Case Digest (G.R. No. 47305)
Facts:
The case involves the estate of Rufina Arevalo, with Ariston Bustamante as the administrator and appellant, and Petrona Arevalo et al. as the oppositors and appellees. The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on July 31, 1942. The primary contention arose over the validity of a document presented by Bustamante as the last will and testament of Rufina Arevalo, dated October 2, 1937, referred to as Exhibit C. The lower court, the Court of First Instance of Manila, ruled that Exhibit C was a forgery and instead allowed an earlier will, Exhibit 6, which was dated January 9, 1936, to stand. The estate in question was valued at over P50,000.
Exhibit C was prepared and signed in duplicate, featuring signatures from Rufina Arevalo and three witnesses: Manuel M. Cruz, Remigio Colina, and Angel Sanchez. The appellees alleged forgery even before they had seen the document, with their opposition signed on April 22, 1938, a day before the document was opened in cour...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 47305)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- The case involves the estate of Rufina Arevalo, with a value exceeding P50,000.
- Two wills were presented:
- Exhibit 6: An earlier will dated January 9, 1936, whose authenticity was uncontested.
- Exhibit C: A later will dated October 2, 1937, which was alleged to be a forgery by the appellees (oppositors).
Execution of Exhibit C:
- Exhibit C was prepared and signed in duplicate, consisting of two pages.
- It was signed by Rufina Arevalo and witnessed by Manuel M. Cruz, Remigio Colina, and Angel Sanchez.
- The formal requisites of a will were complied with.
Allegations of Forgery:
- The appellees alleged forgery even before seeing Exhibit C.
- The opposition was signed on April 22, 1938, and filed in court on April 23, 1938, before Exhibit C was opened by the court.
Probate Court's Findings:
- The probate court found Exhibit C to be a forgery based on discrepancies in the signatures, particularly the terminal stroke of the capital "R" in Rufina's name.
- The court compared the signatures in Exhibit C with a check (Exhibit I) issued by La Previsora, which had a different signature characteristic.
Expert Testimony and Analysis:
- The appellant presented expert testimony asserting that the signatures in Exhibit C were genuine, showing natural variations consistent with authentic handwriting.
- The court noted that forgers typically aim for uniformity, whereas natural handwriting exhibits variations.
Duplicate Signatures:
- Exhibit C was signed in duplicate, resulting in six signatures of Rufina Arevalo.
- The court found it unlikely that a forger would risk forging multiple signatures.
Attorney's Role:
- Attorney Nicasio Yatco supervised the execution of Exhibit C.
- The court found no evidence to suggest that Yatco would participate in forgery, given the severe consequences.
Revocation of the Earlier Will:
- Both parties agreed that the later will (Exhibit C) revoked the earlier will (Exhibit 6).
- However, the court examined whether the revocation was partial or complete, particularly regarding Rufina’s undivided interest in two parcels of land from the conjugal partnership.
Issue:
Primary Issue:
- Whether Exhibit C, the later will dated October 2, 1937, is a forgery.
Secondary Issue:
- Whether the later will (Exhibit C) entirely revoked the earlier will (Exhibit 6), especially concerning Rufina’s undivided interest in the conjugal partnership properties.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court reversed the probate court’s decision, declared Exhibit C genuine, and held that it entirely revoked the earlier will (Exhibit 6). The case was remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.