Title
Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-37453
Decision Date
May 25, 1979
Dispute over Isabel Gabriel's will; petitioner contested authenticity, execution, and testamentary capacity. Supreme Court upheld will's validity, affirming proper execution and attestation.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37453)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural History
    • On June 24, 1961, Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition for probate of the will of her aunt, Isabel Gabriel, before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Special Procs. No. 3617).
    • Isabel Gabriel died on June 7, 1961, a widow without issue in Navotas, Rizal. She was survived by nieces Lutgarda Santiago (principal beneficiary and executrix under the will) and Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales (oppositor).
    • The trial court disallowed Exhibit “F” (the alleged will) on December 15, 1964. Lutgarda appealed; on May 4, 1973, the Court of Appeals reversed and admitted the will to probate. Rizalina’s petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court was first denied (Nov. 26, 1973), then given due course (Mar. 27, 1974).
  • The Alleged Will (Exhibit “F”)
    • Dated April 15, 1961, typewritten in Tagalog, comprising five pages, each signed by the testatrix at the end and on the left margin.
    • Attestation clause signed by three witnesses—Matilde D. Orobia, Celso D. Gimpaya, and Maria R. Gimpaya—in the presence of each other and the testatrix; notarized by Atty. Cipriano P. Paraiso, with entries in his Notarial Register.
    • Dispositions:
      • Catholic burial in Navotas at estate’s expense.
      • Payment of debts and specified legacies to siblings and nephews/nieces.
      • Universal inheritance of residue by Lutgarda Santiago, with restrictions on sale.
      • Appointment of Lutgarda as executrix without bond.
  • Opposition and Evidence at Trial
    • Oppositor Rizalina alleged forgery, non-compliance with formalities, lack of testamentary capacity (due to age and illness), and undue influence by Lutgarda.
    • Evidence included: testimony of the three instrumental witnesses, the notary public’s account of dictation, typing, reading, signing and notarization, residence certificates issued shortly before execution, and photographs of the signing.
    • Trial court found the will was not executed or attested as required, disallowed Exhibit “F,” and denied testamentary capacity and genuineness.

Issues:

  • Credibility and Competence of Witnesses
    • Whether “credible witnesses” under Civil Code art. 805 requires proof of good standing, reputation for honesty and uprightness beyond the qualifications in arts. 820–821.
    • Whether the three attesting witnesses met the statutory qualifications and lacked disqualifications.
  • Formal Requirements of Execution and Attestation
    • Whether the will was signed by the testatrix at the end and on each page in the presence of all witnesses.
    • Whether the witnesses signed in the presence of the testatrix and one another.
    • Whether the attestation clause and notarial acknowledgment were properly executed and recorded.
  • Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence
    • Whether decedent Isabel Gabriel, at age 85 and in ill health, had the requisite sound mind to execute a will.
    • Whether Lutgarda Santiago or any other person exerted improper pressure or influence to procure the will.
  • Appellate Review of Factual Findings
    • Whether the Supreme Court may review and revise the Court of Appeals’ findings of fact on certiorari.
    • Whether any recognized exception to the non-reviewability rule applies.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.