G.R. No. 19079. January 15, 1923

By an order dated December 16, 1921, the Court of First Instance of Batangas
allowed the document, Exhibit A, to probate as the last will and testament of
the deceased Maria Tapia, thus granting the petition of Primitivo L. Gonzalez
and overruling the opposition presented by Jovita Laurel.

Jovita Laurel now appeals to this court from that ruling of the court below,
alleging that that court erred:

“1. In holding that Exhibit A, the supposed will of the deceased Maria Tapia
y Castillo, was executed with the solemnities prescribed by the law,
notwithstanding that there was no proof of the dialect known by the said
deceased and of the fact that it was the same in which said Exhibit A was
written.

“2. In not holding that the signatures of Maria Tapia appearing in said
Exhibit A had been obtained through deceit, surprise, fraud, and in an illegal
and improper manner.

“3. In not finding that said Exhibit A was obtained through unlawful
pressure, influence and machinations of the applicant, Primitivo L. Gonzalez,
one of the legatees, in connivance with Attorney Modesto Castillo.

“4. In not finding that the deceased Maria Tapia was physically and mentally
incapacitated at the time she is said to have executed Exhibit A.

“5. In declaring said Exhibit A valid and authentic and allowing it to
probate as the will and testament of the deceased Maria Tapia y
Castillo.”

Concerning the first error assigned, it appears that the deceased Maria Tapia
was a resident of the Province of Batangas, a Tagalog region, where said
deceased had had real properties for several years. It also appears that she
requested Modesto Castillo to draw her will in Tagalog. From the record taken as
a whole, a presumption arises that said Maria Tapia knew the Tagalog dialect,
which presumption is now conclusive for not having been overthrown nor
rebutted.

The three following errors have reference to the question whether or not the
testatrix acted voluntarily and with full knowledge in executing and signing the
will. The preponderance of evidence in this respect is that said document was
executed and signed by Maria Tapia voluntarily and with full knowledge, without
fraud, deceit, surprise, or undue influence or machinations of anybody, she
being then mentally capacitated and free. Such is the fact established by the
evidence, which we have carefully examined.

In connection with the evidence, our attention was called to an
irreconcilable conflict between the transcript of an answer of the witness
Primitivo L. Gonzalez, presented by the appellant as “Annex 1” to his motion
filed in this court (fol. 16 of the Rollo), and the official transcript,
in that while said answer is “Yes, sir,” according to the transcript of
the appellant, it is “Certainly, that is not true,” according to the
official transcript of the stenographic notes attached to the record. But it is
to be noted that at the continuation of the hearing held on a subsequent date,
in which said witness Primitivo L. Gonzalez was examined on this contradiction,
he said in the course of the rebuttal evidence of the applicant: “No, sir. I
did not answer in that way. I did not take her hand to make her sign. I did not
by any means answer that question to that effect. I very well remember that
fact, because it affects much the probate of the will.” (Fols. 56 and 57 of
transcript and documentary evidence.)

It appearing from the record that the document Exhibit A is the will of the
deceased Maria Tapia, executed with all the formalities and solemnities required
by the law, the trial court did not commit any error in admitting it to
probate.

For the purposes of this decision, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the
question raised by the appellee as to whether or not this appeal was perfected
within the time fixed by the law.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant. So
ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand,
and Johns, JJ., concur.