Case Summary (G.R. No. L-37453)
Trial Court Disallows Probate
After trial, the CFI found no proof of undue influence or incapacity but concluded that the will “was not executed and attested as required by law,” and that Exhibit “F” was not the genuine will of Isabel Gabriel. It therefore disallowed probate on December 15, 1964.
Court of Appeals Allows Probate
On appeal, the CA held that: (1) the will was duly signed by the testatrix in the presence of three credible witnesses; (2) the witnesses subscribed in the presence of one another as required by law; and (3) formalities were satisfied. It reversed the CFI on May 4, 1973 and denied reconsideration August 28, 1973.
Issues on Supreme Court Review
Petitioner raised ten assignments of error, all substantially factual, contesting the credibility of witnesses, the planning and execution of the will, the presence of witnesses, and the alleged impropriety of picture-taking during execution. She argued the CA misweighed evidence and exceeded its jurisdiction.
Standard for Probate and Witness Qualification
Under Article 805, non-holographic wills must be signed by the testator and attested by three or more “credible” witnesses in mutual presence. Articles 820–821 define competence (age, sound mind, literacy, no specified disqualifications) and disqualifications of witnesses. “Credible” in the will context means “competent,” and witness credibility is presumed absent proof to the contrary.
Credibility Versus Competency of Witnesses
Petitioner sought preliminary proof of good reputation for each witness. The Supreme Court held that statutory qualifications alone suffice to render instrumental witnesses credible; character evidence akin to naturalization proceedings is inapplicable. The CA’s finding that the three witnesses met Articles 820–821 requirements was supported by record.
Testamentary Capacity and Execution Formalities
The CA found testatrix of sound disposing mind and able to dictate a simple five-page will in Tagalog without notes. The lawyer’s testimony, witness accounts, attestation clauses, notarial acknowledgment, and even contemporaneous photographs corroborated a single, pre-arranged session on April 15, 1961 at Atty. Paraiso’s office. Discrepancies in minor details (e.g., photographer’s identity, typewriter description) were due to lapse of memory and did not undermine the core evidence.
Review of Factual Findings and Supreme Court Jurisdiction
The Court reiter
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-37453)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review under Rule 65 of the Supreme Court on factual findings of the Court of Appeals.
- Supreme Court initially resolved not to give due course; required respondents to comment; denied petition; subsequently granted due course upon motion for reconsideration.
- Subject of review: Decision of the Court of Appeals (First Division) dated May 4, 1973 reversing the trial court’s disallowance of the purported will and admitting it to probate.
Facts
- Decedent Isabel Andres Gabriel died June 7, 1961, aged 85, widow without issue, resident of Navotas, Rizal.
- Two nieces: Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales (petitioner) and Lutgarda Santiago (private respondent). Lutgarda lived with decedent.
- On April 15, 1961, decedent purportedly executed a five-page, typewritten will in Tagalog, Exhibit “F,” in Manila, two months before death.
- Petition for probate filed June 24, 1961 by Lutgarda Santiago as universal heir and executrix; will designates legacies to siblings and nephews/nieces, burial wishes, debts paid, residual estate devolved to Lutgarda.
Content and Formalities of the Will
- Five pages paged “Unang Dahon (Page One)” through “Ikalimang Dahon (Page Five).”
- Attestation clause in Tagalog: witnesses attest execution in presence of testatrix and one another; signatures of Matilde D. Orobia, Celso D. Gimpaya, Maria R. Gimpaya; their residences indicated.
- Testatrix signed at end of page 4 and on left margin of all pages.
- Provisions: Catholic burial at Navotas; payment of debts and specific legacies (P1,000 to Praxides, P2,000 to Santiago, amounts to thirteen nephews/nieces); universal bequest of all real/personal property to Lutgarda; appointment of Lutgarda as executrix without bond.
Trial Court Disallowance
- Opposition by petitioner on grounds:
• Will not genuine;
• Formalities not complied with;
• Lack of testamentary capacity (old age, sickness);
• Undue influence by beneficiary. - Court of First Instance, Rizal (Dec. 15, 1964) concluded:
• No undue influence proven;
• Insufficient proof of incapacity;
• Conclusive evidence that will was not executed and attested as required