Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13781)
Facts:
Testate Estate of Jose J. Javellana, Deceased, G.R. No. L-13781, January 30, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barrera, J., writing for the Court.
On June 29, 1957, Cristeta Jimenea Vda. de Javellana and Benjamin Javellana (petitioners and appellees), widow and brother of the deceased respectively, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to probate the alleged last will and testament of Jose J. Javellana, who died May 24, 1957. The petition alleged testator’s residence (San Juan, Rizal), estate of about P400,000, delivery of the will to the clerk of court pursuant to the Rules of Court, and that Oscar Ledesma had agreed to serve as executor; the petition listed the next of kin and gave addresses.
Oppositions were filed in the trial court by Jose Javellana y Azaola and Jose Javellana, Jr. (Pepito) (oppositors and appellants), each contending that the deposited will was null and void because it had not been executed in accordance with the formalities required by law and that necessary legal requisites for its validity had not been complied with.
At the hearing petitioners offered: a copy of the will; the testator’s death certification; proof of publication of the probate petition; and testimony of the three instrumental witnesses—Jose G. Guevarra, Eloisa Villanueva, and Jose Yulo, Jr.—who testified they witnessed the testator sign all four pages of the will and then signed each page themselves in the presence of the testator and one another, and that the acts were acknowledged before notary public Fernando Grey, Jr. The oppositors’ proof was limited to two Visayan-language letters alleged to be in the testator’s handwriting, offered for signature comparison.
On December 10, 1957 the Court of First Instance of Rizal allowed probate of the will and directed issuance of letters testamentary to Oscar Ledesma upon his filing a P10,000 bond. The oppositors appealed the order to the Supreme Court, ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in allowing probate because the three instrumental witnesses did not clearly and convincingly establish the due execution of the will?
- Did petitioners prove that the will was written in a language known to the testator so as to satisfy the statutory language requirement f...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)