Agustin Barrera, et. al. vs. Jose Tanjoco, et. al. G.R. No.

L-5263, February 17, 1954 Facts: Oliva Villapaa died in Tarlac, Tarlac on December 14, 1948. She left a will. On December 31 of the same year, a petition for the probate of the will and for his appointment as executor was filed by Agustin Barrera. According to the petition, the properties left by the testatrix were worth P94, 852.96 and the heirs instituted were nephews, nieces and grandchildren in the collateral line. Jose and Victoriano Tampoco, who were the alleged grandchildren of the decedent in the direct line, filed an opposition thereto. Consorcia Lintang, Nemesio Villapaa and four others all surnamed Villapaa, who were alleged nephews and nieces of the decedent, also filed a similar opposition to the petition for probate. On August 11, 1951, the Court of First Instance of Tarlac rendered a decision disallowing the will. The Court found that the testatrix had testamentary capacity, that there was no forgery, fraud and undue influence in the execution of the will and that preterition of forced heirs is not a ground for denying probate. However, the will was disallowed because it was not the personal last will and testament of the deceased and it was based on the finding that the testatrix did not furnish the names of the persons instituted as heirs and that the will was not read to her before she signed it. Moreover, it was mentioned that attesting witness Laureano Antonio was not present when the decedent and attesting witness Honorio Lacson signed the will and that the decedent saw Antonio sign only two or three times. In Barreras appeal, it was established through evidence that the niece of the decedent, Pilar Taedo asked and requested Modesto Puno, a lawyer and justice of the peace of Concepcion Tarlac, to have a conference with her aunt Olivia Villapaa in Manila. In their meeting, Villapaa sought the assistance of Modesto Puno in the preparation of her will, giving him the names of the heirs and the properties to be left. She then asked Atty. Puno to secure the description of the properties from Agustin Barrera, herein petitioner and Pilars husband. Atty. Puno noted the wishes of Villapaa and prepared the will in his office in Concepcion as there was then no available typewriter. On July 17, 1948, Atty. Puno returned to the house of Villapaa carrying with him one original and three copies, in typewritten form, of the will he drafted in accordance to the instructions of Villapaa. He read the will to Villapaa and she said that it was all right. After lunch, Atty. Puno manifested that two other witnesses were necessary. Hence, Honorio Lacson and Laureano Antonio, who were then living in the first floor of the house, were requested to serve as witnesses. Both of them agreed. All four of them, the testatrix Villapaa, Atty. Puno, Lacson and Antonio, were seated around a small rectangular table in the sala. At this juncture, Atty. Puno gave a copy of the will to Oliva, Lacson and Antonio while he retained one. The lawyer again read the will out loud, advising the rest to check their respective copies. As Villapaa agreed to the will, she proceeded to sign all the four copies on the lines previously placed by Atty. Puno, followed successively by Lacson, Atty. Puno and Antonio, all in the presence of each other. After the signing, Atty. Puno gave the two copies to the testator and retained the two other copies. The testator left her will to Barrera for safekeeping on October 17, 1948 when she was taken to the UST Hospital.

On the other hand, the oppositors claim that the attesting witness Laureano Antonio did not see the testatrix Villapaa and attesting witness Lacson sign the will or any of its copies, that he saw Atty. Puno when he was already half-thru signing the document and that Villapaa did not see Antonio sign all the copies. Issue: Was the denial of the probate of the will proper? Ruling: NO. Two attesting witnesses in Atty. Puno and Lacson testified positively that the will was signed by the testatrix and the three attesting witnesses in the presence of each other while Antonio testified to the contrary. The court gave weight to the testimony of the first two, one of whom is an attorney and justice of the peace who drafted the will. The court also considered the fact that the witness who testified against the due execution of the will signed the attestation clause stating that the will was signed by the testatrix and the witnesses in the presence of each other. Furthermore, the court did not attempt to discover the motives of the testatrix in leaving her properties to the person named in the will. As the will was found to have been executed free from falsification, fraud, trickery or undue influence, with the testatrix having testamentary capacity, the court was compelled to give expression thereto.