Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    20 Cabang v. Delfinado

    Uploaded by

    Nico Geraldez
    1. The will of the decedent Celestino Delfinado is being contested by his son Martin Delfinado who claims the will was not validly executed. 2. To prove the will, the petitioner Cabang, Celestino's wife, only called one of the three subscribing witnesses, even though the other two were living within the court's jurisdiction. 3. The court ruled this was an error and that to validly prove a will, all three subscribing witnesses must be called unless there is a showing they cannot be obtained. The opponent has the right to cross-examine all witnesses to prevent fraud. Since only one was called here, the will was not sufficiently

    Copyright:

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

    20 Cabang v. Delfinado

    Uploaded by

    Nico Geraldez
    60 views2 pages
    1. The will of the decedent Celestino Delfinado is being contested by his son Martin Delfinado who claims the will was not validly executed. 2. To prove the will, the petitioner Cabang, Celestino's wife, only called one of the three subscribing witnesses, even though the other two were living within the court's jurisdiction. 3. The court ruled this was an error and that to validly prove a will, all three subscribing witnesses must be called unless there is a showing they cannot be obtained. The opponent has the right to cross-examine all witnesses to prevent fraud. Since only one was called here, the will was not sufficiently

    Original Title

    20 Cabang v. Delfinado.docx

    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. The will of the decedent Celestino Delfinado is being contested by his son Martin Delfinado who claims the will was not validly executed. 2. To prove the will, the petitioner Cabang, Celestino's wife, only called one of the three subscribing witnesses, even though the other two were living within the court's jurisdiction. 3. The court ruled this was an error and that to validly prove a will, all three subscribing witnesses must be called unless there is a showing they cannot be obtained. The opponent has the right to cross-examine all witnesses to prevent fraud. Since only one was called here, the will was not sufficiently

    Copyright:

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

    20 Cabang v. Delfinado

    Uploaded by

    Nico Geraldez
    1. The will of the decedent Celestino Delfinado is being contested by his son Martin Delfinado who claims the will was not validly executed. 2. To prove the will, the petitioner Cabang, Celestino's wife, only called one of the three subscribing witnesses, even though the other two were living within the court's jurisdiction. 3. The court ruled this was an error and that to validly prove a will, all three subscribing witnesses must be called unless there is a showing they cannot be obtained. The opponent has the right to cross-examine all witnesses to prevent fraud. Since only one was called here, the will was not sufficiently

    Copyright:

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

    Cabang v.

    Delfinado person, in his presence and by his express


    Allowance or Disallowance of Wills direction, and that the attestation does not comply
    Ponente J. TRENT with law. The case proceeded to trial, the petitioner
    presenting as witnesses the widow Dorotea
    Cabang, Antonio Flor Mata, and Paciano Romero,
    Summary the latter being one of the subscribing witnesses.
    The opposition called only one witness, Martin
    1. Facts: The will of the decedent is being questioned Delfinado. The petitioner presented a motion asking
    because there has been doubt as to the truthfulness that the case be reopened for the purpose of
    of such will because it is stated that the decedent receiving the testimony of the other two subscribing
    did not know how to read and write. To prove the witnesses, who were then living in Manila and
    will however, only 1 out of 3 of the subscribing Nueva Ecija. No reason whatever appears in the
    witnesses was called to testify for the validity of the record why these witnesses were not present and
    will. no question was raised either in the court below or
    2. Issue: WON the 1 subscribing witness was enough in this court with reference to the consideration by
    to prove the validity and existence of the will the trial court to the testimony taken upon the first
    3. Ruling: NO. The rule that no will shall be valid to hearing. So it must be presumed that the petitioner
    pass any estate, real or personal, unless "attested did not desire to present these two witnesses and
    and subscribed by three or more credible that she had no objection to the consideration of the
    witnesses," is a matter of substantive law and an testimony already taken.
    element of the will's validity. The rule that the 3. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of
    attesting witnesses must be called to prove a will for First Instance of the Province of Pangasinan,
    probate is one of preference made so by statute. probating a document purporting to be the last will
    and testament of the deceased Celestino
    Facts Delfinado.

    1. (Parties) – Petitioner here is Cabang the wife of the Issue


    Decedent and the respondent is Martin Delfinado
    son of the Decedent. WON the court erred in admitting the will to probate without
    2. (Antecedents) – Martin Delfinado, son of Celestino having two of the subscribing witnesses called, although
    Delfinado to his first marriage filed an opposition to they were living within the jurisdiction of the court, or for
    the allowance of the will, alleging that the will was not requiring any showing why they were not produced.
    not signed by the deceased, nor by any other
    Held

    The judgment appealed from is reversed. The rule that no


    will shall be valid to pass any estate, real or personal,
    unless "attested and subscribed by three or more credible
    witnesses," is a matter of substantive law and an element
    of the will's validity. The rule that the attesting witnesses
    must be called to prove a will for probate is one of
    preference made so by statute. In proving the contested
    will at Tayug only one attestor was presented, although the
    record showed that the other two were living, one in Manila
    and the other in Nueva Ecija. It was an error to admit the
    will to probate without calling all the attesting witnesses or
    requiring a showing that they could not be obtained. This
    rule of evidence is not to be confused with rules of quantity.
    There have been several reasons given for this rule of
    preference for the attesting witnesses, one reason being
    that the party opposing the claim of proper execution of the
    will has a right to the benefit of cross-examining the
    attesting witnesses as to fraud, duress, or other matters of
    defense. The law places these witnesses "around the
    testator to ascertain and judge of his capacity" for
    the purpose of preventing frauds. The soundness of the
    rule is well illustrated in the case under consideration. Here
    the attesting clause was omitted and the testator signed
    by mark. The due execution of the will is still doubtful and
    concludes that the proponent did not comply with the
    provisions of the law in the presentation of her case.

    You might also like