Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37453)
Facts:
Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Lutgarda Santiago, G.R. No. L-37453. May 25, 1979, the Supreme Court First Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.In April–June 1961 petitioner Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales and private respondent Lutgarda Santiago (both nieces of the deceased) became parties in Special Proceedings No. 3617 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, where Lutgarda filed a petition (June 24, 1961) to probate a typewritten Tagalog instrument (Exhibit "F") alleged to be the last will and testament of their aunt, Isabel Gabriel, who died June 7, 1961. The will, dated April 15, 1961, named Lutgarda principal beneficiary and executrix and was attested by three witnesses: Matilde D. Orobia, Celso D. Gimpaya and Maria R. Gimpaya.
Rizalina opposed probate on several grounds: the will was not genuine; it was not executed or attested as required by law; the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity; and the will was procured by undue influence. After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment on December 15, 1964 disallowing Exhibit "F", finding (inter alia) that the will was not executed and attested as required by law and was not the instrument alleged.
Private respondent Lutgarda appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in CA-G.R. No. 36523-R, reversed on May 4, 1973 and admitted the will to probate, finding that the will was executed on April 15, 1961 in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and the attestation and notarial acknowledgment were proper. Rizalina moved for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals; the motion was denied by resolution of August 28, 1973. Rizalina then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court challenging primarily factual findings of the Court of Appeals; the Court initially resolved not to give...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court review and reverse the Court of Appeals' factual findings in this probate dispute?
- Was Exhibit "F" (the purported will of Isabel Gabriel) executed and attested as required by law?
- Were the three instrumental witnesses competent and "credible" within the meaning of the Civil Code, such that their attestation supports probate?
- Did the testatrix have testamentary capacity and was...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)