G.R. No. 79387 - People vs. Macalino y Lagman

This case involves the probate of a document purported to be the last will and testament of Juliana Navarro, deceased.
The petitioner/appellant, E. P. Estrella, sought to have the will admitted to probate despite challenges raised concerning its validity.
The initial decision by the Court of First Instance of Tayabas denied probate, on the ground that the document did not manifest sufficient proof of the necessary formalities for a valid will.

During the probate proceedings, three attesting witnesses – Isidoro C. Mendenilla, Marcelino S. Bautista, and Inigo B. Apolo – testified regarding the execution of the will.

Mendenilla and Bautista stated that they did not see Juliana Navarro sign the will.
Inigo B. Apolo similarly could not positively affirm whether the signature on the will was indeed that of the deceased.

The petitioner later moved for a new trial under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the attesting witnesses had provided false testimony because they were under the influence of liquor.

An affidavit (Exhibit A) was submitted by Mendenilla and Bautista indicating that they had testified falsely in the probate proceeding due to the influence of liquor.
In the subsequent hearing on the motion for a new trial, only witness Bautista appeared to be examined, while Mendenilla was absent (reported as deceased).

Testimony of notary public De Mesa, who had authorized Exhibit A.
Other circumstantial evidence aimed at supporting the claim that the affidavit contained truthful allegations of false testimony.

Witness Bautista denied the allegations contained in Exhibit A, asserting he had signed the affidavit only under the pressure exerted by his immediate superior, Estrella, and not because he had testified falsely.
The testimony of potential corroborators such as Eusebio P. Estrella and the notary public was deemed insufficient to establish that Bautista’s testimony during the probate was indeed falsified.

The trial court, after considering the evidence and testimony at the hearing of the motion for a new trial, denied the petitioner’s request to reopen the proceedings.
The denial was premised on the finding that the evidence presented (specifically, the affidavit Exhibit A) was self-contradictory and insufficient to overcome the testimonial record already on record regarding the proper attestation required for a valid will.
Ultimately, the motion for a new trial was dismissed, and the case was decided on the basis of the evidence firmly established in the probate trial.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for a new trial under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Central to the issue was the admissibility of additional evidence, including the testimony of the notary public and other circumstantial evidence, to confirm the allegations contained in the affidavit (Exhibit A) regarding false testimony under the influence of liquor by the attesting witnesses.
Whether the established testimonial evidence on record regarding the attesting witnesses’ conduct could be successfully contradicted or rebutted through newly introduced evidence.

Whether the rule mandating that all attesting witnesses must testify favorably to the execution of a will is absolute, and whether exceptions could be made based on circumstantial or additional evidence.