GR L 2396; (November, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2396 December 11, 1950
In the matter of the petition for the probate of the will of the deceased Pablo M. Roxas. NATIVIDAD I. VDA. DE ROXAS, petitioner-appellant, vs. MARIA ROXAS, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.
FACTS
Pablo M. Roxas died on July 14, 1946. His widow, Natividad Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of his alleged will dated January 1, 1945, which devised all his properties to her and an adulterous son, Reynaldo Roxas. The will was typewritten in Tagalog on a single sheet, signed by the testator, and attested by three witnesses. The body of the will was dated, but the attestation clause bore no date. The oppositors (the testator’s siblings) contested the probate, alleging formal defects in execution. The trial court disallowed probate, finding that the body of the will and the attestation clause were typewritten and signed on different occasions, based on physical evidence (e.g., the paper was crumpled and re-smoothened, differences in ink penetration, and the use of different pens). The petitioner appealed, relying on the consistent testimony of the three attesting witnesses that the will was signed by the testator and by them all in each other’s presence on the same occasion.
ISSUE
Whether the will was executed and attested in accordance with the legal requirements of Section 618 of Act No. 190, as amended (specifically, whether the testator and the attesting witnesses signed the will in the presence of each other).
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and allowed the probate of the will. The Court held that the physical circumstances cited by the trial court were inconclusive and did not outweigh the positive, unanimous, and credible testimony of the three attesting witnesses, who were persons of respectability and intelligence. The Court found their account—that the testator signed the will in their presence and they, in turn, signed in the presence of the testator and of each other—to be clear and convincing. The Court ruled that the will substantially complied with the statutory formalities, and the absence of a date in the attestation clause was not a fatal defect. The dissent argued for affirming the trial court’s decision, giving weight to the physical evidence and the trial judge’s opportunity to observe the witnesses, and suggesting the will was not executed in a single ceremony.
AI Generated by Armztrong.