Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > January 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13781 January 30, 1960 - Testate Estate of JOSE J. JAVELLANA v. JOSE JAVELLANA

106 Phil 1073:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13781. January 30, 1960.]

Testate Estate of JOSE J. JAVELLANA, Deceased. CRISTETA JIMENEA VDA. DE JAVELLANA, and BENJAMIN JAVELLANA, Petitioners-Appellees, v. JOSE JAVELLANA y AZAOLA and JOSE JAVELLANA, JR., Oppositors-Appellants.

Vicente Hilado for Appellees.

Delgado, Flores & Macapagal and Arturo E. Balbastro for appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. WILLS AND TESTAMENTS; DUE EXECUTION; HOW DETERMINED. — For the purpose of determining the due execution of a will, it is not necessary that the instrumental witnesses should give all accurate and detailed account of the proceeding, such as recalling the order of the signing of the document by the said witnesses. It is sufficient that they have seen or at least were so situated at the moment that they could have seen each other sign, had they wanted to do so. (Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil., 541; Neyra v. Neyra, 42 Off. Gaz., 2817; see also Fernandez v. Tantoco, 49 Phil., 380.)

2. ID.; PROOF THAT WILL WAS WRITTEN IN LANGUAGE KNOWN TO TESTATOR; CASE AT BAR. — Where there is want of expression in the body of the will itself or in the attestation clause that the testator knew the language in which the will was written, proof thereof may be established by evidence aliunde. Although lack of such evidence may be cured by presumption of knowledge of the language or dialect used in the will, no such presumption can arise where, as in the case at bar, the will was executed in Spanish, while the testator was a Visayan residing in San Juan, Rizal at the time of his death.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


On June 29, 1957, a petition to probate the alleged last will and testament of Jose J. Javellana, who died on May 24 of the same year, was presented in the Court of First Instance of Rizal by Cristeta Jimenea Vda. de Javellana and Benjamin Javellana, widow and brother respectively of the deceased, alleging that the aforesaid Jose J. Javellana, at the time of his death, a resident of San Juan, Rizal, left properties with an approximate value of P400,000.00; that he also left a will which was delivered to the clerk of court pursuant to the Rules of Court; that Oscar Ledesma, therein named executor, had agreed to act as such; that the decedent’s next of kin were: the widow, Cristeta J. Vda. de Javellana, his children — Erlinda Javellana, Jose Javellana y Azaola, and Jose Javellana, Jr. (Pepito), his sister Juanita J. de Ledesma, and brother Benjamin Javellana, whose respective addresses were given in the petition.

To this petition, Jose Javellana y Azaola and Jose Javellana, Jr. (Pepito) filed separate oppositions, both claiming that the alleged will of Jose J. Javellana deposited by petitioners with the clerk of court was null and void, the same not having been executed "in accordance with the formalities required by law" and that "the legal requirements necessary for its validity" had not been complied with.

At the hearing, petitioners introduced as evidence in support of the petition, a copy of the will; certification of the date and cause of death of the testator; proof of publication of the petition, once a week for 3 consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation, and the testimonies of Jose G. Guevarra, Eloisa Villanueva and Jose Yulo, Jr., the 3 instrumental witnesses to the will, who, in substance, testified that sometime in April, 1956, they were asked to witness the execution of the will of the late Jose J. Javellana; that on the said occasion, Jose J. Javellana signed the 4 pages of the will in their presence, and they, in turn, also signed each and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another; and that these acts were acknowledged before notary public Fernando Grey, Jr. on the same occasion.

For their part, the oppositors limited their evidence to the presentation of two letters in the Visayan dialect allegedly written by the deceased, the signatures appearing thereon being identified by Jose Javellana, Jr. (Pepito) and Manuel Azaola, as those of the deceased, for the sole purpose of comparing said signatures with those appearing in the will.

On December 10, 1957, the court a quo issued an order allowing the probate of the will and directing the issuance of letters testamentary to Oscar Ledesma as executor thereof, upon the latter’s filing a bond in the sum of P10,000.00. From this order, oppositors appealed to this Court charging the lower court of committing error in allowing probate of the will, Exhibit C, on 2 grounds: (1) that the 3 attesting witnesses failed to clearly and convincingly establish the due execution of the will; and (2) that petitioners failed to prove that the will was written in a language known to the testator.

The first basis of oppositors’ appeal has no merit. It is true that the witnesses, particularly Miss Eloisa Villanueva, apparently found difficulty recalling who arrived first at the appointed place, or the order of the witnesses’ signing the will, or failed to mention by name the persons present at the time one of the witnesses was signing the document. These details, however, are minor and insignificant and do not enervate their positive testimony that at the execution of the will, the testator, the 3 witnesses, the notary public and Atty. Vicente Hilado were all together in the private office of the latter; that Jose Guevarra, Eloisa Villanueva and Jose Yulo, Jr., the instrumental witnesses, were unanimous in declaring that they actually saw the testator sign the will as well as each and every page thereof, and they, in turn, affixed their signatures to all its 4 pages. For the purpose of determining the due execution of a will, it is not necessary that the instrumental witnesses should give an accurate and detailed account of the proceeding, such as recalling the order of the signing of the document by the said witnesses. It is sufficient that they have seen or at least were so situated at the moment that they could have seen each other sign, had they wanted to do so. 1 In fact, in the instant case, at least two witnesses, Yulo and Guevarra, both testified that the testator and the 3 witnesses signed in the presence of each and every one of them.

With respect to the second ground, there is some merit in appellant’s contention that the language requirement of the law on wills has not been satisfactorily complied with in this case. Admittedly, there is want of expression in the body of the will itself or in its attestation clause that the testator knew Spanish, the language in which it is written. It is true that there is no statutory provision requiring this and that proof thereof may be established by evidence aliunde. 2 But here, there is absolutely no such evidence presented by the petitioners-appellees. Not even the petition for probate contains any allegation to this effect. No reference to it whatsoever is made in the appealed order.

In some cases, it is true, this lack of evidence was considered cured by presumption of knowledge of the language or dialect used in the will, as where the will is executed in a certain province or locality, in the dialect currently used in such province or locality in which the testator is a native or resident, the presumption arises that the testator knew the dialect so used, in the absence of evidence to the contrary; 3 or where the will is in Spanish, the fact that the testatrix was a "mestiza española", was married to a Spaniard, made several trips to Spain, and some of her letters in her own handwriting submitted as evidence by the oppositor, are in Spanish, give rise to the presumption that she knew the language in which the will was written, in the absence of proof to the contrary. 4

In the case before us, no such or similar circumstances exist. On the contrary, there is evidence that the testator is a Visayan although residing in San Juan, Rizal at the time of his death. The will was executed in the City of Manila. Undoubtedly, it cannot be said, and there is no evidence, that Spanish is the language currently used either in San Juan, Rizal, or Manila. It follows, therefore, that no presumption can arise that the testator knew the Spanish Language.

But petitioner-appellees insist in their brief that the burden is on the oppositors to allege and prove that the testator did not know the Spanish language in the face of the legal presumptions that "the law has been obeyed", "that a will executed in the Philippines must be presumed to have been executed in conformity with the laws of the Philippines", 5 and "that things have happened in accordance with the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life", concluding that it would certainly be contrary to the ordinary habits of life for a person to execute his will in a language unknown to him. This, we believe, is, to use a colloquial term, begging the question. If the argument of counsel is correct, then every unopposed will may be probated upon its mere presentation in court, without need of producing evidence regarding its execution. Counsel’s statement is its own refutation.

We find, however, in the record some indicia, although insufficient to give rise to the presumption, that the testator might, in fact, have known the Spanish language. In oppositors’ own Exhibit 3 (a letter admittedly written by the testator) appear the salutation "Querido Primo" and the complimentary ending "Su primo" which are Spanish terms. Having found that all the formal requisites for the validity of the will have been satisfactorily established, except the language requirement, we deem it in the interest of justice to afford the parties an opportunity to present evidence, if they so desire, on this controverted issue.

Wherefore, let the records of this case be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings as above indicated, without costs. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil., 541; Neyra v. Neyra, 42 Off. Gaz., 2817; see also Fernandez v. Tantoco, 49 Phil., 380.

2. Lopez, v. Liboro, 46 Off. Gaz., 211.

3. Abangan v. Abangan, 40 Phil., 476; Gonzales v. Laurel, 46 Phil., 750.

4. Reyes v. Zuñiga Vda. de Vidal, 91 Phil., 127.

5. See Appellees’ brief, page 27.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16413 January 26, 1960 - EMILIO C. SANTOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    106 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-10854 January 27, 1960 - MANILA POLO CLUB v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    106 Phil 885

  • G.R. Nos. L-12091 & L-12092 January 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIM HO

    106 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-9075 January 29, 1960 - S. V. S. PICTURES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 897

  • G.R. No. L-12476 January 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANGLO CALIFORNIA NATIONAL BANK

    106 Phil 903

  • G.R. No. L-12573 January 29, 1960 - PAULINA DURAN v. BERNARDINO PAGARIGAN

    106 Phil 907

  • G.R. Nos. L-12614 & L-12615. January 29, 1960 - JUAN ESTELLA, ET., AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL

    106 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12981 January 29, 1960 - IN RE: MARCIANO DEETUANKA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-13194 January 29, 1960 - BUENAVENTURA T. SALDAÑA v. PHILIPPINE GUARANTY CO., INC.

    106 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-13489 January 29, 1960 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JOSE J. GONZALES

    106 Phil 925

  • G.R. No. L-13536 January 29, 1960 - ADRIANO VALDEZ v. RODRIGO OCUMEN

    106 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-13956 January 29, 1960 - ROMULO C. NICOLAS v. FULGENCIO DACARA

    106 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-14027 January 29, 1960 - LIBERTAD ALTAVAS CONLU v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-14306 January 29, 1960 - PABLO CALION v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 943

  • G.R. No. L-14341 January 29, 1960 - MARCIANO SONGAHID v. BENITO CINCO

    106 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-14359 January 29, 1960 - IN RE: SALVADORA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-16360 January 29, 1960 - FILEMON SALCEDO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    106 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-6406 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KUSAIN SAIK

    106 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-9483 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS NANA

    106 Phil 966

  • G.R. No. L-11215 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO BALOYO

    106 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-11430 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS ESTACIO

    106 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-11756 January 30, 1960 - JOSE B. GAMBOA v. MA- AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC.

    106 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-11908 January 30, 1960 - FLORA CAMPANERO v. APOLONIO T. COLOMA

    106 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-12105 January 30, 1960 - TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O. BOHANAN v. MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN

    106 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-12280 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO TEMPLONUEVO

    106 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-12661 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ARANDA

    106 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-12692 January 30, 1960 - COSMIC LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. AGAPITA MANAOIS

    106 Phil 1015

  • G.R. No. L-12754 January 30, 1960 - ESTANISLAO ALFONSO v. PASAY CITY

    106 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-13146 January 30, 1960 - VALENTIN CASTILLO v. ARTURO SAMONTE

    106 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-13160 January 30, 1960 - BIENVENIDO NERA v. PAULINO GARCIA

    106 Phil 1031

  • G.R. No. L-13274 January 30, 1960 - REMEDIOS SACLOLO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    106 Phil 1038

  • G.R. No. L-13399 January 30, 1960 - ALBERTA VICENCIO v. GAVINO TUMALAD

    106 Phil 1042

  • G.R. No. L-13456 January 30, 1960 - IRINEO C. HAMOY v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

    106 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-13488 January 30, 1960 - MAURO PRIETO v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG

    106 Phil 1055

  • G.R. No. L-13551 January 30, 1960 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. ABUNDIO MADRID

    106 Phil 1060

  • G.R. No. L-13564 January 30, 1960 - ANDRES CENTENERA v. NICASIO YATCO

    106 Phil 1064

  • G.R. No. L-13764 January 30, 1960 - RAFAEL RUEDA v. MARCELO JUAN

    106 Phil 1069

  • G.R. No. L-13781 January 30, 1960 - Testate Estate of JOSE J. JAVELLANA v. JOSE JAVELLANA

    106 Phil 1073

  • G.R. No. L-14016 January 30, 1960 - ALFREDO FORMOSO v. DELFIN S. FLORES

    106 Phil 1079

  • G.R. Nos. L-14023 & L-14135 January 30, 1960 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    106 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-14047 January 30, 1960 - PRIMO PANTI v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CATANDUANES

    106 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-14109 January 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LUMBER & HARDWARE CO. v. PEDRO J. VELASCO

    106 Phil 1099

  • G.R. No. L-14310 January 30, 1960 - MAURO PRIETO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    106 Phil 1103

  • G.R. No. L-14327 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO BORJA

    106 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-14373 January 30, 1960 - GENERAL INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. NG HUA

    106 Phil 1117

  • G.R. No. L-14375 January 30, 1960 - ANDRES CASTILLO v. FROILAN BAYONA

    106 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-14535 January 30, 1960 - BENITO SYMACO v. PATERIO AQUINO

    106 Phil 1130

  • G.R. No. L-14674 January 30, 1960 - MELECIO R. DOMINGO v. JUDGE S. C. MOSCOSO

    106 Phil 1138

  • G.R. No. L-16286 January 30, 1960 - CESAR SAMSON v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

    106 Phil 1140