Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 113 views

    Gonzales Digest

    Uploaded by

    lehsem20006985
    1. Isabel Gabriel died without issue in 1961. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate Isabel's will naming her the principal beneficiary and executrix. Rizalina Gonzales opposed the petition claiming the will was invalid. 2. The trial court disallowed the probate but the Court of Appeals reversed. Gonzales appealed claiming there was no proof the three witnesses were credible. 3. The Supreme Court held that witnesses can be competent but not credible, and credibility depends on the court's evaluation of testimony. There is also no requirement for witnesses to testify about their good standing; qualifications in the Civil Code suffice.

    Copyright:

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

    Gonzales Digest

    Uploaded by

    lehsem20006985
    113 views1 page
    1. Isabel Gabriel died without issue in 1961. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate Isabel's will naming her the principal beneficiary and executrix. Rizalina Gonzales opposed the petition claiming the will was invalid. 2. The trial court disallowed the probate but the Court of Appeals reversed. Gonzales appealed claiming there was no proof the three witnesses were credible. 3. The Supreme Court held that witnesses can be competent but not credible, and credibility depends on the court's evaluation of testimony. There is also no requirement for witnesses to testify about their good standing; qualifications in the Civil Code suffice.

    Original Description:

    SUCCESSION

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Isabel Gabriel died without issue in 1961. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate Isabel's will naming her the principal beneficiary and executrix. Rizalina Gonzales opposed the petition claiming the will was invalid. 2. The trial court disallowed the probate but the Court of Appeals reversed. Gonzales appealed claiming there was no proof the three witnesses were credible. 3. The Supreme Court held that witnesses can be competent but not credible, and credibility depends on the court's evaluation of testimony. There is also no requirement for witnesses to testify about their good standing; qualifications in the Civil Code suffice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    113 views1 page

    Gonzales Digest

    Uploaded by

    lehsem20006985
    1. Isabel Gabriel died without issue in 1961. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate Isabel's will naming her the principal beneficiary and executrix. Rizalina Gonzales opposed the petition claiming the will was invalid. 2. The trial court disallowed the probate but the Court of Appeals reversed. Gonzales appealed claiming there was no proof the three witnesses were credible. 3. The Supreme Court held that witnesses can be competent but not credible, and credibility depends on the court's evaluation of testimony. There is also no requirement for witnesses to testify about their good standing; qualifications in the Civil Code suffice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gonzales

    90 SCRA 183

    v.

    CA

    FACTS:
    Isabel Gabriel died on June 7, 1961 without issue. Lutgarda Santiago (respondent), niece of Isabel, filed a petition for probate of
    Isabels will designating her as the principal beneficiary and executrix. The will was typewritten in Tagalog and was executed 2
    months
    prior
    to
    death
    of
    Isabel.
    The petition was opposed by Rizalina Gonzales (petitioner), also a niece of Isabel, on the following grounds: 1. the will is not
    genuine, 2. will was not executed and attested as required by law, 3. the decedent at the time of the making of the will did not
    have testamentary capacity due to her age and sickness, and 4. the will was procured through undue influence.
    The trial court disallowed the probate of the will but the Court of Appeals Reversed the said decision of the trial court. The
    petitioner filed a petition for review with SC claiming that the CA erred in holding that the will of the decedent was executed and
    attested as required by law when there was absolutely no proof that the 3 instrumental witnesses are credible.
    ISSUE:
    1. 1. Can a witness be considered competent under Art 820-821 and still not be considered credible as required by Art. 805?
    2. Is it required that there must be evidence on record that the witness to a will has good standing in his/her community or that
    he/she is honest or upright?
    HELD:
    1.Yes. The petitioner submits that the term credible in Article 805 requires something more than just being competent and,
    therefore, a witness in addition to being competent under Articles 820-821 must also be credible under Art. 805. The
    competency of a person to be an instrumental witness to a will is determined by the statute (Art. 820 and 821), whereas his
    credibility depends on the appreciation of his testimony and arises from the belief and conclusion of the Court that said witness
    is telling the truth. In the case of Vda. de Aroyo v. El Beaterio del Santissimo Rosario de Molo, No. L-22005, May 3, 1968, the
    Supreme Court held and ruled that: Competency as a witness is one thing, and it is another to be a credible witness, so credible
    that the Court must accept what he says. Trial courts may allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given matter because he is
    competent, but may thereafter decide whether to believe or not to believe his testimony.
    2.No. 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 for being reliable, his honesty and uprightness (such attributes are
    presumed of the witness unless the contrary is proved otherwise by the opposing party) 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.

    You might also like