G.R. No. L-8954; March 21, 1916

FACTS:
Dorotea Cabang, the widow of the deceased Celestino Delfinado, filed a petition for the probate of a document purporting to be his last will and testament. Martin Delfinado, a son from the testator’s first marriage, opposed the probate, alleging the will was not properly signed and attested as required by law. The will, dated August 31, 1909, contained a clause stating the testator placed a cross between his name and surname as he was unable to sign. The attestation clause was signed by three witnesses: A. Abaya, Pablo del Rosario, and Paciano Romero.

At the hearing, the petitioner presented only one of the three subscribing witnesses (Paciano Romero) along with other witnesses. The testimony established that the testator, who was illiterate, dictated the will in Ilocano, which was translated into Spanish and typewritten. The testator then requested Patricio de Guzman to write his name on the will, after which the testator affixed his cross. All three witnesses were allegedly present during the signing and attested the will. However, the opposing party presented a document (Exhibit No. 1) admitted by both parties to have been signed by the testator, demonstrating that Celestino Delfinado could, in fact, sign his name. The petitioner failed to present the other two subscribing witnesses, who were within the jurisdiction of the court, without providing any reason for their absence.

ISSUE:
Whether the court erred in admitting the will to probate without having all the subscribing witnesses called or without requiring a showing of why they were not produced, especially in a contested proceeding.

RULING:
Yes, the court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance admitting the will to probate.

The law (Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure) requires a will to be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses. In a contested probate proceeding, the rule of preference, as a matter of evidence, mandates that all subscribing witnesses who are within the control of the court must be produced to testify. This rule ensures the opponent has the right to cross-examine these witnesses on matters such as fraud, duress, and the testator’s capacity, as they are the persons placed by law around the testator to ascertain the will’s due execution.

The petitioner failed to present the two other subscribing witnesses without any explanation for their absence. This failure was fatal to the probate, especially given the suspicious circumstances: the will contained an attestation clause but omitted details (like the name of the person who wrote the testator’s name), the testator signed by mark despite evidence (Exhibit No. 1) proving he could sign his name, and the proceeding was contested. The Court held that the proponent did not comply with the legal requirement to either call all subscribing witnesses or show a sufficient cause for their non-production. Consequently, the will could not be validly probated.