Testate Estate of Dela Cruz V Dela Cruz
Testate Estate of Dela Cruz V Dela Cruz
Testate Estate of Dela Cruz V Dela Cruz
SYLLABUS
DECISION
Neither do we believe that the fact that the witnesses were better
known to proponent Andres Pascual than to the testatrix suffices to render
their testimony suspect. Under the circumstances, considering the admitted
fact that when the will was executed (1954) the testatrix was already 83
years old, suffering from rheumatism to the extent that she had to wear
thick socks and soft shoes, it is not unlikely that she should have entrusted
the task of requesting them to act as witnesses to Andres Pascual himself,
albeit the said witnesses, testifying eight years later, should have stated that
they were asked by Catalina to witness her testament. The error of recall,
considering the eight-year interval, is consonant with the well known
vagaries of human memory and recollection, particularly since the main
detail that must have stuck in their minds is that they did witness the
signing of the will, upon which their attention must have principally
concentrated. That they did so is attested by their signatures and those of
the deceased testatrix, which are nowhere impugned; nor is there any claim
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
by appellants that the latter was incapable of reading and understanding the
will that she signed. In fact, the evidence is that she did read it before
signing. The authorities are to the effect that friendly relations of the
witnesses with the testator or the beneficiaries do not affect the credibility of
the former, 4 so that the proven friendship between the proponent and the
instrumental witnesses would have no bearing on the latter's qualification to
testify on the circumstances surrounding the signing of the will.
Appellants' main reliance is the alleged tape recording of a
conversation between instrumental witness Manuel Jiongco and oppositor
Pedro B. Cruz at the latter's house sometime in 1960 (which recording was
admittedly taken without Jiongco's knowledge) wherein said witness is
supposed to have stated that when he signed the will the other witnesses'
signatures were already affixed, and were not then present, and that he
(Jiongco) signed the document in 1958 or 1959 (Exhibit 22; transcription,
Exhibit 23 et. seq.).
There are two circumstances that militate against giving credence to
this particular evidence. The first is that there is no adequate proof that the
declarations tape recorded were in fact made by Jiongco. The latter denied
that the voice was his, and in this respect the trial judge stated (Record on
Appeal, pages 83-84):
"We do not doubt the fact that Manuel Jiongco was in the house
of Pedro Cruz on the occasion that Exhibit "23" was taken. But it is
important to note that when said recording was replayed before
Manuel Jiongco in Court he denied that the voice which uttered the
abovequoted portions in the conversation was his. So that with that
denial of Manuel Jiongco, the Court was left with no other recourse than
to make its own comparison between the natural voice of the witness,
Manuel Jiongco, while testifying on the witness stand and his supposed
recorded voice in Exhibit "23". It is to be admitted that we noted some
similarity between the two voices but it was not enough to justify a
categorical and definite conclusion that the recorded voice identified
by Pedro Cruz to be that of Manuel Jiongco is in truth and in fact the
voice of the latter. Between a testimony given in Court under oath
which was subjected to and stood a rigorous cross- examination and
loose statements made out of Court which even then are of doubtful
source, this Court gives full faith and credence to the former. And this
is true even if this particular witness admits having a poor memory,
and his trustworthiness is assailed due to a previous record of an
administrative case filed against him wherein he was fined for a charge
of falsification of public document (see Exh. "25"). This is so, because
the veracity of his testimony in Court regarding the due execution of
Exhibit "D" is corroborated and confirmed by the testimony of two
other attesting witnesses to the document and the Notary Public who
notarized the same."
Footnotes
1.Although not related by blood, petitioner claims he was taken into, and grew up
with, the family of the deceased.
2.Junquera vs. Borromeo, L-18498, 30 March 1967, 19 SCRA 656.
3.Article 805, Civil Code of the Philippines.
4.95 C.J.S. 326-327; Yowell vs. Hunter, 85 NE 2d 674; In re Reid's Estate, 138 So.
2d. 342.