8/23/22, 9:00 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 169

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De Guzman vs. Intestate Estate of Francisco Benitez

*
G.R. Nos. 61167–68. January 20, 1989.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL

OF FRANCISCO BENITEZ, DECEASED, AND PETITION FOR
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION: FIDEL A. DE GUZMAN and
EMETERIO DE GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. IN THE MATTER OF
THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED FRANCISCO
BENITEZ, DIONISIA VALENZUELA and MELQUIADES
VALENZUELA, respondents.

Civil Law; Wills; Appeal; Findings of fact; In an appeal by certiorari,

only questions of law may be raised; The decision of the Court of Appeals
carefully weighed the evidence on the testamentary capacity of the
deceased. Trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses binding
on the appellate court.—Plainly, the petition raises a purely factual issue,
which We are not at liberty to review because in an appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth, may be raised. In any event, the decision of the Court of
Appeals reveals that that Court carefully weighed the evidence on the
question of the testamentary capacity, or lack of it, of the deceased
Francisco Benitez and found “no compelling reason to disturb the lower
court’s findings

________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

285

VOL. 169, JANUARY 20, 1989 285

De Guzman vs. Intestate Estate of Francisco Benitez

and conclusions.” The resolution of that question hinged on the credibility

of the witnesses. The cardinal rule on that point is that the trial court’s
assessment of the credibility of witnesses while testifying is generally
binding on the appellate court because of its superior advantage in observing
their conduct and demeanor and its findings, when supported by

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182c83095760c0d15b1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/4
8/23/22, 9:00 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 169

convincingly credible evidence, shall not be disturbed on appeal (People vs.

Dava, 149 SCRA 582)

APPEAL from the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Tanjuatco, Oreta, Tanjuatco & Factoran for petitioners.
     Tomas P. Añonuevo for respondents.

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

The petitioners have appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals

affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Laguna in Special
Proceedings Nos. SC-347 and 352, disallowing the will of Francisco
Benitez, and appointing Dionisia Valenzuela administratrix of his
intestate estate.
On December 10, 1970, Dionisia Valenzuela and her brother,
Melquiades Valenzuela, first-cousins of the deceased Francisco
Benitez, filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch IV,
(docketed as SC-347) a petition for administration of his intestate
estate and for the issuance of letters of administration to Dionisia
who, during the lifetime of the deceased, had been administering the
said estate as judicial guardian of his person and property duly
appointed on January 22, 1957 in Spl. Proc. No. SC-29 of the Court
of First Instance of Laguna.
Francisco Benitez was the only surviving child of the spouses Tiu
Cuaco, alias Pascual Benitez, and Camila Valenzuela whose brother
was the father of private respondents, Dionisia Valenzuela and
Melquiades Valenzuela. He died single at the age of 61 years on
November 6, 1970, without descendants, nor ascendants, nor
brothers and sisters. He left an estate consisting of fourteen (14)
parcels of coconut land in Laguna, with a total area of 34 hectares, a
residential lot on S. Crisostomo Street in the poblacion of Pagsanjan,
Laguna, and a small savings account (P3, 843.08) in the Philippine
National Bank.
The petition for administration was opposed by Emiterio de
Guzman on the ground that the deceased left a will bequeath-

286

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De Guzman vs. Intestate Estate of Francisco Benitez

ing his entire estate to him (De Guzman) and that a petition for its
probate was docketed as Spl. Proc. No. 352 in Branch II of the same
court. The two cases were later consolidated and jointly heard in
Branch IV of the court.
Emiterio de Guzman died on April 20, 1973 and was substituted
by his heirs, Fidel, Cresencia and Rosalia, all surnamed De Guzman,
in both proceedings.
In support of the petition for probate (SC-352), the petitioner
Fidel de Guzman and two attesting witnesses of the will, Pelagio

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182c83095760c0d15b1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/4
8/23/22, 9:00 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 169

Lucena and Judge Damaso Tengco who prepared the will, gave
evidence.
The oppositors (petitioners for administration in SC-347)
presented six (6) witnesses, namely, Marcial Mendoza, Pedro
Cabela, Porfirio Reyes, Dionisia Valenzuela, Honoria Recalde
Leonardo and Prudencio Leonardo, who identified the transcript of
the testimony given on January 22, 1957 by Dr. Jose A. Fernandez
(since deceased) in the proceedings (SC-29) for the guardianship of
Francisco Benitez for incompetence on account of insanity. Various
documentary exhibits were presented by both sides.
On April 4, 1975, Judge Maximo Maceren rendered judgment
disallowing the will and appointing Dionisia Valenzuela
administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased. The pertinent
findings of the trial court are quoted hereunder:

“The pivotal issue hinges on the mental capacity of the supposed testator,
Francisco Benitez on August 18, 1945 when he allegedly executed his last
will and testament. Did Francisco Benitez possess a sound and disposing
mind on August 18, 1945?
xxx      xxx      xxx
“The evidence (Exhibit I and Exhibit H) shows that from January 18,
1929 up to March 12, 1941 Francisco Benitez was confined at the National
Mental Hospital for varying periods of time as follows:

“DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF DISCHARGE

(a) January 18, 1929 March 12, 1929
(b) March 7, 1931 June 6, 1931
(c) November 12, 1936 November 29, 1937
(d) February 16, 1938 August 16, 1939
(e) July 9, 1940 March 12, 1941
“x x x      x x x      x x x  

287

VOL. 169, JANUARY 20, 1989 287

De Guzman vs. Intestate Estate of Francisco Benitez

“The foregoing premises leads this Court to the conclusion that [at] the time
Francisco Benitez executed his supposed will on August 18, 1945 he was
not possessed of a sound and disposing mind. Wherefore the same is not
allowed probate.” (pp. 123, 124 and 126, Rollo.)

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision was affirmed by that

Court on March 3, 1982 (p. 135, Rollo).
The petitioners De Guzman assail the decision of the Court of
Appeals on the ground that:

“The finding that the deceased Francisco Benitez ‘was not possessed of a
sound and disposing mind’ when he executed his will on August 18, 1945,
is grounded merely on speculation, surmises and conjectures, as well as on

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182c83095760c0d15b1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/4
8/23/22, 9:00 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 169

hearsay and contradictory, biased, and obviously incredible testimony.” (p.

10, Rollo.)

Plainly, the petition raises a purely factual issue, which We are not at
liberty to review because in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court only questions of law which must be distinctly set
forth, may be raised. In any event, the decision of the Court of
Appeals reveals that that Court carefully weighed the evidence on
the question of the testamentary capacity, or lack of it, of the
deceased Francisco Benitez and found “no compelling reason to
disturb the lower court’s findings and conclusions.” The resolution
of that question hinged on the credibility of the witnesses. The
cardinal rule on that point is that the trial courts, assessment of the
credibility of witnesses while testifying is generally binding on the
appellate court because of its superior advantage in observing their
conduct and demeanor and its findings, when supported by
convincingly credible evidence, shall not be disturbed on appeal
(People vs. Dava, 149 SCRA 582)
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied for lack of
merit. Costs against the petitioners Fidel, Crisencia and Rosalia de
Guzman.
SO ORDERED.

     Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

288

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De Guzman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Notes.—General rule is that trial Court’s findings of fact on

credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed. (People vs. Salameda,
111 SCRA 405.)
Highest degree of respect accorded to lower court on matters of
credibility. (People vs. Arizala, 112 SCRA 615.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182c83095760c0d15b1000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/4