flLED UEROR r COURT
2?2]AN2l PM ‘1 JO LD flC U rnir ,i.,uI IN THE SUPERIOR COURT Of GUAM By: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE Superior Court Case No. PR0126-21 J OF DECISION AND ORDER RE PETITION ENGRACIA CRUZ DIAZ PANGELINAN, FOR ADMISSION AND PROBATE OF WILL Decedent.
[N THE MATTER Of THE ESTATE Superior Court Case No. PR0133-21
OF
FRANCISCO SABLAN PANGELfNAN,
Decedent.
The Administrators seek to admit to probate the purported will of Francisco Sablan
Pangelinan. Having reviewed the will, the declarations of Pangelinan’s attorney and family
members, and relevant laws, the Court concludes that the will does not meet the formalities
required under Guam law. The petition is therefore DENIED.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The will submitted for consideration appears to be signed by Pangelinan on April 26,
2001. Pet. Letters Administration, Ex. D (July 6, 2021). Attached to the will is an attestation
page. However, no witnesses subscribed to the will document. Pangelinan initialed each page,
including the blank attestation page.
The will was deposited with the Court on April 27, 2001. Will No. WLO 1000062.
Members of the family have submitted affidavits to support the admission of the will.
Pangelinan’s daughter, Rita P. Nauta, attests that she drove Pangelinan to his attorney’s office a PR0126-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AND PROBATE Page 2 PR0133-21 OF WILL
day before leaving the island to sign his will. first Acct. and Status Report; Pet. Admission,
Deci. Rita Nauta (Nov. 17, 2021). Nauta advises he later informed her he signed a will and
intended to draft a more comprehensive will upon his return home.
Attorney Therese M. Terlaje further attests that she witnessed Pangelinan sign the will.
first Acct. and Status Report; Pet. Admission, Aff. Witness. During the signing, Pangelinan
declared to Terlaje and one other person that it was his last will and testament. She further
explains that she does not remember why there are no subscribing witnesses but that Pangelinan
was in a hurry due to an off-island trip scheduled for the next day.1
In addition to Nauta and the administrators, seven of Pangelinan’s children signed
affidavits supporting the will’s admission into probate. None of them, however, witnessed their
father signing the will.
II. LAW & DISCUSSION
Guam law requires that wills be subscribed by the testator and witnessed by at least two
persons. The testator must acknowledge that the will was made by him or by his authority in the
presence of both witnesses present at the same time. Also, each witness “must sign the
instrument as a witness.” 15 GCA § 201(d).
It is undisputed that the purported will does not contain the signatures of two witnesses.
Instead, the administrators ask the Court to consider Terlaje’s statement indicating that two
witnesses were present, as well as the testator ‘s statements made to his children after meeting
with Terlaje that he had executed a will.
In In re Hemlani, 200$ Guam 25, the Guam Supreme Court interpreted another
subsection of section 201, which gives this Court some guidance. As an initial matter, Hemlani
‘An unsigned affidavit from the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas is attached to the Petition. According to that unsigned affidavit, Judge Barcinas appears to be the second person present when Pangelinan signed his will. Without a signature on this affidavit, the Court cannot give it credence. PR0126-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AND PROBATE Page 3 PR0133-21 OF WiLL
instructs that California provided the basis for section 201, and therefore California caselaw
interpreting California’s minor statute is highly persuasive. 2008 Guam 25 ¶ 16. Second,
Hemlani advises that California has since amended its statute to liberalize the requisite statutory
formalities for wills, but the Guam Legislature has not. Id. ¶ 17. Accordingly, this Court should
look at California law and caselaw before California’s amendments in 1983.
In California, a court is constrained to follow the probate law as prescribed strictly. Id.
(citing In Re Walker Estate, 42 P. 815, 816 (Cal. 1895)); In re Moore Estate, 206 P.2d 413,
414 (Cal. App. 1949). Hemlani held that strict construction does not “demand literal
compliance” particularly for the requirement in section 201(c) that a testator declare that it is his
will and request for its attestation: “it is not necessary that the testator expressly declare that the
document is his will nor that the witnesses sign the will at the testator’s express request and in
his presence. It is sufficient for the declaration and request to be implied by the testator ‘s
conduct.” 2008 Guam 5 ¶ 21-25. According to the Guam Supreme Court, this interpretation
also follows California courts which had been using a liberal standard to the declaration
provisions even before the 1983 revisions. Id. ¶ 22.
Turning to section 20 1(d), this Court must now determine whether there has been strict (if
not literal) compliance, or if not, whether it is proper to acknowledge substantial compliance.
The Court first recognizes that California has amended its statute equivalent to Guam’s section
201(d). California law now allows the proponent of an unattested will to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that at the time the testator signed the will, the testator intended the will to
constitute the testator’s will. Cal. Prob. Code § 6110. This appears to be in line with the trend of
considering whether the will, although not strictly compliant with legal requirements, reflects the
testator’s intentions. PR0126-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AND PROBATE Page 4 PROI33-21 OF WILL
Despite this trend, it is not clear to the Court that deviation from the plain language of
section 201(d) is appropriate in Guam. first, as noted, California’s legislature has codified an
exception for the requirement that two witnesses sign the will; Gtiam’s legislature has not.
Second, Hem lani has limited utility because the Guam Supreme Court expressly said it would
not address whether Guam courts can utilize a substantial compliance standard. In the absence
of more direct guidance which permits substantial compliance, this Court is instead persuaded by
the long-standing doctrines from California which mandate strict compliance. Because this
Court could not locate any pre-1983 California caselaw which completely excused the
requirement of signatures on a document, the Court continues to hold that there must be strict
compliance.
Third, a requirement that two witnesses sign cannot be liberalized in the same way as a
requirement that a testator makes an express declaration. In Hem lani, the testator entrusted his
attorney with preparing the will and finalizing its execution, which included asking the witnesses
to sign. The Guam Supreme Court found that the testator’s conduct in appointing an agent to
complete these tasks sufficed under the statute to imply that he made the necessary declaration.
Here, on the other hand, the statute requires something more exacting--that is, two signatures on
a will. The signature and attestation of witnesses cannot be implied via conduct or designated to
agents.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
flLED UEROR r COURT
2?2]AN2l PM ‘1 JO LD flC U rnir ,i.,uI IN THE SUPERIOR COURT Of GUAM By: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE Superior Court Case No. PR0126-21 J OF DECISION AND ORDER RE PETITION ENGRACIA CRUZ DIAZ PANGELINAN, FOR ADMISSION AND PROBATE OF WILL Decedent.
[N THE MATTER Of THE ESTATE Superior Court Case No. PR0133-21
OF
FRANCISCO SABLAN PANGELfNAN,
Decedent.
The Administrators seek to admit to probate the purported will of Francisco Sablan
Pangelinan. Having reviewed the will, the declarations of Pangelinan’s attorney and family
members, and relevant laws, the Court concludes that the will does not meet the formalities
required under Guam law. The petition is therefore DENIED.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The will submitted for consideration appears to be signed by Pangelinan on April 26,
2001. Pet. Letters Administration, Ex. D (July 6, 2021). Attached to the will is an attestation
page. However, no witnesses subscribed to the will document. Pangelinan initialed each page,
including the blank attestation page.
The will was deposited with the Court on April 27, 2001. Will No. WLO 1000062.
Members of the family have submitted affidavits to support the admission of the will.
Pangelinan’s daughter, Rita P. Nauta, attests that she drove Pangelinan to his attorney’s office a PR0126-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AND PROBATE Page 2 PR0133-21 OF WILL
day before leaving the island to sign his will. first Acct. and Status Report; Pet. Admission,
Deci. Rita Nauta (Nov. 17, 2021). Nauta advises he later informed her he signed a will and
intended to draft a more comprehensive will upon his return home.
Attorney Therese M. Terlaje further attests that she witnessed Pangelinan sign the will.
first Acct. and Status Report; Pet. Admission, Aff. Witness. During the signing, Pangelinan
declared to Terlaje and one other person that it was his last will and testament. She further
explains that she does not remember why there are no subscribing witnesses but that Pangelinan
was in a hurry due to an off-island trip scheduled for the next day.1
In addition to Nauta and the administrators, seven of Pangelinan’s children signed
affidavits supporting the will’s admission into probate. None of them, however, witnessed their
father signing the will.
II. LAW & DISCUSSION
Guam law requires that wills be subscribed by the testator and witnessed by at least two
persons. The testator must acknowledge that the will was made by him or by his authority in the
presence of both witnesses present at the same time. Also, each witness “must sign the
instrument as a witness.” 15 GCA § 201(d).
It is undisputed that the purported will does not contain the signatures of two witnesses.
Instead, the administrators ask the Court to consider Terlaje’s statement indicating that two
witnesses were present, as well as the testator ‘s statements made to his children after meeting
with Terlaje that he had executed a will.
In In re Hemlani, 200$ Guam 25, the Guam Supreme Court interpreted another
subsection of section 201, which gives this Court some guidance. As an initial matter, Hemlani
‘An unsigned affidavit from the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas is attached to the Petition. According to that unsigned affidavit, Judge Barcinas appears to be the second person present when Pangelinan signed his will. Without a signature on this affidavit, the Court cannot give it credence. PR0126-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AND PROBATE Page 3 PR0133-21 OF WiLL
instructs that California provided the basis for section 201, and therefore California caselaw
interpreting California’s minor statute is highly persuasive. 2008 Guam 25 ¶ 16. Second,
Hemlani advises that California has since amended its statute to liberalize the requisite statutory
formalities for wills, but the Guam Legislature has not. Id. ¶ 17. Accordingly, this Court should
look at California law and caselaw before California’s amendments in 1983.
In California, a court is constrained to follow the probate law as prescribed strictly. Id.
(citing In Re Walker Estate, 42 P. 815, 816 (Cal. 1895)); In re Moore Estate, 206 P.2d 413,
414 (Cal. App. 1949). Hemlani held that strict construction does not “demand literal
compliance” particularly for the requirement in section 201(c) that a testator declare that it is his
will and request for its attestation: “it is not necessary that the testator expressly declare that the
document is his will nor that the witnesses sign the will at the testator’s express request and in
his presence. It is sufficient for the declaration and request to be implied by the testator ‘s
conduct.” 2008 Guam 5 ¶ 21-25. According to the Guam Supreme Court, this interpretation
also follows California courts which had been using a liberal standard to the declaration
provisions even before the 1983 revisions. Id. ¶ 22.
Turning to section 20 1(d), this Court must now determine whether there has been strict (if
not literal) compliance, or if not, whether it is proper to acknowledge substantial compliance.
The Court first recognizes that California has amended its statute equivalent to Guam’s section
201(d). California law now allows the proponent of an unattested will to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that at the time the testator signed the will, the testator intended the will to
constitute the testator’s will. Cal. Prob. Code § 6110. This appears to be in line with the trend of
considering whether the will, although not strictly compliant with legal requirements, reflects the
testator’s intentions. PR0126-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AND PROBATE Page 4 PROI33-21 OF WILL
Despite this trend, it is not clear to the Court that deviation from the plain language of
section 201(d) is appropriate in Guam. first, as noted, California’s legislature has codified an
exception for the requirement that two witnesses sign the will; Gtiam’s legislature has not.
Second, Hem lani has limited utility because the Guam Supreme Court expressly said it would
not address whether Guam courts can utilize a substantial compliance standard. In the absence
of more direct guidance which permits substantial compliance, this Court is instead persuaded by
the long-standing doctrines from California which mandate strict compliance. Because this
Court could not locate any pre-1983 California caselaw which completely excused the
requirement of signatures on a document, the Court continues to hold that there must be strict
compliance.
Third, a requirement that two witnesses sign cannot be liberalized in the same way as a
requirement that a testator makes an express declaration. In Hem lani, the testator entrusted his
attorney with preparing the will and finalizing its execution, which included asking the witnesses
to sign. The Guam Supreme Court found that the testator’s conduct in appointing an agent to
complete these tasks sufficed under the statute to imply that he made the necessary declaration.
Here, on the other hand, the statute requires something more exacting--that is, two signatures on
a will. The signature and attestation of witnesses cannot be implied via conduct or designated to
agents.
For these three reasons, the Court cannot find that the unattested will meets the
requirements of Guam law. While there are indications that the will may have been presumed to
be valid--the affidavit by the attorney that two persons witnessed the will, and the filing of the
will at court--the unexplained absence of the two required signatures and the plain language of
section 20 1(d) override those good faith representations and actions. PR0126-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AND PROBATE Page 5 PR0133-21 Of WILL
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court DENIES the petition to admit the will into probate. However, the appointment
of the administrators stands, and this matter may proceed to distribution under Guam’s intestacy
statute.
If the administrators wish to seek appellate review of this ruling, they must do so within
thirty days pursuant to 15 GCA § 3429 and 3433 and Guam Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.
The Court sets a Status Hearing for March 9, 2022, at 9:50 a.m, to be heard via Zoom.
SO ORDERED this 21st day of January 2022.
HONJELYZE M. IRIARTE Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Please see Zoom information below to appear for remote hearing: You may participate by using a smartphone or computer: go to https://guamcourts-org.zoom.us Meeting ID: 864 4387 2213 Passcode: JEMI You may also call in for the hearing; you can call into the courtroom at 671-300-6703 at the designated hearing time.
Appearing Parties: Zita D. Pangelinan and Victoria D. Pangelinan, self-represented Petitioners