RIZALINA GABRIEL GONZALES vs.

CA and LUTGARDA SANTIAGO

DOCTRINE: In probate proceedings, the instrumental witnesses are not character

witnesses for they merely attest the execution of a will or testament and affirm the
formalities attendant to said execution therefore it is not mandatory that evidence be first
established on record that the witnesses have a good standing in the community or that
they are honest and upright or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable, for a person is
presumed to be such unless the contrary is established otherwise.

FACTS:
Petitioner Rizalina Gonzales and Respondent Lutgarda Santiago are both nieces
of the testatrix Isabel Gabriel who died a widow. A will was submitted for probate by the
respondent.

The will was typewritten, in Tagalog, executed two months before the death of
testatrix, consisted of 5 pages including attestation and acknowledgement, with the
complete signatures of testatrix and three witnesses on every page including the end
and the left margin.

Petitioner opposed; thereafter the lower court denied the probate on the grounds
that qualifications of the witnesses was not established as proof that the three witnesses
were credible witnesses, and the term “credible” is not synonymous with “competent” for
a witness may be competent under Articles 820 and 821 but not “credible” under Article
805 in harmony with the Naturalization Law where the law is mandatory that the petition
for naturalization must be supported by two character witnesses who must prove their
good standing in the community, reputation for trustworthiness and reliableness, their
honesty and uprightness.

CA reversed the lower court’s decision. Hence this case.

ISSUES:
Whether or not, evidence on record of credibility by the three instrumental
witnesses must be established as evidence on record.
Whether or not, the term “credible” in the Civil Code should be given the same
meaning it has under the Naturalization Law

HELD:
No, it is not mandatory that the credibility of the witnesses must be established
as evidence on record. It is enough that the qualifications enumerated under Article 820
are complied with such that there is soundness of mind, 18 years of age, not blind, deaf
and able to read and write, and none of the disqualifications set in Article 821, any
person not domiciled in the Philippines, those who have been convicted of falsification of
a document or perjury. The court held that the good standing of the witness in the
community, his reputation for trustworthiness and reliableness, his honesty and
uprightness, are attributes presumed of the witness unless the contrary is proved
otherwise by the opposing party.

No, the terms have different meanings. In Naturalization Law it is mandatory that
the witnesses prove their good standing and reputation and that they personally know
the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by the Act
and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable and that said petitioner has in
their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines. While
in probate proceedings, the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses for they
merely attest the execution of a will or testament and affirm the formalities attendant to
said execution. Competency is distinguished from credibility, the former being
determined by Art. 820 while the latter does not require evidence of such good standing.
Credibility depends on the convincing weight of his testimony in court

Therefore the court rejects petitioner's position that it was fatal for respondent not
to have introduced prior and independent proof of the fact that the witnesses were
"credible witnesses that is, that they have a good standing in the community and reputed
to be trustworthy and reliable.