PASCUAL v.

DELA CRUZ
May. 30, 1969 | REYES, JBL, J.| Wills > Allowance and Disallowance > Grounds
PETITIONERS: TESTATE ESTATE OF CATALINA DELA CRUZ, ANDRES PASCUAL
RESPONDENTS: PEDRO DELA CRUZ, ET AL
SUMMARY: Catalina died, left a will naming Pascual heir. Nephews and Nieces opposed, alleging
inconsistencies in the testimonies. TC admitted probate. SC affirmed, taking into account the 8-year
difference between time of signing and time of testimony.
.
DOCTRINE: See Held #s 2-4

FACTS:
1. 2 Jan 1960: Catalina Dela Cruz, 89, died, single and without any surviving ascendants or
descendants.
2. Andres Pascual filed a petition for the probate of her will. Pascual was named executor and heir
therein.
3. Respondents, nieces and nephews of Catalina, opposed, alleging that Catalina was mentally
incapable of disposing her properties by will at time of execution; that such was procured through
undue influence, etc; and that her signature was procured through fraud.
4. Probate court admitted the will. Respondents appealed directly to SC (properties involved were
valued at over 300k)
5. Respondents: the testimonies of the witnesses and the Notary Public were inconsistent and
contradictory; that the will was not signed by all the witnesses in the presence of one another. (TC:
the instrument was signed in 1954, while the testimony was given in 1962 8 years difference; not
unreasonable for witness to forget some details. What is important is that there be unanimity and
certainty in their testimony re: the signatures of the testatrix, the witnesses, and the notary public,
and the fact that they were all present at time of signing).
ISSUE: WN the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies would prohibit the will from being
probated? NO

HELD:
1. Where a will is contested, the subscribing with are generally regarded as the best qualified to testify
on its due execution. However, it is similarly recognized that for the testimony of such witnesses to
be entitled to full credit, it must be reasonable and unbiased, and not overcome by competent
evidence, direct or circumstantial, for it must be remembered that the law does not simply require
the presence of three instrumental witnesses; it demands that the witnesses be credible
2. The Court agreed with the TC that the inconsistencies (weather condition at the time the will was
executed; the sequence of the signing by the witnesses; and the length of time it took to complete
the act) were not important details that could have been affected by the lapse of time and
the treachery of human memory.
3. Inconsistencies, by themselves, would not alter the probative value of their testimonies on
the due execution of the will.
4. (Estate of Javellana v. Javellana) For the purpose of determining the due execution of a will, it is
not necessary that the instrumental witnesses should give an accurate and detailed account
of the proceeding, such as recalling the order of the signing of the document by the said
witnesses. It is sufficient that they have seen or at least were so situated at the moment that
they could have seen each other sign, had they wanted to do so.
5. Catalina, at the time, was suffering from rheumatism (had to wear thick socks and soft shoes), and
it would not have been improbable that she had Pascual secure witnesses. The main detail
considered by the Court is the one that must have stuck in their minds - that they did witness the
 signing of the will. That they did so is attested by their signatures and those of the deceased
testatrix, which are nowhere impugned; nor is there any claim by appellants that the latter was
incapable of reading and understanding the will that she signed. In fact, the evidence is that she
did read it before signing. The authorities are to the effect that friendly relations of the witnesses
with the testator or the beneficiaries do not affect the credibility of the former.
6. Respondents main contention: Tape recording (taken without their knowledge) between the
witnesses (Jiongco and Cruz) wherein one of them said that when he signed the will, the other
signatures were already there, and that the other witnesses were not present then.
7. TC, as adopted by the SC:
a. Jiongco denied that the voice in the recording was his, and no proof was given to show
that Jiongco was indeed the one in the recording. Apparently, there were similarities in
Jiongcos voice during trial and in the recording, but the Court gave credence to the
testimony made by him under oath as he was subjected to cross-examination.
b. The recording said that he signed the will only on 1958/1959, but in the Notarial Registry,
the will was recorded on 1954.
8. SC stated that it was not the first time it admitted probate of a will despite inconsistencies in the
testimonies, for as long as it is satisfied that the will was executed and attested to in the manner
prescribed by law.
9. (As to fraud) the Court noted that Pascual was not a stranger in the life of Catalina. It was also
found that he had also been named sole heir to the properties of the sisters of Catalina. Further,
respondents presented no proof to prove that such fraud was present in this case. Their main
contention lied upon the statement by Pascual that Catalina did not like to sign anything unless I
knew it.
10. (As to the selection of the witnesses) Pascual selected Dr. Sanchez, and not the relatives of
Catalina, as it would have meant the disclosure of the terms of her will to those interested in her
succession but who were not favored by her, thereby exposing her to unpleasant importunity and
recriminations that an aged person would naturally seek to avoid.
11. Respondents: (American jurisprudence) assumption of undue influence if beneficiary participates
in drafting and execution of will.
12. SC: Not applicable in this case. Pascual was a lawyer, and in the normal course of events, a lawyer
would follow the instructions of the testatrix. Further, a member of the bar in good standing may
not be convicted of unprofessional conduct or of having conspired to falsify a statement, except
upon clear proof.