ILkNANDL2 v 1AN1CCC (1926)

1oplc klnds of wlll

onenLe SLreeL !
DCC1kINL
UICk IAC1S A few Joys befote bet Jeotb 8oslllo 1ootoco execoteJ oo losttomeot potpottloq
to be bet wlll lo tbe ptobote ptoceeJloq tbe ptopooeot lt letoooJez lottoJoceJ J ottestloq
wltoesses et tbe cll joJqe tefoseJ to ollow lt to be ptoboteJ fot tbe teosoo tbot tbe J
ottestloq wltoesses ote oot lo botmooy opoo tbe polot wbetbet oll J of solJ wltoesses wete
pteseot toqetbet ot tbe tlme ooJ ploce wbeo 8oslllo ooJ tbe wltoesses offlxeJ tbelt slqoototes to
tbe Jocomeot

IAC1S

naLure Appeal from an order of Lhe Cll 8ulacan denylng probaLe Lo an lnsLrumenL propounded
as Lhe wlll of 8asllla 1anLoco deceased

A few days before her deaLh ln Lhe hosplLal 8as|||a 1antoco executed an |nstrument purporLlng
Lo be her wlll lr vlcenLe lernandez parlsh prlesL of Malolos flle Lhe Lhe appllcaLlon for probaLe
uomlngo 1anLoco eL al 3 broLhers and a nephew of 8asllla opposed

Ir Iernandez |ntroduced 3 attest|ng w|tnesses Lo Lhe lnsLrumenL vlcenLe laLon lldel
Macapugay and lacldo Suarez as well as Aurea Caspar slsLerlnlaw of 8asllla who had been ln
aLLendance upon her aL Lhe hosplLal

1he CII [udge refused to a||ow |t to be probated for Lhe reason LhaL Lhe 3 aLLesLlng wlLnesses
are noL ln harmony upon Lhe polnL wheLher all 3 of sald wlLnesses were presenL LogeLher aL Lhe
Llme and place when 8asllla and Lhe wlLnesses afflxed Lhelr slgnaLures Lo Lhe documenL no
LesLlmony was submlLLed by Lhe opposlLlon

ISSUL Won Lhe wlll should be probaLed

DLCISICN es 5c tevetseJ cll

LLD
8asllla was charlLable had dedlcaLed a loL and bulldlng Lo a school ln Malolos and wanLed Lo
conLlnue her charlLy by provldlng ln her wlll LhaL Lhe properLy ln quesLlon would go Lo Lhe parlsh
prlesL lr lernandez
ALLy vlcenLe laLon one of Lhe wlLnesses and lawyer of 8asllla for some Llme already wroLe Lhe
wlll for 8asllla accordlng Lo her wlshes 8asllla laLer execuLed a codlcll wlLh Lhe asslsLance of
ALLy laLon
LaLer on 8asllla wanLed Lo change her wlll and as such ALLy laLon drafLed Lhe enLlre documenL
and carrled lL Lo Lhe hosplLal for her execuLlon and one of Lhe wlLnesses was a resldenL physlclan
ur Macapugay (noL 8asllla's docLor) who was procured by her docLor (her docLor refused Lo be
a wlLness kase)
1he CourL gave credlL Lo ALLy laLons's LesLlmony
O 8asllla undersLood Lhe conLenLs of Lhe documenL Lhe provlslons conform Lo her wlshes
O She was able Lo afflx her slgnaLure ln a clear and leglble hand aL Lhe close of Lhe wlll and
upon each of lLs pages
O 1he reclLals of Lhe closlng paragraph ln Lhe wlll and of Lhe aLLesLlng clause are full and
compleLe ln every respecL
O rder of slgnlng Lhe documenL 1) 8asllla slgned all of Lhe sheeLs 2) ur Macapugay
slgned aL Lhe end of Lhe aLLesLlng clause and upon Lhe margln of each sheeL 3) Lhen
Suarez dld slgned aL Lhe end of Lhe aLLesLlng clause and upon each sheeL and 4) flnally
ALLy laLon
Aurea Caspar corroboraLes ALLy laLon upon Lhe polnL LhaL all of Lhe wlLnesses were presenL
LhroughouL Lhe ceremonles aLLendlng Lhe execuLlon of Lhe wlll
O ur Macapugay's LesLlmony was vague and evaslve (he LesLlfled LhaL lefL Lhe room
before ALLy laLon had flnlshed slgnlng all of Lhe sheeLs and he does noL remember
seelng Suarez ln Lhe room aL all)
O Suarez dellberaLely and manlfesLly deparLed from Lhe LruLh (he LesLlfled LhaL ur
Macapugay was noL presenL when Suarez slgned)
1he statements of a competent attorney who has been charged w|th the respons|b|||ty of
see|ng to the proper execut|on of the |nstrument |s ent|t|ed to greater we|ght than the
test|mony of a person casua||y ca||ed to part|c|pate |n the act (belng conversanL wlLh Lhe
requlslLes of Lhe proper execuLlon of Lhe lnsLrumenL he ls more llkely Lhan oLher persons Lo
reLaln Lhose lncldenLs ln hls memory)
In case of oppos|t|on to the probate of the w||| the proponent |s |ega||y bound to |ntroduce a||
of the subscr|b|ng w|tnesses |f ava||ab|e but he |s not bound by the|r test|mony unllke ln
ordlnary llLlgaLlon (Lhe proponenL of a wlll may avall hlmself of oLher proof Lo esLabllsh Lhe
lnsLrumenL even conLrary Lo Lhe LesLlmony of Lhe subscrlblng wlLnesses)
1he appearance of proper aLLesLaLlon and auLhenLlclLy of all Lhe slgnaLures LhereLo ralsed a
presumpLlon of regularlLy and upon Lhose facLs alone Lhe wlll should be admlLLed Lo probaLe ln
Lhe absence of proof (preponderance of evldence) showlng LhaL some faLal lrregularlLy occurred