7/27/2019 Reyes vs Vda. De Vidal.docx

1/2

45 REYES vs. Vda. De VIDAL

G.R. No. L-2862,April 21, 1952FACTS:

This concerns the admission to probate of a document claimed to be the last willand testament of Maria Zuiga Vda. de Pando who died in the City of Manila onOctober 29, 1945.

A petition for the probate of said will was filed in the Court of First Instance ofManila.

Dolores Zuiga Vda. de Vidal, sister of the deceased, filed an opposition basedon several grounds. And, after several days of trial, at which both partiespresented their respective evidence, the court rendered its decision disallowingthe will on the ground that the signatures of the deceased appearing therein arenot genuine, that it was not proven that the deceased knew the Spanishlanguage in which it was written, and that even if the signatures are genuine, thesame reveal that the deceased was not of sound mind when she signed the will.From this decision petitioner appealed to this Court.

ISSUES:(1) Whether or not the signatures of the deceased appearing in the will aregenuine.YES.(2) Whether or not there is evidence to show that the testatrix knew the language inwhich the will was written; YES.(3) Whether or not the testatrix was of sound and disposing mind when she signed thewill. YES.

HELD: The will may be admitted. The decision appealed from is hereby reversed. TheCourt admits the will to probate, and remands these case to the lower court for furtherproceedings, with costs against the appellee.

RATIO:(1) The standards used by Espinosa (epxpert witness handwiting) in making hiscomparative study bear dates much closer to that of the disputed signatures. Thus, heexamined four genuine signatures that were affixed on October 16, 1945, other foursignatures that were affixed in October 1945, one on January 2, 1945, on January 24,1945, and one on September 24 1945, He also examined one affixed on March 12,1941, only for emphasis. The closeness or proximity of the time in which the standardsused had been written to that of the suspected signature or document is very importantto bring about an accurate analysis and conclusion. The selection of the properstandards of comparison is of paramount importance especially if we consider the ageand the state of the health of the author of the questioned signatures. He followed thestandard practice in handwriting analysis. It is for this reason that the court hold thatEspinosa's opinion deserves more weight and consideration.

(2) The failure of the petitioners witnesses to testify that the testatrix knew andspoke Spanish does not itself alone suffice to conclude that this requirement oflaw has not been complied with when there is enough evidence of record whichsupplies this technical omission.

Where the evidence of the oppositor to the probate of a will shows that thetestatrix possessed the Spanish language, the oppositor cannot later on be

7/27/2019 Reyes vs Vda. De Vidal.docx

2/2

allowed to allege the contrary.

The fact that the testatrix was a mestiza espaola, was married to a Spaniard,made several trip to Spain and some of her letters submitted as evidence by theoppositor were written in Spanish by the testatrix in her own writing give rise to

the presumption that the testatrix knew the language in which the testament hasbeen written, which presumption should stand unless the contrary is proven.

Where the attestation clause of the will states that the testatrix knew andpossessed the Spanish language though this matter is not required to be statedin the attestation clause, its inclusion can only mean that the instrumentalwitnesses wanted to make it of record that the deceased knew the language inwhich the will was written.

(3) Witnesses: Cornelio Gonzales de Romero stated that she spoke to the deceasedbefore the signing of the will, and judging from the way she spoke she was of theimpression that the deceased was of sound mind at the time. To the same effect is thetestimony of Consuelo B. de Catindig. She said that her impression when the deceasedsigned the will was that she could still talk and read, only that she was weak. In fact sheread the will before signing it. These statements had not been contradicted. They givean idea of the mental had not contradicted. They give an idea of mental condition of thedeceased in the will differ from each other in certain respects, this is only due to her ageand state of health rather than to a defective mental condition. They do not reveal acondition of forgery or lack of genuineness. These differences or irregularities arecommon in the writings of old people and, far from showing lack of genuineness, areindicative of the age, sickness, or weak condition of the writer.