Case Summary (G.R. No. 65674)
Factual Background
On July 19, 1918, Dona Josefa Zalamea y Abella executed a handwritten will, Exhibits A and A-1, purporting to consist of ten folios including an attached inventory, and signed the pages in the presence of three attesting witnesses who also signed each page. The testatrix died on January 6, 1921. The instrument described itself as the last will and inventory of the decedent and identified the attesting witnesses by name.
Probate Application and Opposition
The executor named in the will, Pedro Unson, filed an application for probate and for letters of administration in the Court of First Instance of Laguna on January 19, 1921. Opposition to probate was filed by Antonio Abella et al., alleging noncompliance with statutory formalities: that the folios were not paged correlatively in letters, that the inventory lacked a separate attestation clause, and that the will was not signed by the testatrix and witnesses in one another's presence.
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment
After trial, the court a quo overruled the opposition and admitted Exhibits A and A-1 to probate, finding that they embodied the true last will and testament of Josefa Zalamea and that the statutory solemnities had been satisfied. The court found the testimony of the attesting witnesses credible and sufficient to prove due execution.
Appellants' Assignments of Error on Appeal
On appeal the opponents assigned three principal errors: first, that the will was not executed with the required legal solemnities; second, that the proponent failed to produce all attesting witnesses and offered no adequate explanation for the omission; and third, that the probate of the inventory, Exhibit A-1, was improper because it lacked an attestation clause and was paged in Arabic numerals rather than in letters.
First Assignment — Credibility of Attesting Witnesses
The appellants attacked the credibility of the proponent's witnesses, principally Eugenio Zalamea, and relied on testimony of a third party, Aurelio Palileo, to show a page had not been signed at execution. The Supreme Court reviewed the testimony and concluded that the attesting witnesses, Gonzalo Abaya and Eugenio Zalamea, consistently testified that each folio of the will and inventory was signed by the testatrix and by the witnesses in each other's presence, and that Palileo's testimony was contradicted. The Court also rejected attempts to impeach Eugenio Zalamea based on collateral matters such as a prior sworn declaration and unrelated criminal proceedings, especially given corroboration by the other attesting witness and by attorney Luis Abaya, who prepared the instrument.
Second Assignment — Non-production of One Attesting Witness
The appellants argued that probate was improper because one attesting witness, Pedro de Jesus, was not produced at trial. The proponent's counsel explained to the trial court that Pedro de Jesus was hostile and had frequently conferred with the opponents, and therefore his testimony had been omitted. The Supreme Court examined precedent, notably Avera vs. Garcia and Rodriguez and Cabang vs. Delfinado, and reiterated the general rule that, when a will is contested, all attesting witnesses should be produced if alive and within reach of process. The Court nonetheless declined to reverse where the point had not been timely pressed in the lower court and where a plausible explanation for non-production existed; it observed that appellate courts may, in the exercise of discretion, refuse to consider issues not raised below when substantial justice has been done in the trial court.
Exceptions to the Rule on Production of Attesting Witnesses
The Court stated the recognized exceptions to the rule requiring production of all attesting witnesses: where a witness is dead, cannot be served with process, has a reputation for untruth, or appears hostile to the proponent. Applying those principles, the Court held that the trial court could admit the will upon the testimony of the two produced attesting witnesses and other supporting proof if satisfied that the will had been duly executed despite non-production of one witness.
Section 632 and Proof Despite Incomplete Witness Memory
The Court further relied on section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows admission to probate even if one or more witnesses do not remember having attested the instrument, provided the court is satisfied from the evidence that statutory execution occurred. The Court concluded that even had Pedro de Jesus testified adversely, that alone would not necessarily have changed the result where other credible proof established due execution.
Third Assignment — Attestation Clause and Paging of the Inventory
The appellants contended that Exhibit A-1, the inventory, could not be probated because it lacked a separate attestation clause and was paged with Arabic numerals rather than with letters. The Court observed that the will expressly referred to and incorporated the inventory and contained an attestation clause stating that both the will and the inventory, composed of ten folios, were read to the testatrix and signed by her and by the witnesses in each other's presence on July 19, 1918. The Court held that this attestation satisfied section 1 of Act No. 2645 and that no separate attestation clause at the end of the inventory was necessary when the inventory was referred to in and attested by the will.
Paging Formalities and Precedent
Addressing the paging objection, the Court applied its prior reasoning in Aldaba vs. Roque and Abangan vs. Abangan, explaining that the statutory requirement for paging in letters serves the practical object of correlating pages and preventing abstraction or substitution, and that numbering by Arabic numerals
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 65674)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Pedro Unson filed an application for probate of the will and for letters of administration in the Court of First Instance of Laguna.
- Antonio Abella, Ignacia Abella, Avicencia Abella, and Santiago Vito filed an opposition contesting the validity of the will.
- The trial court overruled the opposition and ordered the probate of Exhibit A (the will) and Exhibit A-1 (the inventory).
- The opponents appealed to the Supreme Court assigning three errors which they argued warranted reversal of the lower court's decision.
Key Factual Allegations
- Josefa Zalamea y Abella executed a will and an attached inventory on July 19, 1918, identified in the record as Exhibits A and A-1 respectively.
- The will and inventory were declared to consist of ten folios each and were signed by the testatrix and three attesting witnesses.
- The testatrix died on January 6, 1921, and the executor named in the will filed for probate on January 19, 1921.
- The opponents alleged noncompliance with statutory formalities, specifically the absence of paging in letters, absence of an attestation clause in the inventory, and lack of signatures in the simultaneous presence of the testatrix and witnesses.
Evidence and Witness Credibility
- Two attesting witnesses, Eugenio Zalamea and Gonzalo Abaya, testified that all pages of the will and inventory were signed by the testatrix and the witnesses in each other's presence.
- The testimony of Aurelio Palileo that one page had not been signed was directly contradicted by Gonzalo Abaya in both direct and rebuttal evidence.
- The trial court and the Supreme Court found the testimony of the two attesting witnesses corroborated by attorney Luis Abaya, who prepared the testament, and thus credible.
- The opponents attempted to impeach Eugenio Zalamea by reference to his prior sworn declaration and to alleged partiality arising from unrelated criminal proceedings, but the Court deemed these matters insufficient to discredit his testimony.
Procedural and Evidentiary Contentions
- The opponents contended that the will could not be admitted because one attesting witness, Pedro de Jesus, was not produced at trial.
- The proponent's counsel explained that Pedro de Jesus appeared hostile and had been communicating with the opponents, and that production of his testimony was therefore omitted.
- The trial court received the explanation and the opponents did not except to the court's ruling at trial, and the Supreme Court