RULE 75ICASIANO vs. ICASIANOG.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOSEFA VILLACORTE. CELSO ICASIANO, petitioner-appellee, vs.NATIVIDAD ICASIANO, and ENRIQUE ICASIANO,oppositors-appellants.

REYES,J.B.L.,J.:

FACTS: 1. On October 2, 1958, Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of the deceased 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 Atty. Fermin Samson, it was prepared in duplicates, an original and a carbon copy.

2. On October 31, 1958, Natividad Icasiano, testatrixs daughter, opposed this petition for probate and sought for her appointment as special administrator.

3. The records show that the original of the will which was surrendered simultaneously with the filing of the petition consists of 5 pages, and while signed at the end and in every page, it does not contain the signature of one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Jose V. Natividad, on page 3 thereof; but the duplicate copy attached to the amended and supplemental petition was signed by the testratix and her 3 attesting witnesses in each and every page.4. On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only brought the original copy of the will while the carbon duplicate (unsigned copy) was left in Bulacan. Atty. Natividad failed to sign one of the pages in the original copy but admitted that he may have just 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.

ISSUES: 1. WON the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a page is sufficient to deny probate of the will.2. WON the production and admission of the carbon duplicate without new publication affects the jurisdiction of the probate court.

HELD:1. NO. The failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or mere inadvertence. Since the duplicated copy 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 but 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, 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.

2. NO. That the signed carbon duplicate of a will was produced and admitted without a new publication of a will was produced and admitted without a new publication does not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court, already conferred by the original publication of the petition for probate, where the amended petition did not substantially alter the first one filed, but merely supplemented it by disclosing the existence of said duplicate.

Decision appealed from (Order of the CFI of Manila admitting to probate the document and its duplicate) is affirmed.