Rizalina Gabriel GONZALES, petitioner, vs. Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and Lutgarda SANTIAGO, respondents. G.R. No.

L-37453, May 25, 1979 FACTS: Lutgarda Santiago and Rizalina Gonzales are nieces of the late Isabel Andres Gabriel. Lutgarda filed a petition for the probate of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased and designated Lutgarda as the principal beneficiary and executrix. There is no dispute that Isabel died as a widow and without issue. The will submitted consists of five (5) pages and includes the pages whereon the attestation clause and the acknowledgment of the notary public were written. The signatures of the deceased Isabel Gabriel appear at the end of the will on page four and at the left margin of all the pages. The petition was opposed by Rizalina assailing that the will is not genuine and was not executed and attested as required by law. The lower court disallowed the probate of said will and as a consequence, Lutgarda appealed to Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts decision and allowed the probate of the will. Rizalina filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence this present action. ISSUE: Whether or not the will was executed and attested as required by law. RULING: Article 820 of the Civil Code provides for the qualifications of a witness to the execution of wills while Article 821 sets forth the disqualification from being a witness to a will. In probate proceedings, the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses for they merely attest the execution of a will or testament and affirm the formalities attendant to said execution. And we agree with the respondent that the rulings laid down in the cases cited by petitioner concerning character witnesses in naturalization proceedings are not applicable to instrumental witnesses to wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines. In the case at bar, the finding that each and everyone of the three instrumental witnesses are competent and credible is satisfactorily supported by the evidence as found by the respondent Court of Appeals, which findings of fact this Tribunal is bound to accept and rely upon. Moreover, petitioner has not pointed to any disqualification of any of the said witnesses. It is presumed that a witness to a will has the qualifications prescribed by law, unless the contrary is established by the oppositor. To be considered a credible witness to a will, it is not mandatory that witness good community standing and probity be first established. A will duly acknowledged before a notary public has in its favor the presumption of regularity, as for example, regarding the date when the notary was furnished the residence certificates of the witnesses. Attestation clause the best evidence of date the will was signed. Fact that there was conflict of testimony as to identity of photographer who took a photograph of the signing and attestation of the will, not a requirement of law, is of minor importance. What matters most is the photograph itself. It cannot be expected that the testimony of all the witness will be identical in all their minutest details. The three instrumental witnesses to the will constitute the best evidence to the making of the will.