EN BANC
[G.R. No. 4187. October 5, 1908. ]
VICENTA LIMJUCO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MAURICIA GANARA, Respondent-Appellee.
Mariano Legaspi Florendo for Appellant.
Leocadio Joaquin for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. WILLS; EFFECT OF PROBATE. — Castañeda v. Alemany (3 Phil. Rep., 426) followed to the effect that the probate of a will does not determine the validity of any of its provisions.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
The appellant, Vicenta Limjuco, presented to the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Laguna for probate what purported to be the last will of Juan Limjuco. The court below denied the petition of the appellant for the probate of the document, holding that it never had been signed by Juan Limjuco. From the document itself it appears that Juan Limjuco was 104 years of age. It is dated on the 17th day of July, 1902, and he died on the same day. He declares therein that Blasa Ganara was his second wife and that he had by her three children who, as well as his wife Blasa Ganara, were all dead at the time of making the document, and he made the appellant, Vicenta Limjuco, his only heir.
The probate of the will was opposed by Mauricia Ganara as the guardian of the minor Gertrudis Limjuco, who was born in 1900 and who, the guardian alleged, was the legitimate daughter of Juan Limjuco and Blasa Ganara. No mention of this child was made in the will.
Of the three witnesses to the document, one, Ciriaco Calacalsada, was dead at the time of the trial. The other two witnesses, Julian Narciso and Teodoro Calambacal, testified that they were present at the execution of the will and saw the testator Juan Limjuco, sign it. If their testimony can be believed, the will was July executed in accordance with the law.
The only evidence presented by the appellee was the testimony of two witnesses. One of them stated that in 1901 Juan Limjuco’s right hand was paralyzed so that he could not write. He testified that in that same year, when his wife, Blasa Ganara, desired to borrow money from a third person, Juan Limjuco was not able to sign the document evidencing the loan on account of this defect. The testimony of the other witness for the appellee was limited to this transaction relating to the loan. In our opinion, this evidence is entirely insufficient to overcome the positive testimony of the two witnesses who swore that they actually saw the testator sign the will.
Among other grounds alleged by the appellee in opposition to the probate was the fact that by the terms thereof he had disinherited his legitimate daughter and only heir, Gertrudis Limjuco. We have allready held that this furnishes no ground for refusing probate to the document if it was duly executed in accordance with the law. In the case of Castañeda v. Alemany (3 Phil. Rep., 426), it was said (p. 428):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"To establish conclusively as against everyone, and once for all, the facts that a was executed with the formalities required by law and that the testator was in a condition to make a will, is the only purpose of the proceedings under the new code for the probate of a will. (Sec. 625.) The judgment in such proceedings determines and can determine nothing more. In them the court has no power to pass upon the validity of any provisions made in the will. It can not decide, for example, that a certain legacy is void and another one valid."cralaw virtua1aw library
This case has since been followed by this court. (Pimentel v. Palanca, 5 Phil. Rep., 436; Sahagun v. Gorostiza, 7 Phil. Rep., 347.)
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to admit the will to probate. No cost will be allowed to either party in this court. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.
The probate of the will was opposed by Mauricia Ganara as the guardian of the minor Gertrudis Limjuco, who was born in 1900 and who, the guardian alleged, was the legitimate daughter of Juan Limjuco and Blasa Ganara. No mention of this child was made in the will.
Of the three witnesses to the document, one, Ciriaco Calacalsada, was dead at the time of the trial. The other two witnesses, Julian Narciso and Teodoro Calambacal, testified that they were present at the execution of the will and saw the testator Juan Limjuco, sign it. If their testimony can be believed, the will was July executed in accordance with the law.
The only evidence presented by the appellee was the testimony of two witnesses. One of them stated that in 1901 Juan Limjuco’s right hand was paralyzed so that he could not write. He testified that in that same year, when his wife, Blasa Ganara, desired to borrow money from a third person, Juan Limjuco was not able to sign the document evidencing the loan on account of this defect. The testimony of the other witness for the appellee was limited to this transaction relating to the loan. In our opinion, this evidence is entirely insufficient to overcome the positive testimony of the two witnesses who swore that they actually saw the testator sign the will.
Among other grounds alleged by the appellee in opposition to the probate was the fact that by the terms thereof he had disinherited his legitimate daughter and only heir, Gertrudis Limjuco. We have allready held that this furnishes no ground for refusing probate to the document if it was duly executed in accordance with the law. In the case of Castañeda v. Alemany (3 Phil. Rep., 426), it was said (p. 428):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"To establish conclusively as against everyone, and once for all, the facts that a was executed with the formalities required by law and that the testator was in a condition to make a will, is the only purpose of the proceedings under the new code for the probate of a will. (Sec. 625.) The judgment in such proceedings determines and can determine nothing more. In them the court has no power to pass upon the validity of any provisions made in the will. It can not decide, for example, that a certain legacy is void and another one valid."cralaw virtua1aw library
This case has since been followed by this court. (Pimentel v. Palanca, 5 Phil. Rep., 436; Sahagun v. Gorostiza, 7 Phil. Rep., 347.)
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to admit the will to probate. No cost will be allowed to either party in this court. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.
