Tolentino v.

Francisco
Facts:
Petition filed in CFI of Manila by Adelaida Tolentino for probate of the will of Gregorio Tolentino
who died on the hands of an assasin in his home at Sta. Cruz Manila.
Opposition was made by the cousins of deceased (Ciriaco Francisco, Natalia Francisco and
Gervasia Francisco)
Trial court allowed the probate of the will.
Tolentino was 66y/o when he died. He was married to Benita but she predeceased him years
ago. The pair had no children so his generous instincs prompted him to welcome a number of
his wifes kin in their home. At one time he contemplated to leave his properties mainly to said
kin of his wife but due to strained relations he decided to make a new will and gave bulk of his
estate be given to Adelaida Tolentino as his universal heir.
Tolentino went ot office of Atty. Repide and informed the latter that he wanted a new will be
drafted. At the draft of the will he wants Repide and the two other attorneys attached to the
office will serve as attesting witnesses. On the morning he appeared in Atty. Repides office and
retuirned the draft of the will with some corrctions. The names of the attesting witnesses were
changed to the names of Jose Syyap, Augustine de Dios and Vicente Legarda. Syyap was
actually the former draftsman of G. Tolentino of the former will.
Tolentino and the three witnesses met at Legardas office and proceeded with the execution and
signing of the will.After the original of the will had been executed the testator asked them to do
the same to the duplicate however Syyap objected as it was unnecessary. Tolentino deposited
the will to Repides office for safekeeping. Then he gets the will again and placed it to the
Oriental Safe Deposit compartment. On Nov. 9, 1930, Tolentino as found dead.
On the trial of the probate proceeding, Syyap and De Dios repudiated their participation in the
execution of the will. And while admitting genuineness of the signatures they alleged they
signed it severally at different places as requested by testator.
Issue: WON the will be allowed probate despite denial of the two attesting witness.
Held:
Yes. The court did not give credence to the testimony of the two witness as it appears to be an
evident fabrication made for the purpose of defeating the will. The Court insteas depend on the
testimony of the last witness Legarda as corroborated by two disinterested individuals who are
employees at Legardas office.
It also appeared that the three used the same pen and ink in signing the will. The
circumstances and other incidents revealed that thwe two conspired to defeat the will.

When a will is contested, it is the duty of the proponent to call all of the attesting witnessses, if
available, but the validity of the will in no wise depencds upon the united support of the will by all
witnesses. Awill may be admitted to probate notwithstanding the fact that witnesses do not unite
with others, on the facts upon which validity of the will rests. It is sufficient if the court is
satisfied from all the proof that the will is executed and attested in the manner required by law.