Case Digest: Reyes vs. Vda. de Vidal, G.R. No. L-2862, April 21, 1952

Art. 804  | Succession, Language, Signature

Provision:

Art. 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.

Ponente:
Bautista Angelo, J.

Petitioner: Juan Reyes

Respondent:  Dolores Zuñiga Vda. de Vidal

Recit Version:

Maria Zuñiga Vda. de Pando's last will and testament was opposed by her sister, Dolores Zuñiga Vda. de Vidal, who claimed it was invalid due to alleged discrepancies in signatures, language comprehension, and mental capacity. The trial court disallowed the will, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.

The expert witness used by the opposition was rebutted by another expert whose standards of comparison were more reliable and closer in time to the disputed signatures. Moreover, the testator's ability to speak Spanish was proven by her own letters and the attestation clause. Testimonies from witnesses indicated she was of sound mind and the differences in her signatures were only due to her age and state of health common in the writings of old people.

Facts:

On  October 29, 1945, Maria Zuñiga Vda. de Pando died.

She allegedly left a last will and testament on the same day witnessed by three persons:

1. Cornelia Gonzales de Romero, who used to provide the deceased with ice every day;
2. Quintin Ulpindo, a laborer whose job was to fix the rattan bed; and
3. Consuelo B. de Catindig, a neighbor of the deceased for many years.

Juan Reyes filed a petition for the probate of the will.

Dolores Zuñiga Vda. de Vidal, sister of the deceased, opposed the probate.

She presented an expert witness, Jose G. Villanueva.

Villanueva's comparative analysis of the signatures in the will revealed discrepancies after comparing with the deceased's genuine signatures.

Trial Court: Disallowed the will.

Grounds:

1. That the signatures of the deceased appearing therein are not genuine;
2. That it was not proven that the deceased knew the Spanish language in which it was written; and
3. That even if the signatures are genuine, the same reveal that the deceased was not of sound mind when she signed the will.

Issues:

1. WoN the signatures of the deceased appearing in the will are genuine; YES
2. WoN there is evidence to show that the testatrix knew the language in which the will was written; YES
3. WoN the testatrix was of sound and disposing mind when she signed the will. YES

Held:

The lower court erred in disallowing the will.

1. The opinion of this expert witness, Jose G. Villanueva, has been rebutted by another expert witness, Jose C. Espinosa, whose opinion, deserves more weight and credence. And our reason for reaching this conclusion is the fact that the standards of comparison used by Espinosa are more reliable than those used by Villanueva. 

Thus, the standards used by Villanueva in the comparison are two signatures appearing in two documents executed on November 10, 1942, one signature in an identification card affixed in April 1940, a half signature appearing in a letter written on October 8, 1943, one signature appearing in a letter written on July 16, 1945, and one signature appearing in a letter written in January 1945, whereas the disputed signatures appearing in the will were affixed on October 29, 1945. 

On the other hand, the standards used by Espinosa in making his comparative study bear dates much closer to that of the disputed signatures. Thus, he examined four genuine signatures that were affixed on October 16, 1945, other four signatures that were affixed in October 1945, one on January 2, 1945, one on January 24, 1945, and one on September 24, 1945. He also examined one affixed on March 12, 1941, only for emphasis. 

The closeness or proximity of the time in which the standards used had been written to that of the inspected signature or document is very important to bring about an accurate analysis and conclusion. The selection of the proper standards of comparison is of paramount importance specially if we consider the age and state of health of the author of the questioned signatures. A signature affixed in 1941 may involve characteristics different from those borne by a signature affixed in 1945. And this is because the passing of time and the increase in age may have a decisive influence in the writing characteristics of a person. It is for these reasons that the authorities are of the opinion that in order to bring about an accurate comparison and analysis, the standards of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature. If possible not less than five or six signatures should always be examined and preferably double that number.

2. In the first place, we have the undisputed fact that the deceased was a mestiza española, was married to a Spaniard, Recaredo Pando, and made several trips to Spain. In the second place, we have the very letters submitted as evidence by the oppositor written in Spanish by the deceased in her own handwriting. 

Having proven by her very own evidence that the deceased possessed the Spanish language, oppositor cannot now be allowed to allege the contrary. 

These facts give rise to the presumption that the testatrix knew the language in which the testament has been written, which presumption should stand unless the contrary is proven. 

And finally, we have the very attestation clause of the will which states that the testatrix knew and possessed the Spanish language. It is true that this matter is not required to be stated in the attestation clause, but its inclusion can only mean that the instrumental witnesses wanted to make it of record that the deceased knew the language in which the will was written. There is, therefore, no valid reason why the will should be avoided on this ground.

3. Cornelia Gonzales de Romero stated that she spoke to the deceased before the signing of the will, and judging from the way she spoke she was of the impression that the deceased was of sound mind at the time. To the same effect is the testimony of Consuelo B. de Catindig. She said that her impression when the deceased signed the will was that she could still talk and read, only that she was weak. In fact she read the will before signing it. These statements had not been contradicted. They give an idea of the mental condition of the deceased. While the signatures affixed by the deceased in the will differ from each other in certain respects, this is only due to her age and state of health rather than to a defective mental condition. They do not reveal a condition of forgery or lack of genuineness. These differences or irregularities are common in the writings of old people and, far from showing lack of genuineness, are indicative of the age, sickness, or weak condition of the writer. A comparison of the three disputed signatures in the will will readily give this impression.