Natividad I. Vda. De Roxas, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. Maria Roxas, et al., Oppositors-Appellees, G.R. No. L-2396, December 11, 1950

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Natividad I. Vda. De Roxas, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. Maria Roxas, et al., Oppositors-Appellees, G.R. No. L-2396, December 11, 1950
extracted text: SUPREME COURT DECISION I .;\,1ativiclad /. l'da. De Roxas, Pctitfrmcr-Appdfa1it, v:;. Mrl'l'i't Ro~a8, t't al., Oppositors-A1melfees, G. R. No. L-2396, Dcccmbt:r 11, 1950. 1. lV/LLS; PROBATE; TESTIMONY OF ATTESTING WITNESSES, lVHEN ENTITLED TO FULL CREDIT. - Where the reputation for probity of the three a.ttesting witnegscs has not been impeached their testimony co11firmntory of the due execution of .the will. deserves full credit. 2. ID.; ID.; IV.; RELATIVb'S OF TESTATOR OR HEIU NOT DISQUALTF'IED TO ACT AS ATTESTING WITNESSES. -The law does not bar 1·clatives either of the testator ot• of the heirs or legatees from acting as attesting witnesses to the will. · 3 . ID.; ID.; JD.; #FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT ENT/ Tf,ED TO GRE.4T WEIGHT; EXCEPTION. - Ordinarily, the findings of fact oi a trial court, because of the benefit of having seen and heard the witnesses, are entitled to great weight. But it is not so, whe1·e the court 1·elied On the condusion of expt!rts and failed to analyze the ornl evidence. 4. ID.; ID. ; ID.; POOR S1'ATIONARY, LACK <.,F COPY, OR NON-INTERVEN1'ION OF T.AWYER OR NOTARY, DOES NOT AFFECT VALIDI'l'Y OP WILD. - The validity of a will is not affected by the fact that it is written on \lOOr stationny, that it was not prepared by a luwye1· or nqtary public, or that no copies were mude. 5. ID.; JD.; ID.; TESTIMONY OF ATTESTING WITNESSES TO PREVAIL OVER EXPERT OPINIONS. - The positive testimony of thi·ee attesting witnesses in favo1· of the duf' <:>xecution of the will ought to p1·evail o\·er expert opinions which cannot be mathematically precise but which, on the contrary, are subject to inherent infirmities. The law, in requiring the production of all the attesting witne~ses present in the Philippines, impliedly i·ecognizes the ahnost conclusive weight of their testimony. 6. ID. ; JlJ.; JD.; WILL NEED NOT BE WR!TTE'N JN Ol1lE CON'l'INUOIJS. ACT. - The law does not require that the will should be written in on{' continuou!> act. 7. ID.; JD.; ID.; REVOCATION; CRUMPLING OF WILL BY TES7'.4TOR WITHOUT IN'rENT!ON TO REVOKE. -· The fact; that the testator crumpled the will does not amount to revncati(m unlcs it is shown that the crumpling was caused with intention to revoke. Claro M. Recto a.:nd Francisco A. Rodrigo for appellant. Vicente J. Fr<rndsco, E stm1islao A. Fernandez, Jr., and Gerardo ,1/ . . 4.lfonso for appellees. DECISION PARAS, J.: Pablo Roxas died in the Municipality of Bulacan, province 'or Bulacan, on July 14, 1946. On August 10, 1946, Natividad Jcasiano <t.he widow) filed in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan a petion for the probate of a will alleged to have been left by Pablo Roxas, devising all his properties to Natividad Jcasiano and Reynaldo Roxas <an adulterous son>. The will is typewritten and worded in Tagalog and the attesting witnesses are Jacinto Y. Enriquez, Fortunato R. Gupit and Martin Rodrigo. The will is dated, in tr.e body, January 1, 1945. ~o date is given in the attestation ch1use. An opposition was filed by Maria Roxas and Pedro Roxas <sister and brother of Pablo Roxas) on the ground that the aliei?ed will . was not executed and attested as i·equired by law, and that, m any event, it was intended as a mere formal request which was, however, subsequently revoked as shown by the fact that it was crumpled with intent to destroy. Upon motion fo1· bill of particulal's filed by the petitioner Natividad Icasiano) the oppositors <Maria and Pedro Roxas) alleged that the wili is vitiated by the following formal defects: "(a) The alleged l&st will and testament was not attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presE>nce of the testator and of each otl)er ;. <b) The testator and the instrumental witnesses did not sign the only page of the will on the left margin, nor was the page numbered in letters on the upper part of the sheet; Cc) The attestation clause does JJOt state that the alleged wit1 wsscs thereto witnessed and signed the will in the presence of of the testator and of each other." Aftel' trial, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan rendered a decision dis:i..llowing the 1n·obate of the will. The lower court. concluded that the body of the will was typewritten and signed by the testate:· on a date or occ~sion different from and anterior to the dale or occasion when the attestation clause was typewritten and signed by the attesting witnesses, with the result that the will was not signed by the testator in the presence of the witnesses, and by the latter in the presence of the testator and of each other, as i·equii·ed in sedfon 618 of Act No. 190 as amended by Act No. 2645. This conclusion was motivated by the following circumstances enumerated in the decision: •·(a) That the papc1· on which the alleged will, Exhibit D, is written has been folded and crumpled; <b> Thc.t the body of the will was typewritten before tl:e signature of Pablo M. Roxas had been affixed thereon and before it had been folded ai1d crumpled; (c) That, after it had been folded nnd Cl'umpled, it was smoothened in orde1· to eliminate or minimize as much as possible the folds and wrinkles, preparatory, to. the \niting of the attestation clause en the same typewriter which was used in typewriting the body of the will; (d) That the attestation clause was t ypewritten, single space, and a deliberate effort was exerted to make it appear that it was written by the testator himself a.t the same time with th?. body thereof, but the tell-tnle Jetter 'o' and the inequality of the marginal alignments of both the body and the attestation clause have betrayed the vain effort; Ce) That the texture and fiber of the paper on the portion on which the signature of the attesting witnesses were affixed had been disturbed and affected by the interval of time and the ordinary exposure of the papel' to the !1.lmosphere between the signing of the testator and the attesting witnesses, which fact is i·eveali>d by the greater penetrations of the ink in the signature of Pablo M. Roxas; (f) That had the testator and the attesting wit. nesses signed on the same occasion, the probability was that · one Ol' two fountain pens only should have been used instead of three as testified to unanimously by the expert witnesses both for the proponent and the oppositors." The petitioner ha.s a ppealed. He1· counsel insist that t11e testimony, unai1imous in all essential points, of the three attesting witnesses should be given ~r.ntrolling weight. Counsel for oppositors, upon the other hand, argue that the testimony of I\laria Roxas, in conjunction with the opinions of experts, should Jll'CVail. The testimony of Fortunato Gupit, Jacinto Y. Elll'iquf'z and :Martin Rodrigo <the attesting witne:.ses) tends k show that they were in the house of Rosario Vda. de Ica.siano (mother-inlaw of Gupitl in barrio Sta. Ana, municipality of Bulacan, province of Bulacan, on January 1, 1945. Between two and three in the afternoon Pablo Roxas showed up and, approaching Gupit who was then reading a book, asked him to go to the Sala with Roxas. The latter got from his hip pocket a folded sheet of paper <the will here in nuestion) and asked Gupit to read it. Tn the meantime Roxas proceeded to the dining hall whert:i a mahjong game was being played and called Enriquez and Rodrigo who thereupon went to the Sala and were nsked to read the will previously handed to Gupit. Roxas then made the i·equest fo1· ~he three to act as witnesses. Roxas, using his fom1ta.in pen, signed it in t.he presence of Gupit, Enriquez and Rodl'igo. Gupit then signed with his own pen and, noticing that ink in his signature was spreadi11g, asked for a blotter. Roxas got a blotter from a nearby writing desk and gave it to Gupit who accordingly applied it. Enriquez ar.d Rodrigo, using the pen of Gupit, took their turns in signing the will, the blotter being also applied. Thereafter, Roxas refolded the document and inserted the same in his hip pocket. Fortunato A. Gupit is a certified public accountant. He is the dean of the College of Business Administration and the comptroller of the Arellano University. Jacinto Y. Enriquez come<> f1 om a distinguished family in Bulacan and is a. student in thE' J\.l&l'Ch $1, 1954 THE LAWYI-:RS JOUH;NA,L i21 University of S:mto Tomas. Martin Rodrigo is a businessman and landowner. Gupit is the husband of a half-sister of the JH?titioncr; Enriqticz is a second cousin of petiti:::nel'; and Rodrigo is the husband of a deceMcd cousin of petitioner. The testimony of oppositor i\.Iaria Roxas tends to show thal on December 30, 1944, Pablo Roxas asked from her a sheet of typewriting paper. At about one in the afternoon of January 1, 1!"145. Pablo Roxas came baek to the house of Maria and shuwed the will in question !;jgned by Pablo, clean and uncrumplcd, and without any attestation clause. Pablo execute<l the will as it was shown to Maria, as a mere ruse to make the petitioner continue loving Reynaldo Roxas <adulterou:. snn of Pablo Roxas). Two handwl'iting expcl'ts (Amadeo M. Cabe and Jose C. Espinosa) were employed by the 01 >positors and their testimony tends to support t.he theory that t he body of the will up to the <;ignature of Pablo Roxas was typew~·itten on a plain sheet of paper; that the sheet was subsequently removed from the typewriter and signed by the tcstn.tor; that the sheet, after being crutnpled and folded, was reinserted in t ile typewrite1· for the insertion of the, attestation clause which was signed afterwards by the three attesting witnesses. This expert opinion is based more or less on the circumstances e>numerated in t.hc appealed decision hereinbefore quoted, except that while the trial court obsCrvcd that there are "greater penetrations of the ink in the signature of Psblo l\L Roxas," Espinosa and Cabe found that there is greater diffusion of ink in the signatures of the attesting witnesS€J:i. After a careful examination of the record in the light of contentions of the parties, we have no hesitancy in holding that the appea.lcd decision is erroneous. This case is one in which the will is couched in a language known and spoken by the testator and the signature of the testator nnd the signatures of the three attesting witnesses are admittedly gcnui11e. Such being the situation, the question that arises, far from requiring the intervention of experts, is one merely of credibility of witnesses. In our opinion, the testimon)' of the three attesting witnesses - confinna.tory of the due execution of the will - deserves full credit, not only because of their qualifications < hereinbefore nointed out> · but because their reputation for probity has I!Ot bee~ impeached. The fact that they may have come relationship with the petitioner is not sufficient to warrant the belief that they did not tell the truth. The law, in the first place, does not bar relatives either of the test::i.tor or of the heirs or legatees from acting as witnesses. In the second place, in the normal course of things and to be sure that the witnesses would not let the beneficiaries down, the testator may be inclined to c-mploy, as attesting witnesses, relatives of iuch bcndiciaries, if not wholly disinterested persons. In the thil'd place, under the will, Reynaldo Roxas Ccdulterous son of Pablo Roxas) is named a legatee on equal footing with the pc:titioner, and the attesting witnesses are not related whatsoever with him. In the fourth place, whereas the three attesting witnesses have no direct interest in the subject matter of the will, oppositor Maria Roxas, like the other oppositor Pedro Roxas, is a.n intestate heir ol Pablo Roxas and, therefore, :raturally interested in having the probate of said will disallowed. Ordinarily, the findings of fact of a trial court, because of bl'nefit of having seen and heard the witnesses, a.re entitled to great weight. But, in this case, the lowe1· court relied on the conclusions of experts, and this is obvious from ( 1) its recital of the circumstances that led it to believe that the will was not executed in accordance with law, and (2) its failure to analyze thf' oral evidence. It is a.lleged that the testator had another adulterous child ~Aida), sister of Reynaldo, and it is unn::;tural that he would have failed to provide for said child, if not for his brother and sister Cherein oppositors) in the will, if the testator really intended to dispose of his properties under said will. This is again a mere conjecture which should not prevail over the testimony of the attesting witnesses, not to mention the fa.ct that there is nothing in the record to show conclusively that the testator e\•er admitted that Aida is another adulterous child, coupled with the circunistance that the latter did not live with the testator. As to the omission of the herein oppositors, there might haY e been a i·eason known only to the testator why they should be excluded, or why they need no participation. That the will in question was written on poor kind of stationery, or that it was not p1·cparcd by a lawyer or notary public, or that no copies were made, is of 11 0 moment. It should be borne in mind that the will was executed in January, 1945, when everything was practically in confusion due tc the impending battles for the liberation of the Philippines, and when paper supply was almost exhausted. Aside from the fact that a will need not be prepared by or acknvwledged before a notary public, it is not improbable that testatoi.;, before the date of the will in question, had prepared or seen prcVious wills a.nd therefore '\vas fanuliar with its wording und J.egiil formalities, and that due to thE: abnormal time he undertook to prepare said will without the aid of a lawyer or iwtary public and without making copies thereof. ·~. . We do not venture to impute bias ' t~."·)he expert introduc~d dul'ing the hial, but we hasten to state· ,thb"t·the positive testimony of the three attesting witnesses ouglit to prevail O\'er the expert opinions which can.not be mathematically pr~cise but which, on the contrary, are "subject to inherent infirmities." In the instant case, it is significant that wfole Amadeo M. Cabe observed that four different fountain pens were used in signing the will, Jose C. Espinosa was unable tv determine whether the same pen was used for all the signatures. Upon the other hand, P rnf. H . Otley Beyer believes tha.t one pen was used for foe testator's signature, and a nothei· pen for the signatures of the witnesses. Too mu.::h emphasis and effort, through experts Ca~e and Espinosa, had been placed on the supposition that aftpr the body of the will had been typewritten, the sheet was removed from the machine and, after having been folded and crumpled, it was replaced in the typewriter for the inSP.rtion of the at.. testation clause. The law does not require tha.t the will should be written in ('l!e continuous act; and the supposition does not necessarily, much less conclusively, prove that the signing was not done on one occasion. For the difference in the ink diffusions and penetrations bctwceu the signatures of the testator and those of the three attesting witnesses may not be due solely to the folding and crumpling of the sheet on which the will is written, but on such other factors, as class of ink, class of pens, hnbit of writing, condition of paper, and the use of blotter. Speculations on these matters should give way to the positive declarations of the attesting witnesses. The law impliedly recognizes the almost conclusive wr,ight of the testimony of attesting witnesses when it provides that "if the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses present in the Philippines and not insane, must be produced and cxa.mined, and the death, absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the court." <Section 11, Rule 77, RuleS of Court.) The coritention made by the appellees in their oppositiern that the will was revoked by the testator when he crnmpled the same, requires no serious consideration, in view of their failure to show that the crumpling was caused with the intention tv revok~. Appellces' i·eforence to other formal defects of the will Cother than that hercinbefore dispose on a.lso needs no inquiry, because it i!! not pressed herein. · Wherefore, the appealed judgment is reversed and the will in question is hereby declared prob~ted. So order, with coi'itS against t he appellees. Feriri, Benyzon, Tuazon, Ju.qo a.ud Bautista Angelo, J. J.; concur. Mr. Chief Justice Moran, Justices Pablo and Reyes concur with the scparatf' dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice MontcmC!yor. Mr. Justice Padilla took no part. MONTEMAYOR, J., Dissenting: It is a ma.tter of deep regret to me that I have to disagree with my colleagues who ~igned the learned opinion penned by Mr. J ustice Paras. But fully .convinced of the correctness of the findings of the trial court based on the evidence on r ecord. I am eonstl'ained to dissent and to give my 'reasons for d~ing so. To the statement of fact.s made in the majority opinion, I would like to add other undisputed facts which I believe are 12~ THE LA WYERS JOURNAL March 31, 1954 not only pertinent but may a.lso shed additional light and th1·ow decisive weight in the correct determination of this case. It is a fact testified to not only by Maria Roxas for the oppositors but partly and substantially corrobo1·ated by Natividad Icasiano, thP pP:t.ition<?r and her witness, Remedills Logroi'io, that besirles Reynaldo Jfoxas, the deceased Pablo Roxas had another illegitimate t'hild by his mistress Remedios Logroi10, a daughter nam~d Aida, a few yP.ars yc.unger tha.n Reynaldo, who remained in the custody of her mother. As to Reynaldo, when a little over a year old he was tak<.>n to the marital home of Pablo Roxas and his wife Natividad Icasiano in the ye:u 1940, to live with them beca.use they had no children of their own. Pablo not only failPcl to tell his wife that Refnaldo was his own son, fruit of adulterous relations with Rt:medios, but he falRcly told his wife that the boy whose mother (vnS alrr::ady dead came from an orphanage. According to• Nat\vidad it was only after Pablo's death that she found out Reynaldb'S true paternity. There are several theories, more or less plausible as to the Intervention of Pablo Roxas in the preparation of the supposed will, F.xh. "D", and what he intended by it. One of them is that Pablo Roxas did not design Exh. "D" as his will According to Maria !foxas, her brother Pablo told her on Jan. 1, 1945, when he showed her Exh. "D" with his signature ')n it but without ~he ·attestat!on clause nor the signatures of attesting- witnesses, thP.t he did ;10t intend said document as his last will but only to counteract hi~ wife's natural reaction and to calm and assuage her inevitab!c feeling of righteous anger an-J indignation when after his J1•ath, she came as she was bound to know thnt Reynaldo was his mvn son by his mistress Remedios; because if she were led to be. lieve by the document that all hi~ property would go to her and tc. Reynaldo in ~qual pnrtions, his supposed act of liberality might at least temporarily, induce her to overlook and forgive his infidelity and prevent her from losing her affection for the boy and .sending him away from her. At first blush, this theory mi~ht appeal' to be far-fetched nnd tmreasonable because husbands do not usually commit such a~ts of deception on their wives and widows and expect to get away with it. Hut, let us not forget that Pablo Roxas was not only capable of but actually succeeded in deceiving his trusting and credulous wife far about six years, from 1940 until 1946 when he died, leading her to believe that. the child P..f.ynaldo whom he had brought into their home, was a tota.1 stranger and an orptian whom he hnd gotten from a charitable institution out of pity and to enliven their childless home. Not only this but during those six years of deception, far from being a repentant sinner, he continued his illicit and extramarital relations which resulted in the subsequent birth of another illegitim~te child, Aida. Moreover, it is rather difficult to belie\•e that Pablo Roxas should deliberately execute a will like Exh, "D" whe1·ein he entirely forgot his other younger child Aida, not giving her even a centavo from his considerable estate. The same thing may be said of his mistress, Remedios Logro·no. That he loved Re... medios or at least liked her, there could be no doubt. She was much younger than his wife. Not a few marital troubles, even tragedies have their origin in eM.erly husbands tiring of their elderly wives and feeling attracted to and falling for younger women. At IPast Pablo had sufficient attachment to and felt enough affection for Remedios so as to forget his marital vows and cohabit with her for years and let her be the mother of his two children the illegitimate. It should be borne in mind that Pablo Roxas was quite a wealthy man. Considering the products of his properties alone during h·is long married life with Natividad, there must be considerable con. jugal property which he left upon his death. Therefore he: musf; hs.ve known that out of the partnership property alone, Natividad would be well provided for in her widowhood; and yet under Exh. "D" he would be giving her one-half Cl/ 2> of all his exclusive properties, the other half to one of his two children, aml absolutely nothing to his other younger child, to their mother, and to his only brother and sister, the oppositors herein. Ordinarily, legacies are made to those who enjoy the affeeion of the testator a.nd who in his opinion need the bequest. Pablo Roxas had no legitimate children of his own and sc could do with his estate as he wished, unhampered by legitimes which may be claimed by forced heirs. It would have bPen me.re natural for him to have bequeathed his estate or a part of it not only to Reynaldo but also to his daughter Aida and to their mother Remedios Logroiio. It would have equally been more natural for him to have rememben::d his brother and sish"r Ma1-ia and Pedro, especially since the bulk of his exclusin'i properties was a donatioil from their common uncle Alejandro Roxas. Bnt as it is, under the SUJlJl'lsed will, he forgot and ignored them all 11nd heaped all his bounty and all his liberality on only one child of his and on his wife who apparently was in no need of such bounty. Again, when a person wanb to make a will involving a considerablt' and vuluable estate ns is involved in the present case (worth much more than fifty thousand pesosl, to be sure that the instrument is validly prepared in order to insure its probate. he would avail himself of the services of a lawyer, at least a notary public, presumed to be versed in such legal matters. The preparation of a. will requires special and accurate legal knowl<'dge so as to comply with the various imperative requirements of the Juw. How often have even lawyers themselves overlooked a small detail required by law, resulting in the rejection of the parties of wills by the courts. Pablo Roxas wa.s by no mums an ignorant ma.n. He had been Mayor of his town for two t<'nns. He was also a dentist. He must have 1·eali7.ed that a layr.1an should not recklessly and blithely prepare a. will and exr•ect it to conform with all the requirements of the law and pass the scrutiny of the courts. So, it is t.o be reasonably expected that if he really wanted to execute a will, he w<'uld have bud it prepared by a lawyer or a notary public. Besides, realizing that it was an important document, he would have had copies of it made and kept in different places so that if the origiual by accident or force majeure was lost or destroyr::d, his wishes a.bout the disposition of his property after his death would not be frustrated. But as it is. the parties arc agreed that Pablo Hoxas himself prepared and typed the body of Exh "D", without the benefit of legal advice and without making copies. and afterwards allowed it to be folded, not once but several times, a.nd otherwise crumpled. The foregoing considerations are in support of the throry that Pablo Roxas did not intend to make a will. A corollary theory is that after signing the body of Exh. ''D", and withllut the 1 nttestation clause, he gave it to his wife Natividad. After his death, Natividad and here relatives believing that Pablo really intended Exh. "D" as his will, but finding it to be incomplete proceeded to add the attestation clause, and the attesting witnesses being convinced that the signature of Pablo Roxas on it v•as genuine end to carry out what they thought to be the wishes and will of the deceased, in good faith signed the attestation clause, believing that by so doing they were merely certifying that the signature was that of Pablo Roxas. It is of co"Jrse unnecessary to state that under this theory, Exh. "D" may not be allowed probate. The theory entertained ·and contended for by the petitio·1er is that Pablo Roxas really intended to make a will. That he prepared anr\ typewrote the body of Exh. "D", is not disputed. But it is a fact equally undisputed that a.s Exh. "D" now appears, it wa!l made irrf'J!Ularly and in violation of all rules l)f uniformity, symmetry and continuity. The body of the iust.rument. is typewritten double spaced, and with the signature of Pablo Roxas, it fairly occupies the middlt! of the page or paper, considerinq- the snace or margin left above and bclov.o. Symmetry was observed. Then the attestation clause wai:; added, not with thtl same double spacing bnt in single space, thereby c!estroying uniformity in spacing, Furth~nnore, the elause is crowded into the remaining spac<J below, and despite thr. sing!e spacing to save room it almost reaches the bottom of the page, hardly leaving enongh space for the signatQres of the witnesses. Symmetry is thus sacrificed. What is more, and this is im .. 1•ortnnt, the vertical and horizontal alignment of the left margin and the Jines of the a.ttestation clause do not coincicie w.ith Ma.rch 31, 1954 THE LA WYE HS .JOU RN Al. 123 those of the body of Exh. "D". Moreover, the types of the letters in the attestation clause arc lighter than those in the body of the instrument, indicating a different hand with a lighter touch on the keys. In addition, we notice and fil1d that some letter on the bodv of the instl'Ument arc blurred, especinlly letter "o," whereas· the same letters in the attestation clause are clear, showing th~t the attestation clause was typewritten :i.ftcr the types of the machine had been cleaned and brushed of accummulated dirt. All this leads to the logical conclu~ion and th~ finding that after the body of Exh. "D" was: typewritten, it was removed from the typewl"iter; that later, perhaps much later the types of the machine were cleaned and brushed and the same paper, Exh. "D", was re-inserted and the attestation clause typcwrittPn by a.nether hand, not Pablo Hoxas who typewrote the body. Furthermore, and this iP. equally important, while the crevices and folds in the paper on the body of Exh. "D" be2..r and show the ink of the letters typed on thf'm, indicative of the body having been typed when the paper wz.s still smooth, unfolded and uncrumpled, on the other hand the ink in some letters in the attestation clause, especially thP letter "a" in the word "sa'', as more graphically demonstrated in the photograpl1ic enlargement, did not penetrate and rea.ch the crevices and folds in the proper caused by the folding or the crumpling, equally indicating that the attestation clause was tfped aftE:r tne paper had been folded and crumpled, p£rhaps long after the typing of the body of Exh. " D". Then, we come to the more imp1)1'ta..nt detail. The ink lines in the signature of Pahlo Roxas are clear and distinct and well-dPfincd even whPn those ink Jines meet the fo!ds 01 cl'umplings or breaks in the pa!'li:!r. On the other hand, in thi:! r.ignatures of the attesting witnesses, whue the ink linea meet those same v<>rtical folds, break<i &fld crumplings, srtid ink lines have spread out a..nd become not wPll defined because of the diffusion of the ink. This is r evealed by the photographic enlar¢ement and even to the naked eye. All this goes tC' show according not only to the expert testimoriy but also ocr own evc-ry day e'.'<r>ericnce and observation that when Pablo Roxas signed Exh. ''D", it was ·still unfolded and uncrumpled, and the surface i::.nd texture <Jf the paper still smooth, undisturbed and unbroken, while at the time that the attesting witnesses ~ffixed their signa_tures, the paper had already been folded and crumpled as shown by the diffui:.ion of the ink which had gone in and crept and spread out into the crevices and breaks in the paper Prof. BPyer who wa..<i presented as expert witness by thr petitioner admitkd the possibility that jud,2'ing from the lighter impression or type of the letters of the attestation clause, said clause may have been typewrittPn by a hand other than the onr which tYlltwrote the body. Attemnting to explain the diffusions of the ink on the ink lines on the signatures of the attesting '\\ itnesscs, he stated tha.t they may be due to the class or variety of ink used in the signatures. o-r to a difference in the texture of the paper itself or the manner in which the sil?'tlatures ar~ affixed, so-me writing wfth a heavy hand, others with a lighter hand, and whether or not a blotter was used. Chemical Engineer Espinosa, an expert introduced by the oppositors, on the basis of his expert training and knowl~dl?e of inks, acquired when he was employed in the Bureau of Science and placed in charge of the purchase of inks by the Government, t'ategorically ancf without contradiction a~surcd tl1e court that the ink used in the signature c>f Pablo Roxas and in those of the attesting witnesses ,.,.as of the same class or kind, namely, i:!'on nut!!;all. So, the possibility ">i a difference in the ink used may well be ruled out. As to the other possibilities, assumingfor a moment that all the three attesting witness\'s sign&d with a heavy hand nnd on thrP.e attesting v. itnesses s;gned with a heavy hand and on a portion of Exh. ''D" which happened b l>e porous, and used a blotter, still it is not exp!r.ined why the diffugions of th<: ink on the ink lines of their signatures was not general and all over, but occur only when said ink lines meet the fold, breaks and crumplings m the paper. From the foregoing, and in the assumption that Pablo Roxas really intended to make a will, we may gather the following inferences which to my mind are reasonable and Jcgical. Pabb Hoxas who, according to undisputed evidence owned an Under\V11od typewriter and must have lx-en quit& familiar with, if not adept, in typing c.rdinary documents but lacking the legal knowledge ar.d truini~g required for preparing a will, and ignoring the 11ecessity of attesting witnesses, most likely typewrote the body of Ex.h. " D" from a rough dra.ft he liad prepared, and then signed it. As already stated, the bo<ly standing- alone, with the signature, occupies the middle of the page, and perfectly complies with the rule of symmetry and uniformity in spacing and conforms with the good tn.ste of a good typist. ' He folded the do~ument. and kept it or els£> gave it to his wife Natividad to keep. Afterwards'. perhap~ long afterwards, he lcarndd or, was informed t~at the will was mcomplete because '1f the absence of an attestation clause and the signatures of attesting witnesses. He then had t he attestation clause typewritten by S'.lmeone who knew the phraseology of such a clause, by i·e. inserting in the typewriter the paper, Exh. "D", but after it had bceH folded and more or less crumpled. Then, he proceeded to locate the three attesting witnesses, told them that he had executed a will and wanted them to attest to it. These witnesses either being familiar with his signature or being assured by him that the signature above the typewritten name "Pablo Roxas" was his, readily signed the attestation clause either together on the same occa!>ion or singly on different occasions as he found them. On the basis of our every day observation and experience, this signing by witnesses of clause and certificates attesting to the signature of a person -signing the body of a document, without actu~\ly seeing him sign, is nothing strange or unusual. Not infrequently, we see a deed of sale or mortgage prepared by or on behalf of the parties, sig11ed by them and later taken to a notary public for acknowledgment, and the notary public more often than not, upon being assured that the document expresses the wishes and true intent of the parties, makes out and signs his certificate to the e:ffect that the parties or at least the party conveying the land or assuming the encumbrance was known to him and had appeared before him, signed and executed the document and had given the assurance that the conveyance or the assumpticn of the vb-ligation was ltis free act and deed, when a s a matter cf fa.ct, said party may never have appeared before the sa.id notary, may not be kr,own to him personally. much lf'ss, had given the a!lsura.nce already mentioned. How often judicial officers r.nd officials authorized to administer oaths have placed on a ffidavits their certificates to the effect tllat the affiants had been sworn and afterwal'(ls signed the affidavit in his (officinl's) presence, when in fa.ct the affiant had never taken the oath, and the affidavit h<:.d been prepared and signed somewhere else and all the intervention of the official was to ask the a ffiant if the signature on the affidavit was his, and the contents are true and made volunta.rily and without the use of force. The sii:ming of the attestation clause by the three attesting witnesses in this case may have been done following this quite usual and ordinary practice and all in good faith. Under this theory, it is quite clea-r thnt Exh. " D" was not duly attested to under the law which expressly requires that the testator sign in the presence of the attesting witnesses and that said witnesses sign in the presence of the testator end in tl':e presence of each other. But there is even reason to be!ieve that under the last aforementioned theory the attesting witnesses were not together on the same occasion and could not have signed in the presence of the testator and of each other. Assuming that Pablo Roxas had selected the thrcr! attesting witnesses to sign the attestatiou clause, it is hard to believe that all said witnesses could have bee...-i found L.y him in the same house and the same minute without any previous concert or arrangement. Pablo Roxas was thei~ living in the barrio of Taliptip while the house wllere he was supposed tn have found them was in a different barrio. All the thret: attesting witnesses assured the court that they did not know that 124 THE LAWYEH.S JOURNAL March 31, 1954 Pablo Roxas had executed a will and that they were going to be witnesi:es thereto. His finding them there in that house and their being all together at the same time was according to them, a pure coinciJence, and to me, tOo much of a coincidence, to merit belief. Ordinarily, when a testator executes a will he notifies his witnesses long in advance to insure attendance and then sends for them to come to his house. The execu~ion of .such a document is a solemn occasion, done only once in a lifetime. A testator does not usually go out, carrying his will, hunting for witnesses. But here, without ·any previous notification or _agreement, Pablo leaves his barrio, goes to the barrio of St<l.. Ana and there in.-0ne house, strangely enough, finds his three selected witnesses all ready for the signing. And all this in spite of the fact as shQwn by the evidence for the oppositors that in his own barrio of Taliptip Pablo had other friends of his own confidence, ind naturally that of his family, who could well have been utilized as attesting witne!ses so as to sa.ve him the trouble and the hazard of making a trip of . 4-1/? kilometers to Sta. Ana, in a horsedrawn vehicle, with a stream spanned by a destroyed bridge to negotiate. It is a story t hat requires considerable effort to believe. There is another deta.il which tho apparently of little import, nevertheless may merit consideration. While th'e body of the document, Exh. "D", bears the da.te - January 1, 1945, when Pablo Roxas signed it , the attestation clause has no date, neither does it make reference to the date appearing on . the body. Almost invariably, an attestation clause is made to bea.r a date, the same day that appears on the body of the will when the testator signed it, or else the clause makes reference to said date on the body of the will . At least that is the ~tandard form as may be gathered from books on the subject such as Jones Legal Forms Annotated, ninth ed., pp. 2069-2071, Fisher's Legal a nd Business Forms, 1948 ed. pp. 436, 437, including Modern Philippine I..e~al Forms, Vol. II, pp. 1146-1147, by Ti:>.!l:lda and Rodrigo, the latter being one of the attorn<'ys for the petitionerappellant. But why the absence of a. date on the attestati'on clause on Exh. "D", or at least a reference to the date on the body? Was it a :m'ere oversight, or was it because the witnEssell actually signed on a day later than Janua.ry 1, 1945, when Pablo Roxas signed the will, and said witnesses could not in conscience: s>;ate on the attestation cl.:luse that they all signed it on J3nuary 1, 1945? The majority opinion asserts that the best evidence as to the due execution of a will is the testimony of the attesting witnesses, a.nd that their testimony on this point is practically conclusive. This may be true when t.here is no opposition to the probate of the will. Rut when the probate is opposed, evidence in the form of oral tentimony to disprove the all~ged dUe execution of th1: will, is of course admissible and the testimony of witnesses for the opposition is just as competent, and if worthy and credible can match, even outweigh that of the attesting witnesses. Otherwise, if with the testimony of attesting witnesses to a will we &re going to dii:regard and ignore a.ny . other evidence about the due execution of the instrument, then we would be opening wide the dcor to the commission ot fraud or forgery in the execution and probate of this all-important insl:rum.!nt. An instituted heir or a legatee in a forged will could then get three of his friend to sign the attestation clause, and if the three later testified in court that the supposed testator signed the instrument in their presence end that they signed in his presence and in the presence of each other, then the rightful heiTs would forever be precluded from proving the forgery and asserting their rights in the inheritance. "The testimony of attesting witnesses to a will may be overcome by any competent evidence. • . • Such evidence may be direct, or it may be circumstantial; and expert and opinion evidence is just as competent as any other evidence. Thi;o. rule contended for by appellant would frequently baffle justice and give judicial countenance to many a highhanded fraud. - Opinion by Mr. Justice Dawson in Baird vs. Shaffer, 101 Kan. 585, 168 Pacific 836 C1917)." Sometimes, the condition and physical appearance of a document are not only competent evidence but they constitute a valuable factor which if correctly considered and evaluated in the light of surrounding circumsta".lces, can greatly help the court in determining whether said document is genuine or forged. Animated w itnesses may forget or may exaggerate or understate what they know, saw or heard or what they did. They may be biased a.nd depart from the truth or state halftruths to mislead the court in order to favor one party and prejudice another. Not so with silent witnesses such ns surrounding circumstances and facts found on the paper or object itself. Such mute witnesses play no favorites. If correctly understood and interpreted, they show and reveal the whole truth, in all its nakedness, hiding nothing, forgetting nothing, and without prejudice or mental reservation. The majority opinion says that the determination of this case in great measure hinges upon the credibility of the witnesaes. To this, I J1eartily agree. The trouble is that for no valid reason that I can see, the niajority c:>mpletely ignored the findings of the trial judge, the same official who presided over all the hearings and saw all the witnesses testify and observed their demeanor in court and was in a better position to assess the credit which each witness merits anC ·the weight to be given his testimony; the same judicial · officer who questioned and crosS-exnrnined the witnesses including the experts a.nd even looked in the stereoscopic microscope to carefully observe the enlargements and magnifications of the portions of Exh. "D", made by experts for 'the opposition. That par ty even made an offer to bring the stereoscopic micr..:>scopc to this Court so that the members of this Tribunal t.hrough personal observation and with the aid of scientific facilities could see for themselves the folds, crumplings, types, signatures and ink lines on Exh. "D", which oHer, unha.ppily had not been accepted. It seems that it was the oppositors who have offered all the opportunities and mechanical facilities to the trial court and to this Tribunal with a view to a correct determination of how a.nd when the typing and signing of the body and the attestation clause of Exh. "D" was done. I am afraid that the majority had unwittingly been unduly impressed by the testimony of the three attesting witnesses beC"auce of their qualifications. Says the majority ·opinion on this point: "In our opinion, the testimony of the three a.ttestir.g witnesses - confirmatory of the due execution of the will - deser\'es full credit, not only because of their qualifications (here. inbefore pointed out) but because their reputation for probity has not been impeached." Said qualifications are listed and described in detail in the majority opinion which I quote: "Fortunato A. Gupit is a certified public accountant. He is the dean of the College of Business Administration and the comptroller of the Arellano University, Jacinto Y. Enriquez comes from a distinguished family in Bulacan and is a student in the University of Santo Tomas. Martin Rodrigo is a businessman and landowner. Gupit is the husband of a half-Sister of the petitioner; Enriquez is a se:cond cousin of petitioner; and Rodrigo is the husba.nd of a deceased cousin of the petitioner.'' But I understand that \lp to the present, the cour~s in this jurisdiction are still weighing the testimony of witnesses on the scales of sincerity, truth, and honesty rather than on academic attainments, college degrees and soC'ial prominence. Otherwise, a party in court whose witnesses happen to be simple, ignorant but honest farmers and la.borers occupying the bottom of the social scale, who have not seen the inside of a barrio school, has absolutely no chance or show against the adverse party who may produce witnesses with college or university degrees and members o.f the aristocracy, whose names appear on the social register. I have nothing against the witnesses to the supposed will. Exh. "D". They may ha\'e testified sincerely and truthf.ully according to their lights. But I submit that the unknown and perhaps unlettered witnesses for the oppositors, with no social or academic background to boast of could be just as sincere a.nd tq.1thful. At least, the trial court had nothing to say against their testimony while at the same time, it gave no credit to the testimony of the witnesses for the petitioner as to the due execution of the will. It has Ma.rch 31, 1954 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL 125 been and is still the practice and rule in appellate courts to res.. pect the findings of a trial judge who has had an opportunity to observe the witnesses on the witness stand and to evaluate their testimony, unless- there appears in the record some fact or cir cumstance of weight and influenc!' which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted. m I see nothing in the record to warrant us in disturbing the findings of the trial eourt. In conclusion, I am of the opinion that Pablo Roxas either did not intend t.o make Exh. ..D" his will for the reason that if he did, he would have availed himself of the services of one wh:> knew how t.o draft a will, made copies thereof, and bequeath ed his estate not only t.o his child Reynaldo and his widow but also to his other child Aida, the mother of said two children, snd r,erhaps to his own brother or sister; or, assuming that Pablo Roxas intended to make a will, because· Df his ignorance of legal requirements and technicalities, in preparing the body of Exh. "D" \\"hich he signed, he left out the attestation clause and when in formed of the necessity of said clause, he had Exh. "D" re-inserted in the typewriter and the attestation clause typed by someone else and thereafter, perhaps long aft.er, he a�ed. and h!t.d the attest icg witnesses sign said cl.a.use either singly on different oceasions or on. one single occasion, but naturally, -without those witnesses having been present when he <Pablo Roxas> signed. the body of Exh. "D". Clearly, to my mind, the requirements of the law on wills has not been duly complied with. I believe that the decision appealed from should be affirmed. M01itemayor, Moran, and PabW, J.J. concur. Justict: Padilla too,1' no paTt. 126 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL March 31, 1954
Date: 1954
Rights