Case Digest (G.R. No. 8954)
Facts:
The case involves Dorotea Cabang as the petitioner and appellee, and Martin Delfinado as the respondent and appellant. The events leading to this case began with the filing of a petition on September 15, 1911, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, seeking to probate a document claimed to be the last will and testament of the deceased Celestino Delfinado. On October 25, 1911, Martin Delfinado, through his attorney, opposed the will's allowance, arguing that it was neither signed by the deceased nor by anyone in his presence and that the attestation did not comply with legal requirements. The case was set for hearing on November 18, 1911, where the petitioner presented witnesses, including Dorotea Cabang, the widow of the testator, and two subscribing witnesses. The opposition called only one witness, Martin Delfinado. Following the hearing, the petitioner filed a motion on November 27, 1911, to reopen the case to present additional testimony from two absent subscri...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 8954)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- The case involves a petition to probate the last will and testament of Celestino Delfinado, filed by his widow, Dorotea Cabang, on September 15, 1911.
- Martin Delfinado, the son of the deceased from a prior marriage, opposed the probate, alleging that the will was not signed by the deceased or in his presence, and that the attestation did not comply with legal requirements.
Proceedings in the Lower Court
- The case was set for hearing on November 18, 1911. Dorotea Cabang presented three witnesses: herself, Antonio Flor Mata (a justice of the peace), and Paciano Romero (a subscribing witness).
- Martin Delfinado testified as the sole witness for the opposition.
- On November 27, 1911, Dorotea Cabang moved to reopen the case to present the testimony of the other two subscribing witnesses, who were living in Manila and Nueva Ecija. The motion was opposed.
- On May 13, 1912, Dorotea filed another motion, claiming insufficient publication for the probate. The court ordered republication and set a new hearing for January 7, 1913.
- The judgment was entered on January 25, 1913, based solely on the testimony from the November 18, 1911 hearing. The record does not show any proceedings on the date of the new hearing.
Testimony of Witnesses
- Dorotea Cabang: Testified that her husband, Celestino Delfinado, could neither read nor write.
- Antonio Flor Mata: Stated that he dictated the will based on Celestino’s instructions. The will was read and interpreted to Celestino, who then made a cross as his signature in the presence of witnesses.
- Paciano Romero: Confirmed that he was one of the subscribing witnesses and that the will was executed properly.
- Martin Delfinado: Claimed that his father could read, write, and sign his name, contradicting the testimony of Dorotea and the other witnesses.
Key Evidence
- The will contained a clause stating that Celestino made a cross as his signature because he could not write.
- Exhibit 1, a document signed by Celestino, was admitted into evidence, showing that he could sign his name.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Requirement of Subscribing Witnesses: Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a will must be attested and subscribed by three credible witnesses. In contested cases, all subscribing witnesses must be called to testify unless they are unavailable (e.g., deceased, beyond jurisdiction, or insane).
- Failure to Present Witnesses: Dorotea Cabang failed to present the other two subscribing witnesses, despite having ample time to do so. No valid reason was provided for their absence.
- Contradictory Evidence: The testimony of Martin Delfinado, supported by Exhibit 1, raised doubts about the testator’s ability to sign his name, contradicting the claim that he could only make a cross.
- Legislative Intent: The court emphasized that the legislature intended for all subscribing witnesses to be called in contested cases to ensure the validity of the will and prevent fraud.
- Reversal of Judgment: The lower court’s decision was reversed because the proponent did not meet the legal requirements for probating the will.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the will could not be admitted to probate due to the failure to present all subscribing witnesses and the contradictory evidence regarding the testator’s ability to sign his name. The judgment of the lower court was reversed without costs.