Case Digest (G.R. No. 93980) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Clemente Calde v. The Court of Appeals, petitioner Clemente Calde sought the probate of the Last Will and Testament (dated October 30, 1972) and the Codicil thereto (dated July 24, 1973) of his late relative, Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang, who died on March 20, 1976, leaving property valued at ₱9,000. Both instruments, drafted in Ilocano, bore decedent’s thumbmarks and the signatures of three attesting witnesses, and were acknowledged before Tomas A. Tolete, then Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mt. Province. Nicasio Calde, the named executor, filed a petition for allowance before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bontoc, Mt. Province, Branch 36, but died during the proceedings and was substituted by petitioner. Private respondents Primo Agawin and Domyaan Aped, relatives of the decedent, opposed on grounds of language incapacity, mental unsoundness, alleged fraud, undue influence, and noncompliance with formalities for the codicil. On June 23, 1988, the RT Case Digest (G.R. No. 93980) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background
- Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang died on March 20, 1976, leaving an estate valued at ₱9,000.00 and a Last Will and Testament dated October 30, 1972, plus a Codicil dated July 24, 1973. Both instruments bore her thumbmarks and the signatures of three attesting witnesses, acknowledged before Judge Tomas A. Tolete, Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mt. Province.
- Nicasio Calde, named executor in the Will, filed a Petition for probate before the RTC of Bontoc, Mt. Province, Branch 36. He died during the proceedings and was substituted by petitioner Clemente Calde.
- Opposition and lower court proceedings
- Private respondents (relatives of the decedent) opposed probate on grounds that:
- The documents were in Ilocano, a dialect the decedent did not know.
- The decedent was of unsound mind due to age, illness, and deafness.
- The thumbmarks were procured by fraud and undue influence.
- The Codicil was not executed in accordance with law.
- On June 23, 1988, the RTC approved and allowed the Will and Codicil. The respondents appealed, and on March 27, 1990, the Court of Appeals reversed, disallowing probate due to discrepancies in ink color of the signatures, indicating non-simultaneous signing in violation of Article 805 of the Civil Code.
- Petition for review
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was denied on May 24, 1990.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review by certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals’ finding that the Will and Codicil were not subscribed in the presence of the testator and of one another.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Will and Codicil were not subscribed by the instrumental witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another, as required by Article 805 of the Civil Code, based on the discrepancy in ink colors.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)