G.R. No. L-18498 March 30, 1967
TESTATE ESTATE OF VITO BORROMEO. JOSE H. JUNQUERA, petitioner-appellee, vs. CRISPIN BORROMEO, ET AL., oppositors-appellants. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, intervenor-appellant.

FACTS

Vito Borromeo, a widower and permanent resident of Cebu City, died on March 13, 1952, without forced heirs but leaving extensive properties in Cebu. On April 19, 1952, Jose H. Junquera filed a petition for the probate of a one-page document dated May 17, 1946, as Vito Borromeo’s last will. The will, written in Spanish and allegedly signed and thumbmarked by the deceased, devised all his properties to Tomas, Fortunato, and Amelia Borromeo in equal shares and designated Junquera as executor. The attesting witnesses were Dr. Cornelio G. Gandionco, Eusebio Cabiluna, and Filiberto Leonardo. Teofilo Borromeo and other relatives filed oppositions to the probate, alleging non-compliance with legal formalities, the testator’s mental incapacity, undue influence, fraud, forgery of the signature, and that the testator did not intend the instrument to be his will. The Republic of the Philippines was allowed to intervene, seeking to collect estate and inheritance taxes if the estate were adjudicated by intestacy. During the proceedings, Tomas, Amelia, and Fortunato Borromeo, on behalf of the partnership “Cebu Arcade Company, T. L. Borromeo y Cia.,” moved to exclude thirteen parcels of land from the estate’s inventory, claiming the deceased had sold them the lots during his lifetime, as evidenced by a confirmatory deed (Exhibit F-1) dated May 17, 1945. After a prolonged trial, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision on May 28, 1960, denying the probate of the will and declaring itself without jurisdiction to finally decide the ownership of the thirteen lots. All parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the due execution of the will of Vito Borromeo.
2. Whether the probate court has jurisdiction to determine with finality the question of ownership over the thirteen parcels of land claimed by the Cebu Arcade Company, T. L. Borromeo y Cia.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the probate of the will. The Court found the testimonies of the attesting witnesses not wholly disinterested and noted serious discrepancies regarding the number of copies made of the will. The physical condition of Vito Borromeo at the time of the alleged execution—being 82 years old, afflicted with advanced leprosy affecting his hand, hearing, and eyesight—made it highly improbable for him to have affixed the signatures appearing on the document. The Court gave more weight to the handwriting experts for the oppositors, Felipe Logan and Jose G. Villanueva, who testified that the signatures were forgeries, over the expert presented by the proponents. The thumbmarks on the will were also found to be indistinct and unclear, offering no reliable means of identification. Thus, the due execution of the will was not sufficiently proven.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s provisional ruling on the exclusion of the thirteen lots and its declaration that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the question of ownership with finality. The Court held that a probate court, acting as such, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate with finality questions of ownership involving estate properties. Such matters must be litigated in a separate action. However, the probate court may provisionally rule on the inclusion or exclusion of property from the inventory without prejudice to its final determination in an appropriate separate action. Therefore, the lower court correctly denied the motion for exclusion on provisional grounds and properly declined to make a final determination on ownership.
The decision appealed from was affirmed in its entirety.