Digest Dolar vs Diancin, Abada vs Abaja, Tua vs Kuan

Estate of Diancin, Teopista Dolar Vs Fidel Diancin

Facts: The will of Paulino Diancin was denied probate on the sole ground that the thumbmarks appearing were not thumbmarks of the testator. Exhibit 8 was presented; it is a document of sale containing an admitted genuine thumbmark of Paulino Diancin. Carlos Jaena, attempted to qualify as an expert gace his opinion that the thumbmarks were not made by the same person. The trial judge expressed his opinion that great differences existed between the two marks. Issue: The sole issue is whether the will may be probated despite the alleged discrepancy between the thumbmarks? Ruled: The Supreme Court through Justice Malcolm found error on part of the trial court. In cases of dispute as to the will there is an obvious mean to ascertain whether the same is genuine. Resort may be had on the testimony of the instrumental witnesses present during the execution of the will. In the case at bar, the three instrumental witnesses were united in testifying on matters concerning the execution of the will. Moreover a certain Diosdado Dominado testified; that he was the one who prepared the will for Diancin, that the thumbmarks are those of Diancin, and that he saw Diancin make these impressions.

Testate Estate of Abada Versus Alipio Abaja

Facts: Abada died sometime in May 1940. His widow Paula Toray died sometime in September 1943. Both died without legitimate children. Alipio C. Abaja ("Alipio") filed with the a petition for the probate of the will of Abada. Abada allegedly named as his testamentary heirs his natural children Eulogio Abaja ("Eulogio") and Rosario Cordova. Alipio is the son of Eulogio. Nicanor Caponong opposed the petition on the ground that Abada left no will. Furthermore it should be disallowed for the following reasons: 1. it was not executed and attested as required by law; 2. it was not intended as the last will of the testator; and 3. it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence RTC admitted to probate the will of Toray. Since the oppositors did not file any motion for reconsideration, the order became final and executor Special Administratrix of the estate of (Caponong-Noble) moved for the dismissal of the petition for probate of the will. The RTC denied the motion in. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Resolution of the RTC Issue 1: What laws apply to the probate of the last will of Abada? Abada executed his will on 4 June 1932. The laws in force at that time are the Old Civil Code, and the Code of Civil Procedure which governed the execution of wills before the enactment of the New Civil Code. Issue 2: Whether the will of Abada requires acknowledgment before a notary public? No. under the Code of Civil Procedure which repealed Article 685 of the Old Civil Code the intervention of a notary public is not necessary. Issue 3: Whether the will must expressly state that it is written in a language or dialect known to the testator? No. There is no statutory requirement to state that the testator knew the language or dialect used in the will. This matter can be rpved by evidence aliunde Issue 4: Whether the will of Abada has an attestation clause, if so, whether the attestation clause complies with the requirements of the applicable laws?

Yes there is an attestation clause. the argument of Caponong-Noble is correct on the finding that the attestation clause did not indicate the number of witnesses. However a close inspection shows that three witnesses signed it. However the court opted to apply the liberal construction of Abada’s will. An attestation clause is made for the purpose of preserving, in permanent form, a record of the facts attending the execution of the will, so that in case of failure of the memory of the subscribing witnesses, or other casualty, they may still be proved. A will, therefore, should not be rejected where its attestation clause serves the purpose of the law.

Yap Tua Versus Yap Ca Kuan Facts: Perfecto Gabriel representing petitioner presented a petition that the will of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong be admitted to probate. The will was signed by the deceased as well as Anselmo Zacarias, Severo Tabora, and Timoteo Paez. The Court ordered the probate of the will. Gabriel La O the appointed guardian ad litem presented a motion alleging that the will was null. The judge granted the motion and ordered that rehearing should take place. After rehearing, Judge Crossfield reached allowed the probate of the will. Issues: Issue 1: Whether undue influence existed? No. True, some witnesses testified that the brother of Tomasa attempted to unduly influence her in the exectution. Nevertheless, there were others that testified that Lorenzo did not. The lower court having the opportunity to examine the witnesses is in the best position to ascertain the truth. Issue 2: Whether Tomasa Caong was not of sound mind during the execution? While the testimony of Dr. Papa may have great weight, it relates to a period at least twenty four hours prior the execution of the will. Witnesses testified that during the execution of the will, Caong was of sound mind and even asked for a pen and an ink and held the will for at least ten to fifteen minutes before signing the same. Issue 3: whether the lower court erred in declaring that the signatures of Tomasa Caong in both wills are identical? It was ruled that regardless of the ruling of the lower court, the mere fact that Tomasa executed a prior will shall not be a presumption that she did not execute a subsequent will. Moreover, it is not mandated that the testator’s signature be similar. It would be sufficient that the person making his will to make a mark, place his initials, or any part of his name. Tomasa even not signing in full did signed using her given name “Tomasa” which satisfies the law’s requirement.