Gonzales v CA

90 SCRA 183

May 25, 1979

FACTS

- Herein respondent filed a petition with CFI Rizal for the probate of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased
Isabel Gabriel and designating Santiago as the principal beneficiary and executrix.

- There is no dispute in the records that the late Isabel Andres Gabriel died as a widow and without issue in the
municipality of Navotas, province of Rizal her place of residence, on June 7, 1961 at the age of eighty-five (85), having been
born in 1876. It is likewise not controverted that herein private respondent Lutgarda Santiago and petitioner Rizalina
Gabriel Gonzales are nieces of the deceased, and that private respondent, with her husband and children, lived with the
deceased at the latter’s residence prior and up to the time of her death.

- The will itself provides that the testatrix desired to be buried in the Catholic Cemetery of Navotas, Rizal in accordance
with the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, all expenses to be paid from her estate; that all her obligations, if any, be paid;
that legacies in specified amounts be given to her sister, Praxides Gabriel Vda. de Santiago, her brother Santiago Gabriel,
and her nephews and nieces, Benjamin, Salud, Rizalina (herein petitioner), Victoria, Ester, Andres, all surnamed Gabriel,
and Evangeline, Rudyardo Rosa, Andrea, Marcial, Numancia, Verena all surnamed Santiago. To herein private respondent
Lutgarda Santiago, who was described in the will by the testatrix as "aking mahal na pamangkin na aking pinalaki, inalagaan
at minahal na katulad ng isang tunay na anak" and named as universal heir and executor, were bequeathed all properties
and estate, real or personal already acquired, or to be acquired, in her testatrix name, after satisfying the expenses, debts
and legacies as aforementioned.

- The petition was opposed by herein petitioner, assailing the document purporting to be the will of the deceased on the
following grounds:

1. that the same is not genuine; and in the alternative

2. that the same was not executed and attested as required by law;

3. that, at the time of the alleged execution of the purported will the decedent lacked testamentary capacity due to
old age and sickness; and in the second alternative

4. That the purported will was procured through undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
principal beneficiary, and/or of some other person for her benefit.

- CFI found for Gonzales grounds 3 and 4 and disallowed the probate.

- From this judgment of disallowance, Santiago appealed to respondent Court, hence, the only issue decided on appeal was
whether or not the will in question was executed and attested as required by law. CA, upon consideration of the evidence
adduced by both parties, rendered the decision , holding that the will in question was signed and executed by the deceased
Isabel Gabriel on April 15, 1961 in the presence of the three attesting witnesses, Matilde Orobia, Celso Gimpaya and Maria
Gimpaya, signing and witnessing the document in the presence of the deceased and of each other as required by law,
hence allowed probate. Petitioner’s MR is denied.

- Oppositor Gonzales went to SC contending that CA abused its discretion and/or acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction in reversing the findings of fact and conclusions of the trial court. SC, after deliberating on the petition but
without giving due course resolved to require the respondents to comment thereon. Upon consideration of the allegations,
the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petition, as well as the Comment of private respondent thereon, SC
denied the petition, the question raised being factual and for insufficient showing that the findings of fact by respondent
Court were unsupported by substantial evidence.

-Gonzales filed MR -still raising factual issues. SC gave due course. SC discussed non-disturbance of CA’s factual findings but
still explained on the merits.

ISSUE/S

WON “credible witnesses” meant that before an alleged last will and testament may be admitted to probate, there must
be evidence on record that the witness has a good standing in his community, or that he is honest and upright, or reputed
to be trustworthy and reliable (as maintained by petitioner)

HELD

1. NO

- Instrumental witnesses in Order to be competent must be shown to have the qualifications under Article 820 of the Civil
Code and none of the disqualifications under Article 821 and for their testimony to be credible, that is worthy of belief and
entitled to credence, it is not mandatory that evidence be first established on record that the witnesses have a good
standing in the community or that they are honest and upright or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable, for a person is
presumed to be such unless the contrary is established otherwise. In other words, the instrumental witnesses must be
competent and their testimonies must be credible before the court allows the probate of the will they have attested.

- Petitioner contends that the term "credible" is not synonymous with "competent" for a witness may be competent under
Article 820 and 821 of the Civil Code and still not be credible as required by Article 805 of the same Code. It is further urged
that the term "credible" as used in the Civil Code should receive the same settled and well- known meaning it has under
the Naturalization Law, the latter being a kindred legislation with the Civil Code provisions on wills with respect to the
qualifications of witnesses.

- Article 820 of the Civil Code provides the qualifications of a witness to the execution of wills while Article 821 sets forth
the disqualification from being a witness to a will. These Articles state:
Art. 820. Any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and write, may be a witness
to the execution of a will mentioned in article 805 of this Code.

Art. 821. The following are disqualified from being witnesses to a will:

(1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines,

(2) Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony.

Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some
other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the
testator and of one another.

- Under the law, there is no mandatory requirement that the witness testify initially or at any time during the trial as to his
good standing in the community, his reputation for trustworthiness and reliableness, his honesty and uprightness in order
that his testimony may be believed and accepted by the trial court. It is enough that the qualifications enumerated in
Article 820 of the Civil Code are complied with, such that the soundness of his mind can be shown by or deduced from his
answers to the questions propounded to him, that his age (18 years or more) is shown from his appearance, testimony , or
competently proved otherwise, as well as the fact that he is not blind, deaf or dumb and that he is able to read and write
to the satisfaction of the Court, and that he has none of the disqualifications under Article 821 of the Civil Code.

- Also without merit is petitioner's contention that the term "credible" as used in the Civil Code should be given the same
meaning it has under the Naturalization Law where the law is mandatory that the petition for naturalization must be
supported by two character witnesses who must prove their good standing in the community, reputation for
trustworthiness and reliableness, their honesty and uprightness. The two witnesses in a petition for naturalization are
character witnesses in that being citizens of the Philippines, they personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the
Philippines for the period of time required by the Act and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable and that said
petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way
disqualified under the provisions of the Naturalization Law. In probate proceedings, the instrumental witnesses are not
character witnesses for they merely attest the execution of a will or testament and affirm the formalities attendant to said
execution.