Case Summary (G.R. No. 102549)
Factual Background
Miguel Mamuyac died on January 2, 1922, in the municipality of Agoo, Province of La Union. The record indicates that on or about July 27, 1918, Miguel executed a last will and testament identified in the record as Exhibit A. Subsequently, on April 16, 1919, the decedent executed another testamentary instrument. In January 1922, Francisco Gago presented a petition to the Court of First Instance for the probate of the will described in the record, and later, on February 21, 1925, he commenced the present action seeking the probate of the will dated April 16, 1919, there identified as Exhibit 1.
Trial Court Proceedings on the First Petition
When Gago initially sought probate in January 1922, the petition was opposed by Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac. After hearing, Judge C. M. Villareal denied the petition for probate on November 2, 1923, on the ground that the decedent had executed a later will on April 16, 1919, thereby superseding the earlier instrument.
Subsequent Proceeding and Oppositions
In the action begun February 21, 1925, to probate the April 16, 1919 instrument (Exhibit 1), the opponents again filed oppositions alleging that the instrument presented was a copy of a second will, that it had been cancelled and revoked during Miguel’s lifetime, and that it was not the decedent’s last will and testament. The trial judge, Honorable Anastasio R. Teodoro, heard testimony from witnesses offered by both sides before issuing a ruling.
Findings of the Trial Court
Judge Teodoro reviewed the evidence and expressly found that Exhibit A was a mere carbon copy of an original that had remained in the decedent’s possession and that the original had been revoked by Miguel before his death. The court credited testimony of Jose Fenoy, who typed a will dated April 16, 1919, and of Carlos Bejar, who testified that he saw the original on December 30, 1920, and observed it cancelled by Miguel, with Miguel stating that he had cancelled the will because he had sold a house and the land where it stood and had executed a new testament. The judge also noted that Narcisa Gago corroborated aspects of the testimony and admitted that the original could not be found after the decedent’s death. On these findings the court denied probate on the ground that the will had been cancelled in 1920.
The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal
On appeal, the appellant maintained that the lower court erred in not finding that the will had been executed with the formalities required by law and that it had not been revoked or cancelled in 1920. The appellant also argued that the instrument offered was a mere carbon copy and that the opponents should be estopped from asserting revocation. The opponents urged affirmance on the ground that the original had been cancelled by the testator and that the copy therefore could not be probated as the last will.
Legal Issues Presented
The central legal questions were whether the proffered instrument had been validly executed and whether the original had been cancelled or revoked by the testator during his lifetime so as to defeat probate of the copy; and, relatedly, under what circumstances a copy or duplicate of a will may be admitted when the original cannot be produced.
Legal Reasoning of the Court
The Court reviewed the evidentiary principles applicable when an original will cannot be found. It observed that the law does not require preservation of evidence of revocation and that often the only available proof of revocation is circumstantial. The Court recalled the presumption that, where a will known to have been in the testator’s possession cannot be found after death, the absence raises an inference that the testator cancelled or destroyed it, and that this presumption, while varying in strength, is rebuttable by competent evidence that the testator did not intend revocation. The Court reiterated the allocation of burdens: the proponent bears the burden to establish both execution and existence of the will, and, after proof of execution, the contestant bears the burden to show revocation. The Court further cautioned that copies of wills are to be admitted with great caution, but acknowledged the rule that when it is proven that a will was executed in duplicate with all requisite formalities, a duplicate may be admitted if it appears that the original was lost and not cancelled or destroyed by the testator, citing Borromeo vs. Casquijo, G. R. No. 26063 (promulgated December 14, 1926).
Application of Law to the Facts
Applying these doctrines to the record, the Court gave weight to the trial judge’s acceptance of direct testimony that the original of the instrument dated April 16, 1919, was seen cancelled by the decedent on December 30, 1920, and to the corroborative t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 102549)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Francisco Gago, Petitioner and Appellant filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Union to probate a will dated April 16, 1919 (Exhibit 1).
- Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciana Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac, Opponents and Appellees filed oppositions alleging the 1919 instrument was a copy, cancelled, and not the last will of the deceased.
- The Court of First Instance, through Judge Anastasio R. Teodoro, denied probate of the 1919 will on the ground of cancellation in 1920, and the petitioner appealed.
- The present decision affirms the denial of probate and reflects the appellate disposition of the record before the tribunal.
Key Factual Allegations
- Miguel Mamuyac executed a will on July 27, 1918 (Exhibit A) and later executed another instrument on April 16, 1919 (Exhibit 1).
- Francisco Gago presented the July 27, 1918 will for probate in January 1922, and that petition was denied on November 2, 1923 upon finding a later will dated April 16, 1919.
- The April 16, 1919 will was alleged to be a carbon copy and its original could not be found after the testator's death.
- Witness testimony established that the testator cancelled the original 1919 will on December 30, 1920 and stated that he had sold a house and lot which required cancellation and execution of a new testament.
- Witnesses who testified included Jose Fenoy, who typed the 1919 will, Carlos Bejar, who saw the original cancelled on December 30, 1920, and Narcisa Gago, who corroborated possession and later inability to locate the original.
Issues Presented
- Whether the April 16, 1919 instrument could be probated after the original was allegedly cancelled in 1920.
- Whether the instrument offered was merely a carbon copy and therefore inadmissible in the absence of the original.
- Which party bore the burden of proof on execution, existence, and revocation of the will in a probate proceeding.
Parties' Contentions
- Francisco Gago contended that the 1919 will had been duly executed with required formalities, that the will had not been revoked prior to death, that the instrument was not merely a carbon co