GR L 2862; (April, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2862; April 21, 1952
TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA ZUÑIGA VDA. DE PANDO, deceased. JUAN REYES, petitioner-administrator-appellant, vs. DOLORES ZUÑIGA VDA. DE VIDAL, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
On November 6, 1945, a petition was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the probate of a document claimed to be the last will and testament of Maria Zuñiga Vda. de Pando, who died on October 29, 1945. The oppositor, Dolores Zuñiga Vda. de Vidal, sister of the deceased, filed an opposition on December 21, 1945. After trial, the lower court disallowed the will on three grounds: (1) the signatures of the deceased on the will were not genuine; (2) it was not proven that the deceased knew the Spanish language in which the will was written; and (3) even if the signatures were genuine, they revealed that the deceased was not of sound mind when she signed the will. The petitioner-administrator appealed this decision.
ISSUE
1. Whether the signatures of the deceased appearing in the will are genuine.
2. Whether there is evidence to show that the testatrix knew the Spanish language in which the will was written.
3. Whether the testatrix was of sound and disposing mind when she signed the will.
RULING
1. On the genuineness of the signatures: The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s finding. The petitioner presented three instrumental witnesses who testified in a simple and credible manner that the deceased signed the will in their presence. The oppositor relied on the testimony of an expert witness, Jose G. Villanueva, who concluded the signatures were not genuine. However, the Court found the opinion of another expert, Jose C. Espinosa, more credible because the genuine signatures he used for comparison were closer in time to the disputed signatures (October 29, 1945), which is crucial given the testatrix’s age and health. The Court emphasized that standards for handwriting comparison should be as contemporaneous as possible to the questioned document.
2. On the testatrix’s knowledge of the Spanish language: The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred. While no witness directly testified that the testatrix knew Spanish, the record supplied sufficient evidence: (a) the deceased was a mestiza española, married to a Spaniard, and made trips to Spain; (b) letters written by the deceased in Spanish, submitted by the oppositor herself, proved her knowledge of the language; and (c) the attestation clause of the will stated she knew and possessed the Spanish language. These facts created a presumption that she knew the language, which was not overcome.
3. On the testatrix’s soundness of mind: The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court’s conclusion that the varied form of the signatures indicated unsoundness of mind. The instrumental witnesses testified that the deceased was of sound mind, could talk and read, and in fact read the will before signing it. The Court noted that differences or irregularities in signatures are common in the writings of elderly or infirm individuals and do not indicate forgery or lack of genuineness, but rather the physical condition of the writer.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision appealed from is reversed. The will (Exhibit C) is admitted to probate, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Costs are awarded against the appellee.