Lopez Vs Liboro....

ublic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1787 August 27, 1948
Testacy of Sixto Lopez. JOSE S. LOPEZ, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
AGUSTIN LIBORO, oppositor-appellant.
Tirona, Gutierrez and Adorable for appellant.

Ramon Diokno for appellee.
TUASON, J.:
In the Court of First Instance of Batangas the appellant opposed unsuccessfully the probate of what
purports to be the last will and testament (Exhibit A) of Don Sixto Lopez, who died at the age of 83 in
Balayan, Batangas, on March 3, 1947, almost six months after the document in question was executed.
In the court below, the present appellant specified five grounds for his opposition, to wit: (1) that the
deceased never executed the alleged will; (2) that his signature appearing in said will was a forgery; (3)
that at the time of the execution of the will, he was wanting in testamentary as well as mental capacity
due to advanced age; (4) that, if he did ever execute said will, it was not executed and attested as
required by law, and one of the alleged instrumental witnesses was incapacitated to act as such; and it
was procured by duress, influence of fear and threats and undue and improper pressure and influence on
the part of the beneficiaries instituted therein, principally the testator's sister, Clemencia Lopez, and the
herein proponent, Jose S. Lopez; and (5) that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick.
In this instance only one of these objections is reiterated, formulated in these words: "That the court a
quo erred in holding that the document Exhibit "A" was executed in all particulars as required by law." To
this objection is added the alleged error of the court "in allowing the petitioner to introduce evidence that
Exhibit "A" was written in a language known to the decedent after petitioner rested his case and over the
vigorous objection of the oppositor.
The will in question comprises two pages, each of which is written on one side of a separate sheet. The
first sheet is not paged either in letters or in Arabic numerals. This, the appellant believes, is a fatal
defect.
The purpose of the law in prescribing the paging of wills is guard against fraud, and to afford means of
preventing the substitution or of defecting the loss of any of its pages. (Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil.,
476.) In the present case, the omission to put a page number on the first sheet, if that be necessary, is
supplied by other forms of identification more trustworthy than the conventional numerical words or
characters. The unnumbered page is clearly identified as the first page by the internal sense of its
contents considered in relation to the contents of the second page. By their meaning and coherence, the
first and second lines on the second page are undeniably a continuation of the last sentence of the
testament, before the attestation clause, which starts at the bottom of the preceding page. Furthermore,
the unnumbered page contains the caption "TESTAMENTO," the invocation of the Almighty, and a recital
that the testator was in full use of his testamentary faculty, — all of which, in the logical order of
sequence, precede the direction for the disposition of the marker's property. Again, as page two contains
only the two lines above mentioned, the attestation clause, the mark of the testator and the signatures of
the witnesses, the other sheet can not by any possibility be taken for other than page one. Abangan vs.
Abangan, supra, and Fernandez vs. Vergel de Dios, 46 Phil., 922 are decisive of this issue.
Although not falling within the purview and scope of the first assignment of error, the matter of the
credibility of the witnesses is assailed under this heading. On the merits we do not believe that the
appellant's contention deserves serious consideration. Such contradictions in the testimony of the
instrumental witnesses as are set out in the appellant's brief are incidents not all of which every one of the
witnesses can be supposed to have perceived, or to recall in the same order in which they occurred.
Everyday life and the result of investigations made in the field of experimental psychology show
that the contradictions of witnesses generally occur in the details of a certain incident, after a long
series of questioning, and far from being an evidence of falsehood constitute a demonstration of
good faith. Inasmuch as not all those who witness an incident are impressed in like manner, it is
but natural that in relating their impressions they should not agree in the minor details; hence, the
contradictions in their testimony. (People vs. Limbo, 49 Phil., 99.)
The testator affixed his thumbmark to the instrument instead of signing his name. The reason for this was
that the testator was suffering from "partial paralysis." While another in testator's place might have
directed someone else to sign for him, as appellant contends should have been done, there is nothing
curious or suspicious in the fact that the testator chose the use of mark as the means of authenticating his
will. It was a matter of taste or preference. Both ways are good. A statute requiring a will to be "signed" is
satisfied if the signature is made by the testator's mark. (De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil., 108; 28
R. C. L., 117.)
With reference to the second assignment of error, we do not share the opinion that the trial court
communicated an abuse of discretion in allowing the appellant to offer evidence to prove knowledge of
Spanish by the testator, the language in which the will is drawn, after the petitioner had rested his case
and after the opponent had moved for dismissal of the petition on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
It is within the discretion of the court whether or not to admit further evidence after the party offering the
evidence has rested, and this discretion will not be reviewed except where it has clearly been abused. (64
C. J., 160.) More, it is within the sound discretion of the court whether or not it will allow the case to be
reopened for the further introduction of evidence after a motion or request for a nonsuit, or a demurrer to
the evidence, and the case may be reopened after the court has announced its intention as to its ruling on
the request, motion, or demurrer, or has granted it or has denied the same, or after the motion has been
granted, if the order has not been written, or entered upon the minutes or signed. (64 C. J., 164.)
In this jurisdiction this rule has been followed. After the parties have produced their respective direct
proofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only, but, it has been held, the court, for good
reasons, in the furtherance of justice, may permit them to offer evidence upon their original case, and its
ruling will not be disturbed in the appellate court where no abuse of discretion appears. (Siuliong and Co.
vs. Ylagan, 43 Phil., 393; U. S. vs. Alviar, 36 Phil., 804.) So, generally, additional evidence is allowed
when it is newly discovered, or where it has been omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or where the
purpose of the evidence is to the evidence is to correct evidence previously offered. (I Moran's Comments
on the Rules of Court, 2d ed., 545; 64 C. J., 160-163.) The omission to present evidence on the testator's
knowledge of Spanish had not been deliberate. It was due to a misapprehension or oversight.
Although alien to the second assignment of error, the appellant impugns the will for its silence on the
testator's understanding of the language used in the testament. There is no statutory requirement that
such knowledge be expressly stated in the will itself. It is a matter that may be established by proof
aliunde. This Court so impliedly ruled in Gonzales vs. Laurel, 46 Phil., 781, in which the probate of a will
written in Tagalog was ordered although it did not say that the testator knew that idiom. In fact, there was
not even extraneous proof on the subject other than the fact that the testator resided in a Tagalog region,
from which the court said "a presumption arises that said Maria Tapia knew the Tagalog dialect.
The order of the lower court ordering the probate of the last will and testament of Don Sixto Lopez is
affirmed, with costs.
Paras, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones and Padilla, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Lopez Vs Liboro....

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopez Vs Liboro....

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopez Vs Liboro....

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ublic of the Philippines

G.R. No. L-1787 August 27, 1948

Testacy of Sixto Lopez. JOSE S. LOPEZ, petitioner-appellee,

Tirona, Gutierrez and Adorable for appellant.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.