G.R. No. 3059
EN BANC January 22 1907

—

FACTS
– Ciriaco Sahagun (deceased) executed a last will on 11 February 1905 in the presence of three competent witnesses (Potenciano Malvar, Francisco Villegas, Isidro Alvaran).
– Juan Sahagun, the testator’s father, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of La Laguna on 14 March 1905 seeking probate, appointment as executor, and the issuance of letters testamentary.
– The estate consisted of roughly ₱4,000 and included a widow, Dolores de Gorostiza, and a five‑month‑old child.
– After the will’s publication in the newspaper El Renacimiento, Dolores de Gorostiza lodged an opposition on 29 May 1905, doubting the will’s authenticity and asserting her right to inherit.
– The trial court, after hearing witnesses for both sides, admitted probate on 6 November 1905, issued letters testamentary to Juan Sahagun, and ordered commissioners to appraise the estate.
– The judgment was certified and recorded per Sec. 13, Act No. 867; the contestant appealed.

Key statutory provisions:

– Sec. 614, Civil Code “every person … may devise… but no will may deprive a spouse or heir of the portion the law guarantees.”
– Sec. 618, Civil Code Formalities for a valid will: written, signed by testator (or by proxy in his presence), attested by three credible witnesses present together.
– Sec. 625, Civil Code A will is conclusive once allowed by the Court of First Instance (or by the Supreme Court on appeal).

—

ISSUE
Whether the will of Ciriaco Sahagun was validly executed and therefore may be probated, or whether doubts raised by the widow concerning its authenticity require denial of probate despite compliance with the statutory formalities.

—

RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and denied probate of the alleged will.

Reasoning:

1. Credibility of Witnesses:
– The trial court gave undue weight to the testimonies of Juan Sahagun and Matias Atienza, who were hostile (the petitioner’s own witnesses) and thus not proper substitutes for the petitioner’s own evidence of execution.
– The application of Sec. 340, Civil Procedure (binding effect of a party’s own witnesses) was erroneous; it does not bind the opponent when the witnesses are hostile and the core issue is the authenticity of the will.

2. Inconsistent Testimony:
– Subscribing witnesses gave contradictory accounts of material details (time, manner of assembly, signing).
– Juan Sahagun’s testimony starkly conflicted with the witnesses and appeared fabricated to secure probate.

3. Corroborative Evidence for the Widow:
– The widow’s testimony, supported by the deceased’s physician and the municipal notary, established that the will was not executed as described.
– These independent, disinterested witnesses outweighed the questionable attestations of the petitioner’s side.

4. Statutory Protection of Legitimate Heirs:
– Under Sec. 614, a will cannot defeat the lawful portion of the surviving spouse (and, by extension, the child).
– Allowing probate on a doubtful will would contravene the statutory safeguard of the widow’s usufructuary and legitimate share.

Conclusion:
The prosecution of the will’s execution failed to meet the legal threshold required by Sec. 618, and the trial court erred in accepting unreliable, hostile evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that probate must be denied and the estate shall be governed by the intestate succession rules protecting the widow and child’s legitime.