Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 114 views

    #41. Gonzales vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Marian Dominique Aurora
    1. This case involved a dispute over the probate of the will of Isabel Gabriel, which designated Rizalina Gonzales as the principal beneficiary and executrix. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate the will, which was opposed by Rizalina Gonzales. 2. The Supreme Court held that a witness can be considered competent under the Civil Code but still not be considered credible, as credibility depends on the court's assessment of the witness's testimony. 3. The Court also held that there is no requirement for a witness to initially testify about their good standing in the community or character attributes like honesty. As long as the witness meets the qualifications in the Civil Code, their

    Copyright:

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

    #41. Gonzales vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Marian Dominique Aurora
    114 views2 pages
    1. This case involved a dispute over the probate of the will of Isabel Gabriel, which designated Rizalina Gonzales as the principal beneficiary and executrix. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate the will, which was opposed by Rizalina Gonzales. 2. The Supreme Court held that a witness can be considered competent under the Civil Code but still not be considered credible, as credibility depends on the court's assessment of the witness's testimony. 3. The Court also held that there is no requirement for a witness to initially testify about their good standing in the community or character attributes like honesty. As long as the witness meets the qualifications in the Civil Code, their

    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. This case involved a dispute over the probate of the will of Isabel Gabriel, which designated Rizalina Gonzales as the principal beneficiary and executrix. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate the will, which was opposed by Rizalina Gonzales. 2. The Supreme Court held that a witness can be considered competent under the Civil Code but still not be considered credible, as credibility depends on the court's assessment of the witness's testimony. 3. The Court also held that there is no requirement for a witness to initially testify about their good standing in the community or character attributes like honesty. As long as the witness meets the qualifications in the Civil Code, their

    Copyright:

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

    #41. Gonzales vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Marian Dominique Aurora
    1. This case involved a dispute over the probate of the will of Isabel Gabriel, which designated Rizalina Gonzales as the principal beneficiary and executrix. Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition to probate the will, which was opposed by Rizalina Gonzales. 2. The Supreme Court held that a witness can be considered competent under the Civil Code but still not be considered credible, as credibility depends on the court's assessment of the witness's testimony. 3. The Court also held that there is no requirement for a witness to initially testify about their good standing in the community or character attributes like honesty. As long as the witness meets the qualifications in the Civil Code, their

    Copyright:

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

    CASE #41

    RIZALINA GABRIEL GONZALES vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and


    LUTGARDA SANTIAGO
    G.R. No. L-37453 May 25, 1979
    FACTS:
    Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal for the probate of the will
    executed by Isabel Gabriel and designating Rizalina Gonzales as the principal
    beneficiary and executrix.
    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.
    ISSUES:
    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