Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Gil Vs Murciano - 16th Case Under Notarial Will

    Încărcat de

    Ralph Valdez
    92 vizualizări1 pagină
    Carlos Gil executed a last will and testament in 1945. However, the record containing the will was later destroyed during the war, necessitating its reconstitution. Carlos Gil's nephew and sister contested the will's validity, arguing that the attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will. The Supreme Court ruled the will invalid, as the attestation clause only declared that the witnesses signed it, without certifying that the testator signed as required. The purpose of the attestation clause is to certify the testator's signature, and without this the clause provides no attestation at all.

    Descriere originală:

    :D

    Titlu original

    Gil vs Murciano- 16th Case Under Notarial Will

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Carlos Gil executed a last will and testament in 1945. However, the record containing the will was later destroyed during the war, necessitating its reconstitution. Carlos Gil's nephew and sister contested the will's validity, arguing that the attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will. The Supreme Court ruled the will invalid, as the attestation clause only declared that the witnesses signed it, without certifying that the testator signed as required. The purpose of the attestation clause is to certify the testator's signature, and without this the clause provides no attestation at all.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    92 vizualizări1 pagină

    Gil Vs Murciano - 16th Case Under Notarial Will

    Încărcat de

    Ralph Valdez
    Carlos Gil executed a last will and testament in 1945. However, the record containing the will was later destroyed during the war, necessitating its reconstitution. Carlos Gil's nephew and sister contested the will's validity, arguing that the attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will. The Supreme Court ruled the will invalid, as the attestation clause only declared that the witnesses signed it, without certifying that the testator signed as required. The purpose of the attestation clause is to certify the testator's signature, and without this the clause provides no attestation at all.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 1

    CASE NO.

    Gil vs. Murciano

    G.R. No. L-3362. March 1, 195188 Phil 260


    Ponente: JUGO, J.
    FACTS:
    A last will and testament was executed by Carlos Gil. Early in 1945,
    before the application was heard on the merit, the record, along with the will,
    was destroyed, necessitating its reconstitution after liberation. The parties
    submitted a stipulation of facts agreeing “that the will as transcribed in the
    record of appeal” in another case is “a true and correct copy.” CFI Manila
    admitted to probate the alleged will and testament.
    Carlos Gil’s nephew and sister contended that the will is invalid since the
    attestation clause did not state that the testator signed the will, it declared only
    that it was signed by the witnesses.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the will is valid.
    RULING:
    No. It will be noted that the attestation clause above quoted does not
    state that the alleged testator signed the will. It declares only that it was signed
    by the witnesses. This is a fatal defect, for the precise purpose of the attestation
    clause is to certify that the testator signed the will, this being the most essential
    element of the clause. Without it there is no attestation at all.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și