G.R. No. L-5263 February 17, 1954
AGUSTIN BARRERA, ET AL., proponents-appellants, vs. JOSE TAMPOCO, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

Olivia Villapaña died on December 13, 1948. On December 31, 1948, Agustin Barrera filed a petition for the probate of her will dated July 17, 1948. The oppositors, alleged grandchildren and nephews/nieces of the testatrix, contested the will on grounds of improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, and illegal provisions. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Tarlac disallowed the will on August 11, 1951. The trial court found that the testatrix had testamentary capacity, and there was no forgery, fraud, trickery, or undue influence. However, it disallowed the will on two grounds: (1) it was not the personal last will of the deceased because she did not furnish the names of the instituted heirs and the will was not read to her before signing, and (2) the attesting witness Laureano Antonio was not present when the testatrix and another witness signed, only partially saw the signing by witness Modesto Puno, and the testatrix saw Antonio sign only two or three times. The petitioner appealed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the will of Olivia Villapaña was executed in accordance with the formalities required by law, specifically whether it was signed by the testatrix and the attesting witnesses in the presence of each other.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed order and allowed the probate of the will. The Court held that the trial court erred in denying probate. The positive testimonies of two attesting witnesses, Modesto Puno and Honorio Lacson, that the will was signed by the testatrix and all three witnesses in the presence of each other, and that it was read to the testatrix, outweighed the contrary testimony of the third witness, Laureano Antonio. The Court found Antonio’s testimony contradicted by the attestation clause he signed and by his prior conduct. The discrepancies cited by the trial court regarding the time of signing and the sequence of reading the will and placing signature lines were minor details that did not negate compliance with the essential legal requirement of signing in the presence of each other. The Court also found the trial court’s conclusions that the testatrix did not furnish the names of the heirs and that the will was not read to her to be unfounded. Since the trial court itself found the testatrix had testamentary capacity and the will was executed without fraud or undue influence, it was the Court’s duty to give effect to her will.