This petition was filed  in the Court of  First Instance of Manila by  Adelaida Tolentino  de Concepcion, for the purpose  of procuring probate of the will of Gregorio Tolentino, deceased, who died at the 'hand of an assassin, in his home,  No. 2541 Lico Street, in the District of Santa Cruz, Manila,  on November 9,  1930.  In  the inception  of the proceedings Eugene de Mitkiewiez was appointed  special co-administrator, and he joined as co-plaintiff in the petition. Opposition was made  to the probate  of the will by  Ciriaco Francisco, Natalia Francisco, and  Gervasia Francisco, all cousins of the deceased and residents of the City of Manila. Upon hearing the cause the trial court overruled the opposition,  declared the will to have been properly executed, and  allowed the  probate  thereof.   From this order the three opponents appealed.

At the time  of his death on November 9, 1930,  Gregorio Tolentino was sixty-six years  of age.  During  the more vigorous  years of his life  he had been married  to  Benita Francisco, but she predeceased him  years ago.   By their industry and frugality the two had accumulated a very considerable estate which does not appear to have suffered any material diminution in the years of Tolentino's widowhood. The  pair had no children, and the generous instincts of the survivor prompted him to gather around him in his comfortable and commodious home a number of his wife's kin; and by him various younger members of the connection were supported and educated. At one time Tolentino contemplated leaving his property mainly to these kin  of his wife, of the surname Francisco; and for several years prior to his death, he had kept a will indicating this desire.  However, in  October, 1930, strained relations, resulting from grave disagreements, developed between Tolentino and the Francisco relations and he determined to make a new will in which,  apart from certain legacies in favor of a few individuals, the bulk of his estate, worth probably about P150,000, should  be given to Adelaida Tolentino de Conception,  as his universal heir.

To this end, on October 17, ,1930,  Tolentino went  to the office  of Eduardo Gutierrez Repide,  an attorney  at 97 General Luna, Manila, and informed him that he wanted to make a new will and desired Repide to draft it for him. After the necessary preliminary inquiries had been  made, the attorney suggested to Tolentino to return later, bringing a. copy of the will previously made.  Accordingly, on the second  day thereafter,  Tolentino again appeared in  Repide's office with the prior will; and the attorney proceeded to reduce the new will to proper form.   As the instrument was taking shape Tolentino stated that he wanted the will to be signed in Repide's  office, with Repide himself as one of the attesting witnesses.  For the other two witnesses Tolentino requested that two attorneys  attached to the  office, namely, Leoncio B. Monzon and  Ramon L. Sunico, should serve.   For this reason, in the draft of the will, as it at first stood, the names of the three above mentioned were inserted as the names  of the three attesting witnesses.

When the instrument had been reduced to proper  form it was  placed in the hands of Tolentino,  the  testator, in order that he might  take it home to reflect over its provisions  and consider whether it conformed in all respects to his wishes.   On the morning of  October 21 he again appeared in Repide's office and returned to him the draft of the will with  certain corrections.  Among  the changes thus made was the suppression of the names of Monzon, Sunico, and Repide as attesting witnesses, these names being substituted by the names of Jose  Syyap, Agustin Vergel de Dios, and Vicente Legarda.  The explanation given by the testator for desiring this change was that he had met Jose Syyap on the Escolta, the day before, and had committed the indiscretion of communicating the fact that he  (Tolentino) was having a new will made in which Monzon, Sunico, and Repide would appear as the attesting witnesses.  Now  Syyap had been the draftsman of the former will of Tolentino, and in this same will the name of Syyap appeared as one of the attesting witnesses, the other two being  Vicente Legarda and Vergel de Dios.  When, therefore, Syyap learned that a  new will was being drawn up without his intervention, he showed profound  disappointment,  saying to  Tolentino that he considered it a gross offense that he, Legarda, and Vergel de Dios should be eliminated as witnesses  to  the new will.  Upon this  manifestation of feeling  by Syyap, Tolentino decided to avail himself of Syyap, Legarda, and Vergel de Dios as witnesses to this will also, and he therefore requested Repide to change the names of the attesting witnesses.  After this  point  had been  settled  Tolentino stated  that he would request Syyap,  Legarda, and Vergel de Dios to appear at the office of Repide for the purpose of signing the will.  To this end Tolentino went away but  returned later  saying that he had spoken to Syyap about it and that  the  latter strenuously  objected,  observing that the will should be signed  at a chopsuey restaurant (panciteria).   Tolentino further stated to  his attorney in this  conversation  that he had  arranged with  Syyap  and the other  two  intending witnesses to meet  at five o'clock in the afternoon of the next day, which was  October 22, for the purpose of executing the will.

Pursuant to these instructions Repide made the desired changes in the will; and  just before twelve o'clock noon of the next day Tolentino returned to Repide's office and received from him the original document,  with a carbon copy thereof.  Repide advised the testator that the carbon copy should be executed with the same formality as the original  in  order that the intention of the testator should not be frustrated by  the possible  loss  or destruction of the original.

It is  a custom in the office of Repide not to number the consecutive pages of a will, on the typewriting machine, the duty of numbering the pages being left to the testator himself.  This precaution appears to have been born of experience, and has  been adopted by Repide to prevent the possible destruction  of a will by the mere erasure of the figures or letters  indicating the pagination, a disaster which, in Repide's experience, had occurred in at least one case.   Accordingly,  upon  delivering  the  completed  will and  carbon copy  to  the testator,  Repide took particular pains to  instruct the testator to write  the consecutive paging  of both  original and duplicate before signing the instrument.

At this  interview the testator suggested to Repide that the latter  should also go to the place where the will was to be executed,  so that he might be present at the formality.  The  attorney replied  that it  was impossible for him to do so  as he had another engagement for the hour indicated,  which would  prevent his attendance.

At about 4.30 p. m. on the same day, which was October 22, Tolentino started in his car to  pick  up Syyap and Vergel  de Dios  at their  respective homes on Antipolo and Benavides streets.  He then caused his chauffeur to drive with the three to La Previsora Filipina,  on Rizal Avenue, where Vicente Legarda,  the third  intending witness was to be found.  Arriving at this place, the three entered the office of Legarda, who was manager of the establishment, and they were invited to take seats, which they did.   Tolentino then suggested that the three should go as his guests to a  panciteria, where  they could take refreshments and the will could be executed.  Legarda replied that he must decline the invitation for he had an engagement to go to fhe Cosmos Club the same afternoon.  Upon this Tolentino asked Legarda to permit the will to  be signed in his office, and to this request Legarda acceded.

Tolentino thereupon drew two documents  from his pocket saying that it was his last will and testament, done in duplicate,  and  he proceeded to read  the original to  the witnesses.  After this had  been  completed, Legarda himself took the will in  hand and read it himself.  He then returned it to  Tolentino, who thereupon proceeded, with pen and ink, to number the pages of the will thus, "Pagina Primera", "Pagina Segunda", etc.   He then paged the duplicate copy of  the will  in the  same way.  He next proceeded to  sign the  original  will and each of its pages by writing his name  "G. Tolentino"  in the  proper  places. Following this,  each  of the three witnesses signed their own respective names at the end  of  the will, at the end of the attesting clause, and in the left margin of each page of the instrument.   During this  ceremony all  of the persons concerned in  the act of attestation were present together, and all fully advertent to the solemnity that engaged their attention.

After the original of the  will had been executed in the manner just stated, the testator expressed his  desire that the duplicate should be executed in the same manner.   To this Syyap objected, on the ground that it was unnecessary; and in this view he was supported by Vergel de Dios, with the result that  the wishes  of the testator on  this point could not be carried out. As the  party was  about to break up  Tolentino  used  these words:  "For God's  sake, as  a favor, I request you not to  let any one know the contents of this will."   The meeting then broke up and Tolentino returned Syyap and Vergel  de Dios to their homes  in his car.  He then proceeded to the law office of Repide,  arriving about 6.15 p. m.  After preliminary explanations  had been made, Tolentino requested  Repide to keep the  will overnight in his safe, as it was already too late to place it in the compartment which Tolentino was then renting in the Oriental Safe Deposit, in the Kneedler Building.  In this connection the testator stated that he did not wish to take the will to  his home, as he  knew that his relatives were watching him and would take advantage  of any carelessness on his part  to pry  into his papers.  Also, in this conversation Tolentino informed Repide of the refusal of Syvap to execute  the duplicate of the will.

After a good part of an hour  had thus been  spent at Repide's office by the testator and after the original of the will had been deposited in Repide's safe, Tolentino took the attorney to the latter's residence in Ermita, and then returned to his own home, where he remained without again going  out that night.  But promptly at nine o'clock  the next morning Tolentino  presented himself at Repide's office for the purpose of securing the will.   Repide happened to be  out and Tolentino went away,  but again  returned the next day and  received  the will.  With the instrument thus in his possession he proceeded at once to the. Oriental Safe Deposit and  there  left the instrument in his private compartment, No.  333,   in  which  place it remained  until withdrawn  some two weeks later by  order of the court.

On the morning  of November 9,  1930, Gregorio Tolentino was found dead in his bed, having perished by the hands of an  assassin.

The peculiarity  of this  case is that, upon the trial of this proceeding for the probate of the will of the decedent, two of the attesting witnesses, Jose Syyap and Vergel de Dios, repudiated their participation in the execution of  the will at the time and place stated;  and while admitting  the genuineness of their signatures to the will, pretended that they had severally signed  the instrument,  at  the request of the testator, at different  places.  Thus, Syyap, testifying as a witness, claimed that  the  testator brought the will to Syyap's  house on  the afternoon  of October  21 a  time, be it remembered,  when the will had not yet left the hands of the draftsman and  upon learning that Syyap could not be present at the time and place then being arranged for the execution of the will, he  requested Syyap, as a mere matter of complaisance, to  sign the will then, which Syyap did.  Vergel  de  Dios has another story to tell of isolated action, claiming that he signed the will in the evening of October 22 at the Hospital of San Juan de Dios in Intramuros.

We are unable  to  give any credence to the testimony of these two witnesses on this point, the same being an evident fabrication designed for  the  purpose of defeating the will. In the first place, the affirmative proof showing that the will  was  properly  executed is  adequate,  consistent,  and convincing, consisting of the testimony of the third attesting witness, Vicente Legarda, corroborated by Miguel Legarda  and Urbana Rivera,  two  disinterested individuals, employees of La  Previsora  Filipina, who were  present in Legarda's office when the will was executed and who lent a discerning attention  to what was being done.  In the second place, each of the seven signatures affixed to this will by Syyap appear to the natural  eye  to  'have been made by using the same pen and ink that was  used by Legarda in signing the will.  The same is also probably true of the seven  signatures made  by  Vergel  de Dios.  This  could hardly have happened if the signatures of Syyap and Vergel de Dios had been affixed, as they now pretend, at different times  and places.   In  the third place,  both  Syyap  and Vergel de  Dios are  impeached by proof of contradictory statements made by them on different occasions prior to their appearance as witnesses in this  case.  In this  connection we note that, after the murder of Gregorio Tolentino,  and  while the police  authorities  were investigating his death, Nemesio Alferez,  a detective, sent for  Syyap and questioned him concerning his relations with the deceased. Upon this occasion  Syyap stated that  Gregorio Tolentino had  lately made  a will,  that it had been executed  at the office of La Previsora  Filipina  under the circumstances already related, and that he himself had served as one of the attesting witnesses.

With respect to Vergel de Dios we have the following fact: On the day that Gregorio Toletftino was buried, Ramon Llorente, a member of the city police force, was sent out to the cemetery in  order that.he might be present and observe the demeanor on that occasion of such of Tolentino's kin as might be present.   Llorente arrived before the funeral  cortege, having been taken out to the cemetery by Repide.  While the two were waiting at the cemetery, Llorente noted the presence of Vergel de Dios; and as Repide  had never met Vergel de Dios, he requested the policeman to introduce him.   In the conversation that ensued  Vergel de Dios stated with considerable detail that Gregorio Tolentino had made a will  just before his death,  that it was executed  at La Previsora Filipina, and that  he was  one of  the witnesses who attested the instrument at that time and place.

Again, on a certain occasion subsequent to the death of Gregorio  Tolentino, Juan Concepcion, the husband of Adelaida Tolentino,  accompanied  by Genoveva de  Mendoza, called upon Vergel de Dios, and in the conversation that resulted Vergel de Dios told them that the will was properly executed, that he  was one of the attesting witnesses, and that it had been signed  by all of them in the  office of La Previsora Filipina.

These circumstances and other incidents revealed in  the proof leave no room for doubt in our mind that Syyap and Vergel  de Dios have entered  into a conspiracy between themselves, and in concert with the opponents, to defeat the will of Gregorio Tolentino  although  they are  well aware that said will was in all respects properly executed;  and the trial court,  in our opinion, committed no errror in admitting the will to probate.

When a will is contested it is the duty of the proponent to call all of the attesting witnesses, if  available, but the validity of the will in  no wise depends  upon the united support  of the will by all of those witnesses.  A will may be admitted.to probate  notwithstanding the fact that one or more of the subscribing witnesses do not unite with the other, or others, in proving all the facts  upon  which the validity of the will rests.   (Fernandez vs. Tantoco, 49 Phil., 380.)  It is sufficient if  the court is. satisfied from all the proof that the will was executed  and attested in the manner required by law.   In this case we feel well assured  that the contested will was properly executed and the order admitting  it  to  probate was entirely proper.

The order appealed from will therefore be affirmed, with costs against the appellants.  So  ordered.

Malcolm,  Villamor, Villa-Real,  Abad  Santos,  Hull,  and Vickers, JJ.,  concur.