G.R. No. 47305 ; July 31, 1942
In the matter of the estate of Rufina Arevalo. ARISTON BUSTAMANTE, administrator-appellant, vs. PETRONA AREVALO, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

The case involves the probate of two wills of the deceased Rufina Arevalo. The appellant, Ariston Bustamante, sought the allowance of a later will dated October 2, 1937 (Exhibit C). The appellees opposed, alleging it was a forgery, and supported an earlier, unquestioned will dated January 9, 1936 (Exhibit 6). The Court of First Instance of Manila found Exhibit C to be a forged document and allowed Exhibit 6. The value of the estate exceeds P50,000. Exhibit C is a two-page document signed in duplicate by Rufina Arevalo and three witnesses, complying with the formal requisites of a will. A notable fact is that the appellees formulated their allegation of forgery in a signed opposition on April 22, 1938, before the sealed envelope containing Exhibit C was opened by court order on April 23, 1938. The lower court based its finding of forgery partly on a perceived discrepancy in the testatrix’s signatures: in standard signatures, the terminal stroke of the capital “R” in “Rufina” is not joined with the letter “u,” whereas in the marginal signatures of Exhibit C they are united (though separated in the central signature). The court suggested a forger might have used a check (Exhibit I) as a model.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether Exhibit C, the will dated October 2, 1937, is a forgery. A secondary issue, addressed due to a member of the Court’s view, is whether the later will entirely revoked the earlier will.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and found that Exhibit C is genuine and should be allowed. On the issue of forgery, the Court held that the probate court erred in its analysis. The Court applied the principle that the test for questioned documents is the general character of the writing rather than a minute comparison of individual letters, and that exact coincidence between signatures is proof of forgery, whereas authenticity rests on general characteristic resemblance with natural variations. A careful scrutiny showed the questioned and standard signatures shared the same general type, quality, and characteristics with natural variations, supporting the expert testimony for the appellant. The Court noted that natural variations in multiple signatures can be evidence of genuineness, as a forger typically tries to make signatures uniform. The fact that the document was signed in duplicate (resulting in six signatures) made forgery less likely, as a forger would reduce the number of signatures to forge. The theory that the forger used Exhibit I as a model was deemed highly improbable, as the check was issued over a year prior and would not likely have been in the testatrix’s or her attorney’s possession. The Court also emphasized that to find an attorney complicit in forgery requires proof strong enough to overcome every fair doubt, and the instrumental witnesses testified to the will’s proper execution without shown interest. On the issue of revocation, the majority opinion, as reflected in the dispositive conclusion, finds the later will revokes the earlier one. However, a separate opinion (by a member of the Court) argues that the later will did not entirely revoke the earlier one. This opinion notes that the later will names Ariston Bustamante as the sole heir and lists specific properties, but omits two parcels of land (the testatrix’s undivided interest in conjugal properties) that were specifically devised to Amando Clemente in the earlier will. Since the later will does not expressly revoke the prior will, which was not destroyed, and the omission of the two parcels appears intentional, the opinion concludes the wills are partially conflicting. It votes for the probate of both wills, with the later will revoking the former only where their provisions are conflicting or incompatible, citing legal authority that two wills may be probated when a later will does not revoke all former wills. The main ruling of the Court, however, is to allow the probate of Exhibit C.