G.R. No. 10959 ; November 2, 1916
PRIMITIVA PARAS, petitioner-appellant, vs. LUDOVICO NARCISO, objector-appellee.

FACTS:
Primitiva Paras appealed from a judgment denying probate to a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Mariano Magsino, deceased. The trial court found that the will was not executed by the deceased, the signature was forged, and the instrument was prepared and signed by the witnesses after the death of the alleged testator. The appellant assigned errors primarily concerning the credibility of witnesses and the admission of handwriting testimony. The appellee, Ludovico Narciso, opposed the probate, though his interest in the estate was later questioned.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in its factual findings regarding the execution and authenticity of the alleged will.
2. Whether the appellee had sufficient interest in the estate to maintain opposition to the probate.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment denying probate.

1. On the authenticity of the will: The Court upheld the trial court’s factual findings, emphasizing that the trial judge observed the witnesses firsthand, and there was no justification to disturb the credibility assessments. The evidence conclusively showed the will was forged and executed after the testator’s death. The Court also noted that even if the admission of certain handwriting experts’ testimony was erroneous, it was harmless error, as the trial judge relied on his own comparison of signatures under Section 327 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was sufficient to establish forgery.

2. On the appellee’s interest: The Court ruled that the issue of the appellee’s interest was raised for the first time on appeal and was not properly assigned as error. While only persons with an interest in the estate may ordinarily contest a will, the intervention of a stranger does not constitute reversible error if no objection is made in the trial court. Here, no objection was raised below, and the evidence submittedregardless of the contestant’s statuswas competent and conclusive in denying probate. Thus, the judgment was based on the merits of the evidence, not the appellee’s standing.

The Court affirmed the denial of probate, with costs against the appellant.