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...

Facts:

Procedural History and Filing

• An appeal was brought from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pangasinan concerning the probate of a document claimed to be the last will and testament of the deceased Celestino Delfinado.
• The petitioner, Dorotea Cabang, initiated the petition on September 15, 1911.
• On October 25, 1911, Martin Delfinado, representing the respondent and appellant, filed an opposition arguing that the will was defective since it was not signed in the proper manner required by law.
• The case was set for trial at 8 a.m. on November 18, 1911, where the primary evidentiary hearing was conducted.
• Subsequent procedural motions were made:
• On November 27, 1911, the petitioner moved to reopen the case to introduce testimony of two additional subscribing witnesses (residing in Manila and Nueva Ecija).
• An opposition to this motion was filed on December 1, 1911.
• On May 13, 1912, the petitioner filed another motion alleging that due publication for the legalization of the will had not been properly made.
• Accordingly, on December 29, 1912, an order was issued for republication and a new hearing was scheduled for January 7, 1913.
• However, the record indicates that no proceedings occurred at the new hearing, leaving the decision based solely on testimony taken on November 18, 1911.

Testimonies and Evidence Presented

• Evidence of the testator’s incapacity:
• Dorotea Cabang, the widow, testified that Celestino Delfinado was unable to read or write.
• Antonio Flor Mata, justice of the peace of Tayug, testified that:
• The testator dictated the will to him, which was then transcribed and later copied on a typewriter.
• The will was interpreted and read to the testator in his own dialect.
• The testator, unable to sign due to his inability to read or write, requested Patricio de Guzman to write his name, after which he personally marked the document with his cross.
• All three subscribing witnesses signed the will in each other’s presence.
• Paciano Romero, a clerk and subscribing witness aged 27, corroborated Mata’s account:
• He confirmed having seen the will previously and recognized the names on it.
• He detailed the entire process, including the testator’s request for assistance in signing and his subsequent marking of the document.
• He identified Patricio de Guzman as the person who wrote the testator’s name.
• He stated that the other two subscribing witnesses were then living in Manila and Nueva Ecija.
• Contradictory Evidence
• Martin Delfinado, one of the contestants and a son from the testator’s first marriage, contended that his father was capable of reading, writing, and signing his name.
• The presentation of Exhibit No. 1, which bore the testator’s signature, was admitted without objection by both sides.
• Document Details
• The last clause of the will stated: "In testimony whereof I place a cross between my name and surname as I am unable to sign. Tayug, this 31st day of August, 1909. CELESTINO (x) DELFINADO."
• The will contained the attestation of three subscribing witnesses: A. Abaya, Pablo Del Rosario, and Paciano Romero.

Evidentiary and Statutory Framework in the Record

• The case involved interpretation and application of the Code of Civil Procedure:
• Section 618 required that a will must be in writing, signed by the testator (or by his name) and witnessed by three or more competent witnesses.
• Sections 620–633 contained provisions concerning the competency of witnesses, exceptions, and the proof of the will.
• The record noted that:
• The petitioner's failure to produce the two subscribing witnesses from Manila and Nueva Ecija was not explained.
• There was no indication that the petitioner objected to the testimony taken at the initial hearing nor a later attempt to procure the absent testimony.

Issue:

Main Controversial Point

• Whether the trial court erred in admitting the will to probate despite the absence of two subscribing witnesses who were available within the court’s jurisdiction.
• Whether the proponent was required to produce or provide a justifiable reason for the nonproduction of the two subscribing witnesses.

Application of Statutory Requirements and Legal Precedents

• Whether the statutory requirement (under sections 618 to 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure) mandating the attestation and subscription by three or more credible witnesses was satisfied.
• Whether the exceptions allowed under the law (such as when witnesses are deceased or otherwise inaccessible) apply in this instance given that the absent witnesses were living and within reach.

Evidentiary Implications

• Whether the testimony solely from the one subscribing witness (presented during the first hearing) suffices for establishing the due execution of the will in a contested case.
• Whether the production and cross-examination of all available witnesses are necessary to ensure the credibility and integrity of the probate process.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)