Case Summary (G.R. No. 158332)
Petitioner
Clemente Calde, successor substitute executor of the named executor Nicasio Calde (who died during proceedings), sought allowance and probate of decedent Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang’s Last Will (dated October 30, 1972) and Codicil (dated July 24, 1973).
Respondents
Private respondents (relatives of the decedent) opposed probate on multiple grounds, and the Court of Appeals ultimately disallowed probate. The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals decision on certiorari.
Key Dates
Decedent’s death: March 20, 1976. Will dated: October 30, 1972. Codicil dated: July 24, 1973. Court of Appeals decision: March 27, 1990; order denying reconsideration: May 24, 1990. Supreme Court decision confirming the Court of Appeals was rendered in 1994. (Applicable constitution for review: 1987 Philippine Constitution, as the decision date is after 1990.)
Applicable Law and Legal Standard
Governing testamentary formalities: Article 805 of the New Civil Code (requirement that a will be subscribed by the testator and attested by three witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another). Standards of appellate review: factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally final and conclusive on appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Court may review when necessary, particularly where autoptic inspection contradicts testimonial evidence.
Facts
The decedent left property valued at P9,000 and executed a will and codicil, each containing her thumbmark and each signed by three attesting witnesses. Both instruments were acknowledged before Judge Tomas A. Tolete. The executor filed a petition for allowance of the will before the RTC of Bontoc (Branch 36); the trial court allowed probate; the Court of Appeals reversed and disallowed probate.
Procedural History
RTC (trial court) approved and allowed the will and codicil on June 23, 1988. The Court of Appeals reversed on March 27, 1990, disallowing probate based principally on discrepancies in ink color and signature characteristics that the court found incompatible with the witnesses’ testimony that they all signed sequentially using the same pen. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was denied May 24, 1990. The petitioner then filed a petition for review by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
Central issue: whether the will and codicil were subscribed by the instrumental witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another, as required by Article 805, or whether, as found by the Court of Appeals, the signatures were made on different occasions such that probate should be disallowed.
Court of Appeals’ Findings and Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on physical characteristics of the documents: signatures on the will and codicil appeared in different ink colors (black and blue) and displayed different broadness and fineness. It found these features inconsistent with the witnesses’ testimony that the signatures were made consecutively with a single ballpen. The appellate court inferred that the documents were not signed by the testatrix and witnesses in each other’s presence, and therefore did not meet the statutory formalities.
Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court
Private respondents argued the will and codicil were invalid because they were written in a dialect the decedent allegedly did not know, the decedent lacked testamentary capacity, the thumbmarks were fraudulently procured, and the codicil was not properly executed. Petitioner contended the Court of Appeals’ conclusion was speculative and disregarded the probative value of the attestation clauses and Judge Tolete’s testimony describing the signing procedure.
Supreme Court’s Analysis of Evidence and Review Standard
The Supreme Court treated the matter primarily as factual: whether the instruments were subscribed in one sitting. While recognizing the general finality of Court of Appeals factual findings, the Court noted an exception where the appellate factual finding contradicted trial court findings and where objective inspection (autoptic proference) of the instruments demonstrated a fact inconsistent with testimonial evidence. The Court invoke
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 158332)
Case Caption and Decision Metadata
- Reported at 303 Phil. 389, Second Division, G.R. No. 93980, decision dated June 27, 1994 (opinion by Justice Puno).
- The petition is for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 19071 that disallowed the probate of a Last Will and Codicil.
- The Court of Appeals decision is identified in the record as dated March 27 (dates in the source appear as March 27, 1990 in one place and March 27, 1988 in another).
- The trial court matter was docketed as SPL. PROC. CASE NO. 295 and was presided by Judge Artemio B. Marrero, RTC of Bontoc, Mt. Province, Branch 36.
Parties
- Petitioner: Clemente Calde (substituted as executor after the named executor, Nicasio Calde, died during the pendency of the probate proceedings).
- Respondents: The Court of Appeals, and private respondents who are relatives of the decedent (named in caption as Primo Agawin and Domyaan Aped).
- Decedent: Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang, died March 20, 1976.
Testator's Estate and Testamentary Instruments
- Decedent left property valued at nine thousand pesos (P9,000.00).
- Decedent executed a Last Will and Testament dated October 30, 1972, and a Codicil dated July 24, 1973.
- Both testamentary documents:
- Contained the thumbmarks of the decedent.
- Were signed by three attesting witnesses each.
- Were acknowledged before Tomas A. Tolete, then Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mountain Province.
Procedural History
- Nicasio Calde, named executor in the will, filed a Petition for allowance of the will before the RTC of Bontoc, Mt. Province, Br. 36.
- Nicasio Calde died during the proceedings; petitioner Clemente Calde was duly substituted.
- Private respondents opposed the petition; the trial court on June 23, 1988 approved and allowed the will and codicil.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in a decision dated March 27 (as noted above) disallowing probate of the will and codicil.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals which was denied by order dated May 24, 1990.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review by certiorari.
Grounds of Opposition by Private Respondents (as presented in the record)
- The will and codicil were written in Ilocano, a dialect the decedent did not know.
- The decedent was mentally incapacitated to execute the documents due to advanced age, illness, and deafness.
- The decedent’s thumbmarks were procured through fraud and undue influence.
- The codicil was not executed in accordance with law.
Factual Question Presented on Review
- Whether the Last Will and Testament and the Codicil were subscribed by the instrumental witnesses in the presence of the testatrix and in the presence of one another, as required by Article 805 of the New Civil Code, or whether the signatures indicate that the instruments were signed on separate occasions, invalidating the testamentary instruments.
Trial Court Findings
- The trial court approved and allowed the decedent’s will and codicil (June 23, 1988).
- The trial court noted contradictions in the opposing witnesses’ assertions, and commented that private respondents’ conclusion about piecemeal signing was “purely circumstantial,” suggesting the possibility of forgotten details by witnesses given the time elapsed.
Court of Appeals Findings and Reasoning
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and disallowed the will and codicil.
- Central factual basis for reversal:
- Discrepancy in ink color among the signatures of the attesting witnesses and the testatrix (some signatures in blue, others in black).
- Testimonial admissions by attesting witnesses suggesting the documents were passed around and signed in succession, and affirmations that one ballpen was used (per cross-examination excerpts).
- The Court o