G.R. No. 153690 - Lu vs. Lu Ym

Maria Zuniga Vda. de Pando, deceased on October 29, 1945, left behind a document allegedly representing her last will and testament.
A petition for the probate of this will was filed on November 6, 1945 in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
On December 21, 1945, Dolores Zuniga Vda. de Vidal, the deceased’s sister, filed an opposition to the probate on multiple grounds.

Three instrumental witnesses—Cornelia Gonzales de Romero, Quintin Ulpindo, and Consuelo B. de Catindig—were called to testify regarding the execution of the will.

Cornelia Gonzales de Romero: Regularly provided ice to the deceased and was present on one occasion when she was asked to witness the signing of the will.
Quintin Ulpindo: A laborer engaged in repairs who was similarly present during the signing.
Consuelo B. de Catindig: A longtime neighbor who acted as an instrumental witness.

Their testimony detailed that the testatrix signed the will while seated on her bed, using a small table placed nearby, and that afterward the three witnesses signed the will in her presence as well as in the presence of each other.
The witnesses were portrayed as credible, having testified in a simple, natural manner without any suggestion of personal bias or pecuniary interest.

The petitioner’s evidence included expert testimony by Jose G. Villanueva, who conducted a comparative handwriting analysis.

Villanueva’s analysis compared the disputed signatures in the will with genuine signatures drawn from documents dated as far back as 1940 to January 1945.
Based on these comparisons, he concluded that the signatures in the will were not genuine.

In rebuttal, another expert, Jose C. Espinosa, provided his own handwriting analysis using signatures that were drawn much nearer in time to the disputed signatures (including multiple signatures from October 1945 and others from January and September 1945).

Espinosa’s analysis emphasized the importance of using standards of comparison that are contemporaneous with the questioned signature, given the effects of age and health on signature characteristics.
His opinion was deemed more reliable and was given greater weight by the appellate court.

The lower court argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the testatrix knew or spoke Spanish, the language in which the will was written.
However, evidence was presented indicating that the testatrix was a mestiza española, had been carried to Spain, and had made several trips to Spain.
Additional evidence included letters written by her in Spanish and an attestation clause in the will explicitly stating her knowledge of Spanish.
These factors contributed to a presumption that the deceased possessed sufficient knowledge of the language.

The lower court contended that the variations observed in the testatrix’s signatures indicated that she was not of sound and disposing mind when signing the will, suggesting that she even signed her name twice on one occasion.
Contrarily, the instrumental witnesses testified that the deceased appeared of sound mind during the signing; remarks by both Cornelia Gonzales de Romero and Consuelo B. de Catindig highlighted that although the deceased was weak, she could still speak, read, and understood her actions.
The noted signature variations were attributed to the natural effects of aging and physical infirmity rather than to any defect in mental competence.

Whether the signatures of the deceased as they appear in Exhibit “C” are genuine, especially in light of conflicting expert opinions.

Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the testatrix knew and spoke Spanish, the language in which the will was drafted.

Whether the testatrix was of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution of the will, considering the variations in her signature and her physical condition.