GR 101680; (December, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101680 December 7, 1992
ENRIQUETA H. BERNARDO, EDILBERTO TAYAG, ANTONIO TAYAG, ISMAEL TAYAG, TRIFENE TAYAG, MARIQUITA LUGTU, ROSALINDA A. PETELL, FREDESWINDA A. VDA. DE HENSON, EFREN ARCILLA, ZENAIDA ARCILLA and TERESITA A. GRAGEDA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ATTY. RICARDO P. BERMUDO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the intestate heirs of the late Artemio Hilario, opposed the petition of respondent Atty. Ricardo P. Bermudo for the allowance of Hilario’s notarial Last Will and Testament dated September 27, 1979. The will instituted Fermina Tayag as the sole heir and designated Atty. Bermudo as executor. The oppositors (petitioners) challenged the will on grounds of formal invalidity, the testator’s alleged unsound mind due to terminal illness, forgery or fraud, and non-compliance with legal solemnities. The Regional Trial Court of Pampanga granted the petition to allow the will. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Petition for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence—a purported holographic will dated February 3, 1979, which contained a revocatory clause and distributed properties to other heirs. The Court of Appeals denied both. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, arguing misappreciation of facts by the lower courts.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the due execution and validity of the notarial will of Artemio Hilario.
RULING
No. The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated the well-established rule that its appellate jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing questions of law. The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court. The Court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their case fell under any of the recognized exceptions to this rule. The assessment of the credibility of the subscribing witnesses (Enrique Talavera, Levy Santos, and Ener Bernardo) and the evaluation of evidence regarding the will’s execution were factual matters thoroughly passed upon by the lower courts. The alleged newly discovered holographic will was properly denied consideration in the Petition for New Trial as it did not meet the requisites for new trial, and its belated discovery did not alter the conclusive nature of the lower courts’ factual findings on the validity of the notarial will.