G.R. No. L-37453. May 25, 1979.
RIZALINA GABRIEL GONZALES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUTGARDA SANTIAGO, respondents.

FACTS

Lutgarda Santiago petitioned for the probate of the purported last will and testament of her aunt, Isabel Gabriel, who died in 1961. The typewritten will, executed in Tagalog, named Santiago as the universal heir and executrix. The will consisted of five pages, with the testatrix’s signature at the end and on the left margin of each page, and was signed by three attesting witnesses whose signatures also appeared on the left margin of every page. The attestation clause was contained on page four.
Petitioner Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales, also a niece of the decedent, opposed the probate on several grounds, including that the will was not executed and attested as required by law, that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity, and that the will was procured through undue influence. The Court of First Instance of Rizal disallowed the probate, finding conclusive evidence that the will was not executed and attested in accordance with legal requirements and that the document presented was not the will allegedly executed by the deceased.

ISSUE

Whether or not the will of Isabel Gabriel was executed and attested in conformity with the formalities required by law.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had reversed the trial court and allowed the probate. The legal logic centers on the presumption of regularity in the notarization of the will and the sufficiency of the attestation clause. The Court held that the attestation clause, when read in its entirety, substantially complied with the requirements of the law. It stated the number of pages of the will, declared that the testatrix signed the will and every page in the presence of the witnesses, and that the witnesses signed in the presence of the testatrix and each other.
The Court emphasized that the will was notarized by a lawyer, creating a strong presumption of its due execution. The testimonies of the three disinterested instrumental witnesses and the notary public, all of whom confirmed the validity of the execution, constituted the best evidence. The alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies pertained to minor details, such as the sequence of signing, which did not invalidate the will. The core requirement—that the testatrix and the witnesses signed with animus attestandi—was established. The Supreme Court also reiterated the doctrinal rule that it cannot review factual findings of the Court of Appeals when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case. The will was thus probated.