Calde vs. Court of Appeals

Where the physical inspection of a will and codicil shows signatures in different ink colors, that autoptic proference may contradict testimonial evidence that only one ballpen was used and support a finding that the instruments were not subscribed by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses in the presence of one another, as required by Article 805 of the Civil Code.

Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang executed a Last Will and Testament and a Codicil, naming Nicasio Calde as executor; after his death during probate, Clemente Calde was substituted as petitioner. Private respondents Primo Agawin and Domyaan Aped, relatives of the decedent, opposed allowance of the testamentary documents. The governing statutory requirement is Article 805 of the Civil Code, which prescribes the manner of subscription and attestation of wills, including that the testatrix and instrumental witnesses sign in the presence of one another.

Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang died on March 20, 1976, leaving property worth nine thousand pesos (P9,000.00). She left a Last Will and Testament dated October 30, 1972, and a Codicil dated July 24, 1973. Both documents contained her thumbmarks, were signed by three attesting witnesses each, and were acknowledged before Tomas A. Tolete, then the Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko, Mt. Province.

Nicasio Calde, the executor named in the will, filed a Petition for its allowance before the Regional Trial Court of Bontoc, Mt. Province, Branch 36, docketed as SPL. PROC. CASE NO. 295. He died during the pendency of the proceedings and was substituted by petitioner Clemente Calde. Private respondents Primo Agawin and Domyaan Aped, relatives of the decedent, opposed the petition. They alleged that the will and codicil were written in Ilocano, a dialect the decedent did not know; that she was mentally incapacitated to execute the two documents because of her advanced age, illness, and deafness; that her thumbmarks were procured through fraud and undue influence; and that the codicil was not executed in accordance with law.

During the proceedings, Codcodio Nacnas testified that all signatories signed on the same table, that the testament was passed around so each could sign consecutively, and that after Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang affixed her thumbmark, Jose Becyagen signed with a ballpen, followed by Nacnas, then Hilario Coto-ong, with the same document and ballpen passed along. Obanan Ticangan, regarding the codicil, admitted that when they signed Exhibit “D” and “D-1,” they all signed with one ballpen. Petitioner’s witnesses thus claimed that a single ballpen was used.

The Court of Appeals found that the signatures of some attesting witnesses on the will and codicil were in blue ink while others were in black. It noted that no witness testified that two pens were used and that two witnesses even said only one ballpen was used. Because the same ballpen used in succession could not have produced different colors, and because the signatures also appeared to differ in broadness, the appellate court concluded that the documents were not signed by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses in the presence of one another. Judge Tolete’s testimony narrated the signing sequence but offered no explanation for the different-colored signatures.

• Speculative Finding: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals decided a question of substance contrary to law and applicable Supreme Court decisions by concluding, on pure speculation or surmises and without regard to Judge Tolete’s testimony, that the will and codicil were signed by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses on different occasions.
• Attestation Clauses: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals disregarded the probative value of the attestation clauses of the Last Will and Testament and the Codicil.

• Improper Language: Respondents opposed probate on the ground that the will and codicil were written in Ilocano, a dialect the decedent did not know.
• Mental Incapacity: Respondents alleged that the decedent was mentally incapacitated to execute the documents because of advanced age, illness, and deafness.
• Fraud and Undue Influence: Respondents alleged that the decedent’s thumbmarks were procured through fraud and undue influence.
• Non-Compliance with Law: Respondents alleged that the codicil was not executed in accordance with law.

• Subscription in the Presence of One Another: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Last Will and Testament and Codicil were not subscribed by the instrumental witnesses in the presence of the testatrix and of one another, contrary to Article 805 of the Civil Code.
• Autoptic Proference and Testimonial Evidence: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the different ink colors of the signatures, as shown by inspection of the documents, to disbelieve the testimonial evidence that only one ballpen was used.
• Judge Tolete’s Testimony and Attestation Clauses: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not giving weight to Judge Tolete’s testimony and in disregarding the probative value of the attestation clauses.

• Subscription in the Presence of One Another: No. The Court affirmed the finding that the will and codicil were not subscribed by the instrumental witnesses in the presence of the testatrix and of one another, as required by Article 805 of the Civil Code.
• Autoptic Proference and Testimonial Evidence: No. The appellate court did not err in relying on the physical inspection of the documents, which showed signatures in different ink colors and contradicted the testimonial claim that only one ballpen was used.
• Judge Tolete’s Testimony and Attestation Clauses: No. Judge Tolete’s testimony did not explain the different-colored signatures, and the attestation clauses did not overcome the physical evidence.

• Subscription in the Presence of One Another: Article 805 requires the will to be subscribed by the instrumental witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The Court noted that the signatures of some attesting witnesses in the will and codicil were in blue ink while others were in black. This discrepancy was unexplained by petitioner; none of his six witnesses testified that two pens were used, and two witnesses even said only one ballpen was used. Because the same ballpen used in succession could not have produced different colors, the appellate court’s conclusion that the documents were not signed in one sitting was supported by the evidence. The Court thus affirmed the disallowance of probate.
• Autoptic Proference and Testimonial Evidence: The Court recognized three sources of knowledge for a tribunal: circumstantial evidence, testimonial evidence, and real evidence or autoptic proference. Autoptic proference is the tribunal’s self-perception or inspection of the thing itself. In this case, the will and codicil, upon inspection, showed in black and white—or more accurately, in black and blue—that more than one pen was used. This autoptic proference contradicted petitioner’s testimonial evidence. It was therefore not erroneous or baseless for the appellate court to disbelieve petitioner’s claim that both documents were subscribed in accordance with Article 805.
• Judge Tolete’s Testimony and Attestation Clauses: Judge Tolete’s testimony narrated how the documents were subscribed and attested, from the decedent’s thumbmarking to the alleged consecutive signing by the instrumental witnesses. However, nowhere in his testimony was there any explanation for the different-colored signatures. The Court thus found no error in the appellate court’s refusal to accord great weight to his testimony. The attestation clauses did not cure the defect because the physical evidence showed that the signatures were not made in one sitting, contrary to the requirement of Article 805.

• Autoptic Proference — A mode of acquiring belief by the tribunal’s self-perception or inspection of the thing itself, independent of inference from testimonial or circumstantial evidence. The Court relied on it when the will and codicil, upon inspection, showed signatures in different ink colors, contradicting the testimonial evidence that only one ballpen was used.
• Article 805 Compliance — Subscription in the Presence of One Another — Article 805 of the Civil Code requires the will to be subscribed by the instrumental witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The Court applied this requirement and affirmed the disallowance of probate because the different ink colors indicated the documents were not signed in one sitting.
• Finality of Factual Findings of the Court of Appeals — As a general rule, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal. The Court recognized an exception because the appellate court’s finding was contrary to the trial court’s, but after review it still affirmed the appellate court’s finding.
• Three Sources of Judicial Knowledge — A tribunal may acquire knowledge from circumstantial evidence, testimonial evidence, and real evidence or autoptic proference. The Court used this framework to resolve the conflict between the testimonial claim of a single ballpen and the physical evidence of different-colored signatures.

• "The question in the case at bench is one of fact: whether or not, based on the evidence submitted, respondent appellate court erred in concluding that both decedent’s Last Will and Testament, and its Codicil were subscribed by the instrumental witnesses on separate occasions." — States the factual issue and the threshold for review.
• "In the case at bench, the autoptic proference contradicts the testimonial evidence produced by petitioner. The will and its codicil, upon inspection by the respondent court, show in black and white — or more accurately, in black and blue — that more than one pen was used by the signatories thereto. Thus, it was not erroneous nor baseless for respondent court to disbelieve petitioner’s claim that both testamentary documents in question were subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of Art. 805 of the Civil Code." — Articulates the ratio decidendi on autoptic proference.
• "Neither did respondent court err when it did not accord great weight to the testimony of Judge Tomas A. Tolete. It is true that his testimony contains a narration of how the two testamentary documents were subscribed and attested to, starting from decedent’s thumbmarking thereof, to the alleged signing of the instrumental witnesses thereto in consecutive order. Nonetheless, nowhere in Judge Tolete’s testimony is there any kind of explanation for the different-colored signatures on the testaments." — Explains why Judge Tolete’s testimony did not overcome the physical evidence.
• "Such admissions from instrumental witnesses are indeed significant since they point to no other conclusion than that the documents were not signed by them in their presence but on different occasions since the same ballpen used by them supposedly in succession could not have produced a different color from blue to black and from black to blue." — Summarizes the Court of Appeals’ reasoning on the ink-color discrepancy.

• Article 805, Civil Code — Cited by the Court as the provision governing the subscription and attestation of wills, including the requirement that the will be subscribed by the instrumental witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The Court applied it to the will and codicil and found non-compliance because the physical evidence of different-colored signatures showed the documents were not signed in one sitting.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.