G.R. No. L-7647; March 27, 1914
DOMINGO CALUYA, petitioner-appellant, vs. LUCINA DOMINGO, respondent-appellee.

FACTS:
Domingo Caluya appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte denying the probate of the will of the deceased. The lower court based its denial on three grounds: (1) although the testator signed by mark, the will did not state who wrote the signature or that it was written at his request; (2) one of the attesting witnesses, Antonino Pandaraoan, could not have signed because he was allegedly attending a municipal council session at the time of the will’s execution; and (3) another witness, Segundino Asis, was allegedly an interested party because the will mentioned and confirmed a prior sale of land to him, casting doubt on his testimony.

ISSUE:
Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law, thereby warranting its probate.

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the lower court and ordered the probate of the will. The Court held that none of the three grounds for denial were legally tenable.

2. On the alleged absence of witness Pandaraoan: The positive, clear, and unanimous testimony of the notary public and all subscribing witnesses, including Pandaraoan himself, that they were present and signed the will in the testator’s presence and in the presence of each other, outweighs the inconclusive opposition evidence regarding the municipal council session. The possibility of a mistake in estimating the time of the session or the will’s execution was noted.

3. On the alleged interest of witness Asis: The provision of law (Section 622, Code of Civil Procedure) that voids a beneficial interest given to an attesting witness does not apply. The will did not give any new interest to Segundino Asis; it merely mentioned a prior, already consummated sale. Even if it had conveyed an interest, only that specific clause would be void, not the entire will.

The Supreme Court found that a preponderance of evidence established the will’s due execution and that no legal impediment to its probate existed. The case was remanded to the lower court with instructions to allow and probate the will.