ROSARIO FELICIANO VDA. DE RAMOS, MIGUEL DANILA, RAYMUNDO A.

DANILA,
CONSOLACION SANTOS, MIGUEL G. DANILA, AMOR DANILA, MOISES MARTINEZ, MIGUELA
GAVINO, MELITON NISTA, PRIMITIVA NISTA, HEIRS OF DANIEL NISTA, MOISES NISTA,
DOMINGO NISTA and ADELAIDA NISTA, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, MARCELINA (MARTINA) GUERRA and THE HEIRS OF BUENAVENTURA
GUERRA, respondents.
G.R. No. L-40804 January 31, 1978

Doctrine: The law requires at least three attesting witnesses to a notarial will. The witnesses shall be
called upon, during probate, to recount the incidents which occurred thereat. To a large extent, admission to
or denial of probate depends on the testimony of these instrumental witnesses. However, if contrary to
expectation, these witnesses, or some of them, should testify against the formal validity of the will, the
proponent of the will may use other evidence, direct or circumstantial, to establish compliance with
the formalities prescribed by law. A will is not necessarily void because the witnesses declared against its
validity.
deceased
Recit-Ready Summary: Eugenia Danila allegedly executed a will and testament dated March 9, 1963 and a
codicil dated April 18, 1963. Adelaida Nista, one of the instituted heirs filed a petition for the probate of the
repondents
two documents. The Guerras filed an opposition to the petition alleging among others that they are the
legally adopted son and daughter of the late spouses Florentino Guerra and Eugenia Danila. The adopted
children alleged that the will and codicil were procured through fraud and undue influence. They further
contend that the formalities required by law for the execution of a will and codicil have not been complied
with as the same were not properly attested to or executed and not expressing the free will and deed of the
testatrix. They also claim that Eugenia had already executed on November 5, 1951 her last will and testament
which was duly probated and not revoked or annulled during her lifetime. The petitioners on the other hand
contend that the will and codicil are valid since it complied with the formalities required by law for the
execution of a will and codicil. The last will and codicil were executed in accordance with the
formalities required by law. As a rule, if any or all of the subscribing witnesses testify against the due
execution of the will, or do not remember having attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful credibility, the
will may, nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses and from all
the evidence presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner required by law.

Facts:
The late Eugenia Danila left a will wherein she instituted among others Adelaida Nista as one of the instituted
heirs. Nista petitioned before the court to admit the will to probate. The petition was opposed by
Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina Guerra. The two oppositors claimed that they were the legally adopted
children of Danila; that the said will sought to be probated by Nista was obtained through fraud.

The two parties talked and they came up with a compromise agreement which essentially stated that Nista is
admitting the invalidity of the will. The compromise agreement was approved by the trial court BUT Rosario
de Ramos et al – the other instituted heirs and devisees – intervened. The trial court allowed the intervention
and set aside the compromise agreement. Rosario de Ramos et al alleged that the Guerras repudiated their
shares when they abandoned Danila and committed acts of ingratitude against her.
IN ISSUE
Eventually, the probate court admitted the will to probate. The decision was appealed by the Guerras. The
Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the probate court. The CA ruled that there was a failure to prove
that Danila was in the presence of the instrumental witnesses when she signed the will – this was because two
of the instrumental witnesses (Sarmiento and Paz) testified in court that the will was already signed by Danila
when they affixed their signatures.
HOWEVER, Atty. Ricardo Barcenas, the Notary Public before whom the will was executed and who assisted
in the execution, vehemently assailed the testimony of the two witnesses. He affirmed Danila and the three
instrumental witnesses were in each other’s presence when the will was signed by them. Another lawyer, who
was also present during the execution of the will, corroborated the testimony of Atty. Barcenas.

Issue: Whether or not the last will and codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities of the law,
considering two of the attesting witnesses testified against their due execution while other non-subscribing
witnesses testified to the contrary ? YES

Held:
The last will and codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities required by law. There is no
question that each and every page of the will and codicil carry the authentic signatures of Eugenia Danila and
the three (3) attesting witnesses. Similarly, the attestation claim far from being deficient, were properly signed
by the attesting witnesses. Neither is it disputed that these witnesses took turns in signing the will and codicil
in the presence of each other and the testatrix. Both instruments were duly acknowledged before a Notary
Public who was all the time present during the execution. There is no showing that the lawyers had been
remiss in their sworn duty. Consequently, respondent court failed to consider the presumption of regularity in
the execution of the questioned documents. There were no incidents brought to the attention of the trial
court to arouse suspicion of anomaly. While the opposition alleged fraud and undue influence, no evidence
was presented to prove their occurrence.

With regard to the testimonies of the witnesses against the due execution of a will, it does not necessarily
disallow its probate. Although the subscribing witnesses to a contested will are the best witnesses in
connection with its due execution, to deserve full credit, their testimony must be reasonable, and unbiased; if
otherwise, it may be overcome by any competent evidence, direct or circumstantial.

As a rule, if any or all of the subscribing witnesses testify against the due execution of the will, or do not
remember having attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful credibility, the will may, nevertheless, be allowed
if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses and from all the evidence presented that the will
was executed and attested in the manner required by the law.

It has been regarded that the function of the Notary Public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or
immoral arrangements in the execution of a will. In the absence of any showing of self-interest that might
possibly have warped his judgment and twisted his declaration, the intervention of a Notary Public, in his
professional capacity, in the execution of a will deserves grave consideration.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby reversed insofar as it disallowed
the probate of the will and codicil. with costs against respondent.