Pascual V Dela Cruz

 

PASCUAL v. DELA CRUZ  CRUZ  May. 30, 1969 | REYES, JBL, J.| Wills > Allowance and Disallowance > Grounds PETITIONERS:: TESTATE ESTATE OF CATALINA DELA CRUZ, ANDRES PASCUAL PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS:: PEDRO DELA CRUZ, ET AL RESPONDENTS SUMMARY:: Catalina died, left a will naming Pascual heir. Nephews and Nieces opposed, alleging SUMMARY inconsistencies in the testimonies. TC admitted probate. SC affirmed, taking into account the 8-year difference between time of signing and time of testimony. . DOCTRINE:: See Held #s 2-4 DOCTRINE FACTS:  FACTS:  1. 2 Jan 1960: Catalina Dela Cruz, 89, died, single and without any surviving ascendants or descendants. 2.

Andres Pascual filed a petition petition for the probate of her her will. Pascual was named executor and heir therein.

3.

Respondents, nieces and nephews of Catalina, opposed, opposed, alleging that Catalina was mentally incapable of disposing her properties by will at time of execution; that such was procured through undue influence, etc; and that her signature was procured through fraud.

4.

Probate court admitted the will. Respondents appealed directly to SC (properties iinvolved nvolved were valued at over 300k)

5.

Respondents: the testimonies of the witnesses and the Notary Public were inconsistent and contradictory; that the will was not signed by all the witnesses in the presence of one another. (TC: the instrument was signed in 1954, while the testimony testimon y was given in 1962 1962 –  – 8  8 years difference; not unreasonable for witness to forget some details. What is important is that there be unanimity and certainty in their testimony re: the signatures of the testatrix, the witnesses, and the notary public, and the fact that they were all present at time of signing).

ISSUE: WN the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies would prohibit the will from being probated? NO HELD: 1. Where a will is contested, the subscribing with are generally regarded as the best qualified to testify on its due execution. However, it is similarly recognized that for the testimony of such witnesses to be entitled to full credit, it must be reasonable and unbiased, and not overcome by competent evidence, direct or circumstantial, for it must be remembered that the law does not simply require the presence of three instrumental witnesses; it demands that the witnesses be credible 2. The Court agreed with the TC that the inconsistencies inconsistencies (weather  (weather condition at the time the will was executed; the sequence of the signing by the witnesses; and the length of time it took to complete the act) were not important details that could have been affected by the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory. memory. 3. Inconsistencies, by themselves, would not alter the probative value of their testimonies on the due execution of the will. will. 4. (Estate of Javellana v. Javellana) For the purpose of determining the due execution of a will, it is not necessary that the instrumental witnesses should give an accurate and detailed account of the proceeding, such as recalling the order of the signing of the document by the said witnesses. It is sufficient that they have seen or at least were so situated at the moment that they could have seen each other sign, had they wanted to do so.   5. Catalina, at the time, was suffering from rheumatism rheumatism (had to wear thick socks and soft sho shoes), es), and it would not have been improbable that she had Pascual secure witnesses. The main detail considered by the Court is the one that must have stuck in their minds - that they did witness the

 

6.

7.

8.

9.

signing of the will. That they did so is attested by their signatures and those of the deceased testatrix, which are nowhere impugned; nor is there any claim by appellants that the latter was incapable of reading and understanding the will that she signed. In fact, the evidence is that she did read it before signing. The authorities are to the effect that friendly relations of the witnesses with the testator or the beneficiaries do not affect the credibility of the former. Respondent’s main contention: Tape recording (taken without their knowledge) between the witnesses (Jiongco and Cruz) wherein one of them said that when he signed the will, the other signatures were already there, and that the other witnesses were not present then. TC, as adopted by the SC: a. Jiongco denied that the voice in the recording was his, and no proof was given to show that Jiongco was indeed the one in the recording. Apparently, there were similarities in Jiongco’s voice during trial and in the recording, but the Court gave credence to the testimony made by him under oath as he was subjected to cross-examination. b. The recording said that he signed the will only on 1958/1959, but iin n the Notarial Registry, the will was recorded on 1954. SC stated that it was not the first time it admitted probate of a will despite inconsistencies in the testimonies, for as long as it is satisfied that the will was executed and attested to in the manner prescribed by law. (As to fraud) the Court noted that Pascual was not not a stranger in the life of Catalina. It was also found that he had also been named sole heir to the properties of the sisters of Catalina. Further, respondents presented no proof to prove that such fraud was present in this case. Their main contention lied upon the statement by Pascual that Catalina “did not like to sign anything unless I

knew it” it”. 10. (As to the selection of the witnesses) Pascual selected Dr. Sanchez, and not the relatives of Catalina, as it would have meant the disclosure of the terms of her will to those interested in her succession but who were not favored by her, thereby exposing her to unpleasant importunity and recriminations that an aged person would naturally seek to avoid. 11. Respondents: (American jurisprudence) assumption of undue influence if beneficiary participates in drafting and execution of will. 12. SC: Not applicable in this case. Pascual was a lawyer, and in the normal course of events, a lawyer would follow the instructions of the testatrix. Further, a member of the bar in good standing may not be convicted of unprofessional conduct or of having conspired to falsify a statement, except upon clear proof.