Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1923 > January 1923 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19079 January 15, 1923 - PRIMITIVO L. GONZALEZ v. JOVITA T. LAUREL

046 Phil 750:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-19079. January 15, 1923. ]

PRIMITIVO GONZALEZ Y LAUREL, applicant-appellee, v. JOVITA LAUREL Y TAPIA, opponent-appellant.

Juan S. Rustia for Appellant.

The appellee in his own behalf.

SYLLABUS


1. WILLS; DIALECT OF TESTATOR. — The record shows that the deceased M. T. was a resident of the Province of Batangas, a Tagalog region, where she had real properties for several years. It also shows that she requested M. C. to write her will in Tagalog. Held: That a presumption arises from these facts that testatrix knew the Tagalog dialect, which presumption is now conclusive for not having been overthrown or rebutted.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J. :


By an order dated December 16, 1921, the Court of First Instance of Batangas allowed the document, Exhibit A, to probate as the last will and testament of the deceased Maria Tapis, thus granting the petition of Primitivo L. Gonzalez and overruling the opposition presented by Jovita Laurel.

Jovita Laurel now appeals to this court from that ruling of the court below, alleging that court erred:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In holding that Exhibit A, the supposed will of the deceased Maria Tapia y Castillo, was executed with the solemnities prescribed by the law, notwithstanding that there was no proof of the dialect known by the said deceased and of the fact that it was the same in which said Exhibit A was written.

"2. In not holding that the signatures of Maria Tapia appearing in said Exhibit A had been obtained through deceit, surprise, fraud, and in an illegal and improper manner.

"3. In not finding that said Exhibit A was obtained through unlawful pressure, influence and machinations of the applicant, Primitivo L. Gonzalez, one of the legatees, in connivance with Attorney Modesto Castillo.

"4. In not finding that the deceased Maria Tapia was physically and mentally incapacitated at the time she is said to have executed Exhibit A.

"5. In declaring said Exhibit A valid and authentic and allowing it to probate as the will and testament of the deceased Maria Tapis y Castillo."cralaw virtua1aw library

Concerning the first error assigned, it appears that the deceased Maria Tapia was a resident of the Province of Batangas, a Tagalog region, where said deceased had real properties for several years. It also appears that she requested Modesto Castillo to draw her will in Tagalog. From the record taken as a whole, a presumption arises that said Maria Tapia knew the Tagalog dialect, which presumption is now conclusive for not having been overthrown nor rebutted.

The three following errors have reference to the question whether or not the testatrix acted voluntarily and with full knowledge in executing and signing the will. The preponderance of evidence in this respect is that said document was executed and signed by Maria Tapia voluntarily and with full knowledge, without fraud, deceit, surprise, or undue influence or machinations of anybody, she being then mentally capacitated and free. Such is the fact established by the evidence, which we have carefully examined.

In connection with the evidence, our attention was called to an irreconcilable conflict between the transcript of an answer of the witness Primitivo L. Gonzalez, presented by the appellant as "Annex 1" to his motion filed in this court (fol. 16 of the Rollo), and the official transcript, in that while said answer is "Yes, sir," according to the transcript of the appellant, it is "Certainly, that is not true," according to the official transcript of the stenographic notes attached to the record. But it is to be noted that at the continuation of the hearing held on a subsequent date in which said witness Primitivo L. Gonzalez was examined on this contradiction, he said in the course of the rebuttal evidence of the applicant: "No, sir. I did not answer in that way. I did not take her hand to make her sign. I did not by any means answer that question to that effect. I very well remember that fact, because it affects much the probate of the will." (Fols. 56 and 57 of transcript and documentary evidence.)

It appearing from the record that the document Exhibit A is the will of the deceased Maria Tapia, executed with all the formalities and solemnities required by the law, the trial court did not commit any error in admitting it to probate.

For the purposes of this decision, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the question raised by the appellee as to whether or not this appeal was perfected within the time fixed by the law.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, and Johns., concur.




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-1923 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 18715 January 8, 1923 - ORDEN DE PREDICADORES v. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

    044 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 18009 January 10, 1923 - EMILIO PUNSALAN, ET AL. v. C. BOON LIAT, ET AL.

    044 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 18335 January 10, 1923 - LORENZO ZAYCO, ET AL. v. SALVADOR SERRA, ET AL.

    044 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-19290 January 11, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MENANDRO CONSTANTINO

    046 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. 19343 January 12, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN MANUEL, ET AL.

    044 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. L-19079 January 15, 1923 - PRIMITIVO L. GONZALEZ v. JOVITA T. LAUREL

    046 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 18058 January 16, 1923 - FABIOLA SEVERINO v. GUILLERMO SEVERINO

    044 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 18957 January 16, 1923 - GOV’T OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PHIL. STEAMSHIP CO., INC., ET AL.

    044 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 19462 January 16, 1923 - YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP CO. v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONER AND THE BOARD OF APPEAL

    044 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 19439 January 17, 1923 - PERFECTA POBLETE v. LO SINGCO, ET AL.

    044 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-18501 January 20, 1923 - DOLORES BENEDICTO DE TARROSA, ET AL. v. F. M. YAP TICO & CO., ET AL.

    046 Phil 753

  • G.R. No. 19561 January 22, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. VICENTE GUTIERREZ

    044 Phil 375



  • G.R. No. 19077 January 23, 1923 - JOCOBA LIMPIN v. SABAS YALUNG, ET AL.

    047 Phil 944


  • G.R. No. 19283 January 26, 1923 - BACHRACH CO., INC. v. MIGUEL BONA, ET AL.

    044 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 19297 January 26, 1923 - ARMY & NAVY CLUB v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD

    044 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 17905 January 27, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN MORAN, ET AL.

    044 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 18260 January 27, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. NORBERTO PAREL

    044 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 19341 January 29, 1923 - JENNIE FLORIDA v. A. W. YEARSLEY

    044 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 19540 January 29, 1923 - WING KEE COMPRADORING CO. v. BARK "MONONGAHELA", ET AL.

    044 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 19761 January 29, 1923 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. MARCIANO RIVERA

    044 Phil 469

  • G.R. Nos. 19403, 19404 & 19405 January 30, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ISIDORO LERMA

    044 Phil 471