Appealing the decision of the Judge in CFI Cebu, in the testate proceedings No.

407.

The main issues we face opponents for resolution, to appeal the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Cebu, issued in the probate record No. 407 of the Court,
can be reduced to arranged under the following.
1. If the Cebu Court can validly appoint, on 4 MAR 1939 MENDOZA (appellee) as
the special administrator of the estate of P. ELEUTERIO PILAPIL (Testate
Proceedings No. 407), when CALIXTO PILAPIL had been acting as administrator of
the same estate from 7 FEBRUARY 1939.
2. If legalization proceeded and proceeds as will or disposition of last will of the
late P. Eleuterio Pilapil, the documents before the Court as Exhibit A is a carbon
copy of Exhibit C. The relevant facts to be taken into account to resolve issues
are proposed, according to arise from the decision appealed and the same
documents that the Court declare that I will and last will of the late P. Eleuterio
Pilapil, which are recounted below:

P. Eleuterio Pilapil is the parish priest of Mualboal, Province of Cebu, who passed
away 6 DEC 1935. There was no will presented at the time of his death. It was in
6 February 1939 that his brother, CALIXTO PILAPIL, intiated an action for
intestate proceedings (No. 399), asking that he be named administrator of the
estate.Opposition was filed by ADRIANO MENDOZA (appellee) and Simeona
Pilapil. Despite this, CALIXTO was still named administrator of the estate.

On 4 MARCH 1939, MENDOZA filed for the probate of the will of P. Eleuterio
Pilapil, (Exhibit A), a carbon copy of the will. (The case never says that he was
appointed but from the questions raised it appears he was.) These are the
pertinent provisions of the will:

“I, Eleuterio Pilapil, Roman Catholic Priest, 68 years old, native of Liloan, parish
priest of Mualboal, Cebu, I.F., in good health and with full use of my mental
facilities, hereby publish, declare and give, the following as my LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT:

FIRST ARTICLE: Institute and name, ADRIANO MENDOZA, my nephew, married,

of legal age, and living in Liloan, Cebu, the executor of my LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT
KNOWN BY ALL MEN: In the case of impossiblity, negligence,or other cause with
which he is inhibited from enforcing my Last Will and Testament, I arrange and
order that he be replaced by my first cousin JOSE CABATINGAN, married, of legal
age, resident of Mualboal, Cebu, who is responsible for and will carry out the
following dispositions:” xxx

“2.a I order that my Last Will and Testament NOT BE AIRED* (presented) before
the Court, because this Last Will and Testament simply corroborates, affirms and
ensures the legitimacy of the documents of sale of my property;” xxx
“ARTICLE 2: I hereby state, that this Last Will and Testament, merely
corroborates, affirms and ensures the legitimacy of the documents given to me by
the buyers consisting of 2 articles; contains 16 dispositions and written on 3
pages;” xxx

“Cebu, Cebu. Islands of the Philippines, this day on 27th of November 1935.
(Signed) ELEUTERIO PILAPIL, Testator.”

The last pages contain the attestation clause:

“To who may read: (translit.)
Greetings (?)
We who signed below, make it clear: That the pre-inserted Last Will and
Testament, subscribed, declared and sworn to by the testator, Rev. P. Eleuterio
Pilapil, in the presence of all of us, and by the request of the testator, each one of
us sign in the presence of each other, here in Cebu, Cebu, Philippine Islands, this
day on 27 of Novemer 1935. (Signatures.) WENCESLAO PILAPIL, witness
MARCELO PILAPIL, witness; EUGENIO K. PILAPIL, witness.”

The 2 documents, Exhibits A & C, consist of 3 pages. On the left margin of each
one of the FIRST two, there appears the signatures that are also found at the end
of the main body & the attestation clause. Evidence shows that these are the
signatures of deceased ELEUTERIO PILAPIL and the WITNESSES Wenceslao
Pilapil, Marcelo Pilapil, and Eugenio K Pilapil.

In the two documents, in the place where the dates are written, the word “Cebu”
is written, but the word “Mualboal” is still readable and appears to have been
scraped off (or attempted to). Likewise the number 27, and the name of the
month, “November” appears, but on Exhibit A the last scraped word “October”
can still be seen without any difficulty.

In the last paragraph on page 2 whose continuation appears in the first two lines
of the next page, (page 3); which is the last, there is the following express
mention:"It contains sixteen provisions and is written in three pages." At the foot
of pages (1) and (2) there are respectively these notes:"Go to the 2nd page";
"Go to page 3." And it should be noted that both on Exhibits A and C,there are
only two articles ("Art. First" and "Art. Second"),and sixteen provisions.

The grounds on which the appellants rely to argue that legalization is not
appropriate for any of the two documents expressed as a testament of the late P.
Eleuterio Pilapil, are these:

(A) They contain erasures and alterations that the respondent leave
to explain;
(B) It has not been proved that the deceased, regardless of what is on the
documents in exhibits A and C , was of competent age;
(C) It has not been proved that the deceased possessed knowledge of Spanish,
which is the language in which those documents are written;
(D) In one of the clauses of these documents, there is a prohibition of the will
being aired (presented) in the Courts
(E) Neither the two has been prepared, signed and witnessed in accordance with
the provisions of Article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

→ as to why there was a lapse in the appointing of administrators, the judges to

whom the cases were filed with did not even know that there was a direct
relationship between the two cases until they arranged to meet. Both cases were
considered as one to avoid “incompatibility in the administration of the assets of
said deceased.”
→ It was not unreasonable that there would be an appointment for administrator
in the File 407 (TESTATE proceedings) because the subject of the same is the
probate of a will. There is also no law that prohibits the appointing of more than
one administrator. → in this case tho, the appointment of the appellant CALIXTO
was canceled after the 2 cases were merged. If the purpose of this question was
to nullify the appointment of MENDOZA as special administrator, the appellants
fail because the law does not allow an appeal against orders of that nature.
→ The scratches and alterations that are noted in Exhibits A and C are facts that
now, for the first time, and in this instance, we want to draw attention to, when
this should have been done while the case was still in the Court of its origin.
We can not take them into account in the present state of the proceedings
because, assuming that they existed then, it can and must be said although the
Cebu Court did not expressly state that they did not vitiate said documents; it is
presumed juris tantum that "all the facts related to the points discussed in a trial
were exposed to the court and appreciated by him." (Art. 334, par.16, Law No.
190.) And they did not vitiate it in effect, because it follows from the very
circumstances of the case, which were made precisely to put things in their true
place. The two exhibits A and C were prepared by the deceased P. Eleuterio Pilapil
in Mualboal where he was Cura Priest, before being transferred to be treated for
his illness that caused his death, at the Southern Islands Hospital in Cebu, where
he died. Judging on these facts that were proven in court, he stated the following:
"The intervention of the three instrumental witnesses of the document took place
in a casual way, when they went to visit Eleuterio Pilapil who was ill in the
Southern Islands Hospital, and there the today deceased begged them to act as
witnesses of the document that he had then prepared. "
→ When preparing them, being in Mualboal, it was only natural that he should
express in the same ones that were prepared there, and leave the date blank but
without forgetting to put the name of the month in which they were made clean,
that is, October 1935. As to the age of the testator and as to whether he spoke
Spanish, which is the language in which the two exhibits are written, or not, it
must be said that being a priest and a priest of the parish of Mualboal, Cebu, it
must be reasonably presumed that he had the competent age to test, and who
understood and spoke Spanish, then, it is generally known that to be a parish
priest, one must be a priest, and to be a priest, many years of study are
necessary in seminars where one speaks Spanish is a language as official as
English. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the testator did not
understand the language.
→ The disposition of the testator that his "Will and Last Will not be aired in the
Court", can not deprive the Courts of his authority to determine if his referred
testament is legalizable or not. They are not the parts interested in one way or
another in an issue, which can be confer or remove jurisdiction and authority to
the Courts for resolve and decide what the same law wants to be resolved and
be decided. It must be borne in mind that the law mandates under penalty, that
will be delivered to the Court the wills granted by a testator, after he dies, for the
person whose custody has been entrusted, with the aim undoubtedly of that it
can be determined if its legalization proceeds and it can be own time to dispose of
their goods as mandated in the same; or if, on the contrary, he should be
declared dead intestate, for not being susceptible to legalization the one that
granted (Arts 626 to 631, Law No. 190.) Also, not being lawyer the testator, it is
not surprising that he has consigned his testament the prohibition that, by using
their words-, "Ventilate in the Court".
→ And as for the exhibits A and C can not be legalized because they were not
prepared or signed in accordance with the law, saying that their pages are not
numbered with letters; and because in its clause of attestation it is not stated
that they were signed by the three instrumental witnesses, in
presence of the testator, it suffices to draw attention to the fact that at the
bottom of the first page there are in letters the note that clearly says: "Go to 2".
page "and the fact that, at the bottom of this second page, there is this other
note:" Go to the 3 "page"; and it is enough to draw attention also to the first two
lines of said third page, which is the last, where, to complete the provision
enclosed in the last paragraph of the previous page, or second, the following is
said: "* * * It consists of two articles, contains sixteen provisions and is written
in three pages ", which agrees faithfully with the true facts as they appear in the
aforementioned two exhibits, because they effectively have two articles and
sixteen provisions, and do not more, and not less.
→ The phrase "at the request of said Testator", together with the one that he
signed and signed his will in the presence of instrumental witnesses, allows and
justifies the inference that the testator was present when the last ones stamped
their respective signatures. The purpose of the law in establishing the formalities
that require in a will, is undoubtedly ensure and ensure its authenticity against
bad faith and fraud, to prevent those who have no right to succeed the testator,
succeed him and benefit from the legalization of it. This purpose has been fulfilled
in the case that it has been discussed because, in the same body of the will and
on the same page where the testimony clause appears, that is, the third, it is
stated that the will consists of three pages and because each one of the first two
takes partly the note in letters, and partly the note in figures, that are
respectively the first and second pages of it. These facts evidently exclude any
fear, any suspicion, or any doubt that any of their pages with another.

DECISION AFFIRMED.