Calde v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the probate of the Last Will and Testament and a Codicil executed by the deceased Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang. The decedent left behind property valued at nine thousand pesos (P9,000.00). The will was dated October 30, 1972, and the codicil was dated July 24, 1973. Both documents bore the decedent's thumbmarks and were purportedly signed by three attesting witnesses each, and acknowledged before Tomas A. Tolete, the Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mt. Province. 2. Procedural History: Nicasio Calde, the named executor, initially filed a Petition for the allowance of the will and codicil before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bontoc, Mt. Province. Petitioner Clemente Calde was substituted for Nicasio Calde after the latter's death during the proceedings. The private respondents, who are relatives of the decedent, opposed the petition, raising several grounds including that the documents were written in a dialect unknown to the decedent, that the decedent lacked mental capacity due to age, illness, and deafness, that her thumbmarks were obtained through fraud and undue influence, and that the codicil was not executed in accordance with law. The RTC initially rendered judgment approving and allowing the will and codicil. However, this decision was appealed to and subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeals, which disallowed the probate. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a petition for review by certiorari. The petitioner challenges the Court of Appeals' decision, specifically its conclusion that the will and codicil were not subscribed by the witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other, which is a requirement under Article 805 of the Civil Code. The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred by relying on speculation and disregarding the testimony of Judge Tolete and the probative value of the attestation clauses. The core of the appellate court's reversal was the discrepancy in the ink colors of the signatures of the instrumental witnesses, suggesting the documents were not signed in a single occasion as required by law.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the will and codicil were signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses on different occasions, based on the discrepancy in ink colors of the signatures. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the probative value of the attestation clauses.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals disallowing the Last Will and Testament and the Codicil thereto of the decedent Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the will and codicil were signed on different occasions: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the will and codicil were not subscribed by the instrumental witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The Court noted the discrepancy in the ink colors of the signatures on the documents, with some being blue and others black. This discrepancy was not explained by the petitioner, and two of his witnesses even testified that only one ballpen was used. The Court highlighted the principle of 'autoptic proference,' where the tribunal's direct inspection of the evidence (the documents themselves) can reveal facts that contradict testimonial evidence. The presence of signatures in different ink colors, when witnesses claimed only one pen was used, strongly indicated that the signing did not occur simultaneously or in one sitting, thus violating Article 805 of the Civil Code. The Court found no error in the appellate court's conclusion based on this 'autoptic proference' and the circumstantial evidence presented. On the issue of disregarding the probative value of the attestation clauses: The Court found that the appellate court did not err in not according great weight to the testimony of Judge Tomas A. Tolete, who narrated the subscription and attestation process. While his testimony described the sequence of events, it failed to provide any explanation for the observed discrepancy in the ink colors of the signatures on the testamentary documents. Therefore, the attestation clauses, which are presumed to be accurate, were effectively undermined by the physical evidence and the lack of a credible explanation for the inconsistencies.
Main Doctrine
The discrepancy in the ink color of signatures of attesting witnesses, coupled with testimony that only one ballpen was used, constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence to disallow probate of a will and codicil, as it indicates that the documents were not signed by the testatrix and witnesses in the presence of one another, violating Article 805 of the Civil Code. Autoptic proference, or the tribunal's direct inspection of the documents, can contradict testimonial evidence.