IN RE WILL OF PEDRO TABLIZO, DECEASED. ANTONIO AMATA AND FELIPE ALMOJUELA, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. JUANA TABLIZO ET AL., OBJECTORS AND APPELLEES.

This is a proceeding commenced in the Court of First Instance of Albay
by a petition filed by Antonio Amata and Felipe Almojuela, praying for
the probate of the last will and testament of the deceased Pedro
Tablizo, and the issuance of letters of administration to the
petitioners.

Juana Tablizo and others opposed the probate of
the will applied for on the following grounds: “(1) That it was not
signed by the witnesses, nor executed by the deceased Pedro Tablizo, as
prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure; (2) that the deceased Pedro
Tablizo was not habitually of sound mind, but on the contrary, was
unconscious at the time of the execution of said document; (3) that
said document was not signed by the testator freely and voluntarily,
nor did he intend it to be his will on the date when it was executed;
and (4) that said document was maliciously and fraudulently prepared by
the two beneficiaries Antonio Amata and Felipe Almojuela, causing a
date to appear thereon which is not the true date of its execution.”
And they prayed that the petition be denied, and it be held that Pedro
Tablizo died intestate, and Tomas Tablizo be appointed special
administrator of the estate left by said deceased.

After
trial, whereat evidence was introduced by the petitioners, as well as
the opponents, the court below entered an order declaring that the
deceased Pedro Tablizo was unconscious when the document Exhibit A was
executed, and that said document did not contain the, last will of the
testator, and denying the probate thereof as the last will and
testament of said deceased; and declaring, further, that Pedro Tablizo
died intestate. From this order the petitioners took an appeal in due
time and form, assigning the following supposed errors as committed by
the trial court, to wit: (1) Its declaration that it entertains a
reasonable suspicion that the document Exhibit A, the testament of the
deceased Pedro Tablizo, does not contain the will of the testator; (2)
its refusal to admit the will Exhibit A to probate and its finding that
Pedro Tablizo died intestate; and (3) its failure to render judgment
against the opponents for the costs of the action.

The
petitioners attempted to prove that the deceased Pedro Tablizo was 82
years old and was near-sighted. Beginning May 4, 1924, he was confined
to his bed by reason of senile weakness and could not stand up. On June
2 and 3, 1924, he sent for one Juan Agunday to tell him to draw his
will, but the latter excused himself, saying that it was a delicate and
hard task. On the evening of June 3, 1924, Pedro Tablizo caused one to
look for Alipio Arcilla, but the latter could not be found, having gone
to Dato. In view thereof, he ordered that Felipe Almojuela be called.
As soon as the latter arrived, which took place at about 3 o’clock in
the evening, Pedro Tablizo asked Antonio Amata to bring him the list of
his real properties, and to read one by one the items therein for the
purpose of separating the paraphernal property of his wife from his own
and the conjugal property. Antonio Amata read them one by one in the
presence of Mariano Arcilla, husband of Juana Tablizo, of Felipe
Almojuela and of Pedro Tablizo, giving their boundaries, kinds, areas
and values. As Antonio Amata was. mentioning each parcel, Pedro Tablizo
was telling him to whom it must be allotted. When he said, “that is
Incay’s” (wife of Pedro Tablizo), he marked the item with the word
“Incay,” and so on, with the words “Pedro,” if he said it was his;
“conjugal” if he said it was conjugal; and “own cultivation” if he said
it was cultivated by him exclusively, that is, land acquired by
cultivation and occupied by him. There arose certain doubts as to the
boundaries of one of the land’s and his brother-in-law Mariano Arcilla
made them clear. At 6 o’clock in the evening, the reading of the list
was finished, and Pedro Tablizo asked Antonio Amata and his
brother-in-law, Mariano Arcilla, as to what they thought about the will
being drawn by Felipe Almojuela. Mariano Arcilla answered that he
agreed that it be written by Felipe Almojuela, since no one else could
do it and Alipio Arcilla was not in the town. At 6:30 Pedro Tablizo
began to dictate his will to Felipe Almojuela, in the presence of his
wife, of Mariano Arcilla and Antonio Amata, having finished the same at
about 8 o’clock in the evening. While Felipe Almojuela was writing a
clean copy of the rough draft in his house, the testator told Antonio
Amata to look for Vicente Arcilla and Gregorio Sarmiento who were to
act as witnesses to the will, together with Gregorio Sarmiento who was
already in the house. Felipe Almojuela finished typewriting the will at
12 o’clock in that night and took it to the house of the testator, who,
in the presence of Mariano Dominguez, Vicente Arcilla, Gregorio
Sarmiento, Cipriano Suscito, Felipe Almojuela, Francisco Gianan,
Eufrosina Tablizo and Antonio Amata, had Mariano Dominguez read it
paragraph by paragraph. Cipriano Suscito and Mariano Arcilla followed
with their eyes what Mariano Dominguez was reading. Before the reading
of the will, the testator, in a stroke of good humor said to Mariano
Dominguez, “Alas! Nitoy, I will no longer be able to help you in the
next election.” Upon the termination of the reading of the will, and
after stating that it was his last will, Pedro Tablizo asked for it in
order to sign the same. It was 1 o’clock in the morning of June 4,
1924. Gregorio Sarmiento seated Pedro Tablizo upon the bed and has been
holding him, while Antonio Amata was taking a book of music, placing
the will Exhibit A upon it, and presenting it to the testator for his
signature. As the latter could no longer see, Eufrosina Tablizo, niece
of the testator and wife of Antonio Amata, placed the pen between his
fingers, held his hand and put the point of the pen on the place where
he had to write his signature. The testator signed unaided on the left
margin of each of the pages and at the bottom of the will in the
presence of all the witnesses, who did the same in the presence of each
other and of the testator. At 10 o’clock approximately in the evening
of June 4, 1924, Pedro Tablizo sent for Father Cecilio Penilla and
confessed. Before the confession, he had been talking with said priest.
On the 9th day of June, 1924, Serapia Torcelino and her husband went to
the house of the deceased looking for a carabao to purchase, and Pedro
Tablizo ordered that the carabao called Tilbayong be sold. On
the 10th day of the same month and year, Fathers Andres Tablizo and
Mariano Surtida, paid a visit to the testator and the latter talked
with them. On the 12th day of the same month and year, Father Cecilio
Penilla saw him for the last time, and on said date, as on June 4, he
found him lying down on his bed, being unable to move, but he could
speak, and prayed correctly, first in an audible voice and then in a
low voice. In his two confessions, he related his spiritual life
coherently and without confusion. Antonio Amata has been living with
his wife in the house of the testator, taking care of him and helping
him manage his estate. It was he who attended to the payment of the
land tax. Felipe Almojuela was reared by Pedro Tablizo since he was a
child, having taken him from the possession of his parents and kept him
in his house until he married. Pedro Tablizo died on June 20, 1924.

The opponents, who are all brothers and sisters and children of
brothers and sisters of the testator, attempted to prove that the will
was clandestinely prepared by Antonio Amata and Felipe Almojuela and
signed on the midnight of June 19,1924, Pedro Tablizo then lying down
on his bed, weakened by old age and his sickness, lying down with his
mouth. upward and open, the eyes closed and the feet and arms extended,
being unable to move, see, speak or know those surrounding him, it
being necessary that Antonio Amata should, as he did, place the pen in
his fingers, hold him by the arm and guide him while signing the will
upon a pillow.

The only questions to be decided in this
appeal are: (1) When was the will made and signed?; (2) who drew and
signed it?; and (3) was the mind of the testator perfectly sound when
he made and signed the will?

As to the first question, the
preponderance of the evidence shows that the testator dictated to
Felipe Almojuela the rough draft of his will, the latter having
typewritten it clean, and finished the drawing thereof at midnight.
Notwithstanding the distrust with which the trial judge received the
testimony of the petitioners, as they had intervened in the preparation
of the will, and are the ones most benefited, he could not help giving
credit to their testimony and that of their witnesses upon the date
when the will was made and signed, that is, from 3 o’clock in the
evening of the third day up to 1 o’clock in the morning of the 4th of
June, 1924. In view of the fact that the testator did not die until
June 20, 1924, it was to the interest of the opponents to fix it at
June 19, 1924, in order to make credible the theory that the testator
was unconscious when his will was executed and signed.

Turning now to the second question, the very witness for the opponents,
Father Cecilio Penilla, testified that at 10 o’clock approximately in
the night of June 4, 1924, the date when the will was signed, and on
the 12th day of the same month and year, the testator had sent for him
in order to confess and on both occasions he intelligently and
intelligibly talked with him, relating his spiritual life coherently
and clearly although he was lying down on his bed arid could not move
or stand up without assistance. It is a fact also uncontroverted that
on June 9, 1924, he ordered a carabao sold, designating it by its name Tilbayong.
On the 10th day of the same month, he received the visit of Fathers
Andres Tablizo and Mariano Surtida with whom he has been conversing.
All these prior, coetaneous and subsequent circumstances show that
Pedro Tablizo was perfectly of sound mind at the time of making his
last will.

With regard to the third question, we have,
already seen that the will was made on June 3, 1924, and signed
immediately thereafter at an early hour in the morning of the 4th day
of the same month and year. The date of the execution of the will is
important in the determination of the mental condition of the testator.
If the opponents and their witnesses testified falsely upon this
essential point, under the rule falsus in uno falsus in omnibus,
they are not entitled to any credit upon the other essential points of
their testimony, unless corroborated by other witnesses whose
credibility is beyond suspicion. “On the other hand, the testimony of
the petitioners and their witnesses upon the making of the will is so
clear, positive and consistent, and the succession of facts upon which
they testified and their incidents is so natural, that it cannot but
convince any one who should read it without bias. If, as above stated,
the petitioners and their witnesses are entitled to a greater credit
than the opponents and their witnesses, and if, as above seen, the
testator was in perfectly sound mental condition, there can be no doubt
that it was the testator who signed his signature on the will placed
upon a book of music. The testimony of the opponents and their
witnesses is improbable that the will was signed upon a pillow. A
pillow being soft, as it is, cannot serve as a support for writing
purposes.

Where the testator is in perfectly sound mental
Condition, neither old age, nor ill health, nor the fact that somebody
had had to guide his hand in order that he could sign, is sufficient to
invalidate his will. (28 R. C. L., pars. 44 and 68; L. R. A. [1915 D],
page. 906; 35 L. R. A., 102.)

For the foregoing reasons, we
are of the opinion that the order appealed from must be, as is hereby,
revoked with the costs against the appellees, and it is ordered that
the will of Pedro Tablizo be admitted to probate. So ordered.

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