G.R. No. 8954 - Cabang vs. Delfinado

Nature of Appeal: This appeal concerns the probate of a document claimed to be the last will and testament of Celestino Delfinado.
Initial Filing: The petition for probate was filed on September 15, 1911.
Opposition Filed: Martin Delfinado, through counsel, opposed the will on October 25, 1911, claiming the will was not properly executed and lacked necessary signatures.

Hearing Dates: The trial commenced on November 18, 1911, with subsequent hearings scheduled after a republication order on December 29, 1912.
Presentation of Evidence: The petitioner presented witnesses, including the deceased's widow and one subscribing witness, while the opposition called only Martin Delfinado.

Widow's Testimony: Dorotea Cabang testified that Celestino could neither read nor write.
Witnesses' Testimonies:
- Antonio Flor Mata: Claimed he dictated the will, which was interpreted for the testator. The testator made a cross mark due to inability to write, and all witnesses were present during execution.
- Paciano Romero: Confirmed the execution process and the inability of the testator to write.
Opposition's Witness: Martin Delfinado claimed he was unaware of any will and disputed his father’s inability to write.

Legal Requirement: A will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by three or more credible witnesses (Sec. 618, Code of Civil Procedure).
Witness Competency: Witnesses must be of sound mind and at least 18 years old (Sec. 620).
Subsequent Incompetency: The incompetency of witnesses post-execution does not invalidate the will (Sec. 621).

Witness Requirements: If contested, all subscribing witnesses must be called unless excused (Sec. 631).
Exceptions for Absence: If witnesses are not within jurisdiction, other evidence may be accepted (Sec. 633).

Absence of Witnesses: The court determined that the petitioner failed to produce the absent witnesses without just cause.
Evidence Considerations: The court based its decision solely on the testimony from the initial hearing.
Final Ruling: The court reversed the lower court's judgment, indicating that the probate should not have proceeded without all witnesses being presented.

Witness Requirement: The necessity to present all subscribing witnesses in contested will cases is paramount to uphold the integrity of the probate process.
Statutory References: The ruling emphasized adherence to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding will validity and witness requirements.
Implications for Future Cases: This decision highlights the importance of fulfilling procedural requirements in will contest