G.R. No. 39078. December 22, 1933
IN RE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED LUCIANA BATALLONES. NICASIA BATALLONES, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. PUBLEO BATALLONES ET AL., OPPOSITORS AND APPELLEES.
VILLA-REAL, J.:
judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Laguna in the
matter of the estate of the deceased Luciana Batallones, the
dispositive part of which reads as follows:
“In
view of the foregoing considerations, the will Exhibit B, alleged to
have been executed by the deceased Luciana Batallones during her
lifetime, is hereby held null and void. Let the case continue as an
intestate proceeding of the said deceased. So ordered.”
In support of her appeal the appellant assigns three alleged errors as committed by the court a quo in its decision, which we shall discuss in the course of this decision.
There is no question that Juan Salazar signed the name of the alleged
testatrix at the foot of the document Exhibit B, which was written in
Tagalog and which is claimed to be the last will and testament of the
deceased Luciana Batallones, and later signed his own name thereto in
the presence of each and every one of the three witnesses, each of whom
likewise signed the document in question, as such, in the presence of
one another.
The only question to decide herein is whether
or not the document in question was executed by Luciana Batallones in
her own house in the municipality of Cabuyao, Province of Laguna,
requesting Juan Salazar to sign her name thereto, which he did in the
presence of the testatrix and of each and every one of the witnesses
who, in turn, signed it in the presence of the said testatrix and of
one another.
All the witnesses for the petitioner
corroborated one another and were unanimous in their testimony to the
effect that while they were all gathered in the house of Luciana
Batallones at about 10 o’clock on the morning of July 17, 1931, the
latter requested Juan Salazar to sign her name to her alleged will, and
Gabriel Balagtas, Cirilo Hemedes and Pedro E. Hemedes to sign it as
instrumental witnesses thereof.
The oppositors impugn the
authenticity and due execution thereof by means of oral evidence
tending to prove that said document was prepared after the death of the
alleged testatrix. They claim that it could not have been possible for
Juan Salazar and Gabriel Balagtas to be present at the house of the
deceased Luciana Batallones at the time of the signing of the alleged
will, as claimed by the witnesses for the petitioner, on the alleged
ground that Juan Salazar was living in the barrio of Banlik, which is
five kilometers distant from the municipality of Cabuyao, and that
Gabriel Balagtas had to go to the office of the Calamba Sugar Estate on
the morning of July 17, 1931, for the purpose of collecting a loan
granted him, to negotiate which one usually remains there until 10
o’clock in the morning in order to obtain the money. None among the
witnesses, who testified having seen Gabriel Balagtas in the offices of
the Calamba Sugar Estate, claimed having had a watch by which he could
tell the exact time that he had seen him there. Neither did the
witnesses for the petitioner testify to the effect that there was any
clock in the house of Luciana Batallones by which they could see the
exact time of the execution of the alleged will. The witnesses for the
oppositors, as well those for the petitioner more or less merely
calculated the time and it is a well known fact from every day
experience that it is difficult to tell the exact time of the day
accurately without a watch at hand. Therefore, it is not improbable,
much less impossible, that the witnesses for the petitioner, Juan
Salazar and Gabriel Balagtas, were at the house of Luciana Batallones
at the time at which they claim the latter had executed her alleged
will.
The fact that Juan Salazar and Gabriel Balagtas went
to the house of the deceased Luciana Batallones on the occasion that
the latter was to execute her will, without having been previously
notified thereof, and furthermore, the fact that the former’s name
appeared in the document as that of the one who had to sign the name of
the testatrix at her request, is not improbable inasmuch as both of
them knew Luciana Batallones and had gone to town on personal business.
Still furthermore, inasmuch as the alleged will consisted in only one
page, it was not impossible that it had been typewritten when Juan
Salazar was already in the house of the alleged testatrix and his name
written thereon as that of the one who had been requested to sign the
name of the aforesaid testatrix Luciana Batallones. The fact that Juan
Salazar did not see any typewriter in the room of the house where,
according to the testimony of the witnesses for the petitioner, the
will was signed, does not prove that there was none in the house.
Neither is it improbable that the testatrix, who had friends and
relatives among the prominent residents of Cabuyao, did not use them as
witnesses in her will, if we take into consideration the fact that she
was 80 years old, illiterate and that she lived alone with her sister,
the herein petitioner Nicasia Batallones. Like many other Filipino
women of her age, who had succeeded in amassing considerable property
by dint of sacrifice and privation, she would prefer to lead a simple
life, in seclusion and even in apparent poverty, and she might not have
wanted to bother her friends and relatives of high social standing,
preferring humble and simple friends like herself.
Therefore, inasmuch as it has not been proven conclusively that it was
impossible for the person, who signed the name of the testatrix, and
the instrumental witnesses to the will to be present at the house of
said testatrix Luciana Batallones on the day and at the hour
afore-mentioned, nor for the will to have been written when Juan
Salazar and the instrumental witnesses were already there, and inasmuch
as the person, who signed the name of the testatrix, and the said
instrumental witnesses have unanimously testified that they signed the
alleged will on the morning of the aforesaid date in the house of the
alleged testatrix and in the latter’s and one another’s presence, there
is no reason of sufficient weight to justify a finding to the effect
that the alleged will is not authentic.
Although they seem
to be anomalous, the fact that Nicasia Batallones was not mentioned in
the will, in spite of the fact that she lived with the testatrix in the
latter’s house and that she was the manager of her property; the fact
that said Nicasia Batallones had custody of the will and became
interested in the probate thereof, notwithstanding such unjustified
preterition, and the fact that upon submitting an inventory of the
estate of the said testatrix, she, as executrix thereof, stated therein
that the said estate consisted only in an undivided half of the
property left by her, are not in themselves sufficient to justify the
conclusion that the alleged will is unauthentic, for the reason that,
according to the testimony of Nicasia Batallones, her sister, the
deceased Luciana Batallones, had left one-half of her property to her,
during lifetime. Inasmuch as no attorney nor notary public intervened
in the preparation of the will in question, it is not to be expected
that the provisions thereof be perfect.
The propriety of the
appeal is questioned on the alleged ground that the petitioner is not
an interested party in the probate of the alleged will.
The
petitioner-appellant Nicasia Batallones is the executrix under the
alleged will and, as such, she is in duty bound to see to it that the
will of the testatrix is complied with. If the latter wanted to have
her estate delivered to her brother Sancho Batallones as her sole heir,
the obligation of the executrix does not cease except when the will of
the testatrix is annulled under a final judgment of the court annulling
her testament and until she has delivered said property to the
legitimate heirs of the aforesaid testatrix under the law. Of course,
Sancho Batallones, as the sole universal heir instituted under the
will, is the most concerned with the maintenance of the appeal.
However, inasmuch as his sister Nicasia Batallones, in her capacity as
executrix, is the one charged with the execution of the will and the
delivery of the property to him, she therefore becomes his
representative.
The validity of the said alleged will is
likewise impugned on the alleged ground that the attestation clause
thereof does not contain the necessary requisites provided by the law,
inasmuch as it is not stated therein that Juan Salazar wrote the name
of Luciana Batallones in the presence of the three witnesses. The
attestation clause, as translated, reads as follows:
“We,
the undersigned witnesses to the foregoing will, hereby ATTEST: That
this will is written on this single page; that upon her request, Mr.
Juan Salazar wrote the name of the testatrix thereto and later signed
it in our and her presence, and that each and every one of us has
signed at the foot of the will in the presence of the said testatrix
and of one another in the municipality and on the date hereinbefore
mentioned. In witness whereof, we have hereinbelow affixed our
signature on this same date of July 17, 1931, at Cabuyao, Laguna, P. I.
The
statement “upon her request, Mr. Juan Salazar wrote the name of the
testatrix thereto and later signed it in our and her presence, and that
each and every one of us has signed at the foot of the will in the
presence of the said testatrix and of one another” may be reconstructed
as follows: “that upon her request, Mr. Juan Salazar wrote the name of
the testatrix at the foot of the document and then signed it himself in
the presence of the said testatrix and of the three witnesses, and that
each and every one of us has signed at the foot of the will in the
presence of the testatrix and of one another.” Therefore, the objection
made to the validity of the attestation clause is unfounded.
In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so
hold: (1) That as representative of the heirs instituted therein, an
executor under the will is an interested party and may appeal for the
purpose of maintaining the validity of the will, the provisions of
which he is in duty bound to execute; (2) that the fact that an
unmarried and illiterate Filipino woman, 80 years old, who had
succeeded in amassing real property of considerable value and who lives
alone with a sister in a municipality wherein old customs still
prevail, has made her will with the intervention not of her friends and
relatives who are prominent residents thereof, but of friends of humble
economic and social standing, does not indicate falsification thereof,
and (3) that the fact that in her will, which was executed without the
intervention of any attorney or notary public, the testatrix has not
mentioned a sister with whom she had been living, who had taken care of
her, and to whom she had entrusted the management of her property, but
to whom she, during her lifetime, had given one-half thereof verbally,
does not in itself indicate that her alleged will is not authentic.
Wherefore, reversing the judgment appealed from, the document Exhibit B
is hereby held to be the last will and testament of the deceased
Luciana Batallones and is hereby allowed to probate, without special
pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.