Vda. De Ramos - v - CA

 G.R. No. L-40804 January 31, 1978 (ROSARIO FELICIANO VDA. DE RAMOS, MIGUEL DANILA, RAYMUNDO A. DANILA, CONSOLACION SANTOS, MIGUEL G. DANILA, AMOR DANILA, MOISES MARTINEZ, MIGUELA GAVINO, MELITON NISTA, PRIMITIVA NISTA, HEIRS OF DANIEL NISTA, MOISES NISTA, DOMINGO NISTA and ADELAIDA NISTA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MARCELINA (MARTINA) GUERRA and THE HEIRS OF BUENAVENTURA GUERRA, respondents. GUERRERO, J.)

Facts:

1.       Adelaida Nista who claimed to be one of the instituted heirs filed a petition for the probate of the alleged will and testament and codicil of the late Eugenia Danila.

2.       Buenaventura and Marcelina (Martina) both surnamed Guerra filed an opposition alleging among others that they are the legally adopted son and daughter of the late spouses Florentino Guerra and Eugenia Danila; that the purported will and codicil subject of the petition were procured through fraud and undue influence; that the late Eugenia Danila had already executed her last will and testament which was duly probated and not revoked or annulled during the lifetime of the testatrix among others.

3.       Petitioner and the oppositors, assisted by their respective counsels, entered into a Compromise Agreement. This Agreement was approved by the lower court.

4.       After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered its decision allowing the probate of the will although two of the attesting witness Odon Sarmiento and Rosendo Paz, testified that they did not see the testatrix Eugenia Danila sign the will but that the same was already signed by her when they affixed their own signatures thereon. Trial court gave more weight to the 'straight-forward and candid" testimony of Atty. Ricardo Barcenas, the Notary Public and Atty. Manuel Alvero who was also present during the execution of the codicil.

5.       Oppositors appealed the foregoing decision to the Court of Appeals which disallowed the probate of the will on the that the evidence failed to establish that the testatrix Eugenia Danila signed her will in the presence of the instrumental witness in accordance with Article 805 of the Civil Code, as testified to by the two surviving instrumental witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in denying the probate of the will. Held: Yes.

Ruling:

-          It appears positively and convincingly that the documents were prepared by a lawyer, Atty. Manuel Alvero. The execution of the same was evidently supervised by his associate, Atty. Ricardo Barcenas and before whom the deeds were also acknowledged.

-          If there should be any stress on the participation of lawyers in the execution of a will, other than an interested party, it cannot be less than the exercise of their primary duty as members of the Bar to uphold the lofty purpose of the law. There is no showing that the above-named lawyers had been remiss in their sworn duty.

-          The presumption of regularity can of course be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

-          In this jurisdiction, all the attesting witness to a will if available, must be called to prove the will. They become "forced witnesses" and their declaration derogatory to the probate of the will need not bind the proponent.

-          As a rule, if any or all of the submitting witness testify against the due execution of the will, or do not remember having attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful ability, the will may, nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witness and from all the evidence presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner by law. 

-          Accordingly, although the subscribing witnesses to a contested will are the best witness in connection with its due execution, to deserve full credit, their testimony must be reasonable, and unbiased; if otherwise it may be overcome by any competent evidence, direct or circumstantial. 

Evidence: Failure to imprint in photographs all the stages in the execution of the will does not serve any persuasive effect nor have any evidentiary value to prove that one vital and indispensable requisite has not been acted on. Much less can it defeat, by any ordinary or special reason, the presentation of other competent evidence intended to confirm a fact otherwise existent but not confirmed by the photographic evidence

-          CA decision reversed in so far its it disallowed the probate of the will and codicil.

Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.