G.R. No. L-8996 - De Castro vs. De Castro

Marcelo de Castro, the testator, died on April 22, 1954, at his residence in Quezon City.
The family situation was complex: Marcelo had no descendants or ascendants; his nearest relatives were his full-blooded brothers (oppositors) and his half-blooded sisters (petitioners).
The estate consisted of various properties in Quezon City, Manila, and Batangas, with an approximate net valuation of P75,000 after deducting debts of P35,000.

Marcelo de Castro’s will (Exhibit C) was executed on April 21, 1953, at his residence at 35 Espana Extension, Quezon City.
The document was executed with the assistance of instrumental witnesses and a notary public, Atty. Heraclio H. del Pilar, who read the will aloud to the testator and witnessed its execution.
Due to physical limitations from paresis and previous health issues, the testator used his right-hand thumbmark in lieu of his handwritten signature on all pages of the will, including the attestation clause and the notarial acknowledgment.

The attesting witnesses—Dr. Trinidad Banuelos, Mrs. Rhoda del Rosario-Lanting, and Mrs. Maria Rivera-Sangalang—provided consistent testimony regarding the execution process, confirming that the testator voluntarily affixed his thumbmark.
Isabel de Castro, one of the petitioners, testified that she had custody of the will prior to its execution and attested to the manner in which the document was handled and stored.
A notarial acknowledgment was rendered by Atty. del Pilar, and the document contained a detailed attestation clause specifying the steps taken during the execution.

Emilio and Alvaro de Castro, the oppositors, filed their opposition, challenging:

The compliance with statutory formality requirements in the execution and attestation of the will.
The claim that Marcelo de Castro was mentally and physically incapable at the time due to a serious illness and paralysis.
The propriety and voluntariness of the thumbmark, alleging improper influence, fraud, or that the mark was not his authentic thumbmark.

The oppositors also raised issues regarding a discrepancy in thumbmark comparisons:

A fingerprint expert, Detective Reynaldo Sanchez, testified that the thumbmark on Exhibit C differed from that on Exhibit 5-A (from a voter’s list) purportedly bearing Marcelo’s mark.
Discrepancies were further noted in the signature styles of Marcelo de Castro in documents, raising doubts about the consistency and authenticity of the marks and signatures presented.

The probate petition for the will was properly advertised, and a hearing was set in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Prior to the continuation of the hearing, an amended opposition was filed and admitted, which further contested the authenticity of the thumbmarks.
Despite the opposition, the testimony of the attesting witnesses and corroborative evidence from the notary and custodian of the will consistently supported the proper and voluntary execution of the document.

Whether the execution of Exhibit C complied with the legal requirements, given that the testator used his thumbmark in place of a handwritten signature due to his physical incapacity.
Whether the attestation clause and the acknowledgment before the notary sufficiently met the statutory requirements under Article 806 of the New Civil Code.

Whether the thumbmark affixed on Exhibit C is indeed that of Marcelo de Castro, especially in light of the contrasting evidence where the thumbmark in Exhibit 5-A (voter’s list) was identified as different.
Whether the differences in visual characteristics between the thumbmarks and signatures conclusively affect the document’s validity.

Whether the evidence and consistent testimonies of the disinterested witnesses can offset the oppositors’ claims of fraud or irregularities in the execution.
Whether the minor formal defect (the incorrect inscription for the execution date) is material to the overall validity of the will.