Title
Bustamante vs. Arevalo
Case
G.R. No. 47305
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1942
Dispute over Rufina Arevalo's estate: two wills presented, later will (Exhibit C) alleged forged. Supreme Court ruled it genuine, fully revoking earlier will.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 47305)

Facts:

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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:

  1. Primary Issue:

    • Whether Exhibit C, the later will dated October 2, 1937, is a forgery.
  2. 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.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.