G.R. No. 28 : March 6, 1902
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DOLORES GARCES

FACTS:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. The appellant sought to have the open will of his deceased wife, Doña Dolores Garces, raised to the formality of a public instrument (escritura). The will was executed without a notary in accordance with Articles 700 and 702 of the Civil Code governing wills made in articulo mortis (at the point of death). It was reduced to writing and signed by the testatrix and seven witnesses. The lower court denied the application solely on the ground that it did not appear the will had been executed by one single act.

During the hearing, six of the seven witnesses testified (one having died). All six expressly testified that the will was executed by one single act. However, their testimonies differed regarding the specific time of execution: four stated it occurred between 6 and 7 in the evening; one said it was at 3 o’clock in the afternoon; and another stated it happened sometime between 3 o’clock in the afternoon and 8 o’clock in the evening. The trial judge considered these discrepancies concerning the hour as destructive of the credibility of their unanimous claim that the execution was a single act.

ISSUE:
Whether the discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimonies regarding the time of execution invalidate their unanimous testimony that the will of Dolores Garces was executed by one single act, thereby preventing its formalization as a public instrument.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court.

The Court held that the discrepancies in the witnesses’ accounts of the hour of execution do not undermine their unanimous and essential testimony that the will was executed by one single act. The Court provided a reasonable reconciliation of the testimonies: the four witnesses who specified the time between 6 and 7 p.m. likely referred only to the final formal acts (reading, approval, and signing), which would take a short time. The witness who cited the broader period from 3 to 8 p.m. might have understood “execution” to include the entire preparatory process, including the drafting of the document. The witness who stated 3 p.m. could have been referring to the commencement of the process.

The Court emphasized that even if the statements could not be perfectly reconciled, a contradiction on a merely accessory circumstance (the precise hour) should not be given the weight assigned by the lower court to discredit the consistent testimony on the essential factthat the execution was a single act. The due execution of the will was sufficiently proved.

DISPOSITIVE:
The order appealed from was reversed. The document in the record was declared the valid will of Dolores Garces, verified by the witnesses, without prejudice to third persons. The will was ordered to be inscribed in the proper notarial record or protocol.