VDA. DE RAMOS. VS.

CA

81 SCRA 393 Succession Prevarication Lawyers Testimony vs Witness Testimony
The late Eugenia Danila left a will wherein she instituted among others Adelaida Nista as one of the instituted heirs. Nista petitioned
before the court to admit the will to probate. The petition was opposed by Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina Guerra. The two
oppositors claimed that they were the legally adopted children of Danila; that the said will sought to be probated by Nista was
obtained through fraud.
The two parties talked and they came up with a compromise agreement which essentially stated that Nista is admitting the invalidity
of the will. The compromise agreement was approved by the trial court BUT Rosario de Ramos et al the other instituted heirs and
devisees intervened. The trial court allowed the intervention and set aside the compromise agreement. Rosario de Ramos et al
alleged that the Guerras repudiated their shares when they abandoned Danila and committed acts of ingratitude against her.
Eventually, the probate court admitted the will to probate. The decision was appealed by the Guerras. The Court of Appeals
reversed the decision of the probate court. The CA ruled that there was a failure to prove that Danila was in the presence of the
instrumental witnesses when she signed the will this was because two of the instrumental witnesses (Sarmiento and Paz) testified
in court that the will was already signed by Danila when they affixed their signatures.
HOWEVER, Atty. Ricardo Barcenas, the Notary Public before whom the will was executed and who assisted in the execution,
vehemently assailed the testimony of the two witnesses. He affirmed Danila and the three instrumental witnesses were in each
others presence when the will was signed by them. Another lawyer, who was also present during the execution of the will,
corroborated the testimony of Atty. Barcenas.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct in not allowing the will to probate.
HELD: No. The attestation clause was signed by the instrumental witnesses. This serves as their admissions of the due execution
of the will and thus preventing them from prevaricating later on by testifying against the wills due execution.
The execution of the same was evidently supervised by Atty. Ricardo Barcenas and before whom the deeds were also
acknowledged. The solemnity surrounding the execution of a will is attended by some intricacies not usually within the
comprehension of an ordinary layman. 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 authenticity. There is a presumption in the regularity of the performance of a lawyer
with his duty as a notary public. There has been no evidence to show that Barcenas has been remiss in his duty nor were there any
allegations of fraud against him. In fact, the authenticity of Danilas and the witnesses signature was never questioned.
The attestation clauses, far from being deficient, were properly signed by the attesting witnesses. Neither is it disputed that these
witnesses took turns in signing the will and codicil in the presence of each other and the testatrix. Both instruments were duly
acknowledged before a Notary Public who was all the time present during the execution.
Subscribing witnesses may forget or exaggerate what they really know, saw, heard or did; they may be biased and, therefore, tell
only half-truths to mislead the court or favor one party to the prejudice of the others. As a rule, if any or all of the subscribing
witnesses testify against the due execution of the will, or do not remember having attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful
credibility, the will may, nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses and from all the
evidence presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner required by law.
In weighing the testimony of the attesting witnesses to a will, the statements of a competent attorney, who has been charged with
the responsibility of seeing to the proper execution of the instrument, is entitled to greater weight than the testimony of a person
casually called to participate in the act, supposing of course that no motive is revealed that should induce the attorney to
prevaricate. The reason is that the mind of the attorney being conversant of the instrument, is more likely to become fixed on details,
and he is more likely than other persons to retain those incidents in his memory.


CRUZ VS VILLASOR 54 SCRA 31Background:
Petition to review on
certiorari
the judgment of the CFI of Cebu allowing the probate of the last willa t est ament of t he l at e Val ent e Z. Cruz. Agapi t a N.
Cruz, t he survi vi ng spouse of t he sai d deceaseopposed t he al l owance of t he wi l l . Not wi t hst andi ng her
obj ect i on, t he Court al l owed t he probat e of t hesaid last will and testament. Hence, this appeal by certiorari which was
given due course.
Issue:
WON the supposed last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz was executed in accordance withl aw, part i cul arl y Art i cl es 805
and 806 of t he new Ci vi l Code, t he f i rst requi ri ng at l east t hree credi bl ewitnesses to attest and subscribe to the will,
and the second requiring the testator and the witnesses toacknowledge the will before a notary public.
Arguments:
Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto, namely Deogracias T. Jamaloas Jr., Dr. FranciscoPaares and Atty. Angel H. Teves,
Jr., one of them, the last named, is at the same time the Notary Publicbefore whom the will was supposed to have been
acknowledged. Reduced to simpler terms, the questionwas attested and subscribed by at least three credible witnesses in the
presence of the testator and of each ot her, consi deri ng t hat t he t hree at t est i ng wi t nesses must appear bef ore t he
not ary publ i c t oacknowledge the same. As the third witness is the notary public himself, Agapita argues that the result ist hat
onl y t wo wi t nesses appeared bef ore t he not ary publ i c t o acknowl edge t he wi l l . On t he ot her hand, Manuel B.
Lugay, who i s t he supposed execut or of t he wi l l , f ol l owi ng t he reasoni ng of t he t ri al court , maintains that there is
substantial compliance with the legal requirement of having at least three attestingwitnesses even if the notary public acted as one
of them.
Ruling:
Af t er wei ghi ng t he meri t s of t he conf l i ct i ng cl ai ms of t he part i es, t he court i s i ncl i ned t o sust ai nthat the last will
and testament in question was not executed in accordance with law. The notary publicbefore whom the will was acknowledged
cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since hecannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. This
cannot be done because he cannotsplit his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his
participation inthe making of the will. To permit such a situation to obtain would be sanctioning a sheer absurdity.Furt hermore,
t he f unct i on of a not ary publ i c i s, among ot hers, t o guard agai nst any i l l egal
or i mmo r a l a r r a n g e me n t . T h a t f u n c t i o n wo u l d d e f e a t e d i f t h e n o t a r y p u b l i c we r e o n e o f t h e a t t
e s t i n g instrumental witnesses. For them he would be interested sustaining the validity of the will as it directlyi nvol ves hi m and
t he val i di t y of hi s own act . I t woul d pl ace hi m i n i nconsi st ent posi t i on and t he verypurpose of acknowledgment,
which is to minimize fraud, would be thwarted.T o a l l o w t h e n o t a r y p u b l i c t o a c t a s t h i r d wi t n e s s , o r o n e t h e
a t t e s t i n g a n d a c k n o wl e d g i n g wi t nesses, woul d have t he ef f ect of havi ng onl y t wo at t est i ng wi t nesses t o
t he wi l l whi ch woul d be i ncontravention of the provisions of Article 805 be requiring at least three credible witnesses to act as
suchand of Art i cl e 806 whi ch requi res t hat t he t est at or and t he requi red number of wi t nesses must
appear bef ore t he not ary publ i c t o acknowl edge t he wi l l . The resul t woul d be, as has been sai d, t hat onl y
t wowitnesses appeared before the notary public for or that purpose. In the circumstances, the law would notbe duly in
observed.FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the probate of the lastwill and
testament of Valente Z. Cruz is declared not valid and hereby set aside.