GR L 24819; (May, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24819, May 30, 1969.
TESTATE ESTATE OF CATALINA DE LA CRUZ, deceased, ANDRES PASCUAL, petitioner-appellee, vs. PEDRO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
FACTS
On January 2, 1960, Catalina de la Cruz died at age 89, single and without descendants or ascendants. On January 14, 1960, Andres Pascual, named in her alleged 1954 will as executor and sole heir, petitioned for its probate. Pedro de la Cruz and 26 other nephews and nieces opposed, contesting the will’s validity on grounds of non-compliance with legal formalities, the testatrix’s mental incapacity, undue influence and fraud by the petitioner, and that the signature was obtained through fraud. After hearing, the probate court upheld the will’s due execution and appointed Pascual as administrator. The oppositors appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising only the issue of the due execution of the will, the estate being valued over P300,000.00.
ISSUE
Whether the will of Catalina de la Cruz was duly executed in accordance with law.
RULING
Yes, the will was duly executed. The Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s decision. The Court held that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the subscribing witnesses and the notary public—regarding details such as weather conditions, the sequence of signing, and the time taken—were minor, related to unimportant details affected by the eight-year lapse since execution, and did not discredit their core testimony on the due execution. The law requires the witnesses to be credible and to have seen or been so situated that they could have seen each other sign, which was satisfied. The Court found no merit in the claim that the witnesses’ friendship with the proponent affected their credibility. The appellants’ reliance on an alleged tape recording where one witness, Manuel Jiongco, supposedly stated he signed later and without the others present was rejected. The trial court found the voice identification doubtful, Jiongco denied it under oath, and official notarial records from 1954 corroborated the will’s execution date. The Court also found the evidence of undue influence and fraud insufficient, noting the testatrix’s affection for Pascual, whom she treated as a son, and the lack of clear proof of coercion or deception. The charge of fraud, being premised on undue influence, likewise failed. The decree of probate was affirmed.