.

81, A A 31, 1978 393

Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal
*
No. L-40804. Jan ar 31, 1978.

ROSARIO FELICIANO VDA. DE RAMOS, MIGUEL

DANILA, RAYMUNDO A. DANILA, CONSOLACION
SANTOS, MIGUEL G. DANILA, AMOR DANILA,
MOISES MARTINEZ, MIGUELA GAVINO, MELITON
NISTA, PRIMITIVA NISTA, HEIRS OF DANIEL NISTA,
MOISES NISTA, DOMINGO NISTA and ADELAIDA
NISTA, petitioners, . COURT OF APPEALS,
MARCELINA (MARTINA) GUERRA and THE HEIRS OF
BUENAVENTURA GUERRA, respondents.

S ccession; Wills; Form of ills; Solemni in he e ec ion of

ills; p rpose of. The solemnit surrounding the e ecution of a
will is attended b some intricacies not usuall within the
comprehension of an ordinar la man. The object is to close the
door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of the will
and testament, and to guarantee their truth and authenticit . If
there should be an stress on the participation of law ers in the
e ecution of a will, other

______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

3 4

394 E EC E A A ED

Vda. de Ramos s. Co r of Appeals

than an interested part , it cannot be less than the e ercise of

their primar dut as members of the Bar to uphold the loft
purpose of the law.
 Same; Same; Same; A es a ion cla se; A es a ion cla se a
separa e memorand m or record of fac s s rro nding he cond c
of he e ec ion of he ill. Unlike other deeds, ordinar wills b
necessit of law must contain an attestation clause which,
significantl , is a separate memorandum or record of the facts
surrounding the conduct of e ecution. Once signed b the
attesting witnesses, it affirms that compliance with the
indispensable legal formalities had been observed. The attestation
clause basicall contradicts the pretense of undue e ecution which
later on ma be made b the attesting witnesses. In the
attestation clause, the witnesses do not merel attest to the
signature of the testatri but also to the proper e ecution of the
will, and their signatures following that of the testatri show that
the have in fact attested not onl to the genuineness of the
testatri s signature but also to the due e ecution of the will as
embodied in the attestation clause. B signing the will, the
witnesses impliedl certified to the truth of the facts which admit
to probate, including the sufficienc of e ecution, the capacit of
the testatri , the absence of undue influence, and the like.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Al ho gh a es ing i nesses es if
agains he d e e ec ion of he ill, ill ma be allo ed if co r
sa isfiea from es imon of o her i nesses and from all e idence
presen ed ha ill be e ec ed and a es ed in he manner
req ired b la . All the attesting witnesses to a will, if
available, must be called to prove the will. Under this
circumstances, the become forced witnesses and their
declaration derogator to the probate of the will need not bind the
proponent, hence, the latter ma present other proof of due
e ecution even if contrar to the testimon of some or all of the
attesting witnesses. As a rule, if an or all of the subscribing
witnesses testif against the due e ecution of the will, or do not
remember having attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful
credibilit , the will ma , nevertheless, be allowed if the court is
satisfied from the testimon of other witnesses and from all the
evidence presented that the will was e ecuted and attested in the
manner required b law. Accordingl , although the subscribing
witnesses to a contested will are the best witnesses in connection
with its due e ecution, to deserve full credit, their testimon must
be reasonable, and unbiased; if otherwise, it ma be overcome b
an competent evidence, direct or circumstantial.

3 5

. 81, A A 31, 1978 395

Vda. de Ramos s. Co r of Appeals

 Same; Same; Same; Same; Tes imon of a orne as a es ing
i ness o a ill en i led o grea eigh ; Reasons. In weighing
the testimon of the attesting witnesses to a will, the statements
of a competent attorne , who has been charged with the
responsibilit of seeing to the proper e ecution of the instrument,
is entitled to greater weight than the testimon of a person
casuall called to participate in the act, supposing of course that
no motive is revealed that should induce the attorne to
prevaricate. The reason is that the mind of the attorne being
conversant of the instrument, is more likel to become fi ed on
details, and he is more likel than other persons to retain those
incidents in his memor .
Same; Same; Same; Same; In er en ion of no ar p blic in e -
ec ion of ill deser es grea considera ion; Reasons. The
function of the Notar Public is, among others, to guard against
an illegal or immoral arrangements in the e ecution of a will. In
the absence of an showing of self-interest that might possibl
have warped his judgment and twisted his declaration, the
intervention of a Notar Public, in his professional capacit , in
the e ecution of a will deserves great consideration.
Same; Same; Allo ance of ills; Proba e proceedings no
ad ersar in charac er. The probate of a will is a special
proceeding not imbued with adversar character, wherein courts
should rela the rules on evidence to the end that nothing less
than the best evidence of which the matter is susceptible should
be presented to the court before a purported will ma be probated
or denied probate.
Same; Same; Pho ographs or pic res sho ing he ac of
i nesses signing he ill in he presen s of he es a or and of
each o her; Absence of an pho ograph or pic re sho ing he ac
of he es a or signing he ill; Effec of. The onl pictures
available are those which show the witnesses signing the will in
the presence of the testatri and of each other does not belie the
probabilit that the testatri also signed the will before the
presence of the witnesses. Pictures are worth onl of what the
show and prove and not of what the do not speak of including the
events the failed to capture. The failure to imprint in
photographs all the stages in the e ecution of the will does not
serve an persuasive effect nor have an evidentiar value to
prove that one vital and indispensable requisite has not been
acted on. Much less can it defeat, b an ordinar or special
reason, the presentation of other competent evidence intended to
confirm a fact otherwise e istent but not confirmed b the
photographic evidence.

3 6
396 E EC E A A ED

Vda. de Ramos s. Co r of Appeals

Same; Same; Pres mp ion of reg lari in he e ec ion of he

ill; Nega i e es imon ; Effec of. The presumption of regularit
can of course be overcome b clear and convincing evidence to the
contrar , but not easil b the mere e pedienc of the negative
testimon of two attesting witnesses that the did not see the
testatri sign the will. A negative testimon does not enjo equal
standing with a positive assertion, and faced with the convincing
appearance of the will, such negative statement must be
e amined with e tra care. For in this regard, the condition and
ph sical appearance of a questioned document constitute a
valuable factor which, if correctl evaluated in the light of
surrounding circumstances, ma help in determining whether it
is genuine or forged. Subscribing witnesses ma forget or
e aggerate what the reall know, saw, heard or did; the ma be
biased and, therefore, tell onl half-truths to mislead the court or
favor one part to the prejudice of the others. This cannot be said
of the condition and ph sical appearance of the questioned
document. Both, albeit silent, will reveal the naked truth, hiding
nothing, forgetting nothing, and e aggerating nothing.

APPEAL b a of certiorari of the decision of the Co rt of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Co rt.
E e C. Hida g for petitioners.
R S. B i & F e i M. P i for pri ate
respondents.

GUERRERO, J.:
1
Appeal b a of certiorari of the decision of the Co rt of
Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 49915-R, entitled Adelaida Nista,
Petitioner-Appellee, ers s B ena ent ra G erra, et al.,
Oppositors-Appellants, den ing and disallo ing the
probate of the second last ill and codicil of the late
E genia Danila pre io sl declared probated b the Co rt
of First Instance of Lag na, Branch III at San Pablo Cit .

1 F D ,J M D. B , ponen e, J A
R J G P. R , .P . 527 (19410.

3 7

. 81, A A 31, 1978 397

 Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal

The facts are stated in the appealed decision, the pertinent

portions of hich state:

I J 2, 1966, A N ,
,
M 9, 1963 (E H) A
18, 1963 (E L) E D M 21,
1966. T ,

. S

P10,000.00,
R .
B M (M ) G ,
J 18, 1966 A 19,
1967,
F G
E D (E 1);
(E H L)
;

; E D
N 5, 1951 (E 3)
(E 4)
,
.

On November 4, 1968, the petitioner and the oppositors, assisted

b their respective counsels, entered into a Compromise
Agreement with the following terms and conditions, thus:

1. That oppositors Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina

(Martina) Guerra are the legall adopted son and
daughter, respectivel , of the deceased spouses, Florentino
Guerra and Eugenia Danila;
2. That Florentino Guerra pre-deceased Eugenia Danila;
that Eugenia Danila died on Ma 21, 1966, at San Pablo
Cit , but during her lifetime, she had alread sold,
donated or disposed of all her properties, some of which to
Marcelina (Martina) Guerra, as indicated and confirmed
in paragraph 13 of the Complaint in Civil Case No. SP-
620, entitled Marcelina Guerra versus Adelaida Nista, et
al., and which we hereb likewise admit and confirm;

3
398 C A A D
Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal

3. That, however, with respect to the parcel of riceland

covered b TCT No. T-5559 of the Register of Deeds of San
Pablo Cit , which oppositors believe to be the estate left
and undisposed of at the time of the death of the owner
thereof, Eugenia Danila, it now appears that there is a
Deed of Donation covering the same together with another
parcel of coconut land situated at Barrio San Ignacio, San
Pablo Cit , with an area of 19,905 sq.m., and covered b
Ta Declaration No. 31286, e ecuted b the late Eugenia
Danila in favor of Adelaida Nista, as per Doc. No. 406,
Page No. 83, Series of 1966 under Notarial Register III of
Notar Public Pio Aquino of San Pablo Cit ;
4. That inasmuch as the above-mentioned parcel of coconut
land has been earlier donated inter vivos and validl
conve ed on November 15, 1965 b the late Eugenia
Danila to Marcelina (Martina) Guerra as shown b Doc.
No. 237, Page No. 49, Series of 1965, under Notarial
Register XV of Notar Public Att . Romulo S. Brion of San
Pablo Cit , the inclusion of said parcel in the subsequent
donation to Adelaida Nista is admittedl considered a
mistake and of no force and effect and will in no wa
prejudice the ownership and right of Marcelina (Martina)
Guerra over the said parcel; that as a matter of fact,
whatever rights and interests Adelaida Nista has or ma
still have thereon are alread considered waived and
renounced in favor of Marcelina (Martina) Guerra;
5. That in view of the fact that the riceland mentioned in
paragraph 3 of the foregoing appears to have alread been
disposed of b Eugenia Danila in favor of petitioner
Adelaida Nista, which the parties hereto do not now
contest, there is therefore no more estate left b the said
deceased Eugenia Danila to be disposed of b the will
sought to be probated in this proceedings; that
consequentl , and for the sake of peace and harmon
among the relations and kins and adopted children of the
deceased Eugenia Danila, and with the further aim of
settling differences among themselves, the will and codicil
of Eugenia Danila submitted to this Honorable Court b
the petitioner for probate, are considered abrogated and
set aside;
6. That as the late Eugenia Danila has incurred debts to
private persons during her lifetime, which in addition to
the burial and incidental e penses amounts to SIX
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS (P6,800.00) her
 adopted daughter, Marcelina (Martina) Guerra is now
determined to settle the same, but herein petitioner
Adelaida Nista hereb agrees to contribute to Marcelina
(Martina) Guerra for the settlement of the said
indebtedness in the amount of THREE THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDRED PESOS (P3,400.00), Philippine
Currenc , the same to be delivered b Adelaida Nista to
Marcelina (Martina) Cuerra at the latter s residence at
Ri al Avenue, San Pablo Cit , on or about Februar 28,
1969;

. 81, A A 31, 1978 399

Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal

7. That should there be an other propert of the deceased

Eugenia Danila, that ma later on be discovered to be
undisposed of as et b Eugenia Danila during her
lifetime, the same should be considered as e clusive
propert of her adopted children and heirs, Buenaventura
Guerra and Marcelina (Martina) Guerra, and an right of
the petitioner and signatories hereto, with respect to said
propert or properties, shall be deemed waived and
renounced in favor of said Buenaventura and Marcelina
(Martina) Guerra; and
8. That with the e ception of the foregoing agreement,
parties hereto waived and renounce further claim against
each other, and the above-entitled case. (E h. 6)

This Agreement was approved b the lower court in a judgment

reading as follows:
WHEREFORE, said compromise agreement, being not
contrar to public polic , law and moral, the same is hereb
approved and judgment is hereb rendered in accordance with the
terms and conditions set forth in the above-quoted compromise
agreement, which is hereb made an integral part of the
dispositive portion of this decision, and the parties are strictl
enjoined to compl with the same. (E h. 7)
On November 16, 1968, Rosario de Ramos, Miguel Danila,
Feli Danila, Miguel Cavino, Amor Danila, Consolacion Santos
and Miguel Danila, son of the late Fortunato Danila, filed a
motion for leave to intervene as co petitioners alleging that being
instituted heirs or devisees, the have rights and interests to
protect in the estate of the late Eugenia Danila. The also filed a
repl partl admitting and den ing the material allegations in the
opposition to the petition and alleging among other things, that
oppositors repudiated their institution as heirs and e ecutors
when the failed to cause the recording in the Register of Deeds of
San Pablo Cit the will and testament dated November 5, 1951
(E hibit 3) in accordance with the Rules and committed acts of
ingratitude when the abandoned the testatri and denied her
support after the managed, through fraud and undue influence,
to secure the schedule of partition dated Januar 15, 1962. The
Intervenors pra ed for the probate and/or allowance of the will
and codicil (E hibits H and L), respectivel and the appointment
of an of them as administrator of said estate.
On December 6, 1968, the intervenors also filed a motion for
new trial and/or re-hearing and/or relief from judgment and to set
aside the judgment based on compromise dated November 5,
1968. The oppositors interposed an opposition to the motion to
which the intervenors filed their repl .
The lower court resolved the motions in an order the
dispositive portion reading, thus:

400

400 C A A D
Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereb makes the

following dispositions

(1) Movants Rosario de Ramos, Miguel G. Danila, Miguela

Gavino, Amor Danila, Consolacion Santos, Miguel A.
Danila and Ra mundo Danila are allowed and admitted to
intervene to this proceeding as Part Petitioners; and
likewise admitted in their repl to the amended opposition
of November 11, 1968;
(2) The compromise agreement dated October 15, 1968 b and
between Petitioner Adelaida Nista and oppositors
Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina Guerra (Martina), is
disapproved, e cept as regards their respective lawful
rights in the subject estate; and, accordingl , the
judgment on compromise rendered b this Court on
November 5, 1968 is reconsidered and set aside; and
(3) The original Petition and amended opposition to probate
of the alleged will and codicil stand.

The lower court also denied the motion for the appointment of
a special administrator filed b the intervenors.

A motion for reconsideration of the foregoing order was filed

b the intervenors co-petitioners but the motion was denied.
 On Februar 9, 1971, a motion for the substitution of Irene,
Crispina, Cristino, Casiano, Eriberto, Felisa, Guerra in place of
their father, the oppositor Buenaventura Guerra who died on
Januar 23, 1971, was filed and granted b the lower court.

After trial on the merits, the lo er co rt rendered its

decision dated J l 6, 1971 allo ing the probate of the ill.
In that decision, altho gh t o of the attesting itnesses,
Odon Sarmiento and Rosendo Pa , testified that the did
not see the testatri E genia Danila sign the ill b t that
the same as alread signed b her hen the affi ed their
o n signat res thereon, the trial co rt ga e more eight
and merit to the straight-for ard and candid testimon of
Att . Ricardo Barcenas, the Notar P blic ho assisted in
the e ec tion of the ill, affirming that the testatri and
the three (3) instr mental itnesses signed the ill in the
presence of each other, and that ith respect to the codicil,
the same manner as like ise obser ed as corroborated to
b the testimon of another la er, Att . Man el Al ero
ho as also present d ring the e ec tion of the codicil.
The dispositi e portion of the decision reads:

401

. 81, A A 31, 1978 401

Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal

WHEREFORE, it appearing that the late Eugenia Danila had

testamentar capacit when she e ecuted the will, E h. H., and
the codicil, E h. L, and that said will and codicil were dul signed
b her and the three attesting witnesses and acknowledged before
a Notar Public in accordance with the formalities prescribed b
law, the said will and codicil are hereb declared probated. No
evidence having been adduced regarding the qualification and
fitness of an of the intervenors-co-petitioners to act as e ecutors,
the appointment of e ecutors of the will and codicil is held
pending until after due hearing on the matter.
SO ORDERED .

Oppositors Marcelina G erra and the heirs of

B ena ent ra G erra appealed the foregoing decision to
the Co rt of Appeals. The latter co rt, in its decision dated
Ma 12, 1975 r led that the lo er co rt acted correctl in
setting aside its j dgment appro ing the Compromise
Agreement and in allo ing the inter enors-co-petitioners
to participate in the instant probate proceedings; ho e er,
it disallo ed the probate of the ill on the gro nd that the
e idence failed to establish that the testatri E genia
Danila signed her ill in the presence of the instr mental
itnesses in accordance ith Article 805 of the Ci il Code,
as testified to b the t o s r i ing instr mental itnesses.
In this present appeal, petitioners igoro sl insists on
constit tional gro nds the n llit of the decision of
respondent co rt b t We deem it needless to consider the
same as it is not necessar in resol ing this appeal on the
follo ing assigned errors:

(A) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED GRAVELY IN

NOT HAVING GIVEN WEIGHT TO THE
ATTESTATION CLAUSES IN THE TESTAMENT
AND CODICIL, ANNEX B (PETITION) AND
INSTEAD IT GAVE CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONIES OR BIASED WITNESSES OVER
THEIR OWN ATTESTATION CLAUSES AND
THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND
NOTARIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE
NOTARY PUBLIC; AND
(B) THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
HAVING DENIED THE PROBATE OF THE WILL
AND CODICIL DESPITE CONVINCING
EVIDENCE FOR THEIR ALLOWANCE.

402

402 C A A D
Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal

We re erse the j dgment of the Co rt of Appeals and

restore the decision of the trial co rt allo ing probate of
the ill and codicil in q estion.
The main point in contro ers here is hether or not the
last testament and its accompan ing codicil ere e ec ted
in accordance ith the formalities of the la , considering
the complicated circ mstances that t o of the attesting
itnesses testifed against their d e e ec tion hile other
non- s bscribing itnesses testified to the contrar .
Petitioners arg e that the attestation cla ses of the ill
and codicil hich ere signed b the instr mental
itnesses are admissions of d e e ec tion of the deeds,
th s, pre enting the said itnesses from pre aricating
later on b testif ing against d e e ec tion. Petitioners
f rther maintain that it is error for respondent co rt to
gi e credence to the testimon of the biased itnesses as
against their o n attestation to the fact of d e e ec tion
and o er the testimonial acco nt of the Notar P blic ho
as also present d ring the e ec tion and before hom,
rightafter, the deeds ere ackno ledged.
Pri ate respondents, on the other hand, reiterate in
their contention the declaration of the t o s r i ing
itnesses, Odon Sarmiento and Rosendo Pa , that the ill
as not signed b the testatri before their presence, hich
is strengthened b t o photographic e idence sho ing onl
the t o itnesses in the act of signing, there being no
pict re of the same occasion sho ing the testatri signing
the ill. Respondent co rt holds the ie that here there
as an opport nit to take pict res, it is not
nderstandable h pict res ere taken of the itnesses
and not of the testatri . It concl des that the absence of the
latter s pict re to complete the e idence belies the
testimon of Att . Barcenas that the testatri and the
itnesses did sign the ill and the codicil in the presence of
each other.
The oppositors arg ment is ntenable. There is ample
and satisfactor e idence to con ince Us that the ill and
codicil ere e ec ted in accordance ith the formalities
req ired b la . It appears positi el and con incingl that
the doc ments ere prepared b a la er, Att . Man el
Al ero. The e ec tion of the same as e identl s per ised
b his
403

. 81, A A 31, 1978 403

Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal

associate, Att . Ricardo Barcenas and before hom the

deeds ere also ackno ledged. The solemnit s rro nding
the e ec tion of a ill is attended b some intricacies not
s all ithin the comprehension of an ordinar la man.
The object is to close the door against bad faith and fra d,
to a oid s bstit tion of the ill and 2 testament, and to
g arantee their tr th and a thenticit . If there sho ld be
an stress on the participation of la ers in the e ec tion
of a ill, other than an interested part , it cannot be less
than the e ercise of their primar d t as members of the
Bar to phold the loft p rpose of the la . There is no
sho ing that the abo e-named la ers had been remiss in
their s orn d t . Conseq entl , respondent co rt failed to
consider the pres mption of reg larit in the e ec tion of
the q estioned doc ments. There ere no incidents
bro ght to the attention of the trial co rt to aro se
s spicion of anomal . While the opposition alleged fra d
and nd e infl ence, no e idence as presented to pro e
their occ rrence. There is no q estion that each and e er
page of the ill and codicil carr the a thentic signat res
of E genia Danila and the three (3) attesting itnesses.
Similarl , the attestation cla ses, far from being deficient,
ere properl signed b the attesting itnesses. Neither is
it disp ted that these itnesses took t rns in signing the
ill and codicil in the presence of each other and the
testatri . Both instr ments ere d l ackno ledged before
a Notar P blic ho as all the time present d ring the
e ec tion.
The pres mption of reg larit can of co rse be o ercome
b clear and con incing e idence to the contrar , b t not
easil b the mere e pedienc of the negati e testimon of
Odon Sarmiento and Rosendo Pa that the did not see the
testatri sign the ill. A negati e testimon does not enjo
eq al standing ith a positi e assertion, and faced ith the
con incing appearance of the ill, s ch negati e statement
m st be e amined ith e tra care. For in this regard

It has also been held that the condition and ph sical appearance
of a questioned document constitute a valuable factor which, if
correctl evaluated in the light of surrounding circumstances,
ma help in determining whether it is genuine or forged.
Subscribing

______________

2C . Aba a . Aba a , 40 P . 478; C . Ya c 73 P . 527 (19411).

404

404 E EC E A A ED
Vda. de Ramos s. Co r of Appeals

witnesses ma forget or e aggerate what the reall know, saw,

heard or did; the ma be biased and, therefore, tell onl half-
truths to mislead the court or favor one part to the prejudice of
the others. This cannot be said of the condition and ph sical
appearance of the questioned document. Both, albeit silent, will
reveal the naked truth, hiding nothing, forgetting nothing, and
3
e aggerating nothing.

Unlike other deeds, ordinar ills b necessit of la m st

contain an attestation cla se hich, significantl , is a
separate memorand m or record of the facts s rro nding
the cond ct of e ec tion. Once signed b the attesting
itnesses, it affirms that compliance ith the
indispensable legal formalities had been obser ed. This
Co rt had pre io sl held that the attestation cla se
basicall contradicts the pretense of nd e e ec tion 4
hich
later on ma be made b the attesting itnesses. In the
attestation cla se, the itnesses do not merel attest to the
signat re of the testatri b t also to the proper e ec tion of
the ill, and their signat res follo ing that of the testatri
sho that the ha e in fact attested not onl to the
gen ineness of the testatri s signat re b t also to the d e5
e ec tion of the ill as embodied in the attestation cla se.
B signing the ill, the itnesses impliedl certified to the
tr th of the facts hich admit to probate, incl ding the
s fficienc of e ec tion, the capacit of6 the testatri , the
absence of nd e infl ence, and the like.
In this j risdiction, all the attesting itnesses to a ill,
if a ailable, m st be called to pro e the ill. Under this
circ mstance, the become forced itnesses and their
declaration derogator to the probate of the ill need not
bind the proponent, hence, the latter ma present other
proof of d e e ec tion e en if contrar to the testimon of
some or all of the attesting itnesses. As a r le, if an or
all of the s bscribing

3J . B , L-18498, M 30, 1967, 19 SCRA . 662,

664.
4C .B .T , 94 P . 346 (1954).
5C .C .A , 88 P . 740 (1951); G .C ,
90 P . 444 (1951).
6C .G .C B , 63 P . 419 (1936).
C.F .T , 49 P . 380 (1926).

405

. 81, A A 31, 1978 405

Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal

itnesses testif against the d e e ec tion of the ill, or do

not remember ha ing attested to it, or are other ise of
do btf l credibilit , the ill ma , ne ertheless, be allo ed
if the co rt is satisfied from the testimon of other
itnesses and from all the e idence presented that the ill
as e ec ted and attested in the manner req ired b la .
Accordingl , altho gh the s bscribing itnesses to a
contested ill are the best itnesses in connection ith its
d e e ec tion, to deser e f ll credit, their testimon m st
be reasonable, and nbiased; if other ise, it ma be
o ercome b an competent e idence, direct or
circ mstantial.
In the case at bar, the records bear a disparit in the
q alit of the testimonies of Odon Sarmiento and Rosendo
Pa on one hand, and the Notar P blic, Att . Ricardo A.
Barcenas, on the other. The testimon of Odon Sarmiento
as contradicted b his o n admission. Tho gh his
admission to the effect that hen E genia Danila signed
the testament (he) and the t o other attesting itnesses
Rosendo Pa and Cali to A sada ere present (t.s.n.,
Feb. 12, 1970, p. 115) as made e tra-j diciall , it as not
sq arel ref ted hen inq ired pon d ring the trial.
With respect to the testimon of Rosendo Pa , it had
been ref ted b the declaration of Att . Ricardo A.
Barcenas. The records sho that this attesting itness as
fetched b Feli Danila from his place of ork in order to
act as itness to a ill. Rosendo Pa did not kno hat the
doc ment he signed as all abo t. Altho gh he performed
his f nction as an attesting itness, his participation as
rather passi e. We do not e pect, therefore, that his
testimon , half-hearted as that of Odon Sarmiento, be as
candid and complete as one proceeding from a keen mind
f ll attenti e to the details of the e ec tion of the deeds.
Q ite differentl , Att . Ricardo A. Barcenas, more than a
direct itness himself, as p rposel there to o ersee the
accomplishment of the ill and codicil. His testimon is an
acco nt of hat he act all heard and sa d r-

S 11, R 76, R C ; T . F , 57 P .
742; F . T , p a; C . B , 69 P . 639;
P .D C , L-24819, M 30, 1969, 28 SCRA 421.
J .B , p a, 657.

406

406 C A A D
Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal

ing the cond ct of his profession. There is no e idence to

sho that this la er as moti ated b an material
interest to take sides or that his statement is tr th
per erted.
It has been regarded that the f nction of the Notar
P blic is, among others, to g ard against an illegal
10
or
immoral arrangements in the e ec tion of a ill. In the
absence of an sho ing of self-interest that might possibl
ha e arped his j dgment and t isted his declaration, the
inter ention of a Notar P blic, in his professional
capacit , in 11the e ec tion of a ill deser es gra e
consideration. An appraisal of a la er s participation has
been s ccinctl stated b the Co rt in Fe a de .
Ta c , a, this ise:

In weighing the testimon of the attesting witnesses to a will, the

statements of a competent attorne , who has been charged with
the responsibilit of seeing to the proper e ecution of the
instrument, is entitled to greater weight than the testimon of a
person casuall called to participate in the act, supposing of
course that no motive is revealed that should induce the attorne
to prevaricate. The reason is that the mind of the attorne being
conversant of the instrument, is more likel to become fi ed on
details, and he is more likel than other persons to retain those
incidents in his memor .

One final point, the absence of a photograph of the testatri

E genia Danila in the act of signing her ill. The fact that
the onl pict res a ailable are those hich sho the
itnesses signing the ill in the presence of the testatri
and of each other does not belie the probabilit that the
testatri also signed the ill before the presence of the
itnesses. We m st stress that the pict res are orth
onl of hat the sho and pro e and not of hat the did
not speak of incl ding the e ents the failed to capt re.
The probate of a ill is a special proceeding not emb ed
ith ad ersar character, herein co rts sho ld rela the
r les on e idence to the end that nothing less than the
best e idence of hich the matter is s sceptible sho ld be
presented to the co rt before
12
a p rported ill ma be
probated or denied probate.

10C .V , L-32213, N 26, 1973, 54 SCRA 31.

11G .G B , p a.
12C .V . P .N , L-27200, A 18, 1972, 46 SCRA
538.

407

. 81, A A 31, 1978 407

Vda. de Ramo . Co of Appeal

We find here that the fail re to imprint in photographs all

the stages in the e ec tion of the ill does not ser e an
pers asi e effect nor ha e an e identiar al e to pro e
that one ital and indispensable req isite has not been
acted on. M ch less can it defeat, b an ordinar or special
reason, the presentation of other competent e idence
intended to confirm a fact other ise e istent b t not
confirmed b the photographic e idence. The probate co rt
ha ing satisfied itself that the ill and codicil ere
e ec ted in accordance ith the formalities req ired b
la , and there being no indication of ab se of discretion on
its part, We find no error committed or an e ceptional
circ mstance arranting the s bseq ent re ersal of its
decision allo ing the probate of the deeds in q estion.
WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Co rt of
Appeals is hereb re ersed in so far as it disallo ed the
probate of the ill and codicil. With costs against
respondents.
SO ORDERED.

Teeha ee (Chai a ), Ma a ia , M Pa a
and Fe a de , JJ., conc r.

Deci i e e ed

No e . An ackno ledging officer cannot ser e as a

itness at the same time of a last ill and testament.
(C . Vi a , 54 SCRA 31).
The probate co rt m st be con inced of the a thenticit
and d e e ec tion of the ill e en if its allo ance is not
opposed and the r le req ires in s ch a sit ation that, at
least, one attesting itness m st testif . (Vda. de P eci a
. Na ci , 46 SCRA 538).
A last ill and testament ma be allo ed e en if some
itnesses do not remember ha ing attested to it, if other
e idence satisfactoril sho d e e ec tion; and fail re of a
itness to identif his signat re does not bar probate.
(Ma a i a . Ma a i a, 37 SCRA 673).
In eighing the testimon of the attesting itnesses to a
ill, the statement of a competent attorne , charged ith
the responsibilit of seeing to the proper e ec tion of the
in-

40

408 C A A D
Salcedo . Co of Appeal

str ment, is entitled to greater eight than the testimon

of a person cas all called to participate in the act.
(Ma a i a . Ma a i a, 37 SCRA 672).
 The j risdiction of a probate co rt becomes ested pon
the deli er thereto of the ill e en if no petition for its
allo ance as filed ntil later, beca se, pon the ill being
deposited, the co rt co ld, mot proprio ha e taken steps
to fi the time and place for pro ing the ill, and iss ed the
corresponding notices conformabl to hat is prescribed b
Section 3, R le 76, of the Re ised R les of Co rt.
(R d ig e . B a, 17 SCRA 418).
Where intestate proceedings before a co rt of first
instance had alread been commenced, the probate of the
ill sho ld be filed in the same co rt, either in a separate
special proceeding or in an appropriate motion for said
p rpose filed in the alread pending intestate proceeding.
(U ia e . C f Fi I a ce f Neg O ie a , 33
SCRA 252).

o0o

C g 2021 Ce a B S , I c. A g e e ed.