7/25/2019 de ramos

1/1

CASE TITLE: VDA DE RAMOS vs CAAUTHOR:

KADJIMTOPIC:

Conflicting Testimonies of WitnessesDOCTRINE:

As a rule, if any or all of the subscribing witnesses testify against the due execution of thewill, or do notremember ha ing attested to i t , or are otherwise of doubtful credibi l ity, the wil lma y,ne ertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses and from allthee idence resented that the will was executed and attested in the manner re!uired by law"FACTS:

The late #ugenia Danila left a will wherein she instituted among others Adelaida $ista as one of theinstituted heirs" $ista etitioned before the court to admit the will to robate" The etition was oosedby%uena entura &uerra and Marcelina &uerra" The two oositors claimed that they were the legallyadotedchildren of Danila' that the said will sought to be robated by $ista was obtained through fraud"Thetwo arties tal(ed and they came u with a com romise agreement which essentially state dthat$ista is admit ting the in al idi ty of the will" The comromise agreement was aro ed by the tr ia l cour t%)T *osario de *amos et al the other instituted heirs and de isees inter ened" The trial court allowed the inter ention and set aside the comromise agreement"*osario de *amos et al all eged that the&uerras reudiated their shares when they abandoned Danila

and committed acts of ingratitude againsther"# entually, the robate court admitted the will to robate"The decision was aealed by the &uerras" TheCourt of Aeals re ersed the decision of the robate court"The CA ruled that there was a failure to ro e that Danila was in the resence of the inst rumentalwitnesses when she signed the will this was because two of the instrumental witnesses+armiento and -a./ testified in court that the will was alreadysigned by Danila when they affixed theirsignatures"01W#2#*, Atty" *icardo %arcenas, the $otary -ublic before whom the will wasexecuted and whoassisted in the execution, ehemently assailed the testimony of the two witnesses"0e affirmed Danilaand the three instrumental witnesses were in each other3s resence when the will wassigned by them" Another lawyer, who was also resent during the execution of the will, corroborated thetestimony of Atty"%arcenas"ISSUE:

W1$ the last testament and its accomanying codicil were alid, considering the comlicatedcircumstances that two of the attesting witnesses testified against their due execution while other

non4subscribing witnesses testified to the contrary"RULING: YES.

There is amle and satisfactory e idence to ro e that the will and codicil were executedi n acco rda nce w i t h t he f o rma l i t i es r e !u i r ed b y l aw" I t a ea rs o s i t i e l y a nd co n i nc in gl y th at th edocuments were reared by a lawyer, Atty" Manuel Al eroThe execution of the same was e ident ly s u e r i s e d b y h i s a s s o c i a t e , A t t y " * i c a r d o % a r c e n a s a n d b e f o r e w h o m t h ed e e d s w e r e a l s o ac(nowledged" The solemnity surrounding the execut ion of a wi l l isat tended by some intr icac ies notusually within the comrehension of an ordinary layman" Theob5ect is to close the door against bad faithand fraud, to a oid substitution of the will and testament, andto guarantee their truth and authenticity"The attestation clause was signed by the instrumentalwitnesses" This ser es as their admissions of the due execution of the wi ll and thus re ent ingthem from re aricating later on by testifying against the will3s due execution