PARÀMETRES REGULADORS D'USOS I ACTIVITATS

Interpretation favoring validity

• Substance over form: Substance rather than form must be regarded, and the instrument should receive the most favorable construction to accomplish the purpose intended by the testator. The object of the construction of a will is to sustain it if legally possible and not to seek flaws in the instrument and declare it invalid.

• Testator’s Intent: The intention of the testator is the controlling factor in the juridical relations arising from the will. It is thus necessary to interpret that intention rationally and in such manner as not to render ineffective the testamentary disposition.

• Presumption: The presumption is that the testator intended a lawful thing, and courts will not seek an interpretation that will nullify his will and any part thereof.

• Interpretation that will give effect to the will: If the language used is reasonably susceptible to 2 different interpretations, one which will defeat and the other which will sustain the testamentary disposition, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the construction which will give effect to the will, rather than the one which will defeat it.

• When language ambiguous: When the language of the testamentary disposition is plain and unambiguous, courts are not permitted to wrest it from its natural meaning in order to save it from nullity.

Article 789

Kinds of ambiguity in a will

1. Patent or extrinsic ambiguity: one which appears upon the face of the instrument

2. Latent or intrinsic ambiguity: one which cannot be seen from a mere perusal or reading of the will, but which appears only upon consideration of extrinsic circumstances.

When latent or intrinsic ambiguity arise

1. when the will names a person as the beneficiary of a gift, or a thing as the subject matter of such gift, and there are two or more persons that answer to such name, or two or more things that meet such description.

2. where there is a misdescription of the beneficiary or of the thing given as a gift. Parol or extrinsic evidence

• the Philippine Code, in the present article, does not make any distinction between patent and latent ambiguities insofar as the admissibility of parol or extrinsic evidence is concerned.

• Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the situation of the testator and all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding him at the time of the making of the will, for the purpose of explaining or resolving a patent ambiguity.

• Evidence of the state of his property, the condition of his family, etc., besides the evidence of the circumstances surrounding the testator, may be introduced for the court to view the matter in the same light and the point of view as the testator himself.

Testator’s declaration

• the extrinsic evidence cannot include oral declarations of the testator. Such oral declarations are inadmissible whether made before or after the execution of the will.

• The reason for the inadmissibility of oral declaration is that the lips of the testators have been sealed by death and therefore can no longer deny or affirm the truth of what witnesses may say he declared. To admit such would create confusion and give rise to false claims.

• By implication, written declarations made by the testator outside the will, are admissible. Article 790

Intent of testator paramount

• The supreme law in succession is the intent of the testator.

• All rules of construction are designated to ascertain and give effect to that intention.

• It is only when the intention of the testator is contrary to law, morals, or public policy that it cannot be given effect.

Literal meaning

• Respect for the will of the testator constitutes the principal basis of the rules which the law prescribes for the correct interpretation of all the clauses of the will.

• Words and provisions written in the will must be plainly construed in order to avoid a violation of his intention and real purpose.

• Questions in court arising in connection with the execution of and compliance with the testamentary provisions shall be adjusted in harmony with the plain and literal meaning of the language of the testator, except where it clearly appears that his intention was other than that actually expressed.

• A translation submitted to the court, made in accordance with the idiomatic usage of the language from which it is made, will prevail over a literal translation which, while word for word correct, is not idiomatic.

Technical sense of the words

• A distinction is made in interpretation is often made between a will drafted by skilled testamentary draftsmen (e.g. lawyers) and a will prepared by persons who have no knowledge of the law.

• Words found in the first are to be construed with some strictness, emphasis being placed upon their accepted technical meaning.

• Words found in the second are to be interpreted liberally with reference to their popular meaning, or the meaning which they commonly have to a person in the situation of the one who used them.

Interpretation of holographic wills

• Holographic wills, being usually prepared by one who is not learned in the law, construed more liberally than ones drawn by an expert.

• The words and phrases employed in such instruments should be interpreted according to their ordinary acceptation, even though they may have different technical meaning, where the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will indicate that the testator so intended.

Article 791

Effectivity of all parts

• Effect should, if possible, be given to all words, clauses, and provisions of the will, if they are not inconsistent with each other or with the general intent of the whole will taken in its entirety.

• It is presumed that every word or clause was intended by the testator to have some meaning. No word or clause should be rejected if it is at all possible to give a reasonable effect.

• No part of the will should be discarded unless in conflict with some other part, in which case that part will be enforce which expresses the intention of the testator.

• Where 2 constructions are possible, the one disregarding a word or clause of the will, and the other giving effect to the will as a whole, the latter interpretation must be followed. Prevention of intestacy

• Where a will has been executed, the reasonable and natural presumption is that the testator intends to dispose of all his property.

• The presumption against the intestacy is so strong that courts will adopt any reasonable construction of a will in order to avoid it. Courts will give the broadest meaning to the words of bequest when it is necessary to do so in order to prevent intestacy.

Article 792 Article 793

Observations on article

• The will of the person transmits only properly owned by him at the time of the making so such will; properly acquired thereafter is transmitted only when it expressly appears in the will that such is his intention.

• This is contrary to principles expressed in other provisions of the Code. It contravenes the concepts of heir and of inheritance in the Code.

• The grafting of the provision (taken from the Coe of Civil Procedure, which is of American extraction), should be construed (to save the law from being inconsistent with itself) as

referring only to devisees and legacies, for these are the testamentary disposition contemplated in the Code of Civil Procedure.

• Even with the present construction, the present article conflicts with Article 930. the conflict is irreconcilable.

Article 794

Intention of testator

• When the testator does not state the extent of the interest he gives in the legatee or devisee or the property transmitted, it is understood that his whole interest passes, no more and no less.

• But when the testator, under Article 794, may manifest his intention to convey a less interest, and under Article 929, he may expressly convey a larger interest. In such case, the intention of the testator will be followed.

Article 930

Things belonging to another

• Article refers to a legacy or devise of a determinable and specific thing totally belonging to a stranger at the time the will was made.

• If the testator did not know at the time the will was made that the thing belonged to another, the legacy or device is void.

• The ignorance of the testator is presumed by law. Subsequent change of ownership

• if the testator did not know, at the time of making the will, that the thing belonged to another, but subsequently it I is acquired either by himself or by an heir, devisee or legatee, the devise or legacy becomes valid.

• If the subsequent change of ownership transferred the thing to the very person to whom it was being given as a devise or legacy, and by lucrative title, or to another third person, the legacy is void.