G.R. No. L-40804 - Vda. de Ramos vs. Court of Appeals

Adelaida Nista filed a petition for the probate of an alleged will dated March 9, 1963, and a codicil dated April 18, 1963, of the late Eugenia Danila, who died on May 21, 1966.
The petition requested not only the probate of these documents but also the appointment of an administrator for the testatrix’s estate, with a provision for a summary settlement should the estate value be less than ₱10,000.00.
Opposition to the petition was filed by Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina (Martina) Guerra. Their oppositions, including an amended version, alleged:

That they were the legally adopted son and daughter of the late Florentino Guerra and Eugenia Danila.
That the will and codicil were procured through fraud and undue influence.
Noncompliance with the legal formalities in the execution of the documents.
The existence of an earlier last will (dated November 5, 1951) that had already been probated and not revoked.
That Adelaida Nista was not qualified to act as administratrix of the estate.

On November 4, 1968, the parties (petitioner and oppositors) entered into a Compromise Agreement, the salient points of which included:

Recognition of Buenaventura and Marcelina Guerra as the legally adopted children of the testatrix.
Admission that Eugenia Danila had disposed of most of her properties during her lifetime, except for a disputed parcel of riceland and a parcel of coconut land.
Clarification that a deed of donation had been executed in favor of Adelaida Nista for a portion of the coconut land, which was later declared a mistake with regard to Marcelina Guerra’s earlier donation.
Acknowledgement that any rights Adelaida Nista might have on the coconut land were waived and renounced in favor of Marcelina Guerra.
An agreement that no residual estate remained for disposition by the will, thereby setting aside the disputed will and codicil for the sake of familial harmony.
A provision regarding the settlement of debts incurred by the testatrix, with Adelaida Nista agreeing to contribute ₱3,400.00 toward the debts settled by Marcelina Guerra.
A clause waiving further claims against any undisposed property that might later be discovered.

The Compromise Agreement was approved by the lower court, though its approval was later revisited and partially set aside.

Several individuals (Rosario de Ramos, Miguel Danila, Felix Danila, Miguel Gavino, Amor Danila, Consolacion Santos, and Miguel Danila, son of the late Fortunato Danila) intervened as co-petitioners, asserting their rights as instituted heirs or devisees.
These intervenors filed motions for leave to intervene, a reply to the opposition, and later, a motion for new trial/re-hearing to set aside the Compromise Agreement judgment.
The lower court allowed the intervention of the co-petitioners but disapproved the Compromise Agreement except for their lawful rights in the subject estate.
Additional procedural orders included a motion for the substitution of parties following the death of oppositor Buenaventura Guerra and a subsequent decision on the appointment of a special administrator, which was denied.

After trial proceedings, the lower court rendered its decision on July 6, 1971, allowing the probate of the disputed will and codicil.
Evidence at trial included:

Testimony of two attesting witnesses (Odon Sarmiento and Rosendo Paz) who testified that they did not see the testatrix sign the will, though they attested it afterward.
The “straight-forward and candid” testimony of Atty. Ricardo Barcenas, the Notary Public, who oversaw the execution and attestation of both the will and the codicil.
Additional corroborative evidence from Atty. Manuel Alvero regarding the proper execution of the codicil.

The trial court emphasized the importance of the formalities of execution and the consistent presence of competent legal practitioners during the signing, leading to a finding that the testamentary documents were duly executed and acknowledged before a Notary Public.

Oppositors Marcelina Guerra and the heirs of Buenaventura Guerra appealed the trial court’s decision to allow probate.
The Court of Appeals reversed part of the trial court’s decision by disallowing the probate of the will and codicil on the ground that the evidence did not establish that the testatrix signed in the presence of the attesting witnesses per Article 805 of the Civil Code.
In the present appeal, petitioners argued on constitutional grounds, though the Court focused on two key errors of the Court of Appeals:

The erroneous weighting given to the testimonies of the attesting witnesses against their own attestation clauses and the notarial acknowledgment.
The error in denying the probate of the documents despite what the petitioners considered convincing evidence of due execution.

Whether the attestation clauses in both the will and codicil constitute sufficient proof of due execution in compliance with the legal formalities required by law.
Whether the negative testimonies of the attesting witnesses (Odon Sarmiento and Rosendo Paz) can override the positive and corroborative evidence provided by the attestation clauses and by the Notary Public’s testimony.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving more credence to the negative testamentary evidence of selected attesting witnesses over the notarial evidence and the attestation clauses contained in the documents.
Whether the absence of a photograph capturing the testatrix signing her will invalidates or casts doubt on the authenticity of the testamentary documents.

Whether the prior Compromise Agreement, which sought to set aside the disputed will and codicil in favor of harmonizing familial interests, should affect the probate proceedings.
The proper application of procedural rules regarding the intervention of co-petitioners and the resolution of their claims vis-à-vis the validity of the will.