Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 437 views

    G.R. No. L-37453

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    1. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate the will of Isabel Gabriel, which named Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales as the principal beneficiary. Rizalina opposed the probate, claiming the will was not genuine. 2. The lower court rejected the will's probate. The Court of Appeals then allowed the will's probate, finding it was properly executed in the presence of three witnesses. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the will was properly executed and attested under the law, as the three witnesses were shown to be competent and there was no evidence of any of their disqualifications. The Court rejected arguments that the witnesses' good character needed separate proof

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. L-37453

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    437 views2 pages
    1. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate the will of Isabel Gabriel, which named Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales as the principal beneficiary. Rizalina opposed the probate, claiming the will was not genuine. 2. The lower court rejected the will's probate. The Court of Appeals then allowed the will's probate, finding it was properly executed in the presence of three witnesses. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the will was properly executed and attested under the law, as the three witnesses were shown to be competent and there was no evidence of any of their disqualifications. The Court rejected arguments that the witnesses' good character needed separate proof

    Original Description:

    witnesses to wills digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate the will of Isabel Gabriel, which named Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales as the principal beneficiary. Rizalina opposed the probate, claiming the will was not genuine. 2. The lower court rejected the will's probate. The Court of Appeals then allowed the will's probate, finding it was properly executed in the presence of three witnesses. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the will was properly executed and attested under the law, as the three witnesses were shown to be competent and there was no evidence of any of their disqualifications. The Court rejected arguments that the witnesses' good character needed separate proof

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    437 views2 pages

    G.R. No. L-37453

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    1. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate the will of Isabel Gabriel, which named Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales as the principal beneficiary. Rizalina opposed the probate, claiming the will was not genuine. 2. The lower court rejected the will's probate. The Court of Appeals then allowed the will's probate, finding it was properly executed in the presence of three witnesses. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the will was properly executed and attested under the law, as the three witnesses were shown to be competent and there was no evidence of any of their disqualifications. The Court rejected arguments that the witnesses' good character needed separate proof

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    RIZALINA GABRIEL GONZALES

    vs.
    HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUTGARDA SANTIAGO
    G.R. No. L-37453, May 25, 1979
    GUERRERO, J.

    Facts:
    Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition with the Court of First
    Instance for the probate of a will alleged to have been executed by
    the deceased Isabel Gabriel and designating Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales
    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. Lutgarda Santiago and
    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 submitted consists of five (5) pages and includes the pages
    whereon the attestation clause and the acknowledgment of the
    notary public were written. The signatures of the deceased Isabel
    Gabriel appear at the end of the will on page four and at the left
    margin of all the pages. The petition was opposed by Rizalina
    assailing that the will is not genuine and was not executed and
    attested as required by law. The lower court disallowed the probate
    of said will and as a consequence, Lutgarda appealed to Court of
    Appeals. The Court of Appeals, upon consideration of the evidence
    adduced by both parties, rendered the decision now under review,
    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. Hence, this petition.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the will in question was executed and attested
    as required by law.

    Ruling:
    Yes, the Court find no merit in petitioner’s contention that the
    will was executed and attested as required by law when there was
    absolutely no proof that the three instrumental witnesses were
    credible witness. 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.
    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
    reliability, 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. The Court reject
    petitioner's contention that it must first be established in the record
    the good standing of the witness in the community, his reputation for
    trustworthiness and reliability, his honesty and uprightness, because
    such attributes are presumed of the witness unless the contrary is
    proved otherwise by the opposing party.

    In the case at bar, the finding that each and every one of the
    three instrumental witnesses, namely, Matilde Orobia, Celso Gimpaya
    and Maria Gimpaya, are competent and credible is satisfactorily
    supported by the evidence as found by the Court of Appeals, which
    findings of fact the Supreme Court is bound to accept and rely upon.
    Moreover, petitioner has not pointed to any disqualification of any of
    the said witnesses, much less has it been shown that anyone of them
    is below 18 years of age, of unsound mind, deaf or dumb, or cannot
    read or write.

    You might also like