G.R. No. 25489, September 8, 1926
ESTATE OF BASILIA TANTOCO. VICENTE FERNANDEZ, petitioner-appellant, vs. DOMINGO TANTOCO, ET AL., opponents-appellees.

DOCTRINE:
1. In a petition for probate, the proponent is legally bound to present all subscribing witnesses if available. However, the proponent is not conclusively bound by their testimony and may rely on other evidence to establish the will’s due execution, even if contrary to the testimony of some or all attesting witnesses.
2. When a will on its face appears to be properly drawn and attested, and the signatures are genuine, a presumption of regularity in its execution arises. The burden then shifts to the oppositors to prove by a preponderance of evidence that a fatal irregularity occurred.

FACTS

Basilia Tantoco, single and without forced heirs, executed a will on September 9, 1925, while confined at the San Juan de Dios Hospital. She died shortly after. The will primarily devised a property in Malolos to the parish priest for religious and educational purposes. Father Vicente Fernandez, the parish priest of Malolos, filed a petition for probate. The will was prepared by her longtime lawyer, Atty. Vicente Platon. The attesting witnesses were Atty. Platon himself, Dr. Fidel Macapugay (who replaced the attending physician), and Placido Suarez.
Opposition was filed by three brothers and a nephew of the deceased. During the hearing, the proponent presented all three attesting witnesses and Aurea Gaspar, the testatrix’s sister-in-law who was present during the execution. The oppositors presented no evidence.
The trial court denied probate based on inconsistencies in the testimonies of the three attesting witnesses regarding whether they were all present together when the testatrix and the witnesses signed the document. Atty. Platon gave a clear and detailed account confirming all formalities were observed and all witnesses were present. Dr. Macapugay testified vaguely, suggesting he left before Platon signed and did not recall seeing Suarez. Suarez claimed Macapugay was not present when he (Suarez) signed and pretended not to recognize the other signatures. Aurea Gaspar corroborated Platon’s testimony that all witnesses were present throughout.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in denying the probate of the will based solely on the inconsistent testimonies of the attesting witnesses, despite the will’s facial regularity and other corroborative evidence?

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the order and admitted the will to probate.
The Court held that the proponent, while required to present all attesting witnesses, is not bound by their testimony if it is unreliable. The testimony of Atty. Platon, the lawyer who prepared the will and oversaw its execution, was entitled to greater weight as his mind was more likely attuned to the legal formalities. His account was clear, detailed, and corroborated by the disinterested witness Aurea Gaspar. In contrast, the testimonies of Dr. Macapugay and Placido Suarez were evasive and deliberately false, respectively.
The will itself exhibited all external requisites: it was properly drawn, the attestation clause was complete, and all signatures (testatrix and witnesses) were genuine. This created a presumption of regularity in its execution. The oppositors, who presented no evidence, failed to overcome this presumption by proving any fatal irregularity by a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, probate should not have been denied.