8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

1/39

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 33592. March 31, 1931.]

Estate of the deceased Victorina Villaranda. EUSEBIA

LIM,petitioner-appellant, vs. JULIANA CHINCO,oppositor-appellee.

Perfecto Gabriel andEusebio Orense for appellant.

Camus & Delgado for appellee.

1.WILLS; LACK OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY; COMA RESULTING FROMCEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE. The alleged testatrix, a woman of about 80 years of age,was stricken with apoplexy, incident to cerebral hemorrhage, and was kept prostratein bed, in a state of coma, for three days, at the end of which she was removed to ahospital where she died four days later. Just before her removal to the hospital a willwas made for her by an attorney, who also signed her name thereto, purportedly ather request. At the time the will was made the proof showed that the testatrix was in

a comatose condition and devoid of the power of articulate speech.Held,thattestamentary capacity was lacking and that the purported will was not valid.

STREET,J p:

This is a contest over the probable of a paper writing purporting to be thewill of Victorina Villaranda y Diaz, a former resident of the municipality ofMeycauayan, Province of Bulacan, who died in the Hospital of San Juan de Dios, in theCity of Manila, on June 9, 1929. The deceased left no descendants or ascendants, andthe document produced as her will purports to leave her estate, consisting ofproperties valued at P50,000, more or less, chiefly to three collateral relatives,Eusebia, Crispina, and Maria, of the surname of Lim. This instrument was offered forprobate by Eusebia Lim, named in the instrument as executrix. Opposition was made

by Juliana Chinco, a full sister of the deceased. Upon hearing the cause the trial courtsustained the opposition and disallowed the will on the ground that the testatrix didnot have testamentary capacity at the time the instrument purports to have beenexecuted by her. From this judgment the proponent of the will appealed.

The deceased was a resident of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, and wasabout 80 years of age at the time o f her death. On the morning of June 2, 1929, shewas stricken with apoplexy, incident to cerebral hemorrhage, and was taken in anunconscious condition, seated in a chair, to her room. Doctor Geronimo Z. Gaanan, alocal physician of Meycauayan, visited the old lady, with whom he was wellacquainted, three or four times, the first visit having occurred between 6 and 7 p.m. ofJune 3d. Upon examining the patient, he found her insensible and incapable of talkingor controlling her movements. On the same day the parish priest called for the

purpose of administering the last rites of the church, and being unable to take herconfession, he limited himself to performing the office of extreme unction. Doctor

Isidoro Lim, of Manila, was also called upon to visit the patient and he came to see hertwo or three times. With his approval, it was decided to take the woman to thehospital of San Juan de Dios in Manila, and o n the morning of June 5, 1929, theambulance from this hospital arrived, in charge of Doctor Guillermo Lopez del Castillo,a resident physician of the hospital. At about 11 o'clock a.m. on that day she wasembarked on the ambulance and taken to the hospital, where she died four days later.

The purported will, which is the subject of this proceeding, was prepared byPerfecto Gabriel, a practicing attorney of Manila, whose wife appears to be related to

the chief beneficiaries named in the will. This gentleman arrived upon the scene at 9or 10 o'clock on the forenoon of June 5, 1929. After informing himself of the conditionof the testatrix, he went into a room adjacent to that occupied by the patient and,taking a sheet from an exercise book, wrote the instrument in question. He then tookit into the sick room for execution. With this end in view Gabriel suggested to DoctorLopez del Castillo that he would be pleased to have Doctor Castillo sign as a witness,but the latter excused himself for the reason that he considered the old lady to belacking in testamentary capacity. Another person present was Marcos Ira, a firstcousin of the deceased and attorney Gabriel asked him also whether or not he waswilling to sign as one of the witnesses. Ira replied in a discouraging tone, and theattorney turned away without pressing the matter. In the end three persons served aswitnesses, and two relatives of his wife. The intended testatrix was not able to affixher signature to the document, and it was signed for her by the attorney.

The vital question in the case is whether the supposed testatrix hadtestamentary capacity at the time the paper referred to was signed. Upon this pointwe are of the opinion, as was the trial judge, that she had not. The proof shows by amarked preponderance that the deceased, on the morning of June 5, 1929, was in acomatose condition and incapable of performing any conscious and valid act. Thetestimony of Doctor Gaanan and Doctor Lopez del Castillo is sufficient upon this point,and this testimony is well corroborated by Paciana Diaz and Irene Ahorro. The first ofthese witnesses was the one who chiefly cared for the deceased during her last illnessin Meycauayan until she was carried away to the hospital in Manila; and the secondwas a neighbor, who was called in when the stroke of apoplexy first occurred and whovisited the patient daily until she was removed from Meycauayan.

The testimony of these witnesses is convincing to the effect that the patient

was in a continuous state of coma during the entire period of her stay in Meycauayan,subsequent to the attack, and that on the forenoon of June 5, 1929, she did not havesufficient command of her faculties to enable her to do any valid act. Doctor Lim, thephysician from Manila, testified for the proponent of the will. His testimony tends toshow that the patient was not suffering from cerebral hemorrhage but from uraemictrouble, and that, after the first attack, the patient was much relieved and her mind sofar cleared up that she might have made a will on the morning of June 5th. Theattorney testified that he was able to communicate with the deceased when the willwas made, and that he read the instrument over to her clause by clause and asked herwhether it expressed her wishes. He says that she made signs that enabled him tounderstand that she concurred in what was written. But it is clear, even upon thestatement of this witness, that the patient was unable to utter intelligent speech.Upon the authority of Perry vs. Elio (29 Phil., 134), the paper offered for probate wasproperly disallowed.

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

2/39

The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered,with costs against the appellant.

Avancea, C. J., Johnson, Villamorand Villa-Real, JJ.,concur.

Malcolm and Johns, JJ.,concurred, but being absent at the date of thepromulgation of the opinion, their names do not appear signed thereto. AVANCEA,C. J.

Separate Opinions

ROMUALDEZ,J., dissenting:

I am of opinion that the will in question is genuine and that it was drawn upand signed with all the legal requisites; therefore, I vote for its allowance, and theconsequent reversal of the judgment appealed from.

|||(Lim v. Chinco, G.R. No. 33592, March 31, 1931)

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

3/39

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5263. February 17, 1954.]

1. WILLS; PROBATE; SIGNING IN THE PRESENCE OF TESTATOR AND

AGUSTIN BARRERA, ET AL.,proponents-appellants, vs. JOSETAMPOCO, ET AL.,oppositors-appellees.

Jesus G. Barrera for appellants.

Filemon Cajator for appellees.

1.WILLS; PROBATE; SIGNING IN THE PRESENCE OF TESTATOR ANDATTESTING WITNESSES; CONFLICT IN TESTIMONY OF ATTESTING WITNESSES. Twoattesting witnesses testified that the will was signed by the testatrix and by the threeattesting witnesses in the presence of each other, while the other attesting witnesstestified to the contrary. The court gave weight to the testimony of the first two oneof whom is an attorney and justice o f the peace who drafted the will, the court alsoconsidering the fact that the witness who testified against the due execution of thewill, signed the attestation clause stating that the will was signed by the testatrix and

the witnesses in the presence of each other.

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; RELATIVES OF BENEFICIARIES AS ATTESTING WITNESSES. The fact that the witnesses to the execution of the will are related to some of thebeneficiaries thereunder, is not sufficient to make them biased witnesses.

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; READING OF WILL NOT NECESSARY. It is not necessary thatthe will be read upon its signing and in the presence of the witnesses.

4.ID.; ID.; ID.; OMISSION OF SOME RELATIVES AS BENEFICIARIES DOES NOTAFFECT DUE EXECUTION OF WILL. The court did not attempt to discover themotives of the testatrix in leaving her properties to the person named in the will andadmitting therefrom the oppositors. As the will was found to have been executed freefrom falsification, fraud, trickery or undue influence, with the testatrix having

testamentary capacity, the court was compelled to give expression thereto.PARAS,J p:

Oliva Villapaa died in Tarlac, Tarlac, on December 13, 1948. On December31, 1948, a petition was filed by Agustin Parrera in the Court of First Instance of Tarlacfor the probate of the will executed by Oliva Villapaa on July 17, 1948, and for theappointment of the petitioner as executor. According to the petition the propertiesleft by the testatrix are worth P94,852.96, and the heirs instituted are nephews andnieces and grandchildren in the c ollateral line. Jose Tampoco and Victoriano Tampoco,alleged grandchildren of the testatrix in the direct line, filed an opposition, claimingthat the will was not executed and attested in accordance with law, that the testratrixlacked testamentary capacity, that there was undue influence and pressure in its

execution, that the signature of Oliva Villapaa was obtained by fraud and trickery,and that the testamentary provisions are illegal. Consorcia Lintang, Nemesio Villapaa,

Marcos Villapaa, Jesus Villapaa, Vicente Villapaa, Ursulo Villapaa, AvelinaVillapaa and Rosario Villapaa, alleged nephews and nieces, also filed an oppositionon substantially the same grounds on which the opposition of Jose and VictorianoTampoco was based. After protracted trial, and more than a year after the submissionof the case, a decision was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac on August11, 1951, disallowing the will. The court found that Oliva Villapaa had testamentarycapacity, that there was no forgery, fraud, trickery or undue influence in the executionof the will, and that preterition of forced heirs is not a ground for denying probate;but the will was disallowed because it was not the personal last will and testament of

the deceased and it was not based on the finding that Oliva Villapaa did not furnishthe names of the persons instituted as heirs and that the will was not read to herbefore she signed it. The second ground is premised on the conclusion that attestingwitness Laureano Antonio was not present when Oliva Villapaa and attesting witnessHonorio Lacson signed the will; that Antonio only partially saw the signing by attestingwitness Modesto Puno; and that Oliva Villapaa saw Antonio sign only two or threetimes. From this decision the petitioner has appealed.

According to appellant's evidence, two or three days before July 10, 1948,Pilar Taedo called on Modesto Puno, a lawyer and justice of the peace ofConcepcion, Tarlac, and requested the latter to come to Manila for a conference withOliva Villapaa, aunt of Pilar. On July 10, 1948, Atty. Puno, complying with thisrequest, went to the house of Pilar Taedo in Singalong Street where Oliva was

staying. The latter, after preliminary greetings and courtesies, informed Atty. Punothat she wanted him to prepare her will, giving the names of the heirs and theproperties to be left. Oliva Villapaa asked Atty. Puno to get the description of theproperties from the herein appellant, Agustin Barrera, husband of Pilar Taedo. Atty.Puno noted the wishes of Oliva, and, as there was then no available typewriter, heinformed the old woman that he would prepare the will in his office in Concepcionand come back with it on the following Saturday. As promised, on o r July 17, 1948,Atty. Puno returned to the house of Oliva Villapaa in Singalong, carrying with himone original and three copies, in typewritten form, of the will he drafted in accordancewith the instructions of Oliva Villapaa. Atty. Puno arrived at about noon. He read thewill to Oliva to find out whether it conformed to her wishes, and she indicated that itwas all right. After lunch Atty. Puno manifested that two other witnesses werenecessary, whereupon Pilar Taedo requested Honorio Lacson and Laureano Antonio,

who were then living in the first floor o f the house, to come up. Lacson and Antoniodid as requested. Asked by Oliva Villapaa if they could act as attesting witnesses toher will, both agreed. Oliva Villapaa, Atty. Puno, Lacson and Antonio were thenseated around a small rectangular table in the sala,and at this juncture Atty. Punogave a copy of the will to Oliva, Lacson and Antonio, while he retained one. Theattorney again read the will aloud, advising the rest to check their respective copies.As Oliva Villapaa agreed to the will, she proceeded to sign all the four copies, on thelines previously placed by Atty. Puno, followed successively by Lacson, Atty. Puno andAntonio, all in the presence of each other. After the signing, Atty. Puno gave theoriginal and a copv to Oliva, and retained the other two copies. Atty. Puno, Lacson andAntonio stayed for a while and even ate meriendaprepared by the sisters Pilar andBeatriz Taedo. Oliva Villapaa delivered her will to Agustin Barrera for safekeeping

on October 17, 1948 when she was taken to the U. S. T. Hospital where she remaineduntil November 7, 1948. On this date her doctors lost all hope for her recovery and

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

4/39

Oliva Villapaa was brought to Tarlac, Tarlac, her home town, where, as alreadystated, she died on December 13, 1948.

According to the evidence for the oppositors-appellees, the will presented incourt by the petitioner was not executed in accordance with law, in that attestingwitness Laureano Antonio did not see the testatrix and attesting witness Lacson signthe will or any of its copies, that he saw Atty. Puno when the latter was already halfthru signing the document, and that the testatrix did not see Antonio sign all thecopies.

After a thorough study of the record and mature reflection on the conflictingevidence, we are constrained to conclude that the trial court erred in denying probateof the will.

Of the three attesting witnesses, namely, Atty. Modesto Puno, HonorioLacson and Laureano Antonio, the first two testified positively that the will was signedby the testatrix and the three witnesses in the presence of each other, and that it wasread to the testratrix before being signed. In view of the opposition filed by the twosets of oppositors, the third attesting witness, Laureano Antonio, had to be presentedby the petitioner but, contrary to expectations, Antonio testified that he arrived at thescene of the execution of the will after the testatrix and Honorio Lacson had alreadysigned and after Atty. Puno was half through affixing his signatures, and that thetestatrix left before Antonio finished signing all the copies. By numerical superiority

alone, the weight of the testimony of Atty. Puno and Ho norio Lacson out-balances theprobative value of the testimony of Laureano Antonio. Intrinsically, we cannot statethat Laureano Antonio spoke the truth on the witness stand, since, in the first place,the attestation clause signed by him contradicts his pretense and, in the second place,there is enough evidence on the record to show that in his conferences with Atty.Barrera before taking the witness stand, Antonio never gave the slightest indicationthat he was not present when the testatrix and the other witnesses signed the will orthat the testatrix left before Antonio finished signing. Modesto Puno is a lawyer and atthe time a justice of the peace, and it is improbable that he would unnecessarily riskhis honor and reputation. Indeed, the trial court gave the impression that Atty. Punowas anxious to strictly meet the requirements of the law and in the absence, as in thecase at bar, of any reason for a hasty completion, we do not believe that Atty. Punowould have allowed the signing of the will to be proceeded with unless three attesting

witnesses were already present. On the other hand, we can fairly state that there wasin fact no hurry on the part of any of the participants in the will, because the testatrixOliva Villapaa was not dying (she died some five months after the execution of thewill) and the parties could therefore take all the time that they wanted. Indeed, noneof the three witnesses, left the house o f Oliva Villapaa and they even stayed thereinuntil after meriendatime.

The fact that Atty. Puno is the brother of Jose Puno who is the husband ofCarmen Taedo, one of the beneficiaries of the will, and that Honorio Lacson is thehusband of Bibiana Lacson who is a first cousin of Agustin Barrera, herein petitionerand husband of Pilar Taedo, is not sufficient to make them biased witnesses. If Atty.Puno had any material interest, this fact should have caused him to be more careful inseeing to it that the formalities of the law were strictly complied with, and this should

be true with respect to Honorio Lacson.

In deciding against the probate of the will, the trial court believed thetestimony of Laureano Antonio to the effect that he arrived at the place of the signingat about 2:30 in the afternoon, and thereby found that a greater part of theproceeding was finished, because Atty. Puno declared in one place that "the signing ofthe testament commenced around between one o'clock and two o'clock" and inanother place that the signing took place "around between two and three o'clock;"and Honorio Lacson declared that he was called by Pilar Taedo to act as witness ataround two o'clock or two thirty. From the testimony of Atty. Puno and HonorioLacson the court concluded that the signing actually commenced between one andtwo o'clock. We are of the opinion that the specification of the time of the signingrefers to an immaterial or unimportant detail which, in view of the lapse of time,might have been a mistake by one or the other participant in the execution of Oliva'swill. What is important and decisive and this should be impressed in the mind of anattorney preparing and taking charge of the signing of will, is that the testatrix andeach of the three attesting witnesses must affix their signatures in the presence of oneanother. In the case before us, Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson both attestingwitnesses, categorically affirmed that this procedure was followed. At any rate, evenunder the testimony of Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson, the signing could have takenplace at about or after two thirty, since the former declared that it took placebetween two and three o'clock and Honorio Lacson stated that the time was two or

two thirty.Another point invoked by the trial court against the probate of the will is the

circumstance that, while Atty. Puno testified that he placed the lines on which thetestatrix and the witnesses were to sign before he read the document to the testatrixto whom he gave the original, witness Lacson testified that Atty. Puno read theoriginal after giving a copy to the testatrix, and after reading Atty. Puno placed thelines for signatures. This discrepancy again refers to a minor detail which is notsufficient to negative the truthfulness of Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson on the mainand important fact that the will was signed by the testatrix and the three attestingwitnesses in the presence of each other.

Oppositors-appellees presented in corroboration of the testimony ofLaureano Antonio, Joaquin Villapaa and Consolacion del Mundo. Joaquin Villapaa, a

painter, allegedly painted the house of Agustin Barrera in July, 1948 and saw theexecution of the will. Consolacion del Mundo allegedly was then the maid of OlivaVillapaa. Apart from the fact that there is evidence to show that both JoaquinVillapaa and Consolacion del Mundo were not yet employed in the house of Olivawhen the latter's will was executed, there is little or no reason for their version toprevail over the positive testimony of Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson, considering thatthe latter's testimony is even corroborated by two other witnesses, Bibiana Lacsonand Beatriz Taedo. Certainly the story of Joaquin Villapaa and Consolacion delMundo can have no greater weight than that of Laureano Antonio.

In holding that the will was not that of Oliva Villapaa, the trial court foundthat it was not read to her; and this finding was premised on the alleged contradictionof Atty. Puno and Honorio Lacson regarding the sequence of the reading of the will

and the placing of lines for signatures, and regarding the question whether a copy orthe original was handed to the testatrix. As we have already observed, the discrepancy

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

5/39

relates to an insignificant matter which cannot vitally detract from the credibility ofAtty. Puno to the effect that upon arrival at the house of Oliva Villapaa at aboutnoon, he read the will to her with a view to finding whether she was agreeablethereto. It is not necessary that said will be read upon its signing and in the presenceof the witnesses.

The trial court also concluded that the testatrix could not have furnished thenames of the heirs instituted under the will, because (1) Salvador Taedo, one of suchheirs, was long dead and (2) Marcelo Villapaa, another instituted heir, was non-existent, since Oliva Villapaa did not have a grandson by such name. It is true thatSalvador Taedo was already dead and the testatrix knew about it, but it is notuncommon for a woman of old age, confused by the big number of her relatives, tocommit the mistake of unwittingly mentioning a dead one. With respect to theinstituted heir, Marcelo Villapaa, while it appears that Oliva did not have a grandsonanswering to that name, there is evidence tending to show that Pioquinto Villapaa, achild of Ruperta Pineda, must have been referred to, because Oliva, who was thechild's god-mother, originally wanted said child to be baptized as Marcelo, after hisfather. Moreover, if Atty. Puno had supplied the names instituted as heirs, he wouldhave consulted all the interested parties and would be sure that no mistake of thekind was made.

As a closing observation, it is not for us to discover the motives of OlivaVillapaa in leaving her properties to the person named in the will, and o mitting

therefrom the oppositors-appellees. Suffice it to state that the trial court itself foundthe will to have been executed free from falsification, fraud, trickery or undueinfluence, with Oliva having testamentary capacity; and in such a situation it becomesour duty to give expression to her will.

Wherefore, the appealed order is reversed and the will executed by OlivaVillapaa on July 17, 1948, is hereby allowed. So ordered without costs.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista

Angeloand Labrador, JJ.,concur.

|||(Barrera v. Tampoco, G.R. No. L-5263, February 17, 1954)

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

6/39

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 76648. February 26, 1988.]

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE MATILDE MONTINOLA-

SANSON,petitioners,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and EDUARDO F.HERNANDEZ,respondents.

1.REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL ACTIONS; NEW TRIAL; NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE ANDAFFIDAVITS OF MERIT; REQUIREMENTS UNDER RULE 53 NOT COMPLIED WITH. Saidmotion for new trial is not in substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 53. Thelone affidavit of a witness who was already presented during the hearing is hardly sufficientto justify the holding of new trial. The alleged new witnesses were unnamed without anycertainty as to their appearance before the court to testify. Affiant attests only on his beliefthat they would testify if and when they are subpoenaed by the court. Furthermore, theallegations in the affidavit as to the undue influence exerted on the testatrix are mereconclusions and not statement of facts. The requisite affidavits must state facts and notmere conclusions or opinions, otherwise they are not valid. The affidavits are required toavoid waste of the court's time if the newly discovered evidence turns out to be immaterial

or of any evidentiary weight. Moreover, it could not be said that the evidence sought to bepresented is new having been discovered only after the trial. It is apparent from theallegations of affiant that efforts to locate the witnesses were exerted only after thedecision of the appellate court was handed down. The trial lasted for about four years sothat petitioner had ample time to find said alleged witnesses who were admittedly knownto her. The evidence which the petitioner now proposes to present could have beendiscovered and presented during the hearing of the case, and there is no sufficient reasonfor concluding that had the petitioner exercised proper diligence she would not have beenable to discover said evidence.

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; MOTION FOR PURPOSE OF DELAYING PROCEEDINGS, PRO-FORMA. It isvery patent that the motion for new trial was filed by petitioner only for the purpose ofdelaying the proceedings. In fact, petitioner's son in his manifestation admitted that he had

to request a new law firm to do everything legally possible to meet the deadline for thefiling of a motion for reconsideration and/or for new trial. This wo uld explain thehaphazard preparation of the motion, thus failing to comply with the requirements of Rule53, which was filed on the last day of the reglementary period of appeal so that theveracity of the ground relied upon is questionable. The appellate court correctly denied themotion for new trial.

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RUNNING OF PERIOD OF APPEAL, NOT INTERRUPTED. The motion fornew trial being pro-forma, it does not interrupt the running of the period for appeal. Sincepetitioner's motion was filed on September 24, 1986, the fifteenth or last day of the periodto appeal, the decision of the respondent court became final on the following day,September 25. And when the motion for reconsideration of petitioner was filed on October30, 1986, it was obviously filed out o f time.

4.ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT; FINALITY THEREOF RENDERED FINDINGS OF PROBATECOURT CONCLUSIVE AND NO LONGER SUBJECT TO REVIEW. Since the questioneddecision has already become final and executory, it is no longer within the province of thisCourt to review it. This being so, the findings of the probate court as to the due executionof the will and the testamentary capacity of testatrix are now conclusive.

5.ID.; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE PROBATE COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS,CONCLUSIVE. The factual findings of the probate court and the Court of Appeals that thewill in question was executed according to the formalities required by law are conclusive

on the Supreme Court when supported by evidence. We have examined the records of thiscase and find no error in the conclusion arrived at by the respondent court that thecontested will was duly executed in accordance with law.

6.CIVIL LAW; SUCCESSION; PRETERITION, JUSTIFIED. Petitioner alleges that her exclusionfrom the alleged holographic will was without rhyme or reason, being the only survivingsister of the testatrix with whom she shares an intimate relationship, thus demonstratingthe lack of testamentary capacity of testatrix. In the case of Pecon v. Coronel, it was held"The appellants emphasize the fact that family ties in this country are very strongly knit andthat the exclusion of a relative from one's estate is an exceptional case. It is true that theties of relationship in the Philippines are very strong, but we understand that cases ofpreterition of relatives from the inheritance are not rare. The liberty to dispose of one'sestate by will when there are no forced heirs is rendered sacred by the Civil Code in force

in the Philippines since 1889 . . . " Article 842 of the Civil Code provides that one who hasno compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his estate o r any part of it in favor of anyperson having capacity to succeed. It is within the right o f the testatrix not to include heronly sister who is not a compulsory heir in her will. Nevertheless, per testimony ofAsuncion Gemperle, the latter had reserved two boxes of jewelry worth P850,000.00 forpetitioner. Furthermore, petitioner's son Francis was instituted as an heir in the contestedwill.

7.ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO DISPOSE ALL PROPERTIES, NOT AN INDICATION OF UNSOUNDNESSOF MIND. Petitioner still insists that the fact that in her holographic will the testatrixfailed to dispose of all of her estate is an indication of the unsoundness o f her mind. Wecannot subscribe to this contention. Art. 841 of the Civil Code provides"A will shall bevalid even though it should not contain an institution of an heir, or such institution should

not comprise the entire estate, and even though the person so instituted should not acceptthe inheritance or should be incapacitated to succeed. In such cases, the testamentarydispositions made in accordance with law shall be complied with and the remainder of the

estate shall pass to the legal heirs." Thus, the fact that in her holographic will, testatrixdisposed of only eleven (11) of her real properties does not invalidate the will, or is it anindication that the testatrix was of unsound mind. The portion of the estate undisposed ofshall pass on to the heirs of the deceased in intestate succession.

8.ID.; ID.; INSTITUTION OF BLOOD RELATIVES AS HEIRS, NOT AN INDICATION OF UNDUEINFLUENCE. Neither is undue influence present just because blood relatives, other thancompulsory heirs have been omitted, for while blood ties are strong in the Philippines, it isthe testator's right to disregard non-compulsory heirs. The fact that some heirs are morefavored than others is proof of neither fraud or undue influence. Diversity of

apportionment is the usual reason for making a testament, otherwise, the decedent mightas well die intestate.

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

7/39

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

8/39

THE SAID COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ALLEGEDWILL WAS FRAUDULENTLY ANTEDATED TO CONCEAL ITSACTUAL DATE OF EXECUTION AND TO SHIELD IT FROMPROBABLE DISPUTES AS TO THE TESTAMENTARY CAPACITYON THE PART OF THE ALLEGED TESTATRIX AT THE TIME OFITS ACTUAL EXECUTION.

V

THE SAID COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LATE

HERMINIA MONTINOLA WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO UNDUEPRESSURE AND IMPROPER IMPORTUNINGS ON THE PART OFTHOSE STANDING TO BENEFIT FROM THE ALLEGED WILL.

VI

THE SAID COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE HOLOGRAPHICWILL IN QUESTION TO PROBATE."

In the meantime, petitioner who passed away on November 3, 1986, was substituted byher heirs.

In the first and second assigned errors, petitioners maintain that the appellate court erredin denying the motion for new trial insisting that the new evidence sought to be presentedis not merely corroborative or cumulative.

On the other hand, the contention of private respondent is that the motion for new trialwas a pro-forma motion because it was not in accordance with Sec. 1, Rule 53 of the Rulesof Court. We find merit in this contention.

Section 1, Rule 53 provides

"Before a final order or judgment rendered by the Court of Appealsbecomes executory, a motion for new trial may be filed on theground of newly discovered evidence which could not have beendiscovered prior to the trial in the Court below by the exercise of thediligence and which is of such a character as would probably changethe result. The motion shall be accompanied by affidavits showing

the facts constituting the grounds therefor and the newly discoveredevidence."

The affidavit of merit executed by Gregorio Montinola Sanson alleged the following:

xxx xxx xxx

"3.That in her plea for new trial in the said case, I have exertedefforts to locate witnesses whose whereabouts were not known tous during the trial in the lower court, but I have finally succeeded intracking them down;

"4.That despite their initial reluctance to testify in this case, lawconvinced that they would testify under proper subpoena forpurposes of shedding light on the fact that the testatrix was gravely

ill at or about the time that the questioned will was allegedlyexecuted;

"5.That they had the clear opportunity to know the circumstancesunder which the purported will was executed; and that they knowfor a fact that there was `undue i nfluence' exerted by petitioner andother relatives to procure improper favors from the testatrix;

xxx xxx xxx"13

Said motion for new trial is not in substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 53.The lone affidavit of a witness who was already presented during the hearing is hardlysufficient to justify the holding of new trial. The alleged new witnesses were unnamedwithout any certainty as to their appearance before the court to testify. Affiant attests onlyon his belief that they would testify if and when they are subpoenaed by the court.Furthermore, the allegations in the affidavit as to the undue influence exerted on thetestatrix are mere conclusions and not statement of facts. The requisite affidavits muststate facts and not mere conclusions or opinions, otherwise they are not valid.14Theaffidavits are required to avoid waste of the court's time if the newly discovered evidenceturns out to be immaterial or of any evidentiary weight.

Moreover, it could not be said that the evidence sought to be presented is new havingbeen discovered only after the trial. It is apparent from the allegations of affiant that

efforts to locate the witnesses were exerted only after the decision of the appellate courtwas handed down. The trial lasted for about four years so that petitioner had ample timeto find said alleged witnesses who were admittedly known to her. The evidence which thepetitioner now propose to present could have been discovered and presented during thehearing of the case, and there is no sufficient reason for concluding that had the petitionerexercised proper diligence she would not have been able to discover said evidenced.15

In addition, We agree with the appellate court that since the alleged illness of the testatrixas well as the charges of undue influence exerted upon her had been brought to lightduring the trial, and new evidence on this point is merely corroborative and cumulativewhich is generally not a ground for new trial.16Accordingly, such evidence even ifpresented will not carry much probative weight which can alter the judgment.17

It is very patent that the motion for new trial was filed by petitioner only for the purpose ofdelaying the proceedings. In fact, petitioner's son in his manifestation admitted that he hadto request a new law firm to do everything legally possible to meet the deadline for thefiling of a motion for reconsideration and/or for new trial.18This would explain thehaphazard preparation of the motion, thus failing to comply with the requirements of Rule53, which was filed on the last day of the reglementary period of appeal so that theveracity of the ground relied upon is questionable. The appellate court correctly denied themotion for new trial.

The motion for new trial being pro-forma, it does not interrupt the running of the periodfor appeal.19Since petitioner's motion was filed on September 24, 1986, the fifteenth orlast day of the period to appeal, the decision of the respondent court became final on thefollowing day, September 25. And when the motion for reconsideration of petitioner was

filed on October 30, 1986, it was obviously filed out of time.

http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote19_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote19_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote19_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote19_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

9/39

Since the questioned decision has already become final and executory, it is no longerwithin the province of this Court to review it. This being so, the findings of the probatecourt as to the due execution of the will and the testamentary capacity of testatrix are nowconclusive.20

At any rate, even assuming that We can still review this case on it s merits, the petition willalso have to fail.

During the hearing before the probate court, not only were three (3) close relatives of thetestatrix presented but also two (2) expert witnesses who declared that the contested willand signature are in the handwriting of the testatrix. These testimonies more than satisfythe requirements of Art. 811 of the Civil Code21in conjunction with Section 11 of Rule 76,Revised Rules of Court,22for the probate of holographic wills.

As regards the alleged antedating of the will, petitioner failed to present competent proofthat the will was actually executed sometime in June 1980 when the testatrix was alreadyseriously ill and dying of terminal lung cancer. She relied only on the supposedinconsistencies in the testimony of Asuncion Gemperle, niece and constant companion oftestatrix, which upon careful examination did not prove such claim of antedating.

The factual findings of the probate court and the Court of Appeals that the will in questionwas executed according to the formalities required by law are conclusive on the SupremeCourt when supported by evidence.23We have examined the records of this case and find

no error in the conclusion arrived at by the respondent court that the contested will wasduly executed in accordance with law.

Petitioner alleges that her exclusion from the alleged holographic will was without rhymeor reason, being the only surviving sister of the testatrix with whom she shares an intimaterelationship, thus demonstrating the lack of testamentary capacity of testatrix.

In the case of Pecon v. Coronel,24it was held

"The appellants emphasize the fact that family ties in this country arevery strongly knit and that the exclusion of a relative from one'sestate is an exceptional case. It is true that the ties of relationship inthe Philippines are very strong, but we understand that cases ofpreterition of relatives from the inheritance are not rare. The libertyto dispose of one's estate by will when there are no forced heirs isrendered sacred by the Civil Code in force in the Philippines since1889 . . . "

Article 842 of the Civil Code provides that one who has no compulsory heirs may disposeby will of all his estate or any part of it in favor o f any person having capacity to succeed.

It is within the right of the testatrix not to include her only sister who is not a compulsoryheir in her will. Nevertheless, per testimony of Asuncion Gemperle, the latter had reservedtwo boxes of jewelry worth P850,000.00 for petitioner. Furthermore, petitioner's sonFrancis was instituted as an heir in the contested will.

Petitioner still insists that the fact that in her holographic will the testatrix failed to dispose

of all of her estate is an indication of the unsoundness of her mind.

We cannot subscribe to this contention. Art. 841 of the Civil Code provides

"A will shall be valid even though it should not contain an institutionof an heir, or such institution should not comprise the entire estate,and even though the person so instituted should not accept theinheritance or should be incapacitated to succeed.

In such cases, the testamentary dispositions made in accordancewith law shall be complied with and the remainder of the estate shallpass to the legal heirs."

Thus, the fact that in her holographic will, testatrix disposed of only eleven (11) of her realproperties does not invalidate the will, or is it an indication that the testatrix was ofunsound mind. The portion of the estate undisposed of shall pass on to the heirs of thedeceased in intestate successor.

Neither is undue influence present just because blood relatives, other than compulsoryheirs have been omitted, for while blood ties are strong in the Philippines, it is thetestator's right to disregard non-compulsory heirs.25The fact that some heirs are morefavored than others is proof of neither fraud or undue influence.26Diversity ofapportionment is the usual reason for making a testament, otherwise, the decedent mightas well die intestate.27

The contention of the petitioner that the will was obtained by undue influence or improperpressure exerted by the beneficiaries of the will cannot be sustained on mere conjecture orsuspicion; as it is not enough that there was opportunity to exercise undue influence or apossibility that it may have been exercised.28The exercise of improper pressure andundue influence must be supported by substantial evidence that it was actuallyexercised.29

Finally, We quote with approval the observation of the respondent court

"There is likewise no question as to the due execution of the subjectWill. To Our minds, the most authentic proof that deceased hadtestamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the Will, is theWill itself which according to a report of one of the two expertwitnesses (Exhibits X to X-3) reveals the existence of significanthandwriting characteristics such as:

'1.Spontaneity, freedom, and speed of writing.

xxx xxx xxx

'3.good line quality.

'4.presence of natural variation. . . .' (Exhibit X).

The characteristics of spontaneity, freedom and good line qualitycould not be achieved by the testatrix if it was true that she wasindeed of unsound mind/or under undue influence or improperpressure when she executed the Will."

http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote20_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote20_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote20_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote21_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote21_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote21_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote22_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote22_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote22_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote23_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote23_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote23_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote24_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote24_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote24_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote25_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote25_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote25_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote26_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote26_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote26_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote27_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote27_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote27_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote28_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote28_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote28_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote29_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote29_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote29_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote29_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote28_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote27_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote26_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote25_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote24_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote23_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote22_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote21_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/21478?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=21478&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=76648&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote20_0

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

10/39

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the petition is DENIED for lack of meritwith costs against petitioner. The decision of respondent court dated August 29, 1986affirming in totothe decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila dated March 21, 1985 ishereby declared to be immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruzand Grio-Aquino, JJ.,concur.

|||(Heirs of Montinola-Sanson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76648, February 26, 1988)

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

11/39

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 106720. September 15, 1994.]

SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO,petitioners,vs.THE COURTOF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND,respondents.

PUNO,J p:

This is an appeal by certiorari from the Decision of the Court of Appeals1in CA-G.R. CV No.22840, dated March 30, 1992, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the questioned decision of November 19,1988 of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and thepetition for probate is hereby DISMISSED. No costs."

The earlier Decision was rendered by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 94,2in Sp. Proc.No. Q-37171, and the instrument submitted for probate is the holographic will of thelate Annie Sand, who died on November 25, 1982.

In the will, decedent named as devisees, the following: petitioners Roberto and ThelmaAjero, private respondent Clemente Sand, Meriam S. Arong, Leah Sand, Lilia Sand, EdgarSand, Fe Sand, Lisa S. Sand, and Dr. Jose Ajero, Sr., and their children.prLL

On January 20, 1983, petitioners instituted Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, for allowance ofdecedent's holographic will. They alleged that at the time of its execution, she was ofsound and disposing mind, not acting under duress, fraud or undue influence, and was inevery respect capacitated to dispose of her estate by will.

Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament's bodynor the signature therein was in decedent's handwriting; it contained alterations andcorrections which were not duly signed by decedent; and, the will was procured bypetitioners through improper pressure and undue influence. The petition was likewiseopposed by Dr. Jose Ajero. He contested the disposition in the will of a house and lot

located in Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte. He claimed that said property could not beconveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.

Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court admitted the decedent's holographic willto probate. It found, inter alia:

"Considering then that the probate proceedings herein must decideonly the question of identity of the will, its due execution and thetestamentary capacity of the testatrix, this probate court finds noreason at all for the disallowance of the will fo r its failure to complywith the formalities prescribed by law nor for lack of testamentarycapacity of the testatrix.

"For one, no evidence was presented to show that the will inquestion is different from the will actually executed by the testatrix.

The only objections raised by the oppositors . . . are that the will wasnot written in the handwriting of the testatrix which properly refersto the question of its due execution, and not to the question ofidentity of will. No other will was alleged to have been executed bythe testatrix other than the will herein presented. Hence, in the lightof the evidence adduced, the identity of the will presented forprobate must be accepted, i.e., the will submitted in Court must bedeemed to be the will actually executed by the testatrix.

"xxx xxx xxx"While the fact that it was entirely written, dated and signed in thehandwriting of the testatrix has been disputed, the petitioners,however, have satisfactorily shown in Court that the holographic willin question was indeed written entirely, dated and signed in thehandwriting of the testatrix. Three (3) witnesses who haveconvincingly shown knowledge of the handwriting of the testatrixhave been presented and have explicitly and categorically identifiedthe handwriting with which the holographic will in question waswritten to be the genuine handwriting and signature of the testatrix.Given then the aforesaid evidence, the requirement of the law thatthe holographic will be entirely written, dated and signed in the

handwriting of the testatrix has been complied with."xxx xxx xxx

"As to the question of the testamentary capacity of the testatrix,(private respondent) Clemente Sand himself has testified in Courtthat the testatrix was completely in her sound mind when he visitedher during her birthday celebration in 1981, at or around which timethe holographic will in question was executed by the testatrix. To beof sound mind, it is sufficient that the testatrix, at the time of makingthe will, knew the value of the estate to be disposed of, the properobject of her bounty, and the character of the testamentary act . . .The will itself shows that the testatrix even had detailed knowledgeof the nature of her estate. She even identified the lot number andsquare meters of the lots she had conveyed by will. The objects ofher bounty were likewise identified explicitly. And c onsidering thatshe had even written a nursing book which contained the law and

jurisprudence on will and succession, there is more than sufficientshowing that she knows the character of the testamentary act.

"In this wise, the question of identity o f the will, its due executionand the testamentary capacity of the testatrix has to be resolved infavor of the allowance of probate of the will submitted herein.

"Likewise, no evidence was presented to show sufficient reason forthe disallowance of herein holographic will. While it was alleged thatthe said will was procured by undue and improper pressure and

influence on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person, theevidence adduced have not shown any instance where improper

http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

12/39

pressure or influence was exerted o n the testatrix. (Privaterespondent) Clemente Sand has testified that the testatrix was stillalert at the time of the execution of the will, i.e., at or around thetime of her birth anniversary celebration in 1981. It was alsoestablished that she is a very intelligent person and has a mind of herown. Her independence of character and to some extent, her senseof superiority, which has been testified to in Court, all show theunlikelihood of her being unduly i nfluenced or improperly pressuredto make the aforesaid will. It must be noted that the undue influence

or improper pressure in question herein only refer to the making of awill and not as to the specific testamentary provisions therein whichis the proper subject of another proceeding. Hence, under thecircumstances, this Court cannot find convincing reason for thedisallowance of the will herein.

"Considering then that it is a well-established doctrine in the law onsuccession that in case of doubt, testate succession should bepreferred over intestate succession, and the fact that no convincinggrounds were presented and proven for the disallowance of theholographic will of the late Annie Sand, the aforesaid will submittedherein must be admitted to probate."3(Emphasis omitted.)

On appeal, said Decision was reversed, and the petition for probate of decedent's will wasdismissed. The Court of Appeals found that, "the holographic will fails to meet therequirements for its validity."4It held that the decedent did not comply with Articles 813and 814 of the New Civil Code, which read, as follows:

"Article 813: When a number of dispositions appearing in aholographic will are signed without being dated, and the lastdisposition has a signature and date, such date validates thedispositions preceding it, whatever be the time of prior dispositions."

"Article 814: In case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or alterationin a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by hisfull signature."

It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and undated,or signed but not dated. It also found that the erasures, alterations and cancellationsmade thereon had not been authenticated by decedent.llcd

Thus, this appeal which is impressed with merit.

Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court provides that wills shall be disallowed in any of thefollowing cases:

"(a)If not executed and attested as required by law;

(b)If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable tomake a will, at the time of its execution;

(c)If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear, orthreats;

(d)If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence,on the part of the beneficiary, or of some other person for hisbenefit;

(e)If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, andhe did not intend that the instrument should be his will at the time offixing his signature thereto."

In the same vein, Article 839 of the New Civil Code reads:

"Article 839: The will shall be disallowed in any of the followingcases:

(1)If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;

(2If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable ofmaking a will, at the time of its execution;

(3)If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influenceof fear, or threats;

(4)If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence,on the part of the beneficiary or o f some other person;

(5)If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;

(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that theinstrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing hissignature thereto."

These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to disallow a will.5Thus, in a petitionto admit a holographic will to probate, the o nly issues to be resolved are: (1) whether theinstrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last will and testament; (2) whether saidwill was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law; (3) whether thedecedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed; and,(4) whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts of thedecedents.6

In the case at bench, respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne Sand was notexecuted in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. It held that Articles 813 and814 of the New Civil Code, ante,were not complied with, hence, it disallowed the probateof said will. This is erroneous.cdrep

We reiterate what we held inAbangan vs. Abangan,40 Phil. 476, 479 (1919), that:

"The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is toclose the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution ofwills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity.Therefore, the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such away as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the other hand, also

one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law

http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0http://www.online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16061?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16061&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=106720&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0

8/11/2019 Wills Cases (Set 2)

13/39

to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. Sowhen an interpretation already given assures such ends, any otherinterpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands morerequisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of thetestator's last will, must be disregarded."

For purposes of probating non-holographic wills, these formal solemnities include thesubscription, attestation, and acknowledgment requirements under Articles 805 and806 of the New Civil Code.

In the case of holographic wills, on the other hand, what assures authenticity is therequirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself,7asprovided under Article 810 of the New Civil Code, thus:

"A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirelywritten, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It issubject to no other form, and may be made in or out of thePhilippines, and need not be witnessed." (Emphasis supplied.)

Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of aholographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator.

A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its requirement affects thevalidity of the dispositionscontained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the

testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositionscannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole testament void.

Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814. In the case o f Kalaw vs. Relova,132 SCRA237, 242 (1984), this Court held:cdrep

"Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, andinterlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will have notbeen noted under his signature, . . . the Will is not therebyinvalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particularwords erased, corrected or interlined. Manresa gave an identicalcommentary when he said 'la omision de la salvedad no anula el

testamento, segun la regla de jurisprudencia establecida en lasentencia de 4 de Abril de 1895.'" 8(Emphasis omitted.)

Thus, unless