Short answer. The one that gives effect to every provision, and, between two possible readings, the one that prevents intestacy. Courts prefer an interpretation that makes each expression in the will operative over one that would nullify part of it, and they lean towards upholding the will rather than letting property pass by intestacy.
What the law says
The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy.
Civil Code, Article 791 — Give Effect to Every Word. Read the full provision →
Two rules pointing the same way
Article 791 supplies two canons for a will that can be read more than one way: the words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy. Both push in the same direction, towards making the will work. Faced with a choice, the court takes the reading that keeps the testator's words alive and disposing of his property, rather than the one that strikes provisions out or hands the estate to the rules of intestacy.
Give every expression some effect
The first canon assumes the testator did not write idly. Where one reading would leave a clause meaningless and another lets it do some work, the second is preferred, because a person setting down his last wishes is presumed to have meant each of them to count. This does not license the court to invent content the words cannot bear; it directs that, among genuinely available readings, the one that harmonises the provisions and leaves none of them dead wins. The instrument is construed as a coherent whole, not as a set of clauses competing to cancel each other.
Prefer testacy over intestacy
The second canon rests on an obvious inference: a person who troubled to make a will meant to dispose of his estate by it, not to die intestate as to part of it. So where the words can fairly be read either to carry a disposition or to fail and let the property fall to the intestate heirs, the court prefers the reading that upholds the disposition. Partial intestacy is treated as the outcome to avoid when the language reasonably allows it, since it is the very result the testator was trying to prevent by writing a will at all.
The limit on interpretation
These rules resolve ambiguity; they do not rescue a disposition that is actually void or words that will not stretch to the meaning urged. The court's task is to find the sense the testator's language can honestly carry, then choose, among competing honest senses, the one that saves the gift and prevents intestacy. If you are litigating the point at probate, frame your reading so it accounts for every clause and keeps the estate within the will, because that is the construction the article tells the court to favour.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Rizalino B. Abella, et al. vs. Atty. Sergio C. Sumayod, Jane A. Pica, Annaliza Yu, and Petron Corp., Inc, G.R. No. 269598, April 2, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →