Facts:

The case involves Teodoro Vano, the petitioner and appellant, against Paz Vano Vda. de Garces and other oppositors and appellees, concerning the probate of the last will and testament of Jose Vano, who passed away on January 28, 1950, in Cebu City at the age of 78 due to pulmonary tuberculosis. Teodoro Vano filed a petition on February 11, 1950, to have a document, which he claimed was the last will of Jose Vano, probated. This document, dated December 11, 1949, bequeathed all of Jose Vano's properties to Teodoro, who was recognized as his son. The will was witnessed by three individuals: Pedro C. Ceniza, Dr. Osmundo Rama, and Atty. Nazario Pacquiao, who testified that Jose Vano was of sound mind when he executed the will.

However, on March 24, 1950, Paz Vano Vda. de Garces, the sister of the deceased, along with the heirs of Jesus Vano (Jose's brother), filed an opposition to the probate. They claimed that the will was procured through undue influence and pressure...

Facts:

1. Testator and His Death: Jose Vano, a 78-year-old single man, died on January 28, 1950, in Cebu City due to pulmonary tuberculosis. He left properties valued at P95,913.05, though evidence suggested the estate was worth more.
2. The Will: On February 11, 1950, Teodoro Ceblero Vano petitioned the Court of First Instance of Cebu to probate a document (Exhibit "A") purporting to be Jose Vano's last will and testament. The will, executed on December 11, 1949, named Teodoro as Jose Vano's son and sole heir.
3. Attesting Witnesses: The will was signed by three witnesses: Pedro Ceniza, Dr. Osmundo Rama, and Atty. Nazario Pacquiao. They testified that Jose Vano was of sound mind and voluntarily executed the will in their presence.
4. Opposition: Paz Vano Vda. de Garces (Jose Vano's sister) and the heirs of Jesus Vano (Jose Vano's brother) opposed the probate. They alleged that:
   • The will was procured through undue influence and fraud.
   • Jose Vano was mentally incapable of making a will on December 11, 1949.
   • The will was written in English, a language Jose Vano did not usually use.
   • Teodoro was not an acknowledged natural child of Jose Vano.
5. Ireneo Vano's Withdrawal: Ireneo Vano, one of the oppositors, later withdrew his opposition, stating that he believed the will reflected Jose Vano's true wishes.
6. Expert Testimony: The opposition presented Edgar Bond, a handwriting expert, who claimed the signatures on the will were forged. Teodoro countered with Dr. Paul Rodriguez Versoza, another handwriting expert, who testified that the signatures were genuine, attributing discrepancies to Jose Vano's age and illness.
7. Trial Court Decision: The trial court denied probate, finding discrepancies in the attesting witnesses' testimonies and accepting Bond's expert opinion over Versoza's.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Scope of Evidence in Probate Proceedings: The Supreme Court held that the law fixes the issue in probate proceedings as "devisavit vel non" (whether the instrument is the last will and testament of the testator). Oppositors are not strictly limited to the grounds stated in their written opposition and may present evidence on other grounds, such as forgery, even if not initially alleged.
2. Forgery Allegation: The Court found that the oppositors' sudden shift from alleging fraud and undue influence to forgery weakened their position. The original will had been filed in court for over a month before the opposition, giving the oppositors ample time to scrutinize the signatures.
3. Testator's Condition: The Court considered Jose Vano's advanced age, illness, and physical infirmities, which could explain the irregularities in his signatures. The testimony of the attesting witnesses, who were disinterested professionals, was given more weight than the conflicting expert opinions.
4. Relationship Between Jose Vano and Teodoro: The evidence showed that Teodoro was treated as Jose Vano's son, managed his business affairs, and was acknowledged as such in public documents. This supported the likelihood that Jose Vano intended to leave his estate to Teodoro.
5. Weight of Attesting Witnesses' Testimony: The Court emphasized the importance of the attesting witnesses' testimony, which is accorded almost conclusive weight under the law. Their disinterested and credible testimony outweighed the expert opinions, which were inherently subjective.
6. Legal Precedents: The Court cited precedents, including Roxas v. Roxas and In re Will of Medina, which held that the testimony of attesting witnesses, especially when they are professionals with no interest in the case, should prevail over expert opinions.