Supreme Court · En Banc
Estate of Dolores Garces
- Camsol vs. Seventh Division of the SandiganbayanG.R. No. 242892 · July 6, 2022 · First Division
- Buenafe vs. COMELECG.R. Nos. 260374, 260426 · June 28, 2022 · En Banc
- Nelson V. Begino, et al. vs. ABS-CBN Corporation and Amalia VillafuerteG.R. No. 199166 · April 20, 2015 · First Division
- People vs. GerandoyG.R. No. 202838 · September 17, 2014 · First Division
- Lenn Morales vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Metropolitan Bank and Trust CompanyG.R. No. 182475 · November 21, 2012 · Second Division
- Artemio Villareal vs. People of the PhilippinesG.R. Nos. 151258, 154954 · February 1, 2012 ·
- National Housing Authority vs. First United Constructors CorporationG.R. No. 176535 · September 7, 2011 · Second Division
- Nippon Housing Phil. Inc., et al. vs. Maiah Angela LeynesG.R. No. 177816 · August 3, 2011 · Second Division
- Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Edgardo D. VirayG.R. No. 162218 · February 25, 2010 · Second Division
- Diaz vs. Republic of the PhilippinesG.R. No. 181502 · February 2, 2010 · Third Division
- People vs. CincoG.R. No. 186460 · December 4, 2009 · Third Division
- People vs. Del PradoG.R. No. 187074 · October 13, 2009 · Third Division
- Diño vs. OlivarezG.R. No. 170447 · June 23, 2009 · Third Division
- Leah M. Nazareno, et al.G.R. No. 177795 · June 19, 2009 · En Banc
- People vs. RomualdezG.R. No. 166510 · April 29, 2009 · En Banc
- David Tiu vs. Court of Appeals and Edgardo PostanesG.R. No. 162370 · April 21, 2009 · First Division
- Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. Commission on AuditG.R. No. 178160 · February 26, 2009 · En Banc
- People vs. CojaG.R. No. 179277 · June 18, 2008 · Second Division
- The People of the Philippines vs. Jose Magbanua y Moriño, et al.G.R. No. 176265 · April 30, 2008 · Second Division
- People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Dela Cruz y RiveraG.R. No. 177572 · February 26, 2008 · Third Division
- People of the Philippines vs. William ChingG.R. No. 177150 · November 22, 2007 · Third Division
- Heirs of the Late Sps. Timotea L. Palaganas vs. Registry of Deeds - Tarlac CityG.R. No. 171304 · October 10, 2007 · Third Division
- People vs. BaranganG.R. No. 175480 · October 2, 2007 · Third Division
- People vs. PangilinanG.R. No. 171020 · March 14, 2007 · En Banc
- Francisco Rayos vs. Atty. Ponciano G. HernandezG.R. No. 169079 · February 12, 2007 · Third Division
- Filinvest Land, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Romeo, et al.G.R. No. 142439 · December 6, 2006 · First Division
- The People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio CarpioG.R. No. 170840 · November 29, 2006 · Third Division
- People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Arsayo y LavaquizG.R. No. 166546 · September 26, 2006 · En Banc
- Sampana vs. Angara · August 22, 2006 · First Division
- Pepito Velasco vs. National Labor Relations CommissionG.R. No. 161694 · June 26, 2006 · Third Division
- Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. · March 31, 2006 · En Banc
- Leoncio A. Amadore vs. Alberto G. Romulo, et al.G.R. No. 161608 · August 9, 2005 · Second Division
- Heirs of Eduardo Manlapat vs. Court of AppealsG.R. No. 125585 · June 8, 2005 · Second Division
- Director Fredric Villanueva, et al. vs. The Commission on Audit, et al.G.R. No. 151987 · March 18, 2005 · En Banc
- Estolas vs. AcenaG.R. No. 157070 · January 14, 2005 · Second Division
- Estrada vs. DesiertoG.R. No. 156160 · December 9, 2004 · En Banc
- Jugueta vs. Estacio · November 25, 2004 · Second Division
- Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Rosalito Gammad, et al.G.R. No. 159636 · November 25, 2004 · First Division
- Marzalado vs. PeopleG.R. No. 152997 · November 10, 2004 · First Division
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Estate of Benigno P. Toda, Jr.G.R. No. 147188 · September 14, 2004 · First Division
- People vs. OrenseG.R. No. 152969 · July 7, 2004 · En Banc
- People vs. BoromeoG.R. No. 150501 · June 3, 2004 · En Banc
- Erlinda San Pedro vs. Ruben Lee and Lilian SisonG.R. No. 156522 · May 28, 2004 · First Division
- People vs. LimioG.R. Nos. 148804, 148805 · May 27, 2004 · En Banc
- People of the Philippines vs. Jenelito Ibañez, et al.G.R. No. 148627 · April 28, 2004 · Second Division
- People vs. OdenG.R. Nos. 155511, 155512 · April 14, 2004 · En Banc
- People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Moriles, Jr., et al.G.R. No. 153248 · March 25, 2004 · En Banc
- People of the Philippines vs. Anacito OpuranG.R. Nos. 147674, 147675 · March 17, 2004 · First Division
- People of the Philippines vs. Warlito Tolentino y LaquinG.R. No. 139351 · February 23, 2004 · En Banc
- People of the Philippines vs. Ronnie Abolidor, et al.G.R. No. 147231 · February 18, 2004 · First Division
- and 62 more
Counted from decisions in our library that cite this case by G.R. number or Philippine Reports page. Some citations can't be matched, so the true count may be higher.
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
En Banc
[ G.R. No. 28, March 6, 1902 ]
In the matter of the estate of DOLORES GARCES.
Eusebio Orense, for appellant.
Ladd, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, denying the petition of the appellant to raise to the formality of a public instrument (escritura) the open will of his deceased wife, Doña Dolores Garces. The will was executed without the services of a notary according to the provisions of article 700 and 702 of the Civil Code relative to wills executed in articulo mortis. It was reduced to writing and signed by the testatrix and seven witnesses. The court denied the application upon the sole ground that it did not appear that the will had been executed by one single act.
Six of the witnesses to the will were examined by the judge, one witness having died before the hearing. All of the witnesses testified expressly that the will was executed by one single act. Concerning the hour when this execution took place all were not agreed. Four of them testified that it took place approximately between the hours of 6 and 7 of the evening. One testified that it occurred at 3 o'clock of the afternoon and one that it was done during the time between 3 o'clock in the afternoon and 8 o'clock in the evening, approximately.
The judge deemed these statements, apparently contradictory, concerning the hour when the will was made, as destructive of the force of credibility of the unanimous statement of all of the witnesses to the effect that the will was executed in one single act. We do not so consider the aforesaid statements. The four witnesses who testified that the execution took place between 6 and 7 might have referred only — as is reasonable to suppose — to the formal act of executing the same, or, in other words, to the final reading of the document to the testatrix in the presence of the witnesses, the manifestation by the testatrix of her approval of the same, and the act of signing by the testatrix and the witnesses, which acts naturally would not consume more than a short time. On the other hand, the witness who testified that the execution took place during the period from 3 to 8 might have understood that the execution included all of the procedure, drawing up the will in writing, and including all that was done with reference to the same preparatory to the final formalities. The execution, in this sense, might easily have lasted several hours as the witness stated. The last witness, who testified that the execution took place at 3 might have had in mind the first step in the process of the execution, using the term in this last sense. Thus explained the testimony of all of the witnesses is found to agree in the essential particulars and we are inclined to believe that this interpretation is the true one. Even though it were impossible to reconcile the different statements in question, we would not be disposed to give to a contradiction of this sort, which is upon a merely accessory circumstance, the weight that has been given thereto by the lower court.
We believe that the due execution of the will was sufficiently proved.
And therefore the order appealed from should be reversed and the document which appears in the record is declared the will of the deceased, Doña Dolores Garces, verified by the witnesses, it being understood that this declaration is without prejudice to third persons. The said will is ordered to be inscribed in the proper notarial record or protocol.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Willard, and Mapa, JJ., concur.