Revilla vs. Court of Appeals

A testator's categorical denial that he executed another will is positive evidence of a personally known fact and prevails over the testimonies of the alleged notary and instrumental witnesses where due execution is otherwise discredited by hospitalization on the supposed date of execution, material contradictions, and circumstances of secrecy and undue influence.

Don Cayetano Revilla y De la Fuente, a bachelor without issue or surviving ascendants, owned two valuable lots with buildings on Calle Azcarraga in Manila and six parcels in San Miguel, Bulacan, together worth some P30 million, plus family cemetery lots with a mausoleum. His nearest relatives were nine full-blood nephews and nieces, including petitioner Heracio R. Revilla, the eldest, and the eight private respondents. On January 28, 1978, Don Cayetano executed a will dividing his estate among them.

Don Cayetano Revilla y De la Fuente, a bachelor without issue or surviving ascendants, owned two lots with buildings on Calle Azcarraga (now C.M. Recto Street) in Quiapo, Manila, six parcels in San Miguel, Bulacan, and cemetery lots with a mausoleum at Sta. Rita Memorial Park. On January 28, 1978, he executed a last will and testament bequeathing an undivided one-tenth of his estate to each of his nine nephews and nieces, who were full-blood brothers and sisters including Heracio Revilla, reserving the last tenth for masses after his death and for the care of religious images kept in his chapel in San Miguel, Bulacan. During his lifetime he himself sought probate, and on March 21, 1980 the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, in Special Proceeding No. 128828, allowed and admitted the will to probate.

On November 19, 1981 the Manila City Hall was destroyed by fire, including the records of Special Proceeding No. 128828. A petition for reconstitution was filed and granted after hearing at which Don Cayetano testified again on November 27, 1982. He identified the brown envelope marked "Buksan ito pagkalibing ko" with his signatures, authorized its opening, identified the fourteen-page document entitled "Unang Pahina, Huling Habilin Ni Don Cayetano Revilla" dated January 28, 1978 and his signatures on every page, recognized himself and his lawyer Atty. Benjamin Dacanay in photographs taken at the signing, affirmed that it was his genuine will "and not changed," and declared he had executed no other will after probate. According to his testimony, before signing a letter dated October 21, 1982 he had been confined in the hospital for perhaps two months, during which he could not sign papers.

Don Cayetano died on November 11, 1986 at age 91. On November 19, 1986 Heracio, the oldest nephew, filed Special Proceeding No. 86-38444 for probate of another will allegedly executed September 13, 1982, instituting Heracio as sole heir and executor. The eight other nephews and nieces opposed probate and opposed Heracio's appointment as executor or special administrator. In an order dated May 7, 1987 the trial court held the executorship issue in abeyance and received evidence on probate. The record showed that Heracio had kept Don Cayetano in seclusion, requiring an order from Judge Eduardo Bengson to allow the siblings to visit, after which a videotape of a pleasant visit belied Heracio's claim that the uncle was displeased with them; Heracio later transferred Don Cayetano from Claro M. Recto Avenue, Manila to Heracio's house in Novaliches, Quezon City. The trial court found the notary and the three instrumental witnesses Co, Barredo and Lim contradictory and incredible, found the photographs did not show the nature or date of the document signed, and noted the second will omitted the one-tenth reservation for masses and the family chapel.

• Negative Evidence: Petitioner maintained that Don Cayetano's denial of a second will was a mere negative declaration with no probative value under the rules of evidence.
• Cross-Examination and Admissibility: Petitioner argued that Don Cayetano's testimony in the reconstitution proceeding was inadmissible because his counsel, Attorney Layosa, had no opportunity to cross-examine him, and characterized the denial as an honest mistake due to misapprehension of fact.
• Relevance of Non-Disclosure: Petitioner contended that inquiry into the existence of the second will during reconstitution was totally uncalled for, immaterial and irrelevant, to explain why the second will, supposedly already existing on November 27, 1982, was kept under wraps and not invoked against reconstitution.
• Due Execution and Witness Credibility: Petitioner put much stock in the supposed due execution of the second will and the competence of attesting witnesses Co, Barredo and Lim.
• Undue Influence, Fraud and Oath: Petitioner insisted that undue influence was mutually repugnant to fraud, and objected to Don Cayetano's deposition for want of an oath before he testified.

• Prior Probated Will and Non-Revocation: Respondents alleged that the January 28, 1978 will had been admitted to probate on March 21, 1980 in Special Proceeding No. 128828 and that Don Cayetano never informed anyone up to his death that he had revoked it.
• Non-Compliance and Forgery: Respondents alleged that the will sought to be probated was not executed in accordance with law and that Cayetano Revilla's signature thereon was different from his usual and customary signature.
• Mental Incapacity: Respondents alleged that when the will was allegedly executed the decedent was already of unsound mind or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, incompetent and unable without outside aid to care for himself and manage his properties, making him an easy prey of deceit and exploitation.
• Undue Influence, Duress and Fraud: Respondents alleged that the will was executed through undue and improper pressure and influence by the beneficiaries or others for their benefit, was void for having been executed under duress or influence of fear or threats, and that signatures were procured by fraud or trick or mistake such that decedent did not intend the instrument to be his will.
• Unfitness as Executor: Respondents opposed Heracio's appointment as executor and/or special administrator on the ground that the alleged will and the designation therein were null and void and that he was unfit for the trust.

• Validity of Second Will: Whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in disallowing the alleged second will dated September 13, 1982.

• Validity of Second Will: No. The disallowance was sustained, the second will not having been shown to be authentic and duly executed in light of the testator's own denial, his hospitalization, incredible attesting evidence, and indicia of undue influence and fraud.

• Validity of Second Will: The testator's November 27, 1982 testimony, given only two months after the supposed September 13, 1982 execution, was that the first will was his true and only will and that he had executed none after its probate, while identifying the envelope, the fourteen-page will, his signatures, and the signing photographs and directing delivery to the court. Because the declaration affirmed a fact personally known to himself — that he did not make a second will — it was positive, not negative, evidence, and outweighed the notary and three instrumental witnesses. Non-disclosure of the supposed second will during reconstitution, and the failure to tell the court that reconstitution was useless if a revoking will existed, undermined authenticity, as did the admission of two months' hospital confinement in August to September 1982 during which he could not sign. The opportunity to cross-examine existed but Attorney Layosa made no attempt to exercise it or to confront Don Cayetano with the second will, and objection to lack of oath was waived for failure to object at the taking under Section 29(d), Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. Due execution was further discredited by major contradictions — Mendoza's ready entrustment at a second meeting despite the confidential disinheritance design and his claim the old man understood English versus proof he spoke only Tagalog except "yes, sir," Barredo's inconsistency on fetching witnesses and staying with the old man, Co's munificence in not charging for two services, and Co's claim of silent reading versus Lim's claim of reading aloud — plus photographs showing neither the document's nature nor date. Secrecy, seclusion, transfer to Novaliches, the need for a judicial visitation order, the videotaped pleasant visit contradicting alleged displeasure, disinheritance of eight equally loved nephews and nieces, omission of the one-tenth for masses and chapel maintenance, and foisting a document whose true nature was concealed established undue influence as the means of fraud, justifying deference to the trial court's credibility findings.

• Positive vs. negative evidence — Evidence is negative when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact, and positive when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. Applied here, Don Cayetano's assertion that he did not execute a second will was positive evidence of a fact personally known to himself, not a negative declaration lacking probative value, and therefore outweighed contrary attesting testimony.
• Waiver of defects in depositions; deference to credibility findings — Errors and irregularities at oral examination, including in the oath or affirmation, which could have been obviated if promptly raised, are waived unless reasonable objection is made at the taking of the deposition. Applied here, the late oath objection was tardy, and the trial court's distrust of the notary and attesting witnesses, based on observed contradictions, was accorded highest respect pursuant to People vs. Sarol, Guita vs. Court of Appeals, and People vs. Cabanit.
• Undue influence and fraud in probate — A will procured in secrecy and seclusion resulting in the unnatural disinheritance of natural heirs equally favored under a prior probated will, without the testator's awareness of its true revocatory nature, supports a finding of undue influence employed as the means to defraud other heirs. Applied here, isolation of the nonagenarian testator, concealment of the instrument from him, the court and siblings, and deletion of the personal one-tenth provision for masses and chapel proved the second will was not his disposition.

• "Evidence is negative when the witness states that he did not see or know the occurrence of a fact, and positive when the witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur (2 Moore an Facts,p 1338)." — Defines the distinction that makes Don Cayetano's denial positive evidence that he made no second will, rejecting petitioner's negative-evidence argument.
• "This categorical denial by the late Cayetano Revilla must be believed by everybody. If he denied having executed another will, who are we to insist that he made another or second will after the probate of his will dated January 28, 1978? The testimonies of the alleged notary public as well as the three instrumental witnesses of the alleged second will of the late Cayetano Revilla cannot outweigh the denial of the late Cayetano Revilla. . . . ." — States the controlling reason for preferring the testator's own denial over attesting testimony on authenticity.
• "Errors and irregularities occurring at the oral examination in the manner of taking the deposition, in the form of the questions or answers, in the oath or affirmation, or in the conduct of the parties and errors of any kind which might be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly prosecuted, are waived unless reasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition." — Quotes Section 29(d), Rule 24 of the Rules of Court to reject the tardy oath objection to Don Cayetano's deposition.

• People vs. Sarol, 139 SCRA 125 — Cited as authority that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility deserves highest respect, supporting affirmance of disbelief in the second will's witnesses.
• Guita vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 576 — Cited for the same deference principle regarding the lower court's distrust of attesting testimony.
• People vs. Cabanit, 139 SCRA 94 — Cited likewise to sustain deference to factual observations on credibility.

• Section 29(d), Rule 24, Rules of Court — Provides that errors in the oath or manner of taking a deposition are waived unless reasonably objected to at the taking; applied to reject petitioner's belated attack on Don Cayetano's testimony for want of oath.

Cruz, J., Padilla, J. and Bellosillo, J., concur.