G.R. No.

174489 April 11, 2012

ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR, ANTONIO L.
MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACECO, !IRGILIO REGALA,
"R., #$% RA&AEL TITCO, Petitioners,
vs.
LORENZO LA'A, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
It is incumbent upon those who oppose the probate of a will to clearl establish that the decedent
was not of sound and disposin! mind at the time of the e"ecution of said will. Otherwise, the
state is dut#bound to !ive full effect to the wishes of the testator to distribute his estate in the
manner provided in his will so lon! as it is le!all tenable.
$
%efore us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
&
of the 'une $(, &))* Decision
+
of the Court of
,ppeals -C,. in C,#/.R. C0 No. 1)232 which reversed the September +), &))+ Decision
4
of
the Re!ional 5rial Court -R5C., %ranch (&, /ua!ua, Pampan!a in Special Proceedin!s No. /#
$$1*. 5he assailed C, Decision !ranted the petition for probate of the notarial will of Paciencia
Re!ala -Paciencia., to wit6
78ERE9ORE, premises considered, findin! the appeal to be impressed with merit, the decision
in SP. PROC. NO. /#$$1* dated +) September &))+, is hereb SE5 ,SIDE and a new one
entered /R,N5IN/ the petition for the probate of the will of P,CIENCI, RE/,:,.
SO ORDERED.
(
,lso assailed herein is the ,u!ust +$, &))* C, Resolution
*
which denied the ;otion for
Reconsideration thereto.
Petitioners call us to reverse the C,<s assailed Decision and instead affirm the Decision of the
R5C which disallowed the notarial will of Paciencia.
9actual ,ntecedents
Paciencia was a 31 ear old spinster when she made her last will and testament entitled =5auli
Nan! %ilin o 5estamento ;iss Paciencia Re!ala=
3
-7ill. in the Pampan!o dialect on September
$+, $21$. 5he 7ill, e"ecuted in the house of retired 'ud!e Ernestino /. :impin -'ud!e :impin.,
was read to Paciencia twice. ,fter which, Paciencia e"pressed in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses that the document is her last will and testament. She thereafter affi"ed her si!nature at
the end of the said document on pa!e +
1
and then on the left mar!in of pa!es $, & and 4 thereof.
2
5he witnesses to the 7ill were Dra. ;aria :ioba ,. :impin -Dra. :impin., 9rancisco /arcia
-9rancisco. and 9austino R. ;ercado -9austino.. 5he three attested to the 7ill<s due e"ecution
b affi"in! their si!natures below its attestation clause
$)
and on the left mar!in of pa!es $, & and
4 thereof,
$$
in the presence of Paciencia and of one another and of 'ud!e :impin who acted as
notar public.
Childless and without an brothers or sisters, Paciencia be>ueathed all her properties to
respondent :oren?o R. :a"a -:oren?o. and his wife Cora?on 9. :a"a and their children :una
:orella :a"a and @atherine Ross :a"a, thus6
" " " "
9ourth # In consideration of their valuable services to me since then up to the present b the
spouses :ORENAO :,B, and COR,AON 9. :,B,, I hereb %ECDE,58, CON0EE and
/I0E all m properties enumerated in parcels $ to ( unto the spouses :ORENAO R. :,B, and
COR,AON 9. :,B, and their children, :DN, :ORE::, :,B, and @,58ERINE :,B,,
and the spouses :oren?o R. :a"a and Cora?on 9. :a"a both of le!al a!e, 9ilipinos, presentl
residin! at %arrio Sta. ;onica, FSasmuanG, Pampan!a and their children, :DN, :ORE::, and
@,58ERINE ROSS :,B,, who are still not of le!al a!e and livin! with their parents who
would decide to be>ueath since the are the children of the spousesH
" " " "
FSi"thG # Should other properties of mine ma be discovered aside from the properties mentioned
in this last will and testament, I am also be>ueathin! and !ivin! the same to the spouses :oren?o
R. :a"a and Cora?on 9. :a"a and their two children and I also command them to offer masses
earl for the repose of m soul and that of DFIGa Nicomeda Re!ala, Epifania Re!ala and their
spouses and with respect to the fishpond situated at San ,ntonio, I liJewise command to fulfill
the wishes of DFIGa Nicomeda Re!ala in accordance with her testament as stated in m
testament. " " "
$&
5he filial relationship of :oren?o with Paciencia remains undisputed. :oren?o is Paciencia<s
nephew whom she treated as her own son. Conversel, :oren?o came to Jnow and treated
Paciencia as his own mother.
$+
Paciencia lived with :oren?o<s famil in Sasmuan, Pampan!a and
it was she who raised and cared for :oren?o since his birth. Si" das after the e"ecution of the
7ill or on September $2, $21$, Paciencia left for the Dnited States of ,merica -DS,.. 5here,
she resided with :oren?o and his famil until her death on 'anuar 4, $22*.
In the interim, the 7ill remained in the custod of 'ud!e :impin.
;ore than four ears after the death of Paciencia or on ,pril &3, &))), :oren?o filed a petition
$4

with the R5C of /ua!ua, Pampan!a for the probate of the 7ill of Paciencia and for the issuance
of :etters of ,dministration in his favor, docJeted as Special Proceedin!s No. /#$$1*.
5here bein! no opposition to the petition after its due publication, the R5C issued an Order on
'une $+, &)))
$(
allowin! :oren?o to present evidence on 'une &&, &))). On said date, Dra.
:impin testified that she was one of the instrumental witnesses in the e"ecution of the last will
and testament of Paciencia on September $+, $21$.
$*
5he 7ill was e"ecuted in her father<s
-'ud!e :impin. home office, in her presence and of two other witnesses, 9rancisco and
9austino.
$3
Dra. :impin positivel identified the 7ill and her si!natures on all its four pa!es.
$1

She liJewise positivel identified the si!nature of her father appearin! thereon.
$2
Cuestioned b
the prosecutor re!ardin! 'ud!e :impin<s present mental fitness, Dra. :impin testified that her
father had a stroJe in $22$ and had to under!o brain sur!er.
&)
5he Kud!e can walJ but can no
lon!er talJ and remember her name. %ecause of this, Dra. :impin stated that her father can no
lon!er testif in court.
&$
5he followin! da or on 'une &+, &))), petitioner ,ntonio %alta?ar -,ntonio. filed an
opposition
&&
to :oren?o<s petition. ,ntonio averred that the properties subKect of Paciencia<s 7ill
belon! to Nicomeda Re!ala ;an!alindan, his predecessor#in#interestH hence, Paciencia had no
ri!ht to be>ueath them to :oren?o.
&+
%arel a month after or on 'ul &), &))), ,ntonio, now Koined b petitioners Sebastian ;.
%alta?ar, 0ir!ilio Re!ala, 'r., Nenita ,. Pacheco, 9eli" %. 9lores, Rafael 5itco, Rosie ;. ;ateo
-Rosie. and ,ntonio :. ;an!alindan filed a Supplemental Opposition
&4
contendin! that
Paciencia<s 7ill was null and void because ownership of the properties had not been transferred
andLor titled to Paciencia before her death pursuant to ,rticle $)42, para!raph + of the Civil
Code.
&(
Petitioners also opposed the issuance of :etters of ,dministration in :oren?o<s favor
ar!uin! that :oren?o was dis>ualified to be appointed as such, he bein! a citi?en and resident of
the DS,.
&*
Petitioners praed that :etters of ,dministration be instead issued in favor of
,ntonio.
&3
:ater still on September &*, &))), petitioners filed an ,mended Opposition
&1
asJin! the R5C to
den the probate of Paciencia<s 7ill on the followin! !rounds6 the 7ill was not e"ecuted and
attested to in accordance with the re>uirements of the lawH that Paciencia was mentall incapable
to maJe a 7ill at the time of its e"ecutionH that she was forced to e"ecute the 7ill under duress
or influence of fear or threatsH that the e"ecution of the 7ill had been procured b undue and
improper pressure and influence b :oren?o or b some other persons for his benefitH that the
si!nature of Paciencia on the 7ill was for!edH that assumin! the si!nature to be !enuine, it was
obtained throu!h fraud or tricJerH and, that Paciencia did not intend the document to be her
7ill. Simultaneousl, petitioners filed an Opposition and Recommendation
&2
reiteratin! their
opposition to the appointment of :oren?o as administrator of the properties and re>uestin! for
the appointment of ,ntonio in his stead.
On 'anuar &2, &))$, the R5C issued an Order
+)
denin! the re>uests of both :oren?o and
,ntonio to be appointed administrator since the former is a citi?en and resident of the DS, while
the latter<s claim as a co#owner of the properties subKect of the 7ill has not et been established.
;eanwhile, proceedin!s on the petition for the probate of the 7ill continued. Dra. :impin was
recalled for cross#e"amination b the petitioners. She testified as to the a!e of her father at the
time the latter notari?ed the 7ill of PacienciaH the livin! arran!ements of Paciencia at the time of
the e"ecution of the 7illH and the lacJ of photo!raphs when the event tooJ place.
+$
,side from Dra. :impin, :oren?o and ;onico ;ercado -;onico. also tooJ the witness stand.
;onico, son of 9austino, testified on his father<s condition. ,ccordin! to him his father can no
lon!er talJ and e"press himself due to brain dama!e. , medical certificate was presented to the
court to support this alle!ation.
+&
9or his part, :oren?o testified that6 from $244 until his departure for the DS, in ,pril $21), he
lived in Sasmuan, Pampan!a with his famil and his aunt, PacienciaH in $21$ Paciencia went to
the DS, and lived with him and his famil until her death in 'anuar $22*H the relationship
between him and Paciencia was liJe that of a mother and child since Paciencia tooJ care of him
since birth and tooJ him in as an adopted sonH Paciencia was a spinster without children, and
without brothers and sistersH at the time of Paciencia<s death, she did not suffer from an mental
disorder and was of sound mind, was not blind, deaf or muteH the 7ill was in the custod of
'ud!e :impin and was onl !iven to him after Paciencia<s death throu!h 9austinoH and he was
alread residin! in the DS, when the 7ill was e"ecuted.
++
:oren?o positivel identified the
si!nature of Paciencia in three different documents and in the 7ill itself and stated that he was
familiar with Paciencia<s si!nature because he accompanied her in her transactions.
+4
9urther,
:oren?o belied and denied havin! used force, intimidation, violence, coercion or tricJer upon
Paciencia to e"ecute the 7ill as he was not in the Philippines when the same was e"ecuted.
+(
On
cross#e"amination, :oren?o clarified that Paciencia informed him about the 7ill shortl after her
arrival in the DS, but that he saw a cop of the 7ill onl after her death.
+*
,s to 9rancisco, he could no lon!er be presented in court as he alread died on ;a &$, &))).
9or petitioners, Rosie testified that her mother and Paciencia were first cousins.
+3
She claimed to
have helped in the household chores in the house of Paciencia thereb allowin! her to sta
therein from mornin! until evenin! and that durin! the period of her service in the said
household, :oren?o<s wife and his children were stain! in the same house.
+1
She served in the
said household from $21) until Paciencia<s departure for the DS, on September $2, $21$.
+2
On September $+, $21$, Rosie claimed that she saw 9austino brin! =somethin!= for Paciencia to
si!n at the latter<s house.
4)
Rosie admitted, thou!h, that she did not see what that =somethin!=
was as same was placed inside an envelope.
4$
8owever, she remembered Paciencia instructin!
9austino to first looJ for mone before she si!ns them.
4&
, few das after or on September $*,
$21$, Paciencia went to the house of ,ntonio<s mother and brou!ht with her the said envelope.
4+

Dpon !oin! home, however, the envelope was no lon!er with Paciencia.
44
Rosie further testified
that Paciencia was referred to as =ma!ulan= or =for!etful= because she would sometimes leave
her wallet in the Jitchen then start looJin! for it moments later.
4(
On cross e"amination, it was
established that Rosie was neither a doctor nor a pschiatrist, that her conclusion that Paciencia
was =ma!ulan= was based on her personal assessment,
4*
and that it was ,ntonio who re>uested
her to testif in court.
43
In his direct e"amination, ,ntonio stated that Paciencia was his aunt.
41
8e identified the 7ill and
testified that he had seen the said document before because Paciencia brou!ht the same to his
mother<s house and showed it to him alon! with another document on September $*, $21$.
42

,ntonio alle!ed that when the documents were shown to him, the same were still unsi!ned.
()

,ccordin! to him, Paciencia thou!ht that the documents pertained to a lease of one of her rice
lands,
($
and it was he who e"plained that the documents were actuall a special power of
attorne to lease and sell her fishpond and other properties upon her departure for the DS,, and a
7ill which would transfer her properties to :oren?o and his famil upon her death.
(&
Dpon
hearin! this, Paciencia alle!edl uttered the followin! words6 =7h will I never FreturnG, wh
will I sell all m propertiesM= 7ho is :oren?oM Is he the onl FsonG of /odM I have other relatives
Fwho shouldG benefit from m properties. 7h should I die alreadM=
(+
5hereafter, ,ntonio
advised Paciencia not to si!n the documents if she does not want to, to which the latter
purportedl replied, =I Jnow nothin! about those, throw them awa or it is up to ou. 5he more I
will not si!n them.=
(4
,fter which, Paciencia left the documents with ,ntonio. ,ntonio Jept the
unsi!ned documents
and eventuall turned them over to 9austino on September $1, $21$.
((
Rulin! of the Re!ional 5rial Court
On September +), &))+, the R5C rendered its Decision
(*
denin! the petition thus6
78ERE9ORE, this court hereb -a. denies the petition dated ,pril &4, &)))H and -b. disallows
the notari?ed will dated September $+, $21$ of Paciencia Re!ala.
SO ORDERED.
(3
5he trial court !ave considerable wei!ht to the testimon of Rosie and concluded that at the time
Paciencia si!ned the 7ill, she was no lon!er possessed of sufficient reason or stren!th of mind to
have testamentar capacit.
(1
Rulin! of the Court of ,ppeals
On appeal, the C, reversed the R5C Decision and !ranted the probate of the 7ill of Paciencia.
5he appellate court did not a!ree with the R5C<s conclusion that Paciencia was of unsound mind
when she e"ecuted the 7ill. It ratiocinated that =the state of bein! Nma!ulan< does not maJe a
person mentall unsound so FasG to render FPacienciaG unfit for e"ecutin! a 7ill.=
(2
;oreover, the
oppositors in the probate proceedin!s were not able to overcome the presumption that ever
person is of sound mind. 9urther, no concrete circumstances or events were !iven to prove the
alle!ation that Paciencia was tricJed or forced into si!nin! the 7ill.
*)
Petitioners moved for reconsideration
*$
but the motion was denied b the C, in its Resolution
*&

dated ,u!ust +$, &))*.
8ence, this petition.
Issues
Petitioners come before this Court b wa of Petition for Review on Certiorari ascribin! upon
the C, the followin! errors6
I.
58E 8ONOR,%:E CODR5 O9 ,PPE,:S SERIODS:E ERRED 78EN I5
,::O7ED 58E PRO%,5E O9 P,CIENCI,<S 7I:: DESPI5E RESPONDEN5<S
D55ER 9,I:DRE 5O CO;P:E 7I58 SEC5ION $$, RD:E 3* O9 58E RD:ES O9
CODR5H
II.
58E 8ONOR,%:E CODR5 O9 ,PPE,:S /R,0E:E ERRED IN ;,@IN/
CONC:DSIONS NO5 IN ,CCORD,NCE 7I58 58E E0IDENCE ON RECORDH
III.
58E 8ONOR,%:E CODR5 O9 ,PPE,:S /R,0E:E ERRED IN RD:IN/ 58,5
PE5I5IONERS 9,I:ED 5O PRO0E 58,5 P,CIENCI, 7,S NO5 O9 SODND
;IND ,5 58E 5I;E 58E 7I:: 7,S ,::E/ED:E EBECD5ED
*+
5he pivotal issue is whether the authenticit and due e"ecution of the notarial 7ill was
sufficientl established to warrant its allowance for probate.
Our Rulin!
7e den the petition.
9aithful compliance with the formalities laid down b law is apparent from the face of the 7ill.
Courts are tasJed to determine nothin! more than the e"trinsic validit of a 7ill in probate
proceedin!s.
*4
5his is e"pressl provided for in Rule 3(, Section $ of the Rules of Court, which
states6
Rule 3(
Production of 7ill. ,llowance of 7ill Necessar.
Section $. ,llowance necessar. Conclusive as to e"ecution. O No will shall pass either real or
personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court. SubKect to the ri!ht of appeal,
such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due e"ecution.
Due e"ecution of the will or its e"trinsic validit pertains to whether the testator, bein! of sound
mind, freel e"ecuted the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed b law.
*(
5hese
formalities are enshrined in ,rticles 1)( and 1)* of the New Civil Code, to wit6
,rt. 1)(. Ever will, other than a holo!raphic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof b the
testator himself or b the testatorPs name written b some other person in his presence, and b his
e"press direction, and attested and subscribed b three or more credible witnesses in the presence
of the testator and of one another.
5he testator or the person re>uested b him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of
the will, shall also si!n, as aforesaid, each and ever pa!e thereof, e"cept the last, on the left
mar!in, and all the pa!es shall be numbered correlativel in letters placed on the upper part of
each pa!e.
5he attestation shall state the number of pa!es used upon which the will is written, and the fact
that the testator si!ned the will and ever pa!e thereof, or caused some other person to write his
name, under his e"press direction, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the
latter witnessed and si!ned the will and all the pa!es thereof in the presence of the testator and of
one another.
If the attestation clause is in a lan!ua!e not Jnown to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to
them.
,rt. 1)*. Ever will must be acJnowled!ed before a notar public b the testator and the
witnesses. 5he notar public shall not be re>uired to retain a cop of the will, or file another with
the Office of the ClerJ of Court.
8ere, a careful e"amination of the face of the 7ill shows faithful compliance with the formalities
laid down b law. 5he si!natures of the testatri", Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses and the
notar public, are all present and evident on the 7ill. 9urther, the attestation clause e"plicitl
states the critical re>uirement that the testatri" and her instrumental witnesses si!ned the 7ill in
the presence of one another and that the witnesses attested and subscribed to the 7ill in the
presence of the testator and of one another. In fact, even the petitioners acceded that the si!nature
of Paciencia in the 7ill ma be authentic althou!h the >uestion her state of mind when she
si!ned the same as well as the voluntar nature of said act.
5he burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the e"ecution of the will
lies on the shoulders of the petitioners.
Petitioners, throu!h their witness Rosie, claim that Paciencia was =ma!ulan= or for!etful so
much so that it effectivel stripped her of testamentar capacit. 5he liJewise claimed in their
;otion for Reconsideration
**
filed with the C, that Paciencia was not onl =ma!ulan= but was
actuall sufferin! from paranoia.
*3
7e are not convinced.
7e a!ree with the position of the C, that the state of bein! for!etful does not necessaril maJe a
person mentall unsound so as to render him unfit to e"ecute a 7ill.
*1
9or!etfulness is not
e>uivalent to bein! of unsound mind. %esides, ,rticle 322 of the New Civil Code states6
,rt. 322. 5o be of sound mind, it is not necessar that the testator be in full possession of all his
reasonin! faculties, or that his mind be wholl unbroJen, unimpaired, or unshattered b disease,
inKur or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of maJin! the will to Jnow the nature of
the estate to be disposed of, the proper obKects of his bount, and the character of the
testamentar act.
In this case, apart from the testimon of Rosie pertainin! to Paciencia<s for!etfulness, there is no
substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, that would show that Paciencia was of unsound mind
at the time of the e"ecution of the 7ill. On the other hand, we find more worth of credence Dra.
:impin<s testimon as to the soundness of mind of Paciencia when the latter went to 'ud!e
:impin<s house and voluntaril e"ecuted the 7ill. =5he testimon of subscribin! witnesses to a
7ill concernin! the testator<s mental condition is entitled to !reat wei!ht where the are truthful
and intelli!ent.=
*2
;ore importantl, a testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the time of the
e"ecution of the 7ill and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the oppositor. ,rticle 1)) of the
New Civil Code states6
,rt. 1)). 5he law presumes that ever person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the
contrar.
5he burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of maJin! his
dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the willH but if the testator, one month,
or less, before maJin! his will was publicl Jnown to be insane, the person who maintains the
validit of the will must prove that the testator made it durin! a lucid interval.
8ere, there was no showin! that Paciencia was publicl Jnown to be insane one month or less
before the maJin! of the 7ill. Clearl, thus, the burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound
mind lies upon the shoulders of petitioners. 8owever and as earlier mentioned, no substantial
evidence was presented b them to prove the same, thereb warrantin! the C,<s findin! that
petitioners failed to dischar!e such burden.
9urthermore, we are convinced that Paciencia was aware of the nature of her estate to be
disposed of, the proper obKects of her bount and the character of the testamentar act. ,s aptl
pointed out b the C,6
, scrutin of the 7ill discloses that FPacienciaG was aware of the nature of the document she
e"ecuted. She speciall re>uested that the customs of her faith be observed upon her death. She
was well aware of how she ac>uired the properties from her parents and the properties she is
be>ueathin! to :ORENAO, to his wife COR,AON and to his two -&. children. , third child was
born after the e"ecution of the will and was not included therein as devisee.
3)
%are alle!ations of duress or influence of fear or threats, undue and improper influence and
pressure, fraud and tricJer cannot be used as basis to den the probate of a will.
,n essential element of the validit of the 7ill is the willin!ness of the testator or testatri" to
e"ecute the document that will distribute hisLher earthl possessions upon hisLher death.
Petitioners claim that Paciencia was forced to e"ecute the 7ill under duress or influence of fear
or threatsH that the e"ecution of the 7ill had been procured b undue and improper pressure and
influence b :oren?o or b some other persons for his benefitH and that assumin! Paciencia<s
si!nature to be !enuine, it was obtained throu!h fraud or tricJer. 5hese are !rounded on the
alle!ed conversation between Paciencia and ,ntonio on September $*, $21$ wherein the former
purportedl repudiated the 7ill and left it unsi!ned.
7e are not persuaded.
7e taJe into consideration the unrebutted fact that Paciencia loved and treated :oren?o as her
own son and that love even e"tended to :oren?o<s wife and children. 5his Jind of relationship is
not unusual. It is in fact not unheard of in our culture for old maids or spinsters to care for and
raise their nephews and nieces and treat them as their own children. Such is a prevalent and
accepted cultural practice that has resulted in man famil discords between those favored b the
testamentar disposition of a testator and those who stand to benefit in case of intestac.
In this case, evidence shows the acJnowled!ed fact that Paciencia<s relationship with :oren?o
and his famil is different from her relationship with petitioners. 5he ver fact that she cared for
and raised :oren?o and lived with him both here and abroad, even if the latter was alread
married and alread has children, hi!hli!hts the special bond between them. 5his un>uestioned
relationship between Paciencia and the devisees tends to support the authenticit of the said
document as a!ainst petitioners< alle!ations of duress, influence of fear or threats, undue and
improper influence, pressure, fraud, and tricJer which, aside from bein! factual in nature, are
not supported b concrete, substantial and credible evidence on record. It is worth stressin! that
bare ar!uments, no matter how forceful, if not based on concrete and substantial evidence cannot
suffice to move the Court to uphold said alle!ations.
3$
9urthermore, =a purported will is not Fto
beG denied le!ali?ation on dubious !rounds. Otherwise, the ver institution of testamentar
succession will be shaJen to its foundation, for even if a will has been dul e"ecuted in fact,
whether " " " it will be probated would have to depend lar!el on the attitude of those interested
in Fthe estate of the deceasedG.=
3&
Court should be convinced b the evidence presented before it that the 7ill was dul e"ecuted.
Petitioners dispute the authenticit of Paciencia<s 7ill on the !round that Section $$ of Rule 3*
of the Rules of Court was not complied with. It provides6
R(LE 7)
Allo*#$+, or Di-#llo*#$+, o. /ill
S,+0io$ 11. Subscribing witnesses produced or accounted for where will contested. O If the will
is contested, all the subscribin! witnesses, and the notar in the case of wills e"ecuted under the
Civil Code of the Philippines, if present in the Philippines and not insane, must be produced and
e"amined, and the death, absence, or insanit of an of them must be satisfactoril shown to the
court. If all or some of such witnesses are present in the Philippines but outside the province
where the will has been filed, their deposition must be taJen. If an or all of them testif a!ainst
the due e"ecution of the will, or do not remember havin! attested to it, or are otherwise of
doubtful credibilit, the will ma nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the
testimon of other witnesses and from all the evidence presented that the will was e"ecuted and
attested in the manner re>uired b law.
If a holo!raphic will is contested, the same shall be allowed if at least three -+. witnesses who
Jnow the handwritin! of the testator e"plicitl declare that the will and the si!nature are in the
handwritin! of the testatorH in the absence of an competent witnesses, and if the court deem it
necessar, e"pert testimon ma be resorted to. -Emphasis supplied..
5he insist that all subscribin! witnesses and the notar public should have been presented in
court since all but one witness, 9rancisco, are still livin!.
7e cannot a!ree with petitioners.
7e note that the inabilit of 9austino and 'ud!e :impin to appear and testif before the court
was satisfactoril e"plained durin! the probate proceedin!s. ,s testified to b his son, 9austino
had a heart attacJ, was alread bedridden and could no lon!er talJ and e"press himself due to
brain dama!e. 5o prove this, said witness presented the correspondin! medical certificate. 9or
her part, Dra. :impin testified that her father, 'ud!e :impin, suffered a stroJe in $22$ and had to
under!o brain sur!er. ,t that time, 'ud!e :impin could no lon!er talJ and could not even
remember his dau!hter<s name so that Dra. :impin stated that !iven such condition, her father
could no lon!er testif. It is well to note that at that point, despite ample opportunit, petitioners
neither interposed an obKections to the testimonies of said witnesses nor challen!ed the same on
cross e"amination. 7e thus hold that for all intents and purposes, :oren?o was able to
satisfactoril account for the incapacit and failure of the said subscribin! witness and of the
notar public to testif in court. %ecause of this the probate of Paciencia<s 7ill ma be allowed
on the basis of Dra. :impin<s testimon provin! her sanit and the due e"ecution of the 7ill, as
well as on the proof of her handwritin!. It is an established rule that =FaG testament ma not be
disallowed Kust because the attestin! witnesses declare a!ainst its due e"ecutionH neither does it
have to be necessaril allowed Kust because all the attestin! witnesses declare in favor of its
le!ali?ationH what is decisive is that the court is convinced b evidence before it, not necessaril
from the attestin! witnesses, althou!h the must testif, that the will was or was not dul
e"ecuted in the manner re>uired b law.=
3+
1wphi1
;oreover, it bears stressin! that =FiGrrespective " " " of the posture of an of the parties as
re!ards the authenticit and due e"ecution of the will " " " in >uestion, it is the mandate of the
law that it is the evidence before the court andLor Fevidence thatG ou!ht to be before it that is
controllin!.=
34
=5he ver e"istence of Fthe 7illG is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed
Ftestatri"G has willed that FherG estate be distributed in the manner therein provided, and it is
incumbent upon the state that, if le!all tenable, such desire be !iven full effect independent of
the attitude of the parties affected thereb.=
3(
5his, coupled with :oren?o<s established
relationship with Paciencia, the evidence and the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, as
opposed to the total lacJ of evidence presented b petitioners apart from their self#servin!
testimonies, constrain us to tilt the balance in favor of the authenticit of the 7ill and its
allowance for probate.
78ERE9ORE, the petition is DENIED. 5he Decision dated 'une $(, &))* and the Resolution
dated ,u!ust +$, &))* of the Court of ,ppeals in C,#/.R. C0 No. 1)232 are A&&IRMED.
SO ORDERED.
SOURCE: http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_1744!_2012.ht"l