G.R. No. 47568 , December 20, 1941.
ESTATE OF TEODORO R. YANGCO, deceased, RAMON L. CORPUS, proponent-appellee, vs. LUIS R. YANGCO, opponent-appellant.

FACTS

The proceeding was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the probate of a document purported to be the last will and testament of Teodoro R. Yangco. The will, written entirely in the testator’s own handwriting, contained several provisions: it revoked prior wills; declared the testator had no compulsory heirs; appointed executors; directed that his properties and businesses be maintained and managed like a commercial corporation by the legatees; provided for the deduction of percentages from the annual net profit for a reserve fund, for pensioning Protestant pastors, for charitable works, and for cemetery maintenance; and stipulated the distribution of the remaining net profit among named legatees. The will also contained restrictions on the alienation of the legatees’ interests. The authenticity of the signatures of the testator and the three instrumental witnesses (Ventura Loreto, L. Delgado, and B. Espinosa) was not questioned. The opponent, Luis R. Yangco, appealed the decision admitting the will to probate. His primary contention was that the testator did not sign the will in the presence of the attesting witnesses, contrary to the attestation clause. The three attesting witnesses testified uniformly that on August 29, 1934, they were present together when the testator signed the will in their presence and they subsequently signed as witnesses in his presence and in the presence of each other. Opponent presented witnesses (Eugenio M. Buhat, Enrique Andal, and Edwin D. Andrews) who testified to facts intended to cast doubt on the simultaneous presence of the witnesses during the signing. The trial court found the testimony of the attesting witnesses credible and admitted the will to probate. The opponent also filed a counter-petition arguing that the will was void for lack of an institution of an heir and for not disposing of all the property, and that the estate should be declared intestate, entitling him, as a natural brother, to inherit.

ISSUE

1. Whether the will was duly executed, specifically whether the testator signed it in the presence of the attesting witnesses.
2. Whether, in a probate proceeding, the court can pass upon the validity of the provisions of the will (specifically, the lack of an institution of an heir) raised in the opponent’s counter-petition.

RULING

1. On the due execution of the will, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding. The unanimous and positive testimony of the three attesting witnesses, who were disinterested and whose credibility was not successfully impeached, established that the testator signed the will in their presence. The contradictory evidence presented by the opponent was insufficient to overcome this clear and convincing proof. Therefore, the will was duly executed and properly admitted to probate.
2. On the question of passing upon the validity of the will’s provisions, the Supreme Court, by majority opinion, held that in a proceeding for the probate of a will, the court has no power to pass upon the validity of any provisions made in the will. This is a settled doctrine consistently adhered to by the Court. The issue raised in the opponent’s counter-petition regarding the lack of an institution of an heir and the disposition of property is improper for determination in the probate proceeding. The trial court correctly refused to decide that question, which should be raised when the project of distribution of the estate is presented. The judgment admitting the will to probate was affirmed.