G.R. No. 15566 - Avera vs. Garcia

Case Summary (G.R. No. 15566)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Petition for probate pending from December 21, 1917; hearing date before the trial court April 5, 1919; decision on appeal September 14, 1921.
Primary statute considered: section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645 (requirement that the testator and instrumental witnesses sign their names on the left margin of each and every page).
Precedents relied upon in the decision: Cabang v. Belfinado (34 Phil. 291), Estate of McCarty (58 Cal. 335), Caraig v. Tatlonghari (R. G. No. 12558), Re Estate of Saguinsin (41 Phil. 875), Re Will of Abangan (40 Phil. 476).

Procedural and Evidentiary Posture in the Trial Court

At the appointed hearing the proponent produced one of the three attesting witnesses who testified that the will was executed with necessary external formalities and that the testator had disposing faculties. The scribe-writer corroborated the testator’s sound mental capacity. Two attesting witnesses were not produced, and the proponent did not account for their absence. The opposition produced a single witness whose testimony suggested, in a vague and indecisive manner, that the testator was debilitated at execution. After submission, the trial judge found the testator of sound mind and properly executed the will, and admitted it to probate.

First Issue — Requirement to Produce All Attesting Witnesses When Will Is Contested

Legal question: whether, when a will is contested, the proponent must produce all attesting witnesses (if alive and within reach of the court’s process) or may rely on the testimony of one attesting witness. The court acknowledged the general rule that an uncontested will may be proven by one of three attesting witnesses, but it reiterated Cabang v. Belfinado: where a contest exists, all attesting witnesses must be examined if they are available. In the present case, no explanation was offered at trial for the absence of the two witnesses.

Waiver and Timeliness of the Objection to Failure to Produce Witnesses

Although the rule favors production of all attesting witnesses in contested probate, the appellate court declined to reverse on that ground because the appellants had failed to raise the objection in the lower court either at submission or in their motion for a new trial. The court treated the point as one that ought properly to have been presented in the trial court and therefore, under principles of appellate procedure and the exercise of judicial discretion, would not be entertained for the first time on appeal. The decision cited the California Supreme Court’s practice (Estate of McCarty) and articulated two policy reasons: (1) permitting new points on appeal undermines the trial court’s role and makes the appellate court effectively a court of first instance on that point; and (2) it may encourage tactical concealment and frivolous litigation by counsel. The court emphasized that, while it will consider novel issues where necessary to reach correct decisions, it will generally refuse to entertain points that could and should have been raised below when substantial justice has been done at trial.

Second Issue — Margin Where Signatures Appeared and Statutory Requirement

Legal question: whether the will is invalid because the signatures of the testator and instrumental witnesses were written in the right margin of each page rather than the left margin as required by section 618 (Act No. 2645). The statute’s literal requirement is for signatures on the left margin of each and every page.

Interpretation of Statutory Formality and Application to the Facts

The court acknowledged the general doctrine that statutory formalities for wills must be complied with, and it referenced prior decisions where absence of signatures on each written page rendered a will void (e.g., Caraig v. Tatlonghari; Re Estate of Saguinsin). However, the court distinguished the present deviation (right margin rather than left) as trivial and not affecting the primary objects of the formalities. The opinion articulated the purpose of solemnities: to prevent fraud, substitution, and to guarantee truth and authenticity. Where signatures appear on every page, whether left or right margin, the authentication and protection against alteration are achieved equally. The court relied on analogous reasoning

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 15566)

Citation, Court, and Date

Reported at 42 Phil. 145; G.R. No. 15566.
Decision rendered September 14, 1921.
Opinion by Justice Street.
Justices Johnson, Araullo, Avancena, and Villamor concurred.

Nature of the Proceedings and Parties

Proceeding below: petition for probate of the will of Esteban Garcia filed by petitioner and proponent Eutiquia Avera.
Opponents/appellants: Marino Garcia and Juan Rodriguez (the latter in capacity as guardian of the minors Cesar Garcia and Jose Garcia).
Appeal from admission of the will to probate.

Facts as Presented at Trial

Proponent introduced one of the three attesting witnesses; that witness testified the will was executed with all necessary external formalities and that the testator was in full possession of disposing faculties.
The person who wrote the will (scriba) corroborated the witness as to the testator’s mental capacity.
Two attesting witnesses were not introduced at the hearing, and no explanation for their absence was made by the proponent.
The contesting side produced a single witness whose testimony tended, in a vague and indecisive way, to show that at the time the will was made the testator was so debilitated as to be unable to comprehend what he was doing.
The probate petition had been pending from December 21, 1917, until the hearing date April 5, 1919.
No formal contest was entered until the date set for the hearing.

Trial Court Disposition

The trial judge found that at the time of making the will the testator was of sound mind and disposing memory.
The trial court found the will had been properly executed.
The trial court admitted the will to probate.

Issues Presented on Appeal

Two principal assignments of error were raised on appeal:
- Whether, when opposition is made, a will may be admitted to probate upon proof of only one of the three attesting witnesses without producing or accounting for the absence of the other two.
- Whether the will is invalid because the signatures of the testator and of the three attesting witnesses were written on the right margin of each page instead of the left margin as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645.

First Issue — Sufficiency of Attesting Witnesses When Will Is Contested (Rule and Authorities)

Acknowledged general rule: an uncontested will may be proved by the testimony of only one of the three attesting witnesses.
Cited precedent: Cabang vs. Belfinado (34 Phil., 291) — after examining American and English authorities, the Court declared that when a contest is instituted, all attesting witnesses must be examined if alive and within reach of court process.
The Court recognized the Cabang decision as supporting the proposition that, in contested cases, production of all attesting witnesses is required.

First Issue — Application of Rule to the Present Case and Procedural Consideration

At trial, no explanation was offered for failure to produce the two attesting witnesses.
Court observed probable circumstances explaining absence: the petition had been pending a long period and no formal contest entered until hearing day; proponent’s attorney may have believed probate would be uncontested and thus appeared with only one witness; upon learning of contest, counsel did not seek postponement to produce additional attesting witnesses.
Despite these circumstances, the Court emphasized that this probable explanation does not alter the rule requiring production of all attesting witnesses in contested cases.

First Issue — Waiver and Timing of the Objection (Holding on Procedural Forfeiture)

The Court found the point concerning lack of production of all attesting witnesses w