union, December 4, 1895. The plaintiff seeks a declaration that Velasco’s will is void.
The will in question was an open one, executed before a notary and three witnesses. The date of the execution of the will is expressed therein in the following words, viz: "In San Fernando, on the twenty-second of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-three." The hour is not stated. It is claimed that this omission invalidates the will.
Legal Basis:
Book III, Title III, Chapter I, article 695, of the Civil Code, provides with reference to open wills as follows: "The testator shall express his last will to the notary and to the witnesses. After the testament has been drafted in accordance with the same, stating the place, year, month, day, and hour of its execution, it shall be read adoud," etc. Book III, Title III, Chapter I, article 687, provides that "Any will, in the execution of which the formalities respectively established in this chapter have not been observed, shall be void."
StatCon:
Where a statute is plain and unambiguous the court cannot consider the expediency or practical utility thereof in giving effect thereto.
“The word "formalities," in the connection in which it is here used, refers to the mode or form in which the juristic act of executing a will is to be performed. Article 687, establishing a sanction to secure the observance of these rules, provides that if they are not followed, the will shall have no legal existence.
The sanction of article 687 is general. No exceptions are recognized. Its language excludes the idea of a distinction between essential and nonessential formalities. All the formalities prescribed are equally essential, and in order that an expression of testamentary intention may operate as a will, producing legal results as such, it must be clothed with all these formalities, however insignificant they may be in themselves, or however meaningless they may be when considered in relation to the circumstances of the particular case. Such is obviously the effect of article 687 considered independently, and we find nothing in the other provisions of the Code on the subject of wills which directly modifies the meaning of this article or inferentially indicates a different legislative intent.”
“…we must administer the law not as we think it ought to be but as we find it and without regard to consequences. We are not authorized to distinguish where the law has made no distinction.”
Note:
The time in which a will was executed may appear insignificant but “It is to provide against such contingencies as that of two competing wills executed on the same day or of a testator becoming insane on the day on which the will was executed”
Ruling:
Court ruled in favour of plaintiff-appellee rendering the will null and void.
No comments:
Post a Comment