Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7179)
Facts:
Testate Estate of the Late Apolinaria Ledesma. Felicidad Javellana, Petitioner and Appellee, vs. Doña Matea Ledesma, Oppositor and Appellant, G.R. No. L-7179, June 30, 1955, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.By order of July 23, 1953, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo admitted to probate two testamentary documents in the Visayan dialect: Exhibit D (a testament dated March 30, 1950) and Exhibit E (a codicil dated May 29, 1952). The instrumental witnesses to the 1950 testament and to the 1952 codicil were Ramon Tabiana, Gloria Montinola de Tabiana and Vicente Yap. The contestant, Doña Matea Ledesma (the decedent's sister and nearest surviving relative), appealed the admission of the documents to this Court because the estate's value exceeded two hundred thousand pesos, thereby invoking direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
At the trial level the contestant originally alleged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence but abandoned those grounds; the controversy was narrowed to three factual-legal questions: (1) whether the 1950 testament was executed by the testatrix in the presence of the instrumental witnesses; (2) whether the acknowledgment clause was signed and the notarial seal affixed by the notary without the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses; and (3) if the notary did so, whether the codicil was thereby rendered invalid and ineffective. Contestant's lay witnesses, the deceased's cook Maria Paderogao and driver Vidal Allado, testified that Vicente Yap brought the "testamento" and urged the testatrix to go to Attorney Tabiana's office to sign it; that the infirm testatrix refused to go and instead signed in the presence of Yap alone. The instrumental witnesses (Yap, Atty. Ramon C. Tabiana, and his wife Gloria) testified concordantly that the testament was executed by the testatrix and witnesses in each other’s presence at the decedent's house on March 30, 1950.
The trial court credited the instrumental witnesses and rejected the contestant's servants as improbable and internally inconsistent. On the question of the codicil's acknowledgment, the instrumental witnesses said the notary signed and sealed on the same occasion after signing at San Pablo Hospital, while the notary Gimotea testified he took the codicil to his office and signed there; the tria...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the 1950 testament executed by the testatrix in the presence of the instrumental witnesses?
- Was the acknowledgment clause signed and the notarial seal affixed by the notary without the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses, and if so, does that affect validity?
- If the notary signed/sealed outside the presence of the testatrix and witnesses, was the 1952 codicil thereby ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)