Testamentary Capacity and Intent

7/21/2019 Testamentary Capacity and Intent

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/testamentary-capacity-and-intent 1/51

G.R. No. L-2108 December 18, 1905

JUANA PIMENTEL, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

ENGRACIO PALANCA, as administrator of the estate of Margarita Jose, deceased, ET AL.,

defendants-appellees.

Del-Pan, Ortigas and Fisher for appellant.

M. Caringal and R. del Rosario for appellees.

ILLARD, J.:

Margarita Jose, a native and citizen of the Philippine Islands, died in the city of Amoy, hina, on the

!th of "e#r$ary, %&'(. )er last *ill *as d$ly proved and allo*ed in the o$rt of "irst Instance of

Manila on the %+th day of April, %&'(, and on the same day Engracio Palanca *as d$ly appointedadministrator of the estate of the deceased. )e entered $pon the discharge of his d$ties as s$ch

administrator, and is still engaged therein. As far as appears from the #ill of eceptions the estate still

remains $nsettled, and no final decree has ever #een entered therein.

y her said *ill Margarita Jose left all her property, amo$nting to over +',''' pesos, to her t*o

children, icente arreto, alias Tan-/eng, and enito arlos, alias 0oon. 1n the 2th day of J$ly,

%&'(, J$ana Pimentel, the mother of said Margarita Jose, commenced this, an ordinary action, in the

o$rt of "irst Instance of Manila, alleging that the t*o children of Margarita Jose *ere illegitimate,

and that she *as the heir at la* and entitled to the *hole estate. The prayer of the original complaint

*as that the plaintiff #e declared the la*f$l heir and entitled to all the property of her da$ghter,

Margarita Jose.

The defendant named in this original complaint *as the 3Estate of 0o4a Margarita Jose.3 The

s$mmons in the action *as served $pon the administrator, Engracio Palanca. )e appeared and

dem$rred, on the gro$nd, among others, that there *as a defect of parties, and that the t*o sons

sho$ld have #een made defendants. This dem$rrer *as overr$led. )e too5 an eception to the

overr$ling of the dem$rrer, and ans*ered, denying generally the facts state in the complaint. A trial

*as had in the o$rt of "irst Instance, and 6$dgment *as entered in favor of the defendant on the

(2th of J$ly, %&'7, the co$rt holding that icente arreto *as the legitimate son of Margarita Jose.

Plaintiff made a motion for a ne* trial, *hich *as granted on the %+th day of 8eptem#er, %&'7. 1n

the ((nd day of Jan$ary, %&'!, the plaintiff presented an amended complaint, naming as defendants

Engracio Palanca, as administrator of the estate of margarita Jose, and enito arlos and icente

arreto. The prayer of that complaint is as follo*s9

Por todo lo ep$esto la demandante pide al J$zgado9

(a) :$e la legalizacion de dicho testamento sea revocada y an$lada;

(b) :$e la instit$cion de los demandados icente #arreto alias Tan-/eng y enito

arlos alias 0oon como herederos en dicho testamento sea declarada n$la por razon de la

pretericion de $n heredero forzoso.



(c) :$e la demandante sea declarada heredera de tres c$artas partes de los #ienes de los

c$ales era d$e4a la citada Margarita Jose al tiempo de s$ fallecimiento.

(d) :$e el nom#ramiento de administrador conferido por virt$d del a$to del J$zgado a favor

del demandado Engracio Palanca sea an$lado;

(e) :$e el demandado Engracio Palanca como tal administrador sea re<$erido a rendir

c$entas de s$ administracion y a depositar en el J$zgado todo el dinero <$e tenga en s$

poder perteneciente a los herederos de la citada dif$nta;

(f) :$e el J$zgado conceda a la demandante c$al<$ier otro remedio adec$ado y e<$itativo.

The defendants all ans*ered the amended complaint. A trial *as had in the co$rt #elo*, and on the

=th of April, %&'!, 6$dgement *as entered in favor of the defendants. The co$rt held that icente

arreto *as the legitimate son of Margarita Jose; that enito arlos *as an illegitimate son, and that

Margarita Jose had a right to #e<$eath her property to these sons to the ecl$sion of the plaintiff. )e

held also that the plaintiff, not having appealed from the pro#ate of the *ill, co$ld not maintain this

action.

>e thin5 that 6$dgment sho$ld #e entered for the defendants, #$t not $pon the gro$nd stated in the

decision of the co$rt #elo*.

The *ill of Margarita Jose *as made and she died after the present ode of ivil Proced$re *ent

into effect in these Islands. )er *ill *as d$ly proved and allo*ed $nder the provisions of that code.

An administrator *as d$ly appointed and he is no* engaged in settling the affairs of the estate. The

important <$estion in this case is, an an ordinary action at la* #e maintained $nder these

circ$mstances #y a person claiming to #e an heir of the deceased against other persons, also

claiming to #e s$ch heirs, for the p$rpose of having their rights in the estate determined? >e thin5

that s$ch an action is inconsistent *ith the provisions of the ne* code, and that it can not #e

maintained. 8ection @'' of the present ode of ivil Proced$re provides that the *ill of an inha#itantof the Philippine Islands shall #e proved and his estate settled in the o$rt of "irst Instance in *hich

he resided at the time of his death. y section @!% *hen a *ill is proved it is o#ligatory $pon the

co$rt to appoint an eec$tor or administrator. y virt$e of other provisions of the code this eec$tor

or administrator has, $nder the direction of the co$rt, the f$ll administration and control of the

deceaseds property, real and personal, $ntil a final decree is made in accordance *ith section =+7.

0$ring the period of administration the heirs, devisees, and legatees have no right to interfere *ith

the administrator or eec$tor in the discharge of his d$ties. They have no right, *itho$t his consent,

to the possession of any part of the estate, real or personal. The theory of the present system is that

the property is all in the hands of the co$rt, and m$st stay there $ntil the affairs of the deceased are

ad6$sted and li<$idated, and then the net #alance is t$rned over to the persons #y la* entitled to it.

"or the p$rpose of s$ch administration and distri#$tion there is only one proceeding in the o$rt of

"irst Instance. That proceeding is not an action of la*, #$t fall $nder Part II of the ode of ivilProced$re, and is a special proceeding. After the estate is f$lly settled, and all the de#ts and

epenses of administration are paid, the la* contemplates that there shall #e a hearing or trial in this

proceeding in the o$rt of "irst Instance for the p$rpose of determining *ho the parties are that are

entitled to the estate in the hands of the eec$tor or administrator for distri#$tion, and after s$ch

hearing or trial it is made the d$ty of the co$rt to enter a decree or final 6$dgment, in *hich decree,

according to section =+7, the co$rt 3shall assign the resid$e of the estate to the persons entitled to

the same, and in its order the co$rt shall name the persons and proportions or parts to *hich each is



entitled.3 B8ee also sec. =2( of the ode of ivil Proced$re.C y section ='! it is epressly provided

that no action shall #e maintained #y an heir or devisee against an eec$tor or administrator for the

recovery of the possession or o*nership of lands $ntil there is a decree of the co$rt assigning s$ch

lands to s$ch heir or devisee, or $ntil the time allo*ed for paying de#ts has epired.

It seems clear from these provisions of the la* that *hile the estate is #eing settled in the o$rt of

"irst Instance in a special proceeding, no ordinary action can #e maintained in that co$rt, or in any

other co$rt, #y a person claiming to #e the heir, against the eec$tor or against other persons

claiming to #e heirs, for the p$rpose of having the rights of the plaintiff in the estate determined. The

very p$rpose of the trial or hearing provided for in section =+7 is to settle and determine those

<$estions, and $ntil they are settled and determined in that proceeding and $nder that section no

action s$ch as the present one can #e maintained.

An eamination of the prayer of the amended complaint a#ove <$oted *ill sho* that to grant it *o$ld

#e to prevent the settlement of the estate of a deceased person in one proceeding in the o$rt of

"irst Instance. It *o$ld re<$ire, in the first place, the revocation of the 6$dgment pro#ating the *ill.

This relief can not #e o#tained in an ordinary action. The plaintiff not having appealed from the order

admitting the *ill to pro#ate, as she had a right to do, that order is final and concl$sive. It does not,

ho*ever, as the co$rt #elo* held, determine that the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the estate.

The effect of s$ch a decree *as stated in the case of asta4eda vs. Alemany 1 B( 1ff. Daz., 7@@C.

The statements there made need not #e repeated here. The plaintiff in her amended complaint as5s

also that the appointment of Engracio Palanca #e ann$lled. This relief can not #e granted in an

ordinary action. The plaintiff had a right to appeal from the order of the co$rt appointing the

administrator in this case, and not having eercised that right s$ch order is final and concl$sive

against her. The plaintiff also as5s that the administrator #e re<$ired to render an acco$nt to her of

his administration, and deposit in co$rt the money *hich he has in his possession. To grant this relief

in an ordinary action #et*een parties *o$ld #e to ta5e a*ay from the co$rt having in charge the

settlement of the estate the epress po*ers conferred $pon it #y la*. To grant that part of the prayer

of the amended complaint *hich as5s that the plaintiff #e declared to #e entitled to three-fo$rths of

the property of the estate, *o$ld #e to ta5e a*ay from the co$rt administering the estate the po*er epressly given to it #y section =+7 to determine that <$estion in the proceeding relating to the

estate.

The 6$dgment of the co$rt #elo* is reversed, and after the epiration of t*enty days 6$dgment sho$ld

#e entered in accordance here*ith and the case remanded to the co$rt #elo*, *ith instr$ctions to

dismiss the same, *ith costs, #$t *itho$t pre6$dice to the right of the plaintiff to present her claims in

the special proceeding relating to the administration of the estate, *hen the final decree is made

therein $nder section =+7. o costs *ill #e allo*ed in this co$rt. 8o ordered.



G.R. No. L-!"2! December 2!, 1909

GREGORIA MONTA#ANO,Plaintiff-Appellant , vs. $IL%E$TRE $UE$A,Defendant-Appellee.

Mariano i! for appellant.

"enito #i!ene$-%&boli for appellee.

MAPA, J.&

ontrary to the claims of the appellant as arg$ed at length in her #rief, the evidence presented in this

case can not #e revie*ed #y this co$rt. 8he intervened and filed a complaint alleging that she *as

the o*ner of t*o parcels of land that had #een attached as #eing the property of atalino

Monta4ano, #y virt$e of an order of eec$tion iss$ed in an action #ro$ght against him #y the

defendant herein in an action #ro$ght against him #y the defendant herein, 8ilvestre 8$esa. The

appellant *as defeated in the first instance, and ecepted to the 6$dgment, moving later on for a ne*trial on the gro$nd that the said 6$dgment *as contrary to the *eight of the evidence add$ced in the

case. )er motion for a ne* trial *as presented on Jan$ary (', %&'2, and on the 7%st of the same

month the #ill of eceptions *hich has #een s$#mitted to this co$rt *as filed. o r$ling *hatever

appears to have #een made on said motion, conse<$ently no provision *as made to ecept thereto

in the event it *ere overr$led. The motion not #eing overr$led and d$ly ecepted to, this co$rt can

not revie* the evidence in the case; it can only #ase its decision on the facts fo$nd to have #een

proven in the 6$dgment appealed from, and admitted #y the parties in their respective #riefs. B8ec.

!&=, ode of ivil Proced$re, as amended #y Act o. %+&@; )i6os de I. de la Fama vs. Fo#les and

Fo#les, 2 Phil. Fep., =%(.C chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

According to the 6$dgment the follo*ing facts have #een proven9

That the property descri#ed in the complaint *as o*ned #y the late atalino Monta4ano, father of

the plaintiff Dregoria Monta4ano; that prior to this death the said atalino Monta4ano eec$ted his

last *ill and testament, #y *hich he declares his children Dregoria, atalino, and Man$el

Monta4ano, to #e heirs to the property left #y him in the shares or portions respectively designated

in the said *ill; that the said *ill *as d$ly a$thenticated on the (d of "e#r$ary, %&'@, and the

defendant herein, 8ilvestre 8$esa, #eing appointed administrator of the estate, presented an

inventory of the property left #y atalino Monta4ano sr., deceased; that in n$m#ers 2 and 72 of the

said inventory the t*o parcels of land in controversy are descri#ed; that the plaintiff has endeavored

to prove that the parcels of land claimed in her complaint *ere ceded to her as a gift #y her father,

atalino Monta4ano, d$ring his lifetime, and that she had never since #een in possession thereof,

#$t *hile these facts have not #een f$lly demonstrated, on the other hand it appears #y the evidenceand the *ill eec$ted #y atalino Monta4ano, sr., that the person *hom he designated to inherit the

parcels of land-referred to *as his son atalino, parcels of land sit$ated in other #arrios #eing left to

the plaintiff Dregoria Monta4ano.

Lastly, it *as held in the 6$dgment that the evidence add$ced #y the plaintiff, #oth doc$mentary and

oral, does not esta#lish her pretended o*nership to the property in

<$estion.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary



Accordingly to the foregoing considerations of the lo*er co$rt not only has the plaintiff failed to prove

that she is the o*ner of the lands in controversy, #$t there is positive evidence that they #elong to

her #rother atalino, against *hom they *ere attached. In the opinion of the co$rt #elo* this

evidence consists of the d$ly a$thenticated *ill of the late atalino Montano, their ancestor, in *hich

it is set forth that said lands *ere *illed #y the testator to his son atalino, entirely different parcels

#eing assigned to the plaintiff herein. >ith reference to this point the 6$dge #elo* epresses himself

in the follo*ing terms9

As the *ill eec$ted #y atalino Monta4ano, sr., *as d$ly a$thenticated, and the portion of the

property left #y the testator corresponding to each one of his heirs #eing stated therein, one m$st

necessarily concl$de that the latter are entitled to ma5e their o*n those properties indicated in the

said *ill in the manner provided #y the testator himself. If, therefore, atalino Monta4ano *as

instit$ted heir $nder said *ill of the t*o parcels of land descri#e in paragraph % of the complaint, it is

$n<$estiona#le that no one #$t him can #e recognized as the o*ner thereof, #y title of inheritance

from his father atalino Monta4ano.

The appellant maintains that the trial erred in attri#$ting s$ch pro#atory force to the testamentary

provisions of the late atalino Monta4ano from the mere fact that his *ill had #een a$thenticated,

#eca$se as she states, altho$gh it is tr$e that it is concl$sive *ith respect to the proper eec$tion of

the same, and as to the capacity of the testator, yet, according to the doctrine set $p in the matters

of Casta'eda vs. Ale!an B7 Phil Fep., !(@C and Pi!entel vs. Palanca B+ Phil. Fep., !7@C, it is not

so *ith regard to the validity of the provisions therein

contained.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

The tr$e import and meaning of this doctrine is #y its o*n terms so clear and precise that any f$rther

eplanation seems $nnecessary. The a$thentication of a *ill decides no other <$estions than s$ch

as to$ch $pon the capacity of the testator and the compliance *ith those re<$isites or solemnities

*hich the la* prescri#es for the validity of *ills. It does not determine nor even #y implication

pre6$dge the validity of efficiency of the provisions; these may #e imp$gned as #eing vicio$s or n$ll,

not*ithstanding its a$thentication. The <$estions relating to these points remain entirely $naffected,and may #e raised even after the *ill has #een a$thenticated. This is not the case, ho*ever, *ith

regard to the proper eec$tion thereof, as in vie* of the fact that it constit$tes the proper and special

s$#6ect-matter thereof, it ac<$ires #y virt$e thereof, the character of res ad*dicata, and 6$dicial

<$estion in connection there*ith #eing for once and forever closed. 8$ch is the reason of the

doctrine invo5ed #y the appellant, *hich evidently is not s$scepti#le of the interpretation *hich she

seems to have attri#$ted in her #rief.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

"rom the fact that the legalization of a *ill does not validate the provisions therein contained, it does

not follo* that s$ch provisions lac5 the efficiency, or fail to prod$ce the effects *hich the la*

recognizes *hen they are not imp$gned #y anyone. In matter of *ills it is a f$ndamental doctrine

that the *ill of the testator is the la* governing the interested parties, and m$st #e p$nct$ally

complied *ith in so far as it is not contrary to the la* or to p$#lic morals. >ith respect to the partitionof the inheritance, there is the definite provision of la* that *hen the testator ma5es s$ch partition #y

an act inter vivos or #y a last *ill, it shall be accepted in so far as it does not pre6$dice the legal

portion of the heirs #y force of la*. BArt. %'+@, ivil ode.C chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

"rom this follo*s that, as the testator, Monta4ano, had #y his *ill partitioned his property and

assigned to his son atalino, as his portion, the lands in <$estion herein, the said testamentary

provision, #eing #inding on the heirs, constit$tes pri!a facie evidence that the said lands *ere



act$ally inherited #y atalino, and not #y the plaintiff herein; other property *as assigned to her in

payment of her legal portion. Therefore, the trial 6$dge committed no error of la* *hen he

considered said evidence in the sense that he has done, inasm$ch as it has not #een proven, nor

has any attempt #een made to prove that the said testamentary provisions *as imp$gned or

ann$lled, or that it has ceased to #e effective for any reason

*hatever.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

The 6$dgment appealed from is here#y affirmed *ith the costs of this instance against the appellant.

8o ordered.

G.R. No. L-1002" No'ember 1(, 1915

RO$ENDO )ERNAE* + E$PINO$A, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

MATEO )ERNAE* + E$PINO$A, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

R*perto Montinola for plaintiff.

+nri*e C. ocsin for defendants.

TRENT, J.:

The spo$ses, Pedro )ernaez and J$ana Espinosa, died, leaving several legitimate descendants.

either of their estates had #een divided $p to the date of the instit$tion of this action, #$t *ere #oth

$nder administration. Their son, 0omingo )ernaez y Espinosa, sold all his interest in #oth his

fathers and mothers estate to his son, icente )ernaez y T$ason, on ovem#er @, %&'%.

ot*ithstanding the fact that 0omingo )ernaez y Espinosa had th$s parted *ith all his interest in the

estates of his t*o parents, he eec$ted a doc$ment of sale in favor of Ale6andro Monteli#ano y

Famos on "e#r$ary (=, %&'=, in *hich he p$rported to convey all his $ndivided interest in hismothers estate. 1n the same date he eec$ted another doc$ment of sale in *hich he p$rported to

convey to Jose Monteli#ano Gy-ana fo$r-eighteenths of his interest in his mothers estate. oth of

these sales *ere made *ith the connivance of his son, icente )ernaez y T$ason. )ence, altho$gh

icente )ernaez y T$ason had act$ally p$rchased all of his fathers interests in the estates of Pedro

)ernaez and J$ana Espinosa as early as ovem#er @, %&'%, and *as, on "e#r$ary (=, %&'=, the

$ndo$#ted o*ner thereof, he is effect$ally estopped from asserting his title as against either of the

vendees mentioned in the doc$ments of sale dated "e#r$ary (=, %&'=, to *hich *e have 6$st

referred. Bode iv. Pro., sec. 777, o. %.C igelo* on Estoppel Bp. @'=C says9

. . . it is no* a *ell-esta#lished principle that *here the tr$e o*ner of property, for ho*ever

short a time, holds o$t another, or, *ith 5no*ledge of his o*n right, allo*s another to appear

as the o*ner of or as having f$ll po*er of disposition over the property, the same #eing in the

latters act*al possession, and innocent third parties are th$s led into dealing *ith s$ch

apparent o*ner, they *ill #e protected.

1n A$g$st %&, %&%(, Jose Monteli#ano Gy-ana sold his interest in the estate to Ale6andro

Monteli#ano y Famos. y this transfer, the latter stood o*ner of all the interest of 0omingo )ernaez

y Espinosa in the estate of Pedro )ernaez, and five-eighteenths of his interest in the estate of J$ana

Espinosa as against icente )ernaez y Espinosa.



It is admitted that Fosendo )ernaez y Espinosa, another son of the deceased spo$ses administrator

of the estates, *as notified of Monteli#anos p$rchases on Jan$ary 2, %&%7, *hen he received notice

of Monteli#anos motion, entered in the administration proceedings, as5ing that he BMonteli#anoC #e

s$#stit$ted as assignee of the interests of vario$s heirs of the estate *hich he had ac<$ired #y

p$rchase. ot*ithstanding this 5no*ledge, Fosendo )ernaez y Espinosa entered into a contract of

sale *ith icente )ernaez y T$ason, *here#y the latter p$rported to convey all the interest, *hich he

had ac<$ired from his father, in the estate of the deceased spo$ses, Pedro )ernaez and J$anaEspinosa. It *ill #e remem#ered that he p$rchased his fathers share of the estate on ovem#er @,

%&'%; that he is estopped from asserting title to any interest in his grandfathers estate and in five-

eighteenths of his grandmothers estate. Fosendo )ernandez y Espinosa p$rchased *ith f$ll

5no*ledge of these facts. )e, therefore, ac<$ired thirteen-eighteenths of the interest of 0omingo

)ernaez y Espinosa in the estate of the latters mother nothing more. laphl.net

That r$le is that the holder HAle6andro Monteli#ano y Famos of a prior e<$ita#le right has

priority over the p$rchaser HFosendo )ernandez y Espinosa of a s$#se<$ent estate

B*hether legal or e<$ita#leC *itho$t val$e, or *ith notice of the e<$ita#le right, #$t not as

against a s$#se<$ent p$rchaser for val$e and *itho$t notice. BE*art on Estoppel, p. %&&.C

Ale6andro Monteli#ano y Famos has ac<$ired in his interest in the estate of the deceased spo$ses

for a val$a#le consideration and in good faith, and there remains to the plaintiff, Fosendo )ernaez y

Espinosa, only the right of s$#rogation allo*ed him #y article %'@= of the ivil ode, *hich reads as

follo*s9

If any of the heirs sho$ld sell his hereditary rights to a stranger #efore the division, all or any

of the co-heirs may s$#rogate himself in the place of the p$rchaser, reim#$rsing him for the

val$e of the p$rchase, provided they do so *ithin the period of a month, to #e co$nted from

the time they *ere informed thereof.

1n Jan$ary (!, %&%7, the plaintiff instit$ted this action see5ing to s$#rogate himself in the rights

ac<$ired #y Monteli#ano in the estate. Gnless the plaintiff can #e charged *ith act$al notice of theconveyance #y *hich Monteli#ano ac<$ired these interests, prior to Jan$ary 2, %&%7, it is clear that

he has opport$nely asserted his right of s$#rogation. This is p$rely a <$estion of fact. As to the sales

*here#y 0omingo )ernaez y Espinosa parted *ith that portion of his interest in the estate *hich is

no* held #y Ale6andro Monteli#ano, as *ell as to those sales made #y other heirs to Monteli#ano,

the trial co$rt fo$nd that the plaintiff, Fosendo )ernaez y Espinosa, *as not chargea#le *ith notice

prior to Jan$ary 2, %&%7. After a caref$l eamination of the record *e see no reason for dist$r#ing

this finding of fact. As a conse<$ence, the plaintiff, Fosendo )ernaez y Espinosa, is entitled to

eercise his right of s$#rogation in accordance *ith article %'@=, a#ove <$oted. laph/.net

The interest *hich Jose Monteli#ano Gy-ana p$rchased from 0omingo )ernaez y Espinosa on

"e#r$ary (=, %&'=, for the s$m of P!,+'', he after*ards transferred to Ale6andro Monteli#ano y

Famos for the s$m of P%','''. In rendering 6$dgment, the trial co$rt decreed that the plaintiff,Fosendo )ernaez y Espinosa, sho$ld pay the latter s$m for the privilege of eercising the right of

s$#rogation. This *as error. Article %'@= of the ivil ode provides that the co-heir may eercise this

right of s$#rogation $pon the payment to the p$rchaser of another heirs interest, 3 el precio de la

co!pra3 Bthe p$rchase priceC. 1#vio$sly, if the interest had not #een resold, the plaintiff, Fosendo

)ernaez y Espinosa, *o$ld have had to pay only the price for *hich Gy-ana ac<$ired it. The

p$rpose of the article cannot #e evaded #y a reconveyance of the interest to a third person at a



higher price. 8$#se<$ent p$rchasers of the interest ac<$ire it #$rdened *ith the right of s$#rogation

of co-heirs at the price for *hich the heir *ho sold it parted *ith it.

It is $rged that the prices in some of the deeds of sale #y *hich Ale6andro Monteli#ano y Famos

p$rchased the interest of vario$s heirs in the estates are fictitio$s. This is a <$estion of fact $pon

*hich #oth parties add$ced evidence, and *e conc$r in the opinion of the trial co$rt that there is no

#asis to the charge. "or the foregoing reasons, the 6$dgment of the co$rt is modified #y s$#stit$ting,

as the price of s$#rogation of the interest originally p$rchased #y Jose Monteli#ano Gy-ana, the

s$m of P!,+'', as set o$t in Ehi#it =, for the s$m of P%',''', the consideration epressed in

Ehi#it %'. As modified, the 6$dgment appealed from is affirmed, *itho$t costs. 8o ordered.

G.R. No. L-!029 Jr+ 25, 1908

I /e m//er o /e 344 o DOMINGA UTALID. - Prob/e 6rocee73. - GAUDENCIOMENDO*A, petitioner-appellant.

0. Clarin for appellant.

". Rees for appellee.

ARELLANO, C.J. 9chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

1n ovem#er %=, %&'+, Da$dencio Mendoza, as eec$tor of 0ominga $talid, *ho died on the %=th

of 1cto#er of the same year, filed *ith the o$rt of "irst Instance, for its allo*ance and other pro#ate

proceedings, a *ill said to have #een eec$ted #y the latter person on the %@th day of 8eptem#er of

the same year.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

Gpon p$#lication of the notice of the petition, Este#an L$main y $talid, Este#an $talid, icolas

$talid, and orcela $talid, nephe*s and niece, respectively, and heirs of the deceased 0ominga$talid, appeared in co$rt and contested the *ill, alleging 3that the said 0ominga $talid, at the date

of the eec$tion of the said doc$ment, *as not in the free $se of her intellect$al po*ers, on the

follo*ing gro$nds, to *it9 That the a#ove-mentioned 0ominga $talid, then a#o$t &' years old, *as

lying in #ed serio$sly ill, senseless, and $na#le to $tter a single *ords, so that she did not 5no* *hat

she *as doing *hen she eec$ted the *ill; that this doc$ment *as eec$ted $nder the infl$ence and

#y the direction of Da$dencio Mendoza, as one of the heir designated in said *ill.3chanro#les virt$al

la* li#rary

An iss$e having #een raised #y this contest, the trial *as commenced, #oth parties presenting their

respective oral evidence, #esides the doc$mentary evidence ehi#ited #y the

petitioner.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

This doc$mentary proof consists of a *ill formerly eec$ted #y the said 0ominga $talid in the

presence of Jose on$i y icente, a notary p$#lic in the Province of ohol, and the n$m#er of

*itnesses re<$ired #y la*; it *as dated March 7%, %2&=, and *ritten on stamped paper of the fifth

class, c$rrent term, the doc$ment on record #eing the first original copy iss$ed *ith the formalities of

the la* to the testatri #y the same notary. According to this testament, eec$ted *ith all the

re<$irements prescri#ed #y the la* then in force, the testatri, 0ominga $talid, as sho*n #y her

ced$la ehi#ited to the notary, and from *hich her personal description *as ta5en, *as at that time



=@ years old and had made her last *ill in t*elve cla$ses, in the follo*ing manner9 "irst, as to her

personal circ$mstances, she declared that she *as single, that her father and mother *ere dead,

and that she co$ld freely dispose of her estate; second, in regard to the designation of her heirs, she

stated that not having any o#ligatory heir, she designated as heirs J$anita Mendoza y $talid,

Jan$aria Mendoza y $talid, Da$dencio Mendoza y $talid, and in representation of Margarita

$talid, deceased, the children of the latter named Jose, icolas, Jacinto, "eli, Leogario, Maria,

1sto<$ia, and Emelda, all s$rnamed larin y $talid; third, as to the legacies, she left some toiriaca Mendoza y $talid, Ed$arda Dala#, Maria :$elelo, and 8at$rnina

Lo<$ento.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

This *ill eisting, d$ly eec$ted in a solemn manner on the said date of March 7%, %2&=, another *ill

appears, dated the %@th of 8eptem#er, %&'+, *hich is the one contested, the same having #een

eec$ted in conformity *ith the la* in force, and consisting of ten cla$ses, the second of *hich

corresponds to the second cla$se of the former *ill, and, li5e the other, relates to the testatris

personal circ$mstances; and the third cla$se, concerning the designation of heirs, is also an eact

transcription of the corresponding cla$se in the other *ill. There are, therefore, instit$ted as heirs in

the second *ill the same persons *ho *ere designated as s$ch in the first, and the last *ill is almost

the same in its fo$rth cla$se, #$t *ith the follo*ing discrepancies9 B%C To J$anita Mendoza there

*ere allotted in the first *ill, #esides other property #e<$eathed to her in the second *ill, +' head of

cattle in the p$e#lo of armen, and 7 mango trees in ogon, *ithin the m$nicipality of the capital,

*hile #y the second *ill the +' head of cattle *ere omitted and replaced #y @' mango trees planted

in ogon, Mansasa, ohol, and Manga, *ithin the m$nicipality, the capital of the province, and in the

sitios of 8$nc$lan and T$t$la, *ithin the m$nicipality of 0anis; B(C #y the first *ill Da$dencio

Mendoza y $talid *as to receive +' head of cattle, Jan$aria Mendoza another +' head of cattle,

and the children of the late Margarita $talid *ere also to receive an e<$al n$m#er of head of cattle,

#esides other property #e<$eathed to Jan$aria and to the larin family $nder #oth *ills, *hile in the

second *ill the allotments of cattle *as s$ppressed; B7C in regard to legacies, those contained in the

first *ill, in favor of Ed$arda Dala# and 8at$rnina Lo<$ente, servants of the testatri, and consisting

of one head of cattle to each, *ere revo5ed #y the *ill; B!C according to a the ninth cla$se of the first

*ill, Ed$ardo alceta *as inde#ted in the s$m of P2'', *hich he *as to pay in e<$al parts to theheirs, and according to the second *ill, Bcla$se 2C said de#t *as red$ced to P7'', to #e paid to the

same heirs and in a similar manner; B+C the sith cla$se of the first *ill is contained in the fifth cla$se

of the second, and the sith cla$se of the latter *ill is to #e fo$nd in the fifth cla$se of the former; the

last three cla$ses in the first *ill *ere s$ppressed, the tenth cla$se of the second *ill #eing that in

*hich the testatri re<$ests Mateo Focha to sign in her place. 8o that the terms of the first *ill,

solemnly eec$ted in the presence of a notary p$#lic and the re<$ired n$m#er of *itnesses, are

s$#stantially preserved in their entirety, and #y the cla$ses of this *ill neither the other nephe*s and

niece of the testatri nor the other parties contesting the same are in any *ise favored *ith the

eception of those *ho are designated as heirs or legatees, *hose shares are ali5e in #oth *ill. And

*ith reference to Da$dencio Mendoza, *ho, in the last *ill, is appointed eec$tor, and in the first *ill

*as to receive one-fo$rth part of the estate and a certain portion of property, the last *ill entitles him

to only an even portion of the property mentioned in its fifth cla$se Bformerly the sith cla$seC, #y theterms of *hich it is ordered that the *hole n$m#er of cattle #e e<$ally distri#$ted among the fo$r

heirs.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

8$ch are the terms and the legal nat$re oaf the t*o *ills, *hich m$st not #e overloo5ed in

disc$ssing the p$rpose of the action #ro$ght #y the so-called nephe*s and niece of the late

testatri.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary



Everything relating to the terms of the *ill, its date and signat$re #y the *itnesses having #een

esta#lished, the same is contested on the follo*ing gro$nds9 That the testatri *as a#o$t &' years

old, and according to the cross- eamination she *as %'' years old or *as at least &7 years of age;

that she *as lying in her #ed, serio$sly ill, senseless, and $na#le to spea5 a single *ord, in s$ch

condition that *hen she eec$ted the *ill she did not 5no* *hat she *as doing, and according to

the testimony of the *itnesses her #ody *as #ent and she co$ld only *al5 *ith the help of a *al5ing

stic5.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

In opposition to the first allegation mentioned a#ove, *e find, in the *ill eec$ted in %2&=, that

according to the ced$la of the testatri the notary p$#lic stated therein that she *as then =@ years

old, so that in %&'+ she m$st have #een 2! years of age only.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les

virt$al la* li#rary

In regard to the second allegation it is admitted that the contested *ill *as, according to the

*itnesses s$#scri#ing the same, eec$ted on the afternoon of 8at$rday, the %@th of 8eptem#er, and

that on the follo*ing morning the holy viatic*! *as administered to the testatri tho$gh her death

did not occ$r $ntil the %2th of the follo*ing 1cto#er.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la*

li#rary

The *itnesses for the contesting parties, #ro$ght #efore the co$rt to sho* the state of the things and

chiefly the mental condition of the testatri d$ring those t*o days, are "ilomena L$may, D$illerma

Taporoc, and Este#an 0alap. The first *itness testified only that she co$ld not hear the testatri

ma5ing any ans*er; the second spea5s a#o$t groans of the testatri, and this *itness seems to #e

the only one to refer to this detail, as tho$gh she *ished to certify the mental incapacity of the

patient; altho$gh said *itness asserts that the testatri, *hen <$estioned *ith these *ords 3 i!a,

i!a, *hat h$rts yo$,3 replied *ith groans, and the same *itness *hen cross-eamined as to *hether

or not the patient #ecame angry *hen her #ody *as #eing r$##ed, the former said that on the

contrary, the patient than5ed her for it. The third *itness, sacristan of the parish, *ho assisted the

priest in the administration of the viatic*!, altho$gh he tended to corro#orate the state of

$nconscio$sness of the patient on the day follo*ing the date of the eec$tion of the *ill, #y histestimony he has nevertheless demonstrated to the contrary, #eca$se he states that, *hen

the viatic*! *as administered, to the rit$al <$estions regarding her religio$s creed Baltho$gh the

*itness in his capacity of sacristan *as o#ligated to replyC, the patient ans*ered 3yes, I #elieve,3 3I

#elieve in it;3 and the *itness, #eing pressed #y the co$nsel for the contesting parties, recited

tet$ally in his o*n dialect the *ords $sed #y the patient in her reply to the priest; he f$rther testified

that the patient confessed to the priest on the previo$s night, and a#o$t this he *as very s$re; and it

#eing the point $nder disc$ssion, that on 8$nday the *ill *as not eec$ted, the *itness testified that

*hen he *as gathering together the paraphernalia $sed for the viatic*! he overheard Jose a$tista,

the person *ho *rote the *ill, 3<$estioning the patient a#o$t the n$m#er of mango trees,3 *hich

co$ld not have ta5en place if the patient *ere tr$ly in a senseless

condition.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

In the case of 1ernae$ vs. 1ernae$ , 1 decided #y this co$rt, the #ase of imp$gnment *as that the

testatri, on the date of the eec$tion of the *ill, *as more than 2' years old and *as so ill that she

had received the sacraments three days #efore, and t*o days later she died; that some time #efore

her form *as #ent, and that she $sed to give contradictory orders on acco$nt of her senile

*ea5ness; an attempt *as made to prove that the testatri *as so serio$sly ill that she co$ld not

spea5; that, on acco$nt of her old age, she *al5ed *ith her #ody #ent and $sed to give contradictory

orders, and that, *hen she received the sacraments, she co$ld not #e $nderstood *hen she spo5e.



This co$rt, ho*ever, laid do*n the doctrine that a pres$mption eists in favor of the sanity of the

testator, and the o#ligation to prove the mental incapacity of the latter rests $pon the party opposing

the pro#ate of the *ill.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

Therefore, it does not appear as proven, not even #y the *itnesses for the opposing party, that the

testatri *as more than %'', or &7, or even &' years old, that she *as serio$sly ill, and that she

co$ld not spea5 a *ord; rather <$ite the contrary appears from a disinterested consideration of the

declarations made #y t*o of these *itnesses, *ho state facts *hich do not sho* any lac5 of

intelligent contin$ity of p$rpose. The fo$r *itnesses to the *ill $nanimo$sly affirm the perfectly sane

condition of the testatri, no positive contradiction or reason ma5ing their testimony incredi#le

appearing from the record. It has not #een sho*n $p to the present *hy it sho$ld not #e

#elieved.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

Against the testimony of Mateo Focha it is said in the #rief of the appellees that he co$ld not

determine at once the n$m#er of doors in the room of the deceased; that he said first that he had

*ritten the *ill, and after*ards that he had not; that the deceased *as a#le to leave her #ed, *hile

the other *itnesses state that she co$ld only move her head; that he *as frightened *hen he 5ne*

that the *ill *as to #e imp$gned. In all of this, the important <$estion is the one relating to the

person *ho *rote the last *ill, regarding *hich the eistence of the contradiction is not tr$e; this

*itness repeatedly declared that the one *ho *rote the *ill *as J$an a$tista, *ho read the former

*ill to the testatri, and that the latter pointed o$t *hat *as to #e modified, omitted, or partially

omitted, as the part relating to the cattle, #eca$se these animals *ere already dead, and the

legacies to the t*o servants *ho *ere no longer in service. To the <$estion of the co$rt, 3>hat *as

the first thing yo$ did?3 he replied9

0ominga $talid ordered the old *ill to #e read; each paragraph *as translated into isaya, and

then she ordered *hat she had said #efore to #e stric5en o$t, and ca$sed the n$m#er of mango

trees to #e increased to sity, and the lands of Masasa.

:. >hat *as done after the per$sal of the old *ill? chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

A. It *as *ritten.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

:. >ho did the *riting? chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

A. J$an a$tista.

And in reply to cross-eamination, he said9

es sir; she made him do the copying and *hen they arrived at the paragraph relating to the cattle,

she ca$sed it to #e ta5en o$t, *hich paragraph *as mar5ed #y J$an *ith a pencil; ... *hen the *ill

*as finished, J$an as5ed her if she 5ne* ho* to sign; she replied in the negative, and then J$an

as5ed *ho *as to sign in her stead, to *hich she said that I sho$ld sign.

This *itness *as then instr$cted #y her as to *here he o$ght to

sign.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

Against the testimony of J$an a$tista nothing else is stated, ecept that he has replied #y means of

s$#terf$ges *hen he *as eamined a#o$t the conversation he had *ith one of the *itnesses of the



oppositors. 3It does not appear to #e so,3 3I did not say those *ords,3 3 I have not said s$ch *ords3 3I

*as there all the time3 - these are the replies given in relation to the statement of the *itness irila

de Torral#a, #y *hose statement it *as attempted to prove that J$an a$tista had left a party of

friends, in the formers ho$se, on 8$nday the %=th in order to go and finish the *ill; this statement is

inconsistent *ith another made #y the said ladys h$s#and for the p$rpose of sho*ing that on the

same day Mateo Focha had #een at that ho$se and said that he *as astonished at the fact that a

*ill had #een signed the previo$s day, the %@th, *hen the deceased co$ld no longer spea5. In spiteof all this, in accordance *ith the a#ove-stated declaration of the *itness Este#an 0alap,

a sacristan, the follo*ing <$estion *as as5ed this *itness9

0o yo$ not remem#er either that the old *oman did not reply *hen yo$ as5ed her ho* many mango

trees *ere to #e stated in the *ill, at %' ocloc5 on 8$nday morning?

A. )o* co$ld the old *oman reply, if I did not go there?

Da$dencio Mendoza, the petitioner, in reply to cross- eamination, said that he *as instit$ted as an

heir, the same as 3his sister J$anita, *ho lived *ith the old *oman, and Jan$aria Mendoza, and 8r.

larin and his sister.3

:. esides this, is there no testamentary cla$se in favor of any other relative? chanro#les virt$al

la* li#rary

A. In that *ill there is none; neither in the old nor in the ne* *ill.

Felating to D$illerma Taparoc, a *itness of the opposition, already mentioned9

:. 0id D$illerma r$# her stomach? chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

A. 8he *anted to do so, #$t the old *oman did not *ish it; for this reason she #ecame

angry.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

:. D$illermas h$s#and is her first nephe*. Is not Mendoza his s$rname? chanro#les virt$al la*

li#rary

A. es sir.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

:. >ere yo$ not a friend of hers? chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

A. o, sir.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

:. )ave yo$ had any disagreement B disg*stoC *ith her?chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

A. I do not 5no* *hether she had any.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

:. $t have any mis$nderstandings occ$rred, on acco$nt of *hich she had animosity against

yo$? chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

A. I can not say.



The *ill of %2&= #eing a p$#lic doc$ment, a$thorized #y a notary, *ho testifies to its contents, and

$nder *hich the testatri *o$ld have died, had the other *ill of %&'+ not #een eec$ted, it can #e

inferred #y means of the evidence, *hether the last *ill of the deceased *as s$#stit$ted or not #y

some person intending to o#tain #enefit for himself or for anyone else #y imagining *hat has not

ta5en place; and certainly no#ody is #enefited #y the *ill of %&'+, ecept amilo alceta, *ith

reference to the #alance of a de#t *hich appeared as 2'' pesos in the *ill of %2&=, and as 7''

pesos in that of %&'+. The petitioner Da$dencio Mendoza, *ho *as instit$ted as heir in the former *ill, to a considera#le portion of the property #esides the portion *hich might #e assigned to him on

dividing pro rata *ith the other three heirs the cattle and the lands *here the same past$red, has #y

virt$e of the second *ill this e<$al portion only, losing the other part; and if the eec$tion of the latter

*ill is attri#$ted to his infl$ence and direction, his intention in changing #enefit for pre6$diced can not

#e eplained.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

The last *ill, *hich ma5es a red$ction in the <$antity of the property only Band this property #eing of

only one 5ind, namely the cattle, and things pertaining theretoC, and said *ill #eing amendatory of

conditions *hich co$ld not #e f$lfilled eight years after its eec$tion, on acco$nt of the death of the

cattle distri#$ted #y her in portions of @' and +' head to each of the fo$r heirs, a s$#stit$tion of the

*ill of the testatri can not #e pres$med, m$ch less *hen s$ch s$#stit$tion is attri#$ted to one of the

heirs, and he #eing the least #enefited in the last *ill alleged to have #een s$#stit$ted; it f$rther

appears that no #enefit is o#tained #y the s$#stit$tion, #$t, on the contrary, a considera#le

dimin$tion of the portions allotted.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

If, #y the cross-eamination of this same *itness regarding any testamentary disposition in favor of

any other relative, it is meant to insin$ate that all the desires of the testatri *ere not honestly

epressed, then they *ere s$pposing *hat has #een denied - that is, that the testatri *as in f$ll

possession of all her fac$lties #eca$se she epressed a *ish *hich *as not incl$ded in the *ill - and

this allegation sho$ld #e eplicit and d$ly proven. 1n the other hand, the t*o *ills are identical in the

designation of the heirs, the fact *hich determines the testate s$ccession, *hile the opposition and

evidence tend only to sho* an intestate s$ccession in *hich other relatives may #e incl$ded, on

acco$nt of differences res$lting from the certification of the proceedings, *hich *o$ld not appear to#e a legitimate and necessary conse<$ence of a declaration of n$llity of the last

*ill.chanro#lesvirt$ala*li#rary chanro#les virt$al la* li#rary

Gpon these #ases, *e reverse the 6$dgment appealed from, and here#y declare the *ill presented

for legalization to #e valid and s$fficient, *itho$t any special r$ling as to costs. 8o ordered.

G.R. No. L-:801 Mrc 1!, 1912

JULIANA AGTA$, plaintiffs-appellee,

vs.I$IDRO PAGUIO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

2alas and 3ala for appellants.

0ose 2antiago for appellee.

TRENT, J.9



This is an appeal from an order of the o$rt of "irst Instance of the Province of ataan, admitting to

pro#ate a doc$ment *hich *as offered as the last *ill and testament of Pio<$into Pag$io y Pizarro.

The *ill p$rports to have #een eec$ted in the p$e#lo of Pilar, Province of ataan, on the %&th day

of April, %&'2. The testator died on the (2th of 8eptem#er, %&'&, a year and five months follo*ing

the date of the eec$tion of the *ill. The *ill *as propo$nded #y the eec$tri, J$liana agtas,

*ido* of the decedent, and the opponents are a son and several grandchildren #y a former

marriage, the latter #eing the children of a deceased da$ghter.

The #asis of the opposition to the pro#ation of the *ill is that the same *as not eec$ted according

to the formalities and re<$irements of the la* to$ching *ills, and f$rther that the testator *as not in

the f$ll of en6oyment and $se of his mental fac$lties and *as *itho$t the mental capacity necessary

to eec$te a valid *ill.

The record sho*s that the testator, Pio<$into Pag$io, for some fo$rteen of fifteen years prior to the

time of his death s$ffered from a paralysis of the left side of his #ody; that a fe* years prior to his

death his hearing #ecame impaired and that he lost the po*er of speech. 1*ing to the paralysis of

certain m$scles his head fell to one side, and saliva ran from his mo$th. )e retained the $se of his

right hand, ho*ever, and *as a#le to *rite fairly *ell. Thro$gh the medi$m of signs he *as a#le to

indicate his *ishes to his *ife and to other mem#ers of his family.

At the time of the eec$tion of the *ill there *ere present the fo$r testamentary *itnesses, Ag$stin

Pag$io, Anacleto Pag$io, and Pedro Pag$io, and attorney, 8e4or Marco, and one "lorentino Famos.

Anacleto Pag$io and the attorney have since died, and conse<$ently their testimony *as not

availa#le $pon the trial of the case in the lo*er co$rt. The other three testamentary *itnesses and

the *itness "lorentino Famos testified as to the manner in *hich the *ill *as eec$ted. According to

the $ncontroverted testimony of these *itnesses the *ill *as eec$ted in the follo*ing manner9

Pio<$into Pag$io, the testator, *rote o$t on pieces of paper notes and items relating to the

disposition of his property, and these notes *ere in t$rn delivered to 8e4or Marco, *ho transcri#ed

them and p$t them in form. The *itnesses testify that the pieces of paper $pon *hich the notes *ere*ritten are delivered to attorney #y the testator; that the attorney read them to the testator as5ing if

they *ere his testamentary dispositions; that the testator assented each time *ith an affirmative

movement of his head; that after the *ill as a *hole had #een th$s *ritten #y the attorney, it *as

read in a lo$d voice in the presence of the testator and the *itnesses; that 8e4or Marco gave the

doc$ment to the testator; that the latter, after loo5ing over it, signed it in the presence of the fo$r

s$#scri#ing *itnesses; and that they in t$rn signed it in the presence of the testator and each other.

These are the facts of record *ith reference to the eec$tion of the *ill and *e are in perfect accord

*ith the 6$dgment of the lo*er co$rt that the formalities of the ode of ivil Proced$re have #een

f$lly complied *ith.

This #rings $s no* to a consideration of appellants second assignment of error, viz, the testatorsalleged mental incapacity at the time of the eec$tion of the *ill. Gpon this point considera#le

evidence *as add$ced at the trial. 1ne of the attesting *itnesses testified that at the time of the

eec$tion of the *ill the testator *as in his right mind, and that altho$gh he *as serio$sly ill, he

indicated #y movements of his head *hat his *ishes *ere. Another of the attesting *itnesses stated

that he *as not a#le to say *hether decedent had the f$ll $se of his mental fac$lties or not, #eca$se

he had #een ill for some years, and that he Bthe *itnessesC *as not a physician. The other

s$#scri#ing *itness, Pedro Pag$io, testified in the lo*er co$rt as a *itness for the opponents. )e



*as $na#le to state *hether or not the *ill *as the *ish of the testator. The only reasons he gave for

his statement *ere the infirmity and advanced age of the testator and the fact that he *as $na#le to

spea5. The *itness stated that the testator signed the *ill, and he verified his o*n signat$re as a

s$#scri#ing *itness.

"lorentino Famos, altho$gh not an attesting *itness, stated that he *as present *hen the *ill *as

eec$ted and his testimony *as c$m$lative in corro#oration of the manner in *hich the *ill *as

eec$ted and as to the fact that the testator signed the *ill. This *itness also stated that he had

fre<$ently transacted matters of #$siness for the decedent and had *ritten letters and made

inventories of his property at his re<$est, and that immediately #efore and after the eec$tion of the

*ill he had performed offices of his character. )e stated that the decedent *as a#le to comm$nicate

his tho$ghts #y *riting. The testimony of this *itness clearly indicates the presence of mental

capacity on the part of the testator. Among other *itnesses for the opponents *ere t*o physician,

0octor asa and 0octor iado. 0octor asa testified that he had attended the testator some fo$r or

five years prior to his death and that the latter had s$ffered from a cere#ral congestion from *hich

the paralysis res$lted. The follo*ing <$estion *as propo$nded to 0octor asa9

:. Feferring to mental condition in *hich yo$ fo$nd him the last time yo$ attended him,

do yo$ thin5 he *as in his right mind?

A. I can not say eactly *hether he *as in his right mind, #$t I noted some mental

disorder, #eca$se *hen I spo5e to him he did not ans*er me.

0octor asa testified at more length, #$t the s$#stance of his testimony is that the testator had

s$ffered a paralysis and that he had noticed some mental disorder. )e does not say that the testator

*as not in his right mind at the time of the eec$tion of the *ill, nor does he give it at his opinion that

he *as *itho$t the necessary mental capacity to ma5e a valid *ill. )e did not state in *hat *ay this

mental disorder had manifested itself other than that he had noticed that the testator did not reply to

him on one occasion *hen he visited him.

0octor iado, the other physician, have never seen the testator, #$t his ans*er *as in reply to a

hypothetical <$estion as to *hat #e the mental condition of a person *ho *as =& years old and *ho

had s$ffered from a malady s$ch as the testator *as s$pposed to have had according to the

testimony of 0octor asa, *hose testimony 0octor iado had heard. )e replied and disc$ssed at

some length the symptoms and conse<$ences of the decease from *hich the testator had s$ffered;

he read in s$pport of his statements from a *or5 #y a Derman Physician, 0r. )erman Eichost. In

ans*er, ho*ever, to a direct <$estion, he stated that he *o$ld #e $na#le to certify to the mental

condition of a person *ho *as s$ffering from s$ch a disease.

>e do not thin5 that the testimony of these t*o physicians in any *ay strengthens the contention of

the appellants. Their testimony only confirms the fact that the testator had #een for a n$m#er of

years prior to his death afflicted *ith paralysis, in conse<$ence of *hich his physician and mentalstrength *as greatly impaired. either of them attempted to state *hat *as the mental condition of

the testator at the time he eec$ted the *ill in <$estion. There can #e no do$#t that the testators

infirmities *ere of a very serio$s character, and it is <$ite evident that his mind *as not as active as

it had #een in the earlier years of his life. )o*ever, *e can not incl$de from this that he *anting in

the necessary mental capacity to dispose of his property #y *ill.



The co$rts have #een called $pon fre<$ently to n$llify *ills eec$ted $nder s$ch circ$mstances, #$t

the *eight of the a$thority is in s$pport if the principle that it is only *hen those see5ing to overthro*

the *ill have clearly esta#lished the charge of mental incapacity that the co$rts *ill intervene to set

aside a testamentary doc$ment of this character. In the case of "*gnao vs. 4bag B%! Phil. Fep.,

%@7C, the <$estion of testamentary capacity *as disc$ssed #y this co$rt. The n$mero$s citations

there given from the decisions of the Gnited 8tates co$rts are especially applica#le to the case at

#ar and have o$r approval. In this 6$risdiction the pres$mption of la* is in favor of the mentalcapacity of the testator and the #$rden is $pon the contestants of the *ill to prove the lac5 of

testamentary capacity. BIn the matter of the *ill of a#igting, %! Phil. Fep., !@7; in the matter of the

*ill of $talid, %' Phil. Fep., (=; )ernaez vs. )ernaez, % Phil. Fep., @2&.C

The r$le of la* relating to the pres$mption of mental so$ndness is *ell esta#lished, and the testator

in the case at #ar never having #een ad6$dged insane #y a co$rt of competent 6$risdiction, this

pres$mption contin$es, and it is therefore inc$m#ent $pon the opponents to overcome this legal

pres$mption #y proper evidence. This *e thin5 they have failed to do. There are many cases and

a$thorities *hich *e might cite to sho* that the co$rts have repeatedly held that mere *ea5ness of

mind and #ody, ind$ced #y age and disease do not render a person incapa#le of ma5ing a *ill. The

la* does not re<$ire that a person shall contin$e in the f$ll en6oyment and $se of his pristine

physical and mental po*ers in order to eec$te a valid *ill. If s$ch *ere the legal standard, fe*

indeed *o$ld #e the n$m#er of *ills that co$ld meet s$ch eacting re<$irements. The a$thorities,

#oth medical and legal, are $niversal in statement that the <$estion of mental capacity is one of

degree, and that there are many gradations from the highest degree of mental so$ndness to the

lo*est conditions of diseased mentality *hich are denominated as insanity and idiocy.

The right to dispose of property #y testamentary disposition is as sacred as any other right *hich a

person may eercise and this right sho$ld not #e n$llified $nless mental incapacity is esta#lished in

a positive and concl$sive manner. In disc$ssing the <$estion of testamentary capacity, it is stated in

vol$me (2, =', of the American and English Encyclopedia of La*, that K

ontrary to the very prevalent lay impression, perfect so$ndness of mind is not essential totestamentary capacity. A testator may #e afflicted *ith a variety of mental *ea5nesses,

disorders, or pec$liarities and still #e capa#le in la* of eec$ting a valid *ill. B8ee the

n$mero$s cases there cited in s$pport of this statement.C

The r$le relating to testamentary capacity is stated in $s*ell on Insanity, section 7@+, and <$oted

*ith approval in Ca!pbell vs. Ca!pbell B%7' Ill., !@@C, as follo*s9

To constit$te a so$nd and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind shall #e *holly

$n#ro5en, $nimpaired, or $nshattered #y disease or other*ise, or that the testator sho$ld #e

in the f$ll possession of his reasoning fac$lties.

In note, % Jarman on >ills, 72, the r$le is th$s stated9

The <$estion is not so m$ch, that *as the degree of memory possessed #y the testator, as,

had he a disposing memory? >as he a#le to remem#er the property he *as a#o$t to

#e<$eath, the manner of dist$r#ing it, and the o#6ects of his #o$nty? In a *ord, *ere his

mind and memory s$fficiently so$nd to ena#le him to 5no* and $nderstand the #$siness in

*hich he *as engaged at the time *hen he eec$ted his *ill. B8ee a$thorities there cited.C



In 5ilson vs. Mitchell B%'% Penn., !&+C, the follo*ing facts appeared $pon the trial of the case9 The

testator died at the age of nearly %'( years. In his early years he *as an intelligent and *ell

informed man. A#o$t seven years prior to his death he s$ffered a paralytic stro5e and from that time

his mind and memory *ere m$sh enfee#led. )e #ecame very d$ll of hearing and in conse<$ence of

the shrin5ing of his #rain he *as affected *ith senile cataract ca$sing total #lindness. )e #ecame

filthy and o#scene in his ha#its, altho$gh formerly he *as o#servant of the properties of life. The

co$rt, in commenting $pon the case, said9

either age, nor sic5ness, nor etreme distress, nor de#ility of #ody *ill affect the capacity to

ma5e a *ill, if s$fficient intelligence remains. The fail$re of memory is not s$fficient to create

the incapacity, $nless it #e total, or etend to his immediate family or property. . . .

0o$gal Bthe testatorC had lived over one h$ndred years #efore he made the *ill, and his

physical and mental *ea5ness and defective memory *ere in stri5ing contrast *ith their

strength in the meridian of his life. )e *as #lind; not deaf, #$t hearing impaired; his mind

acted slo*ly, he *as forgetf$l or recent events, especially of names, and repeated <$estionsin conversation; and sometimes, *hen aro$sed for sleep or sl$m#er, *o$ld seem

#e*ildered. It is not sing$lar that some of those *ho had 5no*n him *hen he *as

remar5a#le for vigor and intelligence, are of the opinion that his reason *as so far gone that

he *as incapa#le of ma5ing a *ill, altho$gh they never heard him $tter an irrational

epression.

In the a#ove case the *ill *as s$stained. In the case at #ar *e might dra* the same contrast as *as

pict$red #y the co$rt in the case 6$st <$oted. The stri5ing change in the physical and mental vigor of

the testator d$ring the last years of his life may have led some of those *ho 5ne* him in his earlier

days to entertain do$#ts as to his mental capacity to ma5e a *ill, yet *e thin5 that the statements of

the *itnesses to the eec$tion of the *ill and statements of the cond$ct of the testator at that time all

indicate that he $n<$estiona#ly had mental capacity and that he eercised it on this occasion. At thetime of the eec$tion of the *ill it does not appear that his cond$ct *as irrational in any partic$lar. )e

seems to have comprehended clearly *hat the nat$re of the #$siness *as in *hich he *as

engaged. The evidence sho* that the *riting and eec$tion of the *ill occ$pied a period several

ho$rs and that the testator *as present d$ring all this time, ta5ing an active part in all the

proceedings. Again, the *ill in the case at #ar is perfectly reasona#le and its dispositions are those

of a rational person.

"or the reasons a#ove stated, the order pro#ating the *ill sho$ld #e and the same is here#y

affirmed, *ith costs of this instance against the appellants.

G.R. No. L-259:: No'ember 1, 192:

I /e m//er o /e e//e o Tom Ro7r3e;, 7ecee7. MANUEL TORRE$, 6ec347m33/r/or, 7 LU* LOPE* DE UENO, e3r, appellee,

vs.

MARGARITA LOPE*, opponent-appellant.



Marcaida, Capili and Oca!po and Ca!*s, Delgado and Recto for appellant.

Araneta and %arago$a for appellee.

$TREET, J.:

This appeal involves a controversy over one-half of the estate of Tomas Fodrig$ez, decedent. The

appellant, Margarita Lopez, claims said half #y the intestate s$ccession as net of 5in and nearest

heir; *hile the appellee, L$z Lopez de $eno, claims the same #y accredition and in the character of

$niversal heir the *ill of the decedent. The trial co$rt decided the point of controversy in favor of L$z

Lopez de $eno, and Margariat Lopez appealed.

The facts necessary to an $nderstanding of the case are these9 1n Jan$ary 7, %&(!, Tomas

Fodrig$ez eec$ted his last *ill and testament, in the second cla$se of *hich he declared9

I instit$te as the only and $niversal heirs to all my property, my co$sin icente ". Lopez and

his da$ghter L$z Lopez de $eno.

Prior to the time of the eec$tion of this *ill the testator, Tomas Fodrig$ez, had #een 6$dicially

declared incapa#le of ta5ing care of himself and had #een placed $nder the care of his co$sin

icente ". Lopez, as g$ardian. 1n Jan$ary =, %&(!, or only fo$r days after the *ill a#ove-mentioned

*as made, icente ". Lopez died; and the testator, Tomas Fodrig$ez, died on "e#r$ary (+, %&(!,

thereafter. At the time the *ill *as made icente ". Lopez had not presented his final acco$nts as

g$ardian, and no s$ch acco$nts had #een presented #y him at the time of his death. Margariat

Lopez *as a co$sin and nearest relative of the decedent. The *ill referred to, and after having #een

contested, has #een admitted to pro#ate #y 6$dicial determination BTorres and Lopez de $eno vs.

Lopez, !2 Phil., ==(C.

1$r disc$ssion of the legal pro#lem presented sho$ld #egin *ith article =+7 of the ivil ode *hichin effect declares that, *ith certain eceptions in favor of near relatives, no testamentary provision

shall #e valid *hen made #y a *ard in favor of his g$ardian #efore the final acco$nts of the latter

have #een approved. This provision is of $ndo$#ted application to the sit$ation #efore $s; and the

provision made in the *ill of Tomas Fodrig$ez in favor of icente ". Lopez *as not any general

incapacity on his part, #$t a special incapacity d$e to the accidental relation of g$ardian and *ard

eisting #et*een the parties.

>e no* pass to article &2( of the ivil ode, defining the right of accretion. It is there declared, in

effect, that accretion ta5e place in a testamentary s$ccession, first *hen the t*o or more persons

are called to the same inheritance or the same portion thereof *itho$t special designation of shares;

and secondly, *hen one of the persons so called dies #efore the testator or reno$nces the

inheritance or is dis<$alifying to receive it. In the case #efore $s *e have a *ill calling icente ".

Lopez and his da$ghter, L$z Lopez de $eno, to the same inheritance *itho$t special designation of

shares. In addition to this, one of the persons named as heir has predeceased the testator, this

person #eing also dis<$alified to receive the estate even if he had #een alive at the time of the

testators death. This article B&2(C is therefore also of eact application to the case in hand; and its

effect is to give to the s$rvivor, L$z Lopez de $eno, not only the $ndivided half *hich she *o$ld

have received in con6$nction *ith her father if he had #een alive and <$alified to ta5e, #$t also the



half *hich pertained to him. There *as no error *hatever, therefore, in the order of the trial co$rt

declaring L$z Lopez de $eno entitled to the *hole estate.

The arg$ment in favor of the appellant s$pposes that there has s$pervened a partial intestacy *ith

respect to the half of the estate *hich *as intended for icente ". Lopez and that this half has

descended to the appellant, Margarita Lopez, as net of 5in and sole heir at la* of the decedent. In

this connection attention is directed to article =@! of the ivil ode *herein it is declared, among

other things, that a *ill may #e valid even tho$gh the person instit$ted as heir is dis<$alified to

inherit. 1$r attention is net invited to article &%( *herein it is declared, among other things, that

legal s$ccession ta5es place if the heir dies #efore the testator and also *hen the heir instit$ted is

dis<$alified to s$cceed. Gpon these provisions an arg$ment is planted cond$cting to the concl$sion

that the *ill of Tomas Fodrig$ez *as valid, not*ithstanding the fact that one of the individ$als

named as heirs in the *ill *as dis<$alified to ta5e, and that as a conse<$ence Margarita Lopez s

entitled to inherit the share of said dis<$alified heir.

>e are the opinion that this contention is $ntena#le and that the appellee clearly has the #etter right.

In playing the provisions of the ode it is the d$ty of the co$rt to harmonize its provisions as far as

possi#le, giving d$e effect to all; and in case of conflict #et*een t*o provisions the more general is

to #e considered as #eing limited #y the more specific. As #et*een articles &%( and &27, it is

o#vio$s that the former is the more general of the t*o, dealing, as it does, *ith the general topic of

intestate s$ccession *hile the latter is more specific, defining the partic$lar conditions $nder *hich

accretion ta5es place. In case of conflict, therefore, the provisions of the former article m$st #e

considered limited #y the latter. Indeed, in s$#section 7 of article &%( the provision *ith respect to

intestate s$ccession is epressly s$#ordinated to article &27 #y the epression 3and BifC there is no

right of accretion.3 It is tr$e that the same epress <$alification is not fo$nd in s$#section ! of article

&%(, yet it m$st #e so $nderstood, in vie* of the r$le of interpretation a#ove referred to, #y *hich the

more specific is held to control the general. esides, this interpretation s$pplies the only possi#le

means of harmonizing the t*o provisions. In addition to this, article &2@ of the ivil ode affords

independent proof that intestate s$ccession to a vacant portion can only occ$r *hen accretion is

impossi#le.

The attorneys for the appellant direct attention to the fact that, $nder paragraph ! of article &%(,

intestate s$ccession occ$rs *hen the heir instit$ted is dis<$alified to s$cceed B incapa$ de s*ceder C,

*hile, $nder the last provision in paragraph ( of article &2(, accretion occ$rs *hen one of the

persons called to inherit $nder the *ill is dis<$alified to receive the inheritance B incapa$ de recibirlaC.

A distinction is then dra*n #et*een incapacity to s$cceed and incapacity to ta5e, and it is contended

that the disa#ility of icente ". Lopez *as s$ch as to #ring the case $nder article &%( rather than

&2(. >e are of the opinion that the case cannot #e made to t$rn $pon so refined an interpretation of

the lang$age of the ode, and at any rate the disa#ility to *hich icente ". Lopez *as s$#6ect *as

not a general disa#ility to s$cceed #$t an accidental incapacity to receive the legacy, a consideration

*hich ma5es a case for accretion rather than for intestate s$ccession.

The opinions of the commentators, so far as they have epressed themselves on the s$#6ect, tend to

the concl$sion that the right of accretion *ith regard to portions of an inheritance left vacant #y the

death or dis<$alification of one of the heirs or his ren$nciation of the inheritance is governed #y

article &%(, *itho$t #eing limited, to the etent s$pposed in appellants #rief, #y provisions of the

ode relative to intestate s$ccession BManresa, Co!entarios al Codigo Civil +spa'ol , !th ed., vol.

II, pp. 7%', 7%%; id., 7!; %7 M$ci$s 8caevola, pp. 7=(, 7=7, (2+-(2=; %@ M$ci$s 8caevola, %2@C.

8ays Escriche9 3It is to #e $nderstood that one of the coheirs or colegatees fails if noneistent at the



time of the ma5ing of the *ill, or he reno$nces the inheritance or legacy, if he dies #efore the

testator, if the condition #e not f$lfilled, or if he #ecomes other*ise incapacitated. . . . BDiccionario de

egislacion 0*rispr*dencia, vol. I, p. ((+.C laphil.net

In concl$sion it may #e *orth o#serving that there has al*ays eisted #oth in the civil and in the

common la* a certain legal intendment, amo$nting to a mild pres$mption, against partial intestacy.

In Foman la*, as is *ell 5no*n, partial testacy systems a pres$mption against it, K a pres$mption

*hich has its #asis in the s$pposed intention of the testator.

The 6$dgment appealed from *ill #e affirmed, and it is so ordered, *ith costs against the appellant.

G.R. No. L-18!98 Mrc (0, 19:"

TE$TATE E$TATE O< %ITO ORROMEO. JO$E ). JUN=UERA, petitioner-appellee,

vs.

CRI$PIN ORROMEO, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.

REPULIC O< T)E P)ILIPPINE$, intervenor-appellant.

"ena!in A. Rallon for oppositor-appellant Fort*nato "orro!eo.

Crispen "ai$as and Associates for heirs oppositors-appellants 6o!as "orro!eo and A!elia

"orro!eo.

Office of the 2olicitor #eneral for intervenor oppositor-appellant Rep*blic.

Mig*el C*enco and Fernando 2. R*i$ for heirs oppositors-appellants Crispin "orro!eo, 6eofilo

"orro!eo, et al.

Filiberto eonardo for petitioner-appellee.

DI*ON, J.:

ito orromeo, a *ido*er and permanent resident of the ity of e#$, died on March %7, %&+(, in

Para4a<$e, Fizal, at the age of 22 years, *itho$t forced heirs #$t leaving etensive properties in theprovince of e#$.

1n April %& of the same year, Jose ). J$n<$era, filed *ith the o$rt of "irst Instance of said province

a petition for the pro#ate of a one page doc$ment as the last *ill left #y said deceased, devising all

his properties to Tomas, "ort$nato and Amelia, all s$rnamed orromeo, in e<$al and $ndivided

shares, and designating J$n<$era as eec$tor thereof B8pecial Proceedings o. &%@-FC. The

doc$ment K no* in the record as Ehi#it 3A3 K *as dated May %=, %&!@, drafted in 8panish, and

allegedly signed, and th$m#mar5ed #y said deceased, in the presence of 0r. ornelio D.

Dandionco, E$se#io a#il$na and "ili#erto Leonardo as attesting *itnesses. 1n J$ne %!, %&+(, the

pro#ate co$rt appointed J$n<$era as special administrator of the estate.

1n ovem#er %! of the same year, Teofilo orromeo filed an opposition to the pro#ate of the *ill

#ased on the follo*ing gro$nds9 B%C that the formalities re<$ired #y la* had not #een complied *ith;

B(C that the testator *as mentally incapa#le of ma5ing a *ill at the time of its eec$tion; B7C that the

*ill *as proc$red #y $nd$e and improper infl$ence, on the part of the #eneficiaries andor some

other person; B!C that the signat$re of the testator *as proc$red #y fra$d; and B+C that the testator

acted #y mista5e or did not intend the instr$ment he signed to #e his *ill at the time he affied his

signat$re thereto.



Gpon motion of the a#ovenamed oppositor, on J$ne &, %&+7, the o$rt removed J$n<$era as

special administrator and appointed 0r. Patricio eltran in his place.

1n ovem#er (=, %&+7, italiana orromeo, a niece of the deceased, filed her o*n opposition to the

pro#ate of the *ill, on the gro$nd that the signat$re 3ito orromeo3 appearing thereon *as a

forgery. 1ther oppositions *ere s$#se<$ently filed #y Patrocinio orromeo de Ta#ota#o Bher

opposition *as later *ithdra*nC, Lilia Morre de Ta#ota#o, Lam#erto Morre, Patricia Morre de

Fanario, A$rora Morre de orromeo, Famon 1campo, Isagani Morre and Fosario Morre, invo5ing

s$#stantially the same gro$nds mentioned heretofore.

Mean*hile, Tomas, Amelia and "ort$nato orromeo, manifestly on #ehalf of the 3e#$ Arcade

ompany, T. L. orromeo y ia.3, a d$ly organized partnership controlled #y them, filed a motion to

ecl$de from the inventory of the Estate previo$sly filed #y the ne* special administrator, thirteen

parcels of land sit$ated in the ity of e#$ *ith a total area of (,%!2 s<$are meters, alleging that

d$ring his lifetime the deceased testator had sold said lots to them, as evidenced #y the doc$ment

no* in the record as Ehi#it "-% eec$ted on May %=, %&!+, confirming the alleged previo$s sale.

After d$e hearing, the co$rt, in its order of J$ly %@, %&+!, denied the motion for ecl$sion, r$ling that

movants remedy *as to file a separate accion reivindicatoria against the administrator.

1n 1cto#er (2, %&++, the Fep$#lic of the Philippines filed a motion for leave to intervene and 6oin

the oppositors in contesting the pro#ate of the *ill, on the gro$nd that, sho$ld the estate #e

ad6$dicated the latter #y intestacy, it stood to collect a considera#le amo$nt #y *ay of estate and

inheritance taes. In its order of 0ecem#er %' of the same year, the o$rt allo*ed the intervention.

After a prolonged trial, on May (2, %&@', the o$rt rendered a decision denying the pro#ate of the

*ill and declaring itself *itho$t 6$risdiction to pass $pon the <$estion of o*nership over the thirteen

lots *hich the e#$ Arcade etc. claimed as its o*n. All the parties appealed K the proponents of the

*ill from the portion of the decision denying pro#ate, and the oppositors and the Fep$#lic of the

Philippines, from that portion thereof *here the co$rt ref$sed to decide the <$estion of o*nership of

the thirteen lots already mentioned.

The proponents of the disp$ted *ill, mainly *ith the testimony of the three attesting *itnesses,

ornelio Dandionco, "ili#erto Leonardo and E$se#io a#il$na, so$ght to prove the follo*ing facts9

In the morning of May %=, %&!+, Tomas orromeo, complying *ith the re<$est of ito orromeo,

*ent to the ho$se of Atty. "ili#erto Leonardo to re<$est him to #e a *itness at the eec$tion of the

latters last *ill. 0r. ornelio Dandionco, *ho at the time happened to #e in the ho$se of Leonardo,

*as li5e*ise re<$ested to act as s$ch. Together, the three *ent to the residence of ito orromeo at

Famos 8treet, e#$ ity. Gpon their arrival the third *itness, E$se#io a#il$na, *ho *as living on

the gro$nd floor of the ho$se, *as as5ed to come $pstairs. Thereafter, in their presence, ito

orromeo eec$ted first, the doc$ment Ehi#it 3"3 Bdeed of confirmation of an alleged previo$s sale

to e#$ Arcade ompany, T. L. orromeo y ia.C *itnessed #y Dandionco and a#il$na. Later, itoorromeo, #eing of so$nd and disposing mind, and *itho$t press$re or infl$ence eerted on him,

dictated the s$#stance of his *ill to Tomas orromeo, *ho in t$rn type*rote it in proper legal

lang$age. The doc$ment *as then read #y ito orromeo, *ho later signed and th$m#mar5ed it

BEhi#it 3A3C and car#on copies thereof BEhi#its 3E3 and 3/3C in the presence of the attesting

*itnesses, *ho, in t$rn, signed the *ill and its copies in the presence of ito orromeo and of each

other.



Proponents also placed the Fev. "r. J$lio orres, a 8panish atholic priest *ho *as the confessor

of ito orromeo from %&!( to %&!@, the Fev. "r. 8ergio Alfafara, *ho *as his confessor from %&!@

to %&!=, and icenta Ma4acap, a mid-*ife *ho lived in the testators ho$se and had served him from

May %&!+ $p to his death on March 7', %&+( on the *itness stand. The gist of their testimony is to

the effect that at the time of the eec$tion of the *ill, ito orromeo *as still strong and co$ld move

aro$nd freely *ith the aid of a cane; that he *as still mentally alert and *as a man of strong *ill; that

his right hand *as $nimpaired and he co$ld *rite *ith it $naided; that as a matter of fact Kaccording to icenta Ma4acap K he still *rote personal letters to Tomas orromeo, co$ld eat #y

himself and even played the piano.

1n the other hand, the oppositors presented several *itnesses *ho testified that the signat$res

p$rporting to #e those of ito orromeo on the doc$ment Ehi#it 3A3 and its copies *ere forgeries;

that they *ere too good and too perfect signat$res and, therefore, <$ite impossi#le for the deceased

K an ailing man already 2( years old on May %=, %&!+ K to *rite; that he *as fo$nd 3positive for

#acill$s leprosy3 #y 0r. Antonio Darcia as early as %&(@ or %&(=, having #een treated for it

consistently #y in6ections of cha$lmoogra oil administered #y 0r. Ma orromeo and 0r. ornelio

Dandionco; that ito orromeos $s$al signat$res d$ring his #etter days had al*ays #een

characterized #y certain flo$rishes, technically called 3r$#ric3; that ito orromeo had also reared

and ed$cated t*o of the oppositors, rispin orromeo and the late Teofilo orromeo and there *as

no conceiva#le reason *hy they *ere left o$t in the *ill, if any s$ch *ill had really #een made #y him

5no*ingly; that the testamentary *itness ornelio Dandionco, is a nephe* of the other *itness,

"ili#erto Leonardo, and *as the fiance of Angeles orromeo, a sister of Tomas orromeo, one of the

instit$ted heirs; that the third testamentary *itness, E$se#io a#il$na is the real father of "ort$nato

orromeo, another instit$ted heir, *ho admittedly gre* $p and *as reared #y ito orromeo and his

*ife J$liana Evangelista since he *as #arely three months; that Amelia orromeo, the third instit$ted

heir, is a yo$nger sister of Tomas orromeo and dependent $pon him; that on May %=, %&!+, the

deceaseds leprosy *as so far advanced that the fingers of his right hand *ere already hardened

and atrophied, this ma5ing it diffic$lt, if not impossi#le, for him to *rite; and that on the same date,

his sense of hearing and his eyesight had #een considera#ly impaired, his eyes #eing al*ays *atery

d$e to the progress of his leprosy.

The oppositors also presented "elipe Logan of the ational $rea$ of Investigation and Jose D.

illan$eva, as hand*riting eperts, *ho testified, after eamining the s$pposed signat$res of the

deceased in Ehi#it 3A3 and comparing them *ith his accepted standard signat$res, that the

<$estioned signat$res *ere forgeries. The proponents, ho*ever, presented their o*n hand*riting

epert, Martin Famos, *ho testified to the contrary.

The trial co$rt ref$sed to #elieve the testimony of the attesting *itnesses and, as a res$lt, denied the

petition for pro#ate, #eca$se, in its opinion, they appeared not to #e 3*holly disinterested persons3

and #eca$se of the serio$s discrepancies in their testimonies *ith respect to the n$m#er of copies

made of the disp$ted doc$ment. The co$rt also fo$nd that the physical condition of the deceased at

the time of the eec$tion of the <$estioned doc$ment *as s$ch that it *as highly impro#a#le, if notimpossi#le, for him to have affied his signat$res on the doc$ments Ehi#its A, E and / in the

spontaneo$s and ecellent manner they appear to have #een *ritten. Th$s, the co$rt *as also led to

#elieve the testimony of the hand*riting eperts for oppositors, K adverse to the gen$ineness of the

signat$res of ito orromeo on the <$estioned doc$ment K more than that of the hand*riting epert

presented #y the proponents of the *ill.



It seems clear, therefore, that the main iss$e to #e decided in the present appeal is *hether or not

the evidence of record is s$fficient to prove the d$e eec$tion of the *ill in <$estion. /7ph8/.'9t

It m$st #e conceded that in this 6$risdiction, the s$#scri#ing *itnesses to a contested *ill are

regarded as the #est *itnesses in connection *ith its d$e eec$tion. It is similarly tr$e, ho*ever, that

to deserve f$ll credit, their test, testimony m$st #e reasona#le and $n#iased, and that, as in the case

of any other *itness, their testimony may #e overcome #y any competent evidence K direct or

circ$mstantial Board, etc. vs. 8hasser, %' /an. +2+, %@2 Pac. 27@ H%&%=C.

It is also an appellate practice of long standing in this 6$risdiction to accord great *eight to the

findings of fact made #y the trial co$rt and not to dist$r# them $nless said co$rt had failed to

consider material facts and circ$mstances or had given $nd$e *eight to, or misconstr$ed the

testimony of partic$lar *itnesses, the reason for this #eing that the trial 6$dge had f$ll opport$nity to

hear and o#serve the cond$ct and demeanor of the *itnesses *hile testifying and *as conse<$ently

in a #etter position than the revie*ing co$rt to determine the <$estion of their credi#ility. >hile this is

not applica#le to the present case #eca$se )is )onor, the 6$dge *ho penned the appealed decision

*as not the same 6$dge #efore *hom the evidence of the parties *as presented, it m$st #e stated

that, 6$dging from the caref$lly *ritten decision $nder revie*, it *as only after a thoro$gh st$dy of the

record that )is )onor arrived at the concl$sion that the s$#scri#ing *itnesses do not appear to #e

*holly disinterested persons.

1n the matter of the n$m#er of copies made of the <$estioned *ill allegedly signed #y the testator

and the three s$#scri#ing *itnesses, )is )onor fo$nd that a#il$na *as very $ncertain and

conf$sed; that a certain stage of his eamination, he said that only to copies of the *ill *ere

prepared K the original and one car#on copy K *hile at another stage he affirmed that he did not

5no* *hether or not there *as a d$plicate and that all he co$ld say *as that he had affied his

signat$re three times BTranscript, Mar<$iala, A$g$st ((, %&+2, pp. !&-+'C. In tr$th, ho*ever, he really

signed si B@C times K t*ice on the original and t*ice on each of the t*o copies. Adding conf$sion to

the sit$ation is the ans*er he gave *hen he *as as5ed if ito orromeo also signed the car#on

copy, to *hich his ans*er *as 3I did not see3 B:de!., p. +'C.

1n the other hand, the other s$#scri#ing *itness, Atty. "ili#erto Leonardo, testified categorically that

there *ere only the original and one car#on copy of the *ill and that the testator and all the

s$#scri#ing *itnesses signed #oth BTranscript, Mar<$iala, 0ecem#er (7, %&+7, pp. %@=, (%', and

(%2C. )o*ever, the na5ed and highly dist$r#ing fact is that, contrary to *hat is infera#le from the

vacillating testimony of a#il$na and the categorical assertion of Atty. Leonardo, the proponents of

the <$estioned *ill themselves presented three copies of said *ill; the original, a car#on d$plicate

copy and a car#on triplicate copy, no* in the record as Ehi#its A, E and /, respectively.

>hile it is tr$e that the testimony of these s$#scri#ing *itnesses *as given aro$nd eight years after

the alleged eec$tion of the <$estioned *ill, still *e #elieve that the transaction in *hich they claim

to have ta5en an important part is of s$ch character and importance that it can not #e a very easymatter for anyone of them to have a hazy recollection of the n$m#er of copies signed #y the testator

and #y them. 8tranger still *o$ld it #e for them to say something in open contradiction *ith the

reality on the matter. If, as may #e clearly ded$ced from their testimony K a#il$na and Leonardos

K there *as only the original and one copy signed #y the testator and the s$#scri#ing *itnesses,

*hy is it that three K original and t*o copies K *ere really in eistence and *ere prod$ced in co$rt

d$ring the trial?



In the case of the third s$#scri#ing *itness, 0r. ornelio Dandionco, the imp$tation *as made #y

t*o *itnesses, 0r. Teofilo orromeo and J$dge rispin orromeo, that he *as the fiance of Angeles

orromeo, sister of Tomas orromeo, *ho is one of the three heirs instit$ted in the <$estioned *ill,

evidently to sho* that he is not a completely disinterested *itness. The evidence to this effect

appears to have remained $nimpeached, altho$gh the proponents of the *ill co$ld have done it #y

calling on 0r. Dandionco himself or on Angeles orromeo to deny the imp$tation.

Moreover, the evidence also disclose that 0r. Dandionco *as the $ncle of the other s$#scri#ing

*itness, Atty. Leonardo, and that, in fact, they *ere living together at the time of the alleged

eec$tion of the *ill. This circ$mstance K apparently trivial K can not #e ta5en lightly #eca$se in

vie* of appellees claim that Angeles orromeo *as the fiance of 0r. Dandionco, it *o$ld not #e

$nreasona#le to entertain the s$spicion that #oth s$#scri#ing *itnesses *ere not *holly

disinterested. Material to this point is the fact esta#lished #y the evidence that Atty. Leonardo *as

the notary p$#lic #efore *hom the doc$ment Ehi#it !-A K *hich p$rports to convey to a

partnership controlled #y the heirs instit$ted in the <$estioned *ill thirteen parcels of land sit$ated in

the commercial center of e#$ ity K *as s$pposedly ac5no*ledged #y the testator on the same

date May %=, %&!+.

In the light of the foregoing, >e can not see o$r *ay clear to holding that the trial co$rt erred in

ref$sing to give f$ll credit to the testimony of the three s$#scri#ing *itnesses.

It has also #een held that the condition and physical appearance of a <$estioned doc$ment

constit$te a val$a#le factor *hich, if correctly eval$ated in the light of s$rro$nding circ$mstances,

may help in determining *hether it is gen$ine or forged. 8$#scri#ing *itnesses may forget or

eaggerate *hat they really 5no*, sa*, heard or did; they may #e #iased and, therefore, tell only half

tr$ths to mislead the co$rt or favor one party to the pre6$dice of the other. This can not #e said of the

condition and physical appearance of the <$estioned doc$ment itself. oth, al#eit silently, *ill reveal

the na5ed tr$th, hiding nothing, forgetting nothing, and eaggerating nothing. "or this reason,

independently of the conflicting opinions epressed #y the hand*riting eperts called to the *itness

stand #y the parties, *e have caref$lly eamined and considered the physical appearance andcondition of the original and t*o copies of the <$estioned *ill fo$nd in the record K partic$larly the

signat$res attri#$ted to the testator K and >e have come to the concl$sion that the latter co$ld not

have #een *ritten #y him.

Gpon the face of the original and t*o copies of the contested *ill BEhi#its A, E and /C appear a total

of si alleged signat$res of the testator. They are all *ell *ritten along a practically straight line,

*itho$t any visi#le sign of tremor or lac5 of firmness in the hand that *rote them. In fact, in the

respects 6$st adverted to, they appear #etter *ritten than the $n<$estioned signat$res, of attesting

*itnesses Dandionco and a#il$na, inspite of the fact that on the date of the alleged eec$tion of

the *ill BMay %=, %&!+C the testator *as considera#ly older and in a m$ch poorer physical condition

than they. According to the evidence, the testator *as then a sic5 man, eighty-t*o years old, *ith the

entire left half of his #ody paralyzed since si years #efore, *hile the oldest attesting *itnessBa#il$naC *as aro$nd sity-five years of age and Leonardo and Dandionco *ere only forty-fo$r and

forty-five years old respectively, and *ere all in good health. 0espite the o#vio$sly very poor

physical condition of the testator, Leonardo claims that he signed the alleged *ill $naided, *riting his

name thereon slo*ly #$t contin$o$sly or *itho$t interr$ption, and that, on the same occasion, he

signed his name several times not only on the original of the *ill and its copies #$t also on the

original and several copies of the alleged confirmatory sale Ehi#it "-% and on his residence



certificate. onsidering all the attendant circ$mstances, *e agree *ith the lo*er co$rt that ito

orromeo co$ld not have *ritten the <$estioned signat$res.

In vie* of *hat has #een said heretofore, >e find it $nnecessary to eamine and consider in detail

the conflicting testimony of the hand*riting eperts presented #y the parties9 Martin Famos #y the

proponents of the *ill, to s$stain the gen$ineness of the <$estioned signat$res, and "elipe Logan

and Jose D. illan$eva, #y the oppositors, to prove that said signat$res are forgeries. >e shall limit

o$rselves in this connection to <$oting *ith approval the follo*ing portion of the appealed decision9

>hat the o$rt finds to #e a *ea5ness in the concl$sions of Martin Famos, #ased on his

comparative eamination of the <$estioned and standard signat$res of ito orromeo, is his

apparent ass$mption that all the signat$res *ere made #y ito orromeo $nder e<$ality or

similarity of circ$mstances, that is, that in all instances ito orromeo had normal $se of #oth

of his hands, K the right and the left. )e failed to ta5e into acco$nt that *hen ito orromeo

allegedly affied those signat$res on May %=, %&!+ on Ehi#its A, E, and / the left portion

of his #ody, incl$ding the left hand, *as already paralyzed, and ito orromeo *as

represented to have *ritten his name alone #y himself and $naided. May#e, if he *as

previo$sly apprised of those circ$mstances, he *o$ld hesitate to ma5e the concl$sion that

those fla*less signat$res reading ito orromeo, *ritten straight and in a form as good as, if

not #etter than, the signat$res of three m$ch yo$nger attesting *itnesses, *ere positively in

the hand*riting of the 2(-year old, ailing, and paralytic ito orromeo. The o$rt

conse<$ently, finds itself not disposed to adopt his concl$sions, #$t on the contrary is

inclined to*ard the vie*s of the other t*o eperts *itnesses, "elipe Logan and Jose D.

illan$eva.

As stated at the o$tset, the contested *ill is claimed to have #een signed and th*!b!ar;ed #y the

testator. An eamination of the th$m#mar5s, ho*ever, readily sho*s that, as the lo*er co$rt fo$nd,

the same are 3glaringly far from #eing distinct and clear3; that 3they are not a possi#le means of

identification3 nor can 3they possi#ly #e identified to #e those of ito orromeo, or for that matter, of

any other person *hatsoever3. It is, therefore, o#vio$s, that they are of little $se in the resol$tion of the iss$e #efore Gs.

>e shall no* consider the appeal, ta5en #y the oppositors and the Fep$#lic of the Philippines from

that portion of the decision *here the lo*er co$rt declined to decide *ith finality the <$estion of *ho

o*ns the thirteen parcels of land s$#6ect-matter of the confirmatory sale Ehi#it "-% and *hether or

not they sho$ld #e incl$ded in or ecl$ded from the inventory of properties of the Estate of the

deceased ito orromeo.

It appears that on "e#r$ary %%, %&+! Tomas, Amelia, and "ort$nato orromeo, thro$gh co$nsel, filed

a motion for the ecl$sion from the inventory of the Estate of the thirteen lots therein mentioned, *ith

a total area of (,7!2 s<$are meters, claiming that the same had #een sold #y the deceased ito

orromeo d$ring his lifetime to the e#$ Arcade, T. L. orromeo y ia. This motion for ecl$sion*as denied #y the lo*er co$rt in its order of J$ly %@, %&+!, and the r$ling *as reiterated in the

appealed decision 3for the same reasons and considerations3 $pon *hich it re6ected the pro#ate of

the *ill. The r$ling on the matter, ho*ever, *as epressly made provisional in nat$re.

>e #elieve, and so hold, that the resol$tion of the lo*er co$rt on this matter is correct #eca$se said

co$rt, acting in its capacity as a pro#ate co$rt, had no 6$risdiction to determine *ith finality the

<$estion of o*nership involved. That s$ch matter m$st #e litigated in a separate action has #een the



esta#lished 6$rispr$dence in this 6$risdiction B1ngsinco vs. or6a, L-=@7+, J$ly (+, %&++; Mallari vs.

Mallari, L-!@+@, "e#r$ary (7, %&+7; Darcia vs. Martin, D.F. o. L-&(77, J$ne (&, %&+=; ordova vs.

1campo, =7 Phil. @@%; Pasc$al vs. Pasc$al, =7 Phil. +@% and othersC, ecept *here a party merely

prays for the incl$sion or ecl$sion from the inventory of any partic$lar property, in *hich case the

pro#ate co$rt may pass $pon provisionally, the <$estion of incl$sion or ecl$sion, #$t *itho$t

pre6$dice to its final determination in an appropriate separate action BDarcia vs. Darcia, @= Phil. 7+7;

Marcelino vs. Antonio, =' Phil. 722; D$ing$ing vs. A#$ton, !2 Phil. %!!, %!=C.

In vie* of all the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, *ith costs.

G.R. No. L-191!2 Mrc 5, 192(

I /e m//er o /e e//e o Mr3o Corr4e T, 7ecee7.<LA%IANA $AM$ON, petitioner-appellee,

vs.%ICENTE CORRALE$ TAN =UINTIN, oppositor-appellant.

Marcaida, Capili and Oca!po for appellant.

+pi!aco Molina for appellee.

O$TRAND, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the o$rt of "irst Instance of Manila admitting to pro#ate a

doc$ment alleged to #e the last *ill and testament of the deceased Mariano orrales Tan. There is

no direct evidence as to the interest of the oppositor-appellant in the estate in <$estion, tho$gh it

may, perhaps, #e inferred from the testimony of his *ife Maimina 1ng that he is the son of the

deceased.

In his ans*er to the petition for pro#ate he alleges, in s$#stance, that the *ill is incomplete and

fra$d$lent and does not epress the tr$e intent of the testator; that the testator acted $nder d$ress

and $nder $nd$e infl$ence, and that at the time of the eec$tion of the *ill he *as not of so$nd and

disposing mind.

>e do not thin5 the opponent has s$cceeded in proving any of his allegations. There is no evidence

*hatever sho*ing that the testator acted $nder d$ress or $nd$e infl$ence and the only <$estion of

fact *hich *e need consider is *hether the testator *as of so$nd and disposing mind *hen the

doc$ment in <$estion *as eec$ted.

Gpon this point the testimony of 0r. Tee )an /ee, the attending physician, as a *itness for the

opposition, is to the effect that the deceased *as s$ffering from dia#etes and had #een in a

comatose condition for several days prior to his death. )e died a#o$t eight or nine ocloc5 in the

evening of 0ecem#er (@, %&(%, and the *ill is alleged to have #een eec$ted in the forenoon of the

same day. o$nsel for the appellant, in his *ell-prepared #rief, arg$es a#ly and vigoro$sly

that co!a implies complete $nconscio$sness, and that the testator, therefore, co$ld not at that time

have #een in possession of his mental fac$lties and have eec$ted a *ill. There are, ho*ever,

varying degrees of coma and in its lighter forms the patient may #e aro$sed and have l$cid intervals.



8$ch seems to have #een the case here. 0octor Tee )an /ee, the opponents principal *itness, *ho

visited the deceased in the evening of 0ecem#er (+th, says he then see!ed to #e in a state

of co!a and that in the forenoon of 0ecem#er (@th, *hen the doctor again visited him, he *as in

3the same state of co!a.3 Maimina 1ng, the *ife of the opponent, the only other *itness for the

opposition, states that on 0ecem#er (@th the deceased co$ld not tal5 and did not recognize anyone.

$t all the *itnesses presented #y the petitioner, five in n$m#er, testify that the deceased *as

conscio$s, co$ld hear and $nderstand *hat *as said to him and *as a#le to indicate his desires."o$r of these *itnesses state that he co$ld spea5 distinctly; the fifth, elhagen, says that the

deceased only moved his head in ans*er to <$estions.

That the deceased *as in an eceedingly fee#le condition at the time the *ill *as eec$ted is

evident, #$t if the *itnesses presented in s$pport of the petition told the tr$th there can #e no do$#t

that he *as of so$nd mind and capa#le of ma5ing his *ill. And *e see no reason to discredit any of

these *itnesses; the discrepancies fo$nd #et*een their respective versions of *hat too5 place at the

eec$tion of the doc$ment are comparatively $nimportant and so far from *ea5ening their testimony

rather lend strength to it #y indicating the a#sence of any conspiracy among them.

As against their testimony *e have only the testimony of Maimina 1ng and 0r. Tee )an /ee. The

former is not a disinterested *itness. As to the testimony of the latter it is s$fficient to say that mere

professional spec$lation cannot prevail over the positive statements of five apparently credi#le

*itnesses *hose testimony does not in itself seem $nreasona#le.

There is no direct evidence in the record sho*ing that the p$#lication of the time and place of the

hearing of the petition for pro#ate has #een made as provided for in section @7' of the ode of ivil

Proced$re and the appellant arg$es that the co$rt #elo* erred in admitting the *ill to pro#ate *itho$t

proof of s$ch p$#lication. This <$estion not having #een raised in the co$rt #elo* *ill not #e

considered here.

8ection @7' of the ode of ivil Proced$re, spea5ing of hearings for the pro#ate of *ills, also

provides that 3At the hearing all testimony shall #e ta5en $nder oath, red$ced to *riting and signed#y the *itnesses3 and the appellant maintains that the transcript of the testimony of the *itness 0r.

. M. 8alee#y, not having #een signed #y the *itness, the testimony sho$ld have #een ecl$ded.

There is no merit in this contention. >hen, as in this case, the testimony is ta5en #y the

stenographer of the co$rt and certified to #y him, the provision <$oted can only #e regarded as

directory and a fail$re to o#serve the provision *ill not render the testimony inadmissi#le. BFeese vs.

olan, && Ala., ('7.C

The order appealed from is affirmed, *ith the costs against the appellant. 8o ordered.

G.R. No. 15"95! Mrc 2!, 200:

PA* GAL%E*, CARLO$ TAM, 7 T>COON PROPERTIE$, INC., Petitioners,vs.)ON. COURT O< APPEAL$ 7 POR<IRIO GAL%E*, Fespondents.



0 E I 8 I 1

C)ICO-NA*ARIO, J.:

The fact$al antecedents of this case reveal that Timotea ". Dalvez died intestate on (2 April%&@+.% 8he left #ehind her children Glpiano and Paz Dalvez. Glpiano, *ho died on (! J$ly

%&+&,( predeceased Timotea and *as s$rvived #y his son, Porfirio Dalvez. Timotea left a parcel of land sit$ated at Pagdaraoan, 8an "ernando, La Gnion, covered #y Ta 0eclaration o. 7&@!+ 7 andmore partic$larly descri#ed as follo*s9

A parcel of $nirrigated riceland sit$ated at rgy. Pagdaraoan, 8an "ernando, La Gnion $nder Ta0eclaration o. 7&@!+, series of %&+=, *ith an area of !,7'!.+ s<$are meters, more or less #o$ndedon the orth #y alentin and Isidoro 8o#repe4a; on the East #y icolas 0$c$sin; on the 8o$th #yictor 0$c$sin; and on the >est #y the ational )igh*ay.!

onsidering that all the other comp$lsory heirs of Timotea already received their respectiveshares,+ the property passed #y s$ccession, #oth to Timoteas da$ghter, Paz Dalvez, and to theformers grandson, Porfirio, the latter s$cceeding #y right of representation as the son of Glpiano.

Porfirio Dalvez *as s$rprised to discover that on ! May %&=', @ Paz Dalvez eec$ted an affidavit of ad6$dication stating that she is the tr$e and la*f$l o*ner of the said property. Ta 0eclarations o.%+=!&= and o. %(7!(2*ere then iss$ed in the name of Paz Dalvez. 1n (( J$ne %&&(, *itho$t the5no*ledge and consent of Porfirio Dalvez, Paz Dalvez sold the property to arlos Tam for aconsideration of Ten Tho$sand Pesos BP%','''.''C #y *ay of a 0eed of A#sol$te 8ale.& arlos Tamthereafter filed an application for registration of said parcel of land $nder Land Fegistration ase o.((=2 #efore the Fegional Trial o$rt BFTC of 8an "ernando, La Gnion. 1n (% Jan$ary %&&!,1riginal ertificate of Title o. '-(@'( of the Fegistry of 0eeds of 8an "ernando, La Gnion, *asiss$ed in the name of arlos Tam.%' 8$#se<$ently, on (= 8eptem#er %&&!, arlos Tam sold theproperty to Tycoon Properties, Inc. thro$gh a 0eed of A#sol$te 8ale eec$ted #y the former in favor of the latter .%% As a res$lt, the title of arlos Tam over the property *as cancelled and a ne* one,Transfer ertificate of Title BTTC o. T-!'7&'%( *as iss$ed in favor of Tycoon Properties, Inc.

1n %( May %&&!, Porfirio Dalvez filed ivil ase o. !2&+ #efore the FT, ranch (@, of 8an"ernando, La Gnion, for Legal Fedemption *ith 0amages and ancellation of 0oc$ments %7 againstPaz Dalvez and arlos Tam. The omplaint *as later amended to implead as additional defendant,Tycoon Properties, Inc.%! >hen Tycoon Properties, Inc. filed its Ans*er, it also filed a cross-claimagainst arlos Tam. In a decision%+ dated %+ 0ecem#er %&&&, the trial co$rt held9

>)EFE"1FE, in vie* of the foregoing, 6$dgment is here#y rendered as follo*s9

%. declaring n$ll and void the Affidavit of Ad6$dication eec$ted #y defendant PAN DALENdated May !, %&=';

(. declaring n$ll and void the 0eed of A#sol$te 8ale over the property originally covered #yTa 0eclaration o. 7&@!+ eec$ted #y PAN DALEN in favor of AFL18 TAM;

7. the 1riginal ertificate of Title o. '-(@'(, in the name of AFL18 TAM #e consideredcancelled;

!. The 0eed of 8ale #et*een AFL18 TAM and T11 PF1PEFTIE8, Inc. is here#yordered cancelled *ith Transfer ertificate of Title o. T-!'7&', #eing n$ll and void;

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_157954_2006.html#fnt1








































+. That AFL18 TAM shall receive from the ler5 of o$rt, 8an "ernando ity, La Gnion theamo$nt of Ten Tho$sand BP%','''.''C pesos, as redemption of the property p$rs$ant to la*;

@. That the property covered #y Transfer ertificate of Title o. T-!'7&', #e reconveyedB*hole propertyC to P1F"IFI1 DALEN, he having redeemed one-half BOC of the propertyfrom AFL18 TAM and other half of the property #elongs to him as co-heir of TIM1TEA

"L1FE8 DALEN.

=. 0efendant PAN DALEN and AFL18 TAM shall #e lia#le solidarily for the act$aldamages of the plaintiff in the amo$nt of Ten Tho$sand BP%','''.''C pesos as *ell as moraldamages in the amo$nt of "ifty Tho$sand BP+','''.''C Pesos, together *ith attorneys feesin the amo$nt of Ten Tho$sand BP%','''.''C Pesos acceptance fee and "ive )$ndredBP+''.''C per appearance fee.%@

Petitioners Paz Dalvez, arlos Tam and Tycoon Properties, Inc. appealed the decision to the o$rtof Appeals.%=In a decision of the o$rt of Appeals dated (2 A$g$st (''(, %2 the appellate co$rtresolved to affirm the decision of the trial co$rt. Petitioners filed a Motion for Feconsideration *hich*as denied in a resol$tion dated %! April (''7.%&

ot contented *ith the decision of the o$rt of Appeals, petitioners are no* #efore this o$rt viaPetition for Fevie* on Certiorari $nder F$le !+ of the F$les of o$rt.

Petitioners arlos Tam and Tycoon Properties, Inc. separately filed their Memorand$m (' #$t raisedthe same iss$es to *it9

I

T)E )11FALE 1GFT 1" APPEAL8 EFFE0 >)E IT FE"G8E0 T1 )1L0 T)ATFE8P10ET8 LAIM 1EF T)E 8GJET PF1PEFT, >)I) I8 A8E0 1 A IMPLIE0TFG8T, )A8 ALFEA0 PFE8FIE0 EAG8E T)E ATI1 >A8 "ILE0 (! EAF8 A"EF

PETITI1EF FEPG0IATE0 T)E 8AI0 TFG8T.

II

T)E )11FALE 1GFT 1" APPEAL8 EFFE0 >)E IT "AILE0 T1 FE1DINE T)ATFE8P10ET8 LAIM I8 ALFEA0 AFFE0 LA)E8 EAG8E )E "AILE0 T1 A88EFT)I8 ALLEDE0 FID)T "1F ALM18T T>ET "1GF B(!C EAF8.

III

T)E )11FALE 1GFT EFFE0 I "AILID T1 FE1DINE T)AT PETITI1EF8 HAFL18TAM A0 T11 PF1PEFTIE8 AFE GEF8 I D110 "AIT) A0 "1F ALGE A0 )A8

T)E FID)T T1 FEL 1 T)E "AE 1" T)E TITLE.(%

In assailing the decisions of the trial and appellate co$rts, petitioners cite Article %!+% (( of the ivilode and claim that an implied or constr$ctive tr$st *hich prescri#es in ten years, *as esta#lished#et*een Paz Dalvez and Porfirio Dalvez. It is petitioners $nflinching stand that the implied tr$st *asrep$diated *hen Paz Dalvez eec$ted an Affidavit of 8elf-Ad6$dication on ! May %&=', registeredthe same #efore the Fegister of 0eeds of La Gnion on ! J$ne %&=' and sec$red a ne* tadeclaration in her name. "rom ! May %&=' to the time the complaint *as filed on %( May %&&!, (!years have passed, hence, the action is clearly #arred #oth #y prescription and laches.


















>e find the petition #ereft of merit.

1stensi#ly, this case is governed #y the r$les on co-o*nership (7 since #oth Paz Dalvez and PorfirioDalvez are o#vio$sly co-o*ners of the disp$ted property having inherited the same from a commonancestor. Article !&! of the ivil ode provides that 3Ha prescription shall not r$n in favor of a co-o*ner or co-heir against his co-o*ners or co-heirs as long as he epressly or impliedly recognizes

the co-o*nership.3

It is a f$ndamental principle that a co-o*ner cannot ac<$ire #y prescription the share of the other co-o*ners, a#sent any clear rep$diation of the co-o*nership.(! In 8antos v. 8antos,(+ citing the earlier case of Adille v. o$rt of Appeals,(@ this o$rt fo$nd occasion to r$le that9

Prescription, as a mode of terminating a relation of co-o*nership, m$st have #een preceded #yrep$diation Bof the co-o*nershipC. The act of rep$diation, in t$rn, is s$#6ect to certain conditions9 B%Ca co-o*ner rep$diates the co-o*nership; B(C s$ch an act of rep$diation is clearly made 5no*n to theother co-o*ners; B7C the evidence thereon is clear and concl$sive; and B!C he has #een inpossession thro$gh open, contin$o$s, ecl$sive, and notorio$s possession of the property for theperiod re<$ired #y la*.

"or title to prescri#e in favor of a co-o*ner there m$st #e a clear sho*ing that he has rep$diated theclaims of the other co-o*ners and the latter has #een categorically advised of the ecl$sive claim heis ma5ing to the property in <$estion. The r$le re<$ires a clear rep$diation of the co-o*nership d$lycomm$nicated to the other co-o*ners.(= It is only *hen s$ch $ne<$ivocal notice has #een given thatthe period of prescription *ill #egin to r$n against the other co-o*ners and $ltimately divest them of their o*n title if they do not seasona#ly defend it.(2

To s$stain a plea of prescription, it m$st al*ays clearly appear that one *ho *as originally a 6ointo*ner has rep$diated the claims of his co-o*ners, and that his co-o*ners *ere apprised or sho$ldhave #een apprised of his claim of adverse and ecl$sive o*nership #efore the alleged prescriptiveperiod #egan to r$n.(&

In 8alvador v. o$rt of Appeals,7' it *as held that the possession of a co-o*ner is li5e that of atr$stee and shall not #e regarded as adverse to the other co-o*ner #$t in fact #eneficial to all of them.

The case of )$ang v. o$rt of Appeals7% is instr$ctive on the creation of tr$st relationships.

Tr$st is a fid$ciary relationship *ith respect to property *hich involves the eistence of e<$ita#led$ties imposed $pon the holder of the title to the property to deal *ith it for the #enefit of another. Aperson *ho esta#lishes a tr$st is called the tr$stor; one in *hom confidence is reposed as regardsproperty for the #enefit of another person is 5no*n as the tr$stee; and the person for *hose #enefitthe tr$st has #een created is referred to as the #eneficiary or cest$i <$e tr$st. Tr$st is either epressor implied. Epress tr$st is created #y the intention of the tr$stor or of the parties. Implied tr$st

comes into #eing #y operation of la*. The latter 5ind is either constr$ctive or res$lting tr$st. Aconstr$ctive tr$st is imposed *here a person holding title to property is s$#6ect to an e<$ita#le d$tyto convey it to another on the gro$nd that he *o$ld #e $n6$stly enriched if he *ere permitted toretain it. The d$ty to convey the property arises #eca$se it *as ac<$ired thro$gh fra$d, d$ress,$nd$e infl$ence or mista5e, or thro$gh #reach of a fid$ciary d$ty, or thro$gh the *rongf$l dispositionof anothers property. 1n the other hand, a res$lting tr$st arises *here a person ma5es or ca$ses to#e made a disposition of property $nder circ$mstances *hich raise an inference that he does notintend that the person ta5ing or holding the property sho$ld have the #eneficial interest in theproperty. It is fo$nded on the pres$med intention of the parties, and as a general r$le, it arises























*here, and only *here s$ch may #e reasona#ly pres$med to #e the intention of the parties, asdetermined from the facts and circ$mstances eisting at the time of the transaction o$t of *hich it isso$ght to #e esta#lished.

Acts *hich may #e considered adverse to strangers may not #e considered adverse insofar as co-o*ners are concerned. Th$s, 8alvador v. o$rt of Appeals reiterated *hat acts constit$te proof of

ecl$sive o*nership amo$nting to rep$diation, emphasizing that the act m$st #e #orne o$t of clear and convincing evidence of acts of possession *hich $ne<$ivoca#ly amo$nts to an o$ster or deprivation of the right of the other co-o*ner. The case of Pangan v. o$rt of Appeals 7( en$meratedthe follo*ing as constit$ting acts of rep$diation9

"iling #y a tr$stee of an action in co$rt against the tr$stor to <$iet title to property, or for recovery of o*nership thereof, held in possession #y the former, may constit$te an act of rep$diation of the tr$streposed on him #y the latter.

The iss$ance of the certificate of title *o$ld constit$te an open and clear rep$diation of any tr$st,and the lapse of more than (' years, open and adverse possession as o*ner *o$ld certainly s$fficeto vest title #y prescription.

An action for the reconveyance of land #ased on implied or constr$ctive tr$st prescri#es *ithin %'years. And it is from the date of the iss$ance of s$ch title that the effective assertion of adverse titlefor p$rposes of the stat$te of limitation is co$nted.

The prescriptive period may only #e co$nted from the time petitioners rep$diated the tr$st relation in%&++ $pon the filing of the complaint for recovery of possession against private respondents so thatthe co$nterclaim of the private respondents contained in their amended ans*er *herein theyasserted a#sol$te o*nership of the disp$ted realty #y reason of the contin$o$s and adversepossession of the same is *ell *ithin the %'-year prescriptive period.

There is clear rep$diation of a tr$st *hen one *ho is an apparent administrator of property ca$ses

the cancellation of the title thereto in the name of the apparent #eneficiaries and gets a ne*certificate of title in his o*n name.

It is only *hen the defendants, alleged co-o*ners of the property in <$estion, eec$ted a deed of partition and on the strength thereof o#tained the cancellation of the title in the name of their predecessor and the iss$ance of a ne* one *herein they appear as the ne* o*ners of a definitearea each, there#y in effect denying or rep$diating the o*nership of one of the plaintiffs over hisalleged share in the entire lot, that the stat$te of limitations started to r$n for the p$rposes of theaction instit$ted #y the latter see5ing a declaration of the eistence of the co-o*nership and of their rights there$nder.

In this case, *e find that Paz Dalvez effected no clear and evident rep$diation of the co-o*nership.The eec$tion of the affidavit of self-ad6$dication does not constit$te s$ch s$fficient act of

rep$diation as contemplated $nder the la* as to effectively ecl$de Porfirio Dalvez from theproperty. This o$rt has repeatedly epressed its disapproval over the o#vio$s #ad faith of a co-heir feigning sole o*nership of the property to the ecl$sion of the other heirs essentially stating that one*ho acts in #ad faith sho$ld not #e permitted to profit from it to the detriment of others. In the casesof Adille77 and Pangan7! *here, as in this case, a co-heir *as ecl$ded from his legal share #y theother co-heir *ho represented himself as the only heir, this o$rt held that the act of ecl$sion doesnot constit$te rep$diation.









1n the iss$e of prescription, *hile admittedly prescription operates as a #ar to recovery of property,the ten-year period commenced to r$n from date of registration. In this case, arlos Tam o#tainedhis title to the property on (% Jan$ary %&&!. 8ince the complaint of Porfirio Dalvez *as filed on %(May %&&!, the same *as *ell *ithin the ten-year period to file the action.

1n the matter of laches, it is horn#oo5 doctrine that laches is a creation of e<$ity and its application

is controlled #y e<$ita#le considerations. Laches cannot #e $sed to defeat 6$stice or perpetrate fra$dand in6$stice.7+ either sho$ld its application #e $sed to prevent the rightf$l o*ners of a propertyfrom recovering *hat has #een fra$d$lently registered in the name of another.7@ The e<$ita#leremedy of laches is, therefore, $navailing in this case.

"inally, petitioners claim that if the sale *o$ld #e n$llified, the n$llification sho$ld etend only to theone-half share of Porfirio Dalvez7= #$t not to the share of Paz Dalvez, *ho, #y her overt act of sellingthe property, manifested her intention to dispose of her part.

ota#ly, Porfirio Dalvezs complaint *as captioned 3legal redemption *ith damages, cancellation of doc$ments and reconveyance of share.3 72 In his prayer, he so$ght for the reconveyance of his one-half share in the property and at the same time #e s$#rogated to the other half pertaining to Paz

Dalvez and sold to arlos Tam after reim#$rsement of the amo$nt *hich the latter paid for theproperty.

The pertinent provisions of the ivil ode on legal redemption are as follo*s9

AFT. %@%&. Legal redemption is the right to #e s$#rogated, $pon the same terms and conditionsstip$lated in the contract, in the place of one *ho ac<$ires a thing #y p$rchase or dation in payment,or #y any other transaction *here#y o*nership is transmitted #y onero$s title.

AFT. %@('. A co-o*ner of a thing may eercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all theother co-o*ners or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grosslyecessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasona#le one.

8ho$ld t*o or more co-o*ners desire to eercise the right of redemption, they may only do so inproportion to the share they may respectively have in the thing o*ned in common.

In the case of )ermoso v. o$rt of Appeals, 7& this o$rt, in interpreting the provision of the la* onlegal redemption, held9

The p$rpose of Article %'@= Bof the old ivil ode, no* Article %'22 of the present ivil odeC is to5eep strangers to the family o$t of a 6oint o*nership, if, as is often the case, the presence of o$tsiders #e $ndesira#le and the other heir or heirs #e *illing and in a position to rep$rchase theshare sold B0e Jes$s vs. Manlap$s, 2% Phil. %!!C. >hile there sho$ld #e no <$estion that an heir may dispose his right #efore partition BFivero vs. 8errano HA !@ 1.D. @!(; >enceslao vs. alimon,!@ Phil. &'@; )ernaez vs. )ernaez, 7( Phil. (%!C, a co-heir *o$ld have had to pay only the price for *hich the vendee ac<$ired it B)ernaez vs. )ernaez, I#id.C.

It is a one-*ay street. It is al*ays in favor of the redemptioner since he can compel the vendee tosell to him #$t he cannot #e compelled #y the vendee to #$y the alienated property.

In another case, !' this o$rt reiterated that9
















Legal redemption is in the nat$re of a privilege created #y la* partly for reasons of p$#lic policy andpartly for the #enefit and convenience of the redemptioner, to afford him a *ay o$t of *hat might #ea disagreea#le or Han inconvenient association into *hich he has #een thr$st. B%' Manresa, !th Ed.,7%=.C It is intended to minimize co-o*nership. The la* grants a co-o*ner the eercise of the saidright of redemption *hen the shares of the other o*ners are sold to a 3third person.3

The r$le on redemption is li#erally constr$ed in favor of the original o*ner of the property and thepolicy of the la* is to aid rather than defeat him in the eercise of his right of redemption.!%

Th$s, petitioners cannot #e accommodated in this respect and *e agree *ith the trial co$rt *hen itheld9

The provision of Art. %'22 of the ivil ode of the Philippines is very clear on the matter.

Art. %'22, provides9 38ho$ld any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger #efore thepartition, any or all the co-heirs may #e s$#rogated to the rights of the p$rchaser #y reim#$rsing himfor the price of the sale, provided they do so *ithin the period of one B%C month from the time they*ere notified in *riting of the sale #y the vendor.3

There *as no *ritten notice sent to Porfirio Dalvez #y Paz Dalvez *hen she sold her share over theland to arlos Tam. Porfirio Dalvez only discovered on May %(, %&&! that the land *as sold toarlos Tam. Art. %@(', ivil ode of the Philippines, provides9

Art. %@('. 3A co-o*ner of a thing may eercise the right of redemption in case the share of all theother co-o*ners or any of them are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grosslyecessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasona#le one.3

o *ritten notice of the sale *as given #y Paz Dalvez BvendorC to Porfirio Dalvez, the co-o*ner asre<$ired $nder Art. %@(7 of the ivil ode. The *ritten notice is mandatory. )ence, the right toredeem commenced *hen plaintiff so$ght to eercise it #y instit$ting the complaint in the instant

case on J$ne %(, %&&!. The complaint of legal redemption may #e filed even several years after thecons$mmation of sale BNosima erdad vs. o$rt of Appeals, et al.; D.F. o. %'&=(, April (&, %&&@C.!(

As to petitioners arlos Tam and Tycoon Properties, Inc.s claim that they are #$yers in good faith,same fails to pers$ade.

A p$rchaser in good faith and for val$e is one *ho #$ys the property *itho$t notice that some other person has a right to or interest in s$ch property and pays its fair price #efore he has notice of theadverse claims and interest of another person in the same property. 8o it is that the 3honesty of intention3 *hich constit$tes good faith implies a freedom from 5no*ledge of circ$mstances *hicho$ght to p$t a person on in<$iry.!7

8$ffice it to state that #oth the trial and appellate co$rts fo$nd other*ise as 3Tam did not eert effortsto determine the previo$s o*nership of the property in <$estion3!! and relied only on the tadeclarations in the name of Paz Dalvez.!+ It m$st #e noted that arlos Tam received a copy of thes$mmons and the complaint on (( 8eptem#er %&&!. This not*ithstanding, he sold the property toTycoon Properties, Inc. on (= 8eptem#er %&&!. 8ignificantly, arlos Tam is also an o*ner of TycoonProperties, Inc. to the etent of !+. !@ A notice of lis pendens dated 2 J$ly %&&= filed *ith theFegistry of 0eeds of the Province of La Gnion *as inscri#ed on TT o. T- !'7&'. != 0espite theinscription, Tycoon Properties, Inc. mortgaged the land to "ar East an5 and Tr$st ompany for thes$m of P%%,%=(,@''.!2 All these attendant circ$mstances negate petitioners claim of good faith.




















>herefore, premises considered, the decision of the o$rt of Appeals dated (2 A$g$st (''( and itsFesol$tion dated %! April (''7 are Affirmed. osts against petitioners.

81 1F0EFE0.

MINITA %. C)ICO-NA*ARIO Associate J$stice

>E 1GF9

ARTEMIO %. PANGANIAN hief J$sticehairperson

CON$UELO >NARE$-$ANTIAGO Associate J$stice

MA. ALICIA AU$TRIA-MARTINE* Asscociate J$stice

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, $R. Associate J$stice

E F T I " I A T I 1

P$rs$ant to Article III, 8ection %7 of the onstit$tion, it is here#y certified that the concl$sions in thea#ove 0ecision *ere reached in cons$ltation #efore the case *as assigned to the *riter of theopinion of the o$rts 0ivision.

ARTEMIO %. PANGANIAN hief J$stice

Petitioners proceed to descri#e *hen the period is rec5oned and state that this occ$rs B%C *hen the

tr$stee has performed $ne<$ivocal acts of rep$diation amo$nting to an o$ster of the cest$i <$e tr$st;B(C s$ch positive acts of rep$diation have #een made 5no*n to the cest$i <$e tr$st, and B7C theevidence thereon is clear and positive.

Presidential 0ecree o. %+(&, 5no*n as the Property Fegistration 0ecree, 8ection %%7 provides9

8E. %%7. Recording of instr*!ent relating to *nregistered lands. - o deed, conveyance, mortgage,lease, or other vol$ntary instr$ment affecting land not registered $nder the Torrens system shall #evalid, ecept as #et*een the parties thereto, $nless s$ch instr$ment shall have #een recorded in themanner herein prescri#ed in the office of the Fegister of 0eeds for the province or city *here theland lies.

BaC the Fegister of 0eeds for each province or city shall 5eep a Primary Entry #oo5 and aFegistration #oo5. The Primary Entry oo5 shall contain, among other partic$lars, the entryn$m#er, the names of the parties, the nat$re of the doc$ment, the date, ho$r and min$te it*as presented and received. The recording of the deed and other instr$ments relating to$nregistered lands shall #e effected #y *ay of annotation onthe space provided therefor inthe Fegistration oo5, after the same shall have #een entered in the Primary Entry oo5.

B#C If, on the face of the instr$ment, it appears that it is s$fficient in la*, the Fegister of 0eeds shall forth*ith record the instr$ment in the manner provided herein. In case the



Fegister of 0eeds ref$ses its admission to record, said official shall advise hte party ininterest in *riting of the gro$nd or gro$nds for his ref$sal, and the latter may appeal thematter to the ommissioner of Land Fegistration in accordance *ith the provisions of 8ection %%= of this 0ecree. It shall #e $nderstood that any recording made $nder this sectionshall #e *itho$t pre6$dice to a third party *ith a #etter right.

BcC After recording on the Fecord oo5, the Fegister of 0eeds shall endorse, among other things, $pon the original of the recorded instr$ments, the file n$m#er and the date as *ell asthe ho$r and min$te *hen the doc$ment *as received for recording as sho*n in the primaryentry #oo5, ret$rning to the registrant or person in interest the d$plicate of the instr$ment,*ith appropriate annotation, certifying that he has recorded the instr$ment after reservingone copy thereof to #e f$rnished the provincial or city assessor as re<$ired #y eisting la*.

BdC Ta sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse claim and other instr$mentsin the nat$re of invol$ntary dealings *ith respect to $nregistered lands, if made in the forms$fficient in la*, shall li5e*ise #e admissi#le to record $nder this section.

BeC "or the services to #e rendered #y the Fegister of 0eeds $nder this section, he shall

collect the same amo$nt of fees prescri#ed for similar services for the registration of deedsor instr$ments concerning registered lands.!&

In the case of Alzona . ap$nitan +' cited #y the petitioner Tycoon Properties, *hile admittedly, theo$rt made a prono$ncement therein that an action for reconveyance #ased on implied or constr$ctive tr$st prescri#es in ten B%'C years, the co$rt fo$nd that there *as in the said case anepress rep$diation of the tr$st #y the defendants-appellees *ho had consistently rep$diated thetr$st. The case therein dealt *ith a property registered $nder the Torrens system. 8imilarly, Medinav. Co*rt of Appeals,+% again cited #y petitioner Tycoon simply made a prono$ncement regarding theprescripti#ility of action #ased on implied or constr$ctive tr$st #$t does not involve an $nregisteredland s$ch as in the case at #ar.

In the same manner, the citation #y petitioner Tycoon of the case of #on$ales v. :nter!ediate Appellate Co*rt,+(and the case of <da. De +sconde v. Co*rt of Appeals,+7 *e find inapplica#le as*ell, as the property involved therein is registered $nder the Torrens 8ystem.

C.A. No. 80"5 Mrc 25, 19!:

TRINIDAD NE>RA, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

ENCARNACION NE>RA, defendant-appellee.

Aleandro M. Panis for appellant.

*cio 0avillonar for appellee.

DE JO>A, J.&

1n 1cto#er (+, %&7&, Trinidad eyra filed a complaint against her sister, Encarnacion eyra, in the

o$rt of "irst Instance of the ity of Manila, for the recovery of one-half BOC of the property

mentioned and descri#ed therein, *hich had #een left #y their deceased father, 8evero eyra, and

*hich had #een previo$sly divided e<$ally #et*een the t*o etra6$dicially, demanding at the same

time one-half BOC of the rents collected on the said property #y the defendant Encarnacion eyra.

The defendant filed an ans*er admitting that the property mentioned and descri#ed therein *as















comm$nity property, and at the same time set $p co$nterclaims amo$nting to over P%,''', for

money spent, d$ring the last illness of their father, and for money loaned to the plaintiff.

After the trial of the case, the co$rt fo$nd that the plaintiff *as really entitled to one-half BOC of the

said property, ad6$dicating the same to her, #$t at the same time ordered said plaintiff to pay to the

defendant the s$m of P=(=.==, pl$s interests, #y virt$e of said co$nterclaims.

Plaintiff Trinidad eyra appealed from the said decision, to the o$rt of Appeals for Manila, alleging

several errors, attac5ing the eec$tion and validity of said agreement; and on ovem#er %', %&!(,

said appeal *as dismissed, p$rs$ant to the to an agreement or compromise entered into #y the

parties, as sho*n #y the corresponding doc$ment, dated ovem#er 7, %&!(, *hich *as filed in the

case the follo*ing day, ovem#er !, %&!(.

In the mean*hile, Encarnacion eyra, *ho had #een sic5ly for a#o$t t*o years, $nepectedly died,

on ovem#er !, %&!( at the age of !2, allegedly from heart attac5, as a conse<$ence of Addisons

disease from *hich, it *as claimed, she had #een s$ffering for sometime.

In vie* of the decision of the o$rt of Appeals, dated ovem#er %', %&!(, dismissing the appeal, #yvirt$e of said agreement or compromise, Atty. L$cio Javillonar, claiming to represent Encarnacion

eyra, *ho had died since ovem#er !, %&!(, and other relatives of hers, filed a petition, dated

ovem#er (7, %&!(, as5ing for the reconsideration of said decision of the o$rt of Appeals,

dismissing the appeal, claiming that the alleged compromise or agreement, dated ovem#er 7,

%&!(, co$ld not have #een $nderstood #y Encarnacion eyra, as she *as already then at the

threshold of death, and that as a matter of fact she died the follo*ing day; and that if it had #een

signed at all #y said Encarnacion eyra, her th$m#mar5 appearing on said doc$ment m$st have

#een affied thereto #y Trinidad eyras attorney, against Encarnacions *ill; and that the co$rt had

no more 6$risdiction over the case, *hen the alleged agreement *as filed on ovem#er !, %&!(, at

the instance of Trinidad eyra, as Encarnacion *as already dead at the time.

The principal <$estion to #e decided, in connection *ith said petition for reconsideration, is *hether or not said compromise or agreement had #een legally eec$ted and signed #y Encarnacion eyra,

on ovem#er 7, %&!(. Trinidad eyra maintains the affirmative.

The vol$mino$s evidence, testimonial and doc$mentary, add$ced #y the parties, in this case, has

f$lly esta#lished the follo*ing facts9

That 8evero ayra died intestate in the ity of Manila, on May @, %&72, leaving certain properties

and t*o children, #y his first marriage, named Encarnacion eyra and Trinidad eyra, and other

children #y his second marriage; That after the death of 8evero eyra, the t*o sisters, Encarnacion

eyra and Trinidad eyra, had serio$s mis$nderstandings, in connection *ith the properties left #y

their deceased father, and so serio$s *ere their dissensions that, after March 7%, %&7&, they had t*o

litigations in the o$rt of "irst Instance of Manila, concerning said properties. In the first case, filed in

March 7%, %&7&, Trinidad eyra and others demanded #y Encarnacion eyra and others the

ann$lment of the sale of the property located at o. 7@@ Faon 8treet, Manila *hich *as finally

decided in favor of the defendants, in the co$rt of first instance, and in the o$rt of Appeals, on

0ecem#er (%, %&!7 BD.F. o. 2%@(C; and the second is the instance case.

That Encarnacion eyra, *ho had remained single, and *ho had no longer any ascendants,

eec$ted a *ill on 8eptem#er %!, %&7&, mar5ed Ehi#it %@, disposing of her properties in favor of the



3ongregacion de Feligiosas de la irgen Maria3 and her other relatives, named Teodora eyra,

Pilar de D$zman and Maria Jaco#o da. de lanco, ma5ing no provision *hatsoever in said *ill, in

favor of her only sister of the *hole #lood, Trinidad eyra, *ho had #ecome her #itter enemy; that

*hen the said *ill *as #ro$ght to the attention of the a$thorities of said ongregation, after d$e

deli#eration and consideration, said religio$s organization declined the #o$nty offered #y

Encarnacion eyra, and said decision of the ongregation *as d$ly comm$nicated to her; that in

order to overcome the diffic$lties enco$ntered #y said religio$s organization in not accepting thegenerosity of Encarnacion eyra, the latter decided to ma5e a ne* *ill, and for that p$rpose, a#o$t

one *ee5 #efore her death, sent for Atty. Ficardo 8i5at, and gave him instr$ctions for the preparation

of a ne* *ill; that Atty. 8i5at, instead of preparing a ne* *ill, merely prepared a draft of a codicil,

amending said *ill, dated 8eptem#er %!, %&7&, again naming said religio$s organization, among

others as #eneficiary, and said draft of a codicil *as also for*arded to the a$thorities of religio$s

organization, for their consideration and acceptance; #$t it *as also re6ected.

In the mean*hile, Encarnacion eyra had #ecome serio$sly ill, s$ffering from Addisons disease,

and on 1cto#er 7%, %&!(, she sent for her religio$s adviser and confessor, Mons. icente "ernandez

of the :$iapo h$rch to ma5e confession, after *hich she re<$ested that holy mass #e cele#rated in

her ho$se at o. 7@@ Faon 8treet, ity of Manila, so that she might ta5e holy comm$nion; that

Mons. "ernandez ca$sed the necessary arrangements to #e made, and, as a matter of fact, on

ovem#er %, %&!(, holy mass *as solemnized in her ho$se #y "ather Teodoro Darcia, also of the

:$iapo h$rch, on *hich occasion, Encarnacion eyra, *ho remained in #ed, too5 holy

comm$nion; that after the mass, "ather Darcia tal5ed to Encarnacion eyra and advised

reconciliation #et*een the t*o sisters, Encarnacion and Trinidad eyra. Encarnacion accepted said

advise and, at a#o$t noon of the same day Bovem#er %, %&!(C, sent E$sta<$io Mendoza to fetch

her sister Trinidad, *ho came at a#o$t (97' that same afternoon; that the t*o sisters greeted each

other in most affectionate manner, and #ecame reconciled and t*o had a long and cordial

conversation, in the co$rse of *hich they also tal5ed a#o$t the properties left #y their father and their

litigations *hich had reached the o$rt of Appeals for the ity of Manila, the instant case #eing the

second, and they agreed to have the latter dismissed, on the condition that the property involved

therein sho$ld #e given ecl$sively to Trinidad eyra, that the latter sho$ld *aive her share in therents of said property collected #y Encarnacion, and the Trinidad had no more inde#tedness to

Encarnacion. They also agreed to send for Atty. Ale6andro M. Panis, to prepare the necessary

doc$ment em#odying the said agreement, #$t Attorney Panis co$ld come only in the afternoon of

the follo*ing day, ovem#er (, %&!(, *hen Encarnacion gave him instr$ctions for the preparation of

the doc$ment em#odying their agreement, and other instr$ctions for the preparation of her last *ill

and testament; that Attorney Panis prepared said doc$ment of compromise as *ell as the ne* *ill

and testament, naming Trinidad eyra and E$sta<$io Mendoza #eneficiaries therein, p$rs$ant to

Encarnacions epress instr$ctions, and the t*o doc$ments *ere prepared, in d$plicate, and *ere

ready for signat$re, since the morning of ovem#er 7, %&!(; that in the afternoon of that day, of

compromise and last *ill and testament to Encarnacion eyra, slo*ly and in a lo$d voice, in the

presence of "ather Teodoro Darcia, 0r. Moises . A#ad, 0r. Eladio Aldecoa, Trinidad eyra, and

others, after *hich he as5ed her if their terms *ere in accordance *ith her *ishes, or if she *antedany change made in said doc$ments; that Encarnacion eyra did not s$ggest any change, and

as5ed for the pad and the t*o doc$ments, and, *ith the help of a son of Trinidad, placed her

th$m#mar5 at the foot of each one of the t*o doc$ments, in d$plicate, on her #ed in the sala, in the

presence of attesting *itnesses, 0r. Moises . A#ad, 0r. Eladio F. Aldecoa and Atty. Ale6andro M.

Panis, after *hich said *itnesses signed at the foot of the *ill, in the presence of Encarnacion

eyra, and of each other. The agreement *as also signed #y Trinidad eyra, as party, and #y 0r. M.

. A#ad and E$sta<$io Mendoza, a protege, as *itnesses.



"ather Teodoro Darcia *as also present at the signing of the t*o doc$ments, at the re<$est of

Encarnacion eyra.

The foregoing facts have #een esta#lished #y the *itnesses presented #y Trinidad eyra, *ho are

all tr$st*orthy men, and *ho had a#sol$tely no interest in the final o$tcome of this case. T*o of

them are ministers of the Dospel, *hile three of the attesting *itnesses are professional men of

irreproacha#le character, *ho had 5no*n and seen and act$ally tal5ed to the testatri.

Petitioner Teodora eyra, half sister of Encarnacion, and her o*ng da$ghter eferina de la r$z,

and Presentacion lanco, da$ghter of petitioner Maria Jaco#o da. de lanco, s$#stantially

corro#orated the testimony of the *itnesses presented #y Trinidad eyra, *ith reference to the

signing of doc$ments, in the #edroom of Encarnacion eyra, in the afternoon of ovem#er 7, %&!(.

Teodora eyra, Presentacion lanco and eferina de la r$z testified, ho*ever, that *hen the

th$m#mar5 of Encarnacion eyra *as affied to the agreement in <$estion, dated ovem#er 7,

%&!(, she *as sleeping on her #ed in the sala; and that the attesting *itnesses *ere not present, as

they *ere in the caida.

$t eferina de la r$z also stated that the attesting *itnesses signed the doc$ments th$m#mar5ed

#y Encarnacion eyra, in the sala near her #ed, th$s contradicting herself and Teodora eyra and

Presentacion lanco.

8trange to say, Teodora eyra, Presentacion lanco and eferina de la r$z also testified that

Encarnacion eyras, th$m#mar5 *as affied to the *ill, only in the morning of ovem#er !, %&!(,

#y Trinidad eyra and one Ildefonso del arrio, *hen Encarnacion *as already dead.

The testimony of 0r. 0ionisio Par$lan, alleged medical epert, as to the nat$re of effects of Addisons

disease, is a#sol$tely $nrelia#le. )e had never seen or tal5ed to the testatri Encarnacion eyra.

According to medical a$thorities, persons s$ffering from Addisons disease often live as long as tenB%'C years, *hile others die after a fe* *ee5s only, and that as the disease progresses, asthenia

sets in, and from 2' per cent to &' per cent of the patients develop t$#erc$losis, and complications

of the heart also appear. Becil, Tet#oo5 of Medicine, 7d ed., %&7+, pp. %(+'-%(+7; Mcrae, 1slers

Modern Medicine, 7d ed., ol. , pp. (=(-(=&.C

And it has #een concl$sively sho*n that Encarnacion eyra died on ovem#er !, %&!(, d$e to a

heart attac5, at the age of !2, after an illness of a#o$t t*o B(C years.

In connection *ith mental capacity, in several cases, this co$rt has considered the testimony of

*itnesses, *ho had 5no*n and tal5ed to the testators, more tr$st*orthy than the testimony of the

alleged medical eperts.

Insomnia, in spite of the testimony of t*o doctors, *ho testified for the opponents to the pro#ate of a

*ill, to the effect that it tended to destroy mental capacity, *as held not to effect the f$ll possession

of mental fac$lties deemed necessary and s$fficient for its eec$tion. Bag$ioa vs. alderon, ('

Phil., !''.C The testatri *as held to have #een co!pos !entis, in spite of the physicians testimony

to the contrary, to the effect that she *as very *ea5, #eing in the third or last stage of t$#erc$losis.

Bap T$a vs. ap a /$an and ap a Ll$, (= Phil., +=&.C The testimony of the attending physician

that the deceased *as s$ffering from dia#etes and had #een in a comatose condition for several



days, prior to his death, *as held not s$fficient to esta#lish testamentary incapacity, in vie* of the

positive statement of several credi#le *itnesses that he *as conscio$s and a#le to $nderstand *hat

*as said to him and to comm$nicate his desires. B8amson vs. orrales Tan :$intin, !! Phil., +=7.C

>here the mind of the testator is in perfectly so$nd condition, neither old age, nor ill health, nor the

fact that some#ody had to g$ide his hand in order that he might sign, is s$fficient to invalidate his *ill

BAmata and Almo6$ela vs. Ta#lizo, !2 Phil., !2+.C

>here it appears that a fe ho*rs and also a fe* days after the eec$tion of the *ill, the testator

intelligently and intelligi#ly conversed *ith other persons, altho$gh lying do*n and $na#le to move or

stand $p $nassisted, #$t co$ld still effect the sale of property #elonging to him, these circ$mstances

sho* that the testator *as in a perfectly so$nd mental condition at the time of the eec$tion of the

*ill. BAmata and Almo6$ela vs. Ta#lizo, !2 Phil., !2+.C

Presentacion lanco, in the co$rse of her cross-eamination, fran5ly admitted that, in the morning

and also at a#o$t @ ocloc5 in he afternoon of ovem#er 7, %&!(, Encarnacion eyra tal5ed to her

that they $nderstood each other clearly, th$s sho*ing that the testatri *as really of so$nd mind, at

the time of signing and eec$tion of the agreement and *ill in <$estion.

It may, therefore, #e reasona#ly concl$ded that the mental fac$lties of persons s$ffering from

Addisons disease, li5e the testatri in this case, remain $nimpaired, partly d$e to the fact that, on

acco$nt of the sleep they en6oy, they necessarily receive the #enefit of physical and mental rest. And

that li5e patients s$ffering from t$#erc$losis, insomnia or dia#etes, they preserve their mental

fac$lties $ntil the moments of their death.

J$dging #y the a$thorities a#ove cited, the logical concl$sion is that Encarnacion eyra *as of

so$nd mind and possessed the necessary testamentary and mental capacity, at the time of the

eec$tion of the agreement and *ill, dated ovem#er 7, %&!(.

The contention that the attesting *itnesses *ere not present, at the time Encarnacion eyra

th$m#mar5ed the agreement and *ill in <$estion, on her #ed, in the sala of the ho$se, as they *ereallegedly in the caida, is $ntena#le. It has #een f$lly sho*n that said *itnesses *ere present, at the

time of the signing and eec$tion of the agreement and *ill in <$estion, in the sala, *here the

testatri *as lying on her #ed. The tr$e test is not *hether they act$ally sa* each other at the time of

the signing of the doc$ments, #$t *hether they might have seen each other sign, had they chosen to

do so; and the attesting *itnesses act$ally sa* it all in this case. BJa#oneta vs. D$stilo, + Phil., +!%.C

And the th$m#mar5 placed #y the testatri on the agreement and *ill in <$estion is e<$ivalent to her

signat$re. Bap T$a vs. ap a /$an and ap a Ll$, (= Phil., +=&.C

Teodora eyra and her principal *itnesses are all interested parties, as they are children of legatees

named in the *ill, dated 8eptem#er %!, %&7&, #$t eliminated from the *ill, dated ovem#er 7, %&!(.

"$rthermore, the testimony of Teodora eyra and her *itnesses, to the effect that there co$ld have

#een no reconciliation #et*een the t*o sisters, and that the th$m#mar5 of Encarnacion eyra *as

affied to the doc$ments em#odying the agreement, *hile she *as sleeping, on ovem#er 7, %&!(,

in their presence; and that her th$m#mar5 *as affied to the *ill in <$estion, *hen she *as already

dead, in the morning of ovem#er !, %&!(, *ithin their vie*, is a#sol$tely devoid of any sem#lance

of tr$th. 8aid testimony is contrary to common sense. It violates all sense of proportion. Teodora

eyra and her *itnesses co$ld not have told the tr$th; they have testified to deli#erate falsefoods;

and they are, therefore, a#sol$tely $n*orthy of #elief. And to the evidence of the petitioners is



completely applica#le the legal aphorism K fals*s in *no, fals*s in o!nib*s. BDonzales vs.Ma$ricio,

+7 Phil., =(2, =7+.C

To sho* the alleged impro#a#ility of reconciliation, and the eec$tion of the t*o doc$ments, dated

ovem#er 7, %&!(, petitioners have erroneo$sly placed great emphasis on the fact that, $p to

1cto#er 7%, %&!(, the t*o sisters Encarnacion and Trinidad eyra *ere #itter enemies. They *ere

#an5ing evidently on the common #elief that the hatred of relatives is the most violent. Terri#le

indeed are the fe$ds of relatives and diffic$lt the reconciliation; and yet not impossi#le. They had

forgotten that Encarnacion eyra *as a religio$s *oman instr$cted in the ancient virt$es of the

hristian faith, and hope and charity, and that to forgive is a divine attri#$te. They had also forgotten

that there co$ld #e no more s$#lime love than that em#almed in tears, as in the case of a

reconciliation.

It *as most nat$ral that there sho$ld have #een reconciliation #et*een the t*o sisters, Encarnacion

and Trinidad eyra, as the latter is the nearest relative of the former, her only sister of the *hole

#lood. The approach of imminent death m$st have evo5ed in her the tenderest recollections of family

life. And #elieving perhaps that her little tri$mphs had not al*ays #ro$ght her happiness, and that

she had al*ays #een 6$st to her sister, *ho had #een demanding insistently *hat *as her d$e,

Encarnacion finally decided $pon reconciliation, as she did not *ant to go to her eternal rest, *ith

hatred in her heart or *rath $pon her head. It *as, therefore, most logical that Encarnacion sho$ld

ma5e Trinidad the #enificiary of her generosity, $nder her last *ill and testament, and end all her

tro$#les *ith her, #y eec$ting said agreement, and th$s depart in perfect peace from the scenes of

her earthly la#ors.

It having #een sho*n that the said compromise or agreement had #een legally signed and eec$ted

#y Encarnacion eyra on ovem#er 7, %&!(, in the presence of credi#le and tr$st*orthy *itnesses,

and that she *as co!pos !entis and possessed the necessary testamentary and mental capacity of

the time; the petition for the reconsideration filed #y Atty. L$cio Javillonar, on ovem#er (7, %&!(, on

#ehalf of a client, Encarnacion eyra, *ho had #een dead since ovem#er !, %&!(, and some of

her relatives, *ho have appeared, in accordance *ith the provisions of section %= of F$le 7 of theF$les of o$rt, is here#y denied ; and the decision of the o$rt of Appeals for Manila, dated

ovem#er %', %&!(, dismissing the appeal, is hereb re-affir!ed , *itho$t costs. 8o ordered.

G.R. No. L-(2"2-"( No'ember 29, 1951

MANUEL GON*ALE$, petitioner-appellant,vs.MANOLITA GON*ALE$ DE CARUNGCONG, petitioner-appellee;ALEJANDRO GON*ALE$, JR., 7 JUAN GON*ALE$, oppositors-appellants.

Claro M. Recto for petitioner and appellant.Rees, Albert, Agcaoili and Raf. . Arcega for petitioner and appellee.+!iliano Pa!int*an and Feli=berto M. 2errano for oppositors and appellants.

PARA$, C.J.:

1n ovem#er (=, %&!2, Man$el I#arra da. de Donzales Bhereafter to #e referred to as testatriCdied at the age of a#o$t seventy-eight years, leaving five children, namely, Ale6andro Donzales,



Leopoldo Donzales, Manolita Donzales de ar$ngcong, and J$an Donzales. The estate left #y her is estimated at P%+','''.

1n 0ecem#er ((, %&!2, Man$el Donzales filed in the o$rt of "irst Instance of Fizal a petitionB8pecial Proceeding o. 27=C for the pro#ate of an alleged *ill eec$ted #y the testatri onovem#er %@, %&!( BEhi#it KMan$el DonzalesC, devising to Man$el Donzales the greater portion

of the estate, *itho$t impairing the legitimes of the other children.

1n 0ecem#er 7%, %&!2, Manolita D. de ar$ngcong filed in the same co$rt a petition B8pecialProceeding o. 272C for the pro#ate of another alleged *ill eec$ted #y the testatri on May +, %&!+BEhi#it %KManolita D. ar$ngcongC, leaving to Manolita D. de ar$ngcong the greater #$l5 of theestate, *itho$t impairing the legitimes of the other children.

In his opposition filed on "e#r$ary %@, %&!&, Ale6andro Donzales, Jr. so$ght the disallo*ance of the*ills eec$ted on ovem#er %@, %&!(, and May +, %&!+, on the gro$nd that, ass$ming their validity,they had #een revo5ed #y the testatri in an instr$ment eec$ted #y her on ovem#er %2, %&!2BEhi#it (KAle6andro and J$an DonzalesC, *ith the res$lt that her estate sho$ld #e distri#$ted as if she died intestate.

>ith the eception of Leopoldo Donzales, the children of the testatri filed m$t$al oppositions to oneor the other instr$ments tending to negative their respective positions.

After a 6oint hearing, the o$rt of "irst Instance of Fizal rendered a decision *ith the follo*ingdispositive prono$ncements9

All facts considered in the light of the evidence presented and in the manner in *hich the*itnesses testified the co$rt concl$des and holds9

"irst9 That Ehi#it K Man$el Donzales, tho$gh validly eec$ted on ovem#er %@,%&!(, *as revo5ed #y Ehi#it %KManolita D. ar$ngcong in accordance *ith the provisions

of section @(7 of the ode of ivil Proced$re.

8econd9 That Ehi#it ( K Ale6andro and J$an Donzales #eing eec$ted *itho$t the5no*ledge and testamentary capacity of the testatri and #eing contrary to the provisions of section @%2 of the ode of ivil Proced$re, the said doc$ment is here#y declared n$ll andvoid.

Third9 That Ehi#it % K Manolita D. ar$ngcong having #een eec$ted inaccordance *ith la* the same is here#y declared as the tr$e and last *ill and testament of the deceased Man$ela I#arra i$da de Donzales, and said *ill is here#y admitted pro#ate.

"rom this 6$dgment petitioner Man$el Donzales and oppositors Ale6andro Donzales, Jr. and J$an

Donzales have appealed. The appeal as to J$an Donzales *as dismissed in vie* of his fail$re topay the proportionate share of the printing cost of the record on appeal.

In the parts material to the present appeal, the *ill eec$ted #y the testatri on May +, %&!+, is of thefollo*ing form and tenor9

I/ALAID-0ALA>A. a ang a5ing )GLID ILI AT TE8TAMET1D ito ay #in$#$o ngPIT1D B=C dahon o pagina na may #ilang na s$n$d-s$nod at ang #a*at dahon o paginaay mayroong t$nay 5ong lagda o firma, gayon din ang lahat ng a5ing sa5si o testigos.



8A /ATGAA ng lahat ng isinasaysay 5o dito ay a5ing nilagdaan ito dito sa Im$s, /avite,"ilipinas ngayong i5a-+ ng Mayo ng taong %&!+, na na5aharap dito sa ating paglagda opagfirma ang tatlong sa5si o testigos. At a5ing ding nilagdaan o pinirmahan ang tagilirang5ali*a ng lahat at #a*at dahon o pagina nitong testamento 5ong ito sa harap ng lahat at#a*at isang sa5si o testigos at ang lahat at #a*at isa naman sa 5anila ay nangagsilagda onagsifirma din dito #ilang sa5si 5o sa harap 5o at sa harap ng lahat at #a*at isa sa 5anila, at

ganoon din silang mga sa5si 5o ay nangag-lagda o nagsi-firma sa tagilirang 5ali*a ng lahatat #a*at isa sa mga dahon o pagina nitong a5ing testamento.

B8gd.C MAGELA . 0A. 0E D1NALE8MAGELA IAFFA 0A. 0E D1NALE8

Mga 8a5si o Testigos9

B8gd.C IEEI01 0E L18 FEE8B8gd.C TA)IMI/ T. 8A1B8gd.C LGI8 DAEFLA

It is contended for the appellants that this *ill does not contain any attestation cla$se; that, ass$mingthe concl$ding paragraph to #e the attestation cla$se, it is not valid #eca$se it is the act of thetestatri and not of the *itnesses, and #eca$se it does not state the n$m#er of sheets or pages of the *ill.

In the very recent case of alentina $evas vs. Pilar Achacoso, D.F. o. L-7!&=, decided May,

%&+% ? *e s$stained, finding a precedent in Alda#a vs. Fo<$e, !7 Phil., 7=2, an attestation cla$semade #y the testator and forming part of the #ody of the *ill. Thro$gh Mr. J$stice a$tista, *e held9

The cla$se a#ove <$oted is the attestation cla$se referred to in the la* *hich, in o$r opinion,s$#stantially complies *ith its re<$irements. The only apparent anomaly *e find is that itappears to #e an attestation made #y the testator himself more than #y the instr$mental*itnesses. This apparent anomaly, ho*ever, is not in o$r opinion serio$s nor s$#stantial asto affect the validity of the *ill, it appearing that right $nder the signat$re of the testator, thereappear the signat$res of the three instr$mental *itnesses.

Instr$mental *itnesses, as defined #y Escriche in his 0iccionario Fazo#ada de Legislacion,y J$rispr$dencia, ol. !, p. %%%+, is on *ho ta5es part in the eec$tion of an instr$ment or *riting3 Bin re *ill of Tan 0i$co, !+ Phil., 2'=, 2'&C. An instr$mental *itness, therefore, doesnot merely attest to the signat$re of the testator #$t also to the proper eec$tion of the *ill.The fact that the three instr$mental *itnesses have signed the *ill immediately $nder thesignat$re of the testator, sho*s that they have in fact attested not only to the gen$ineness of his signat$re #$t also to the d$e eec$tion of the *ill as em#odied in the attestation cla$se.

The attestation cla$se in <$estion #ears also similarity *ith the attestation cla$se in the *illinvolved in Alda#a vs. Fo<$e, B!7 Phil., 7=2C. In that case, the attestation cla$se formed part



of the #ody of the *ill and its recital *as made #y the testatri herself and *as signed #y her and #y the three instr$mental *itnesses. In $pholding the validity of the *ill, the co$rt said9

In reality, it appears that it is the testatri *ho ma5es the declaration a#o$t the points in thelast paragraph of the *ill; ho*ever, as the *itnesses, together *ith the testatri, have signedthe said declaration, *e are of the opinion and so hold that the *ords a#ove <$oted of the

testament constit$te a s$fficient compliance *ith the re<$irements of Act o. (!@+.

1f co$rse three of the J$stices of this o$rt conc$rred in the res$lt, 3in the possi#ility that thetestator in the present case, or the person or persons *ho prepared the *ill had relied $pon ther$ling laid do*n in the case of Aldaba vs. Ro*e, s*pra, and that it *o$ld no* #e $nfair to re6ect thepresent *ill *hen in its preparation a r$ling of this o$rt has #een follo*ed.3 $t the case at #ar stillfalls *ithin this vie*, the *ill BEhi#it %KManolita D. arongcongC having #een eec$ted on May +,%&!+.

The attestation cla$se contained in the #ody of the *ill #eing th$s valid, the statement in thepen$ltimate paragraph of the *ill hereina#ove <$oted as to the n$m#er of sheets or pages $sed, iss$fficient attestation *hich may #e considered in con6$nction *ith the last paragraph. It is significant

that the la* does not re<$ire the attestation to #e contained in a single cla$se. >hile perfection inthe drafting of a *ill may #e desira#le, $ns$#stantial depart$re from the $s$al forms sho$ld #eignored, especially *hen the a$thenticity of the *ill is not assailed, as in this case.

The res$lt reached in respect of the s$fficiency of the *ill BEhi#it %KManolita D. arongcongCnecessarily disposes of the contention of the appellant Man$el Donzales that the trial co$rt erred innot admitting to pro#ate the *ill BEhi#it KMan$el DonzalesC, since the latter *ill m$st #econsidered revo5ed #y the s$#se<$ent *ill BEhi#it %KManolita D. arongcongC.

>hat remains to #e disc$ssed is the claim of appellant Ale6andro Donzales, Jr. that the *ill BEhi#it %KManolita D. arongcongC has #een revo5ed #y the testatri in the instr$ment of ovem#er %2,%&!2 BEhi#it (KAle6andro and J$an DonzalesC *hich provides as follo*s9

A5o, MAGEL AFFA 0A. 0E D1NALE8, may sapat na g$lang at naninirahan saci$dad ng Fizal, may mah$say at *astong pag-iisip at ma#$ting pagtatanda, sapamamagitan ng 5as$latang ito at #ilang h$ling 5apasiyahan ay sinasaysay 5o ito atipinahahayag sa ngayon sa alin mang testamento o h$ling ha#ilin na napirmahan 5ong $nasa 5as$latang ito ay pina*a*alan 5o ng saysay at 5a#$l$hang lahat pag5at hindi iyong t$nay5ong 5aloo#an ngayon.

8a 5at$nayan ng lahat ng ito at sa pag5at hindi a5o ma5alagda ngayon ang pina-5i$sapan sionstancio Padilla na ilagda a5o sa 5as$latang ito ngayon i5a-%= ng oviem#re ng taong ito%&!2, dito sa ci$dad ng Pasay.

Appellee Manolita D. de ar$ngcong, li5e Man$el Donzales Bas appelleeC, contends that the

testatri lac5ed the testamentary capacity *hen she allegedly eec$ted the instr$ment of revocation,and their contention *as s$stained #y the trial co$rt. >e have eamined the record and fo$nd novalid reason for reversing the finding of said co$rt *hich had the #enefit of o#serving and hearing the*itnesses testify. Gpon the other hand, the follo*ing considerations amply s$pport the appealeddecision9.

%. "or more than ten years prior to her death, the testatri had s$ffered from hypertension. 1novem#er %!, %&!2, she had aphasia and on ovem#er %+, %&!2, she *as ta5en to the hospital$pon advice of the family physician, 0r. Jose . Leveriza. In the letter introd$cing her to the hospital



a$thorities BEhi#it EKMan$el DonzalesC, 0r. Leveriza stated that the testatri *as s$ffering fromhypertension and cere#ral throm#osis. Partic$larly on ovem#er %2, %&!2, *hen the allegedinstr$ment of revocation *as eec$ted #y her, the testatri *as in a comatose and $nconscio$sstate and co$ld not tal5 or $nderstand. The follo*ing is the testimony of 0r. Leveriza portraying thephysical condition of the testatri $p to ovem#er %2, %&!29

P. <$e hizo $sted c$ando 0o4a Man$ela I. da. de Donzales ya esta#a en el hospital?KF. Me f$i alla para eaminarla.

P. $al era el res$ltado de s$ eamen?KF. $ando f$e al hospital a eaminarla en elprimer dia via <$e la aphasia se agravo, o sea <$e ha perdido el poder de ha#lar inteligentemente; tam#ien encontre <$e esta#a inconsciente, d$rmiendo constantemente yno se le podia, despertar, tenia la respiracion fatigosa, lenta y con estertores, y no podialevantarse, asi <$e yo perscri#i <$e diera el alimento por medio de hypodermoclysis, o seapor medio de inyecciones.

8r. PAMITGA.K:$isieramos sa#er, 8$ 8e4oria, si se presenta al testigo como eperto?

8r. 8EFFA1.KTam#ien <$isiera sa#er si se presenta como madico de la familia o comomedico eperto?.

8r. AFEDA.KPresento al testigo como medico de ca#ecere y como medico eperto almismo tiempo.

P. <$e hicieron en el hospital en vista de s$s instr$cciones?KF. $mplieron laprescripcion mia.

P. :$e s$cedio con respecto al estado de la paciente?KF. La paciente a medida <$epasa#an los dias se <$eda#a grave cada vez y mas graves los sintomas a$n <$e al primer dia en <$e f$e ella llevada al hospital.

P. olviendome a la condicion de la paciente, en <$e estado se encontra#a 0o4aMan$ela I. da. de gonzales el %! de noviem#re de %&!2 antes de ingresarla en el hospital?KF. La encontre con aphasia, no podia ha#lar inteligentemente.

3P. P$ede $sted eplicar al J$zgado el c$rso de la enfermedad de 0o4a Man$ela I. da.de Donzales?KF. Est$vo agravandose desde el seg$ndo dia en <$e f$e ingresada alhospital, y desde ese dia orina#a y deponia en la cama inconscientemente.

Bt.s.n., La<$indan$m, March (%, %&!&, pp. (!-(@.C

P. Epli<$e $sted al J$zgado el c$rso de la enfermedad de la paciente haciendoreferencia de las fechas <$e aparecen en los Ehi#itos 7 y 7-!?KF. El noviem#re %!,ordene el ingreso de la paciente al Mercy )ospital, por<$e t$vo paralisis parcial en laleng$a, pro#a#lemente de origen em#alismo o throm#osis cere#ral, y como ya era de nocheno se llevo al hospital, sino el dia %+ de noviem#re en donde le he hecho dos visitas; lacondicion de la paciente contin*o e!peorando hasta el dia >? de novie!bre en *esobrevino la co!plicacion de pne*!onia hpostatica hasta *e fallecio el novie!bre >@,/B, a las >E p.!.



Bt.s.n., La<$indan$m, March (%, %&!2, pp. (2-(&.C

JGNDA01.KP. Co!o llego *sted a esa concl*sion de *e desde el /B de novie!bre de/B en *e *sted ordeno la entrega de la paciente al hospital e!peoro s* sal*d hasta *e

!*rio el dia >@ de novie!bre de /BG-R. Por*e cada ve$ !as se acent*a s* estadoco!atoso, de!as s* respiracion se hacia !as fatigosa cada ve$ *e pasaban los dias, con estertores.

P. co!o estaba s* estado !ental ?KF. +staba co!pleta!ente inconsciente desde el dia en *e entro en el hospital.

8r. AFEDA. K P. Podia ha#lar la paciente en la fecha en <$e f$e ingresada alhospital?-F. o, se4or.

P. 0esp$es del %+ de noviem#re de %&!2 en <$e seg$n $sted f$e ingresada la pacienteen el hospital podia ha#lar ella y hacer entender s$s pala#ras?KF. o, se4or.

P. <$e hacia la paciente?KF. Esta#a d$rmiendo contin$amente, no podia a#rir s$so6os por si sola, sino <$e yo a#ria para ver la p$pila.

P. Trato $sted de tener conversacion con la paciente?KF. at$ralmente trata#a, perocontesta#a, y ni creo <$e me entendia.

P. Podia levantarse la paciente?KF. o, se4or, por<$e esta#a en estado comtosos, ypara prevenir la pne$monia hypostatica dos o tres hom#res tenian <$e levantaria y ponerlaalgo de costado o algo asi reclinada.

P. <$e res$ltado t$vo esa preca$cion <$e $sted tomo?KF. 8e ha retrasado o

retardado le pne$monia, pero so#revino, al fin, <$e siempre es fatal.

P. Gsted di6o <$e al fin so#revino la pne$monia, <$e efecto t$vo esa pne$monia a lapaciente?KF. Precipito la m$erte de la paciente.

P. El %2 de noviem#re de %&!2, seg$n testimonio de los testigos, otorgaron eldoc$mento Ehi#it (-Ale6andro y J$an Donzales, p$ede $sted decir al J$zgado en <$eestado se encontra#a 0o4a Man$ela I. da. de Donzales?KF. Esta#a en estado comatoso.

P. Por <$e sa#e $sted eso?KF. Por<$e en esa fecha yo la visite dos veces9 $na por lama4ana y otra por la tarde.

P. estando en el estado comatoso, como $sted, dice, p$ede $sted decir al J$zgado sipodia ella ha#lar o entender s$s pala#ras o s$ deseo?KF. o, se4or.

P. )izo $sted esf$erzos para hacerie comprender s$s pala#ras?KF. 8iempreeamina#a a ella para ver si reacciona#a favora#lemente la paciente, pero cada vez erapeor.

P. P$ede $sted decir si en a<$ella fecha la paciente podia si<$iera hacer movimiento deca#eza?KF. o, se4or, por<$e la parte derecha del c$erpo tenia hemifle6ia o paralisis.



P. $al es la ca$sa de oso <$e $sted dice hemifle6ia o paralisis?KF. Deneralmente sede#e a $na hemorragia cere#ral o trom#osis del cere#ro.

P. Teniendo hemorragia cere#ral o trom#osis del cere#ro, seg$n $sted, c$al es la partedel c$erpo h$mano <$e <$eda afectada?KF. La ca#eza y tam#ien los #razos, como losmiem#ros del c$erpo.

P. :$e <$iere $sted decir como los miem#ros del c$erpo?KF. Las manos y los pies.

P. Podia mover la paciente s$s manos y s$ c$erpo?KF. La parte iz<$ierda si.

P. la parte derecha?-F. o, se4or.

JGNDA01.KPero $na persona en ese estado de sal$d, como esta#a la paciente 0o4aMan$ela I. da. de Donzales, el %2 de noviem#re de %&!2, podia comprender pala#rasdichas a ella o indicaciones hechas por alg$na persona a ella?KF. o, se4or.Bt.s.n.La<$indan$m, March (%, %&!2, pp. 7'-77.C.

>hile appellant Ale6andro Donzales, Jr. has attempted to sho* that 0r. Leveriza *as not an epert,the latterss testimony remains $ncontradicted. The fact that the testimony of the attesting *itnessestends to imply that the testatri *as of so$nd mind at the time the alleged instr$ment of revocation*as eec$ted, cannot prevail over the findings of the attending physician, 0r. Leveriza, #eca$seeven 0r. Famon . Talavera Ban attesting *itnessC testified that altho$gh he had not eamined thetestatri, her case appeared serio$s; that he had a h$nch that 3they *ere ta5ing advantage of thelast moment of the deceased and they *ere trying to ma5e me an instr$ment in the accomplishmentof their aims,3 and that he had the idea that the testatri *as in do$#tf$l condition #eca$se he 3co$ldonly 6$dge from the people going there.3.

It is also arg$ed that if the testatri *as in a comatose condition, 0r. Leveriza *o$ld not haveordered to 3let her sit on #ed or on chair and let her t$rn on her side sometime.3 )o*ever, 0r.

Leveriza has given the reason for this prescription, namely, to avoid hypostatic pne$monia.

In s$pport of the contention that the testimony of the attesting *itnesses sho$ld #e given morecredence than the opinion of an epert *itness, reliance is placed on the case of ag$ioa vs.alderon, (' Phil., !''; agtas vs. Pag$io, (( Phil., ((=; Dalvez vs. Dalvez, (@ Phil., (!7;8amson vs. orrales Tan :$intin, !! Phil., +=7; Amata vs. Ta#lizo, !2 Phil., !2+, and eyra vs.eyra, !(, 1ff. Daz., (=&' ?? These cases are nota#ly disting$isha#le from the case at #ar. Theformer refer to sit$ations in *hich the doctors *ere not in a position to certify definitely as thetestamentary capacity of the testators at the time the *ills therein involved *ere eec$ted, #eca$sethey had not o#served the testators on said dates or never sa* them; *hereas the case no* #efore$s involves a family physician *ho attended the testatri d$ring her last illness and sa* her on theday *hen the alleged instr$ment of revocation *as eec$ted.

(. >e cannot help epressing o$r s$rprise at the fact that the instr$ment of revocation *as allegedlyeec$ted on ovem#er %2, %&!2, *hen, according to the testimony of Jose Padilla, the latter *asas5ed #y the testatri to prepare the necessary doc$ment as early as in the month of May, %&!2,and reminded a#o$t it for the second time *ee5s #efore ovem#er %, %&!2, and for the third timeseveral days #efore the latter date Bovem#er %, %&!2C. The first ec$se given #y Jose Padilla for the delay is that he *as #$sy and the children of the testatri had certain disp$tes *hich he tried tosettle. The second ec$se is that he *as not a#le to sec$re soon eno$gh from Ale6andro Donzales,Jr. some doc$ments of transfer *hich he *anted to eamine in connection *ith the preparation of the desired instr$ment of revocation. >e are inclined to state that these ec$ses are rather poor. If



Jose Padilla *as too #$sy to give attention to the matter, he co$ld have very easily informed thetestatri and the latter, if really desiro$s of revo5ing her former *ills, *o$ld have employed another to prepare the re<$isite doc$ment. The fact that there *ere disp$tes #et*een the children of thetestatri certainly *as not an o#stacle to the accomplishment of the *ish of the testatri. either *asit necessary to eamine the doc$ments relating to the properties of the testatri, since the instr$mentof revocation co$ld #e prepared *itho$t any reference to the details of her estate. Indeed, the

instr$ment BEhi#it (KAle6andro and J$an DonzalesC is co$ched in general terms.

7. Even $nder the theory of the appellant Ale6andro Donzales, Jr. it is hard to r$le that the testatrihad s$fficient testamentary capacity at the time of the eec$tion of the alleged instr$ment of revocation. In the first place, onstancio Padilla B#rother of Jose PadillaC merely as5ed the testatri,first, if she *as agreea#le to the instr$ment of revocation prepared #y Jose Padilla, and secondly, if she *as agreea#le to the signing of said doc$ment #y onstancio Padilla, to *hich t*o <$estionsthe testatri allegedly ans*ered 3es3. It is not pretended that the testatri said more a#o$t thematter or gave any f$rther instr$ction. The attesting *itnesses *ere not introd$ced to the testatri,and their presence *as not even mentioned to her. it is o#vio$sly do$#tf$l *hether the testatri$nderstood the meaning and etent of the ceremony. Ass$ming that the testatri ans*ered in theaffirmative the t*o <$estions of onstancio Padilla, *itho$t more, *e cannot fairly attri#$te to her manifestation of her desire to proceed, right then and there, *ith the signing of the <$estionedinstr$ment. In other *ords, contrary to the recital of the attestation cla$se, the testatri cannot rightly#e said to have p$#lished her last *ill to the attesting *itnesses.

The appealed decision is, therefore, affirmed *itho$t costs. 8o ordered.

G.R. No. !!!5 $e6/ember 18, 1909

CATALINA UGNAO, proponent-appellee,

vs.

<RANCI$CO UAG, ET AL., contestants-appellants.

Rodrig*e$ and Del Rosario for appellants.

Fernando 2alas for appellee.

CAR$ON, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the o$rt of "irst Instance of 1riental egros, admitting to pro#ate

a doc$ment p$rporting to #e the last *ill and testament of 0omingo G#ag, deceased. The instr$ment

*as propo$nded #y his *ido*, atalina $gnao, the sole #eneficiary there$nder, and pro#ate *as

contested #y the appellants, *ho are #rothers and sisters of the deceased, and *ho *o$ld #e

entitled to share in the distri#$tion of his estate, if pro#ate *ere denied, as it appears that the

deceased left no heirs in the direct ascending or descending line.

Appellants contend that the evidence of record is not s$fficient to esta#lish the eec$tion of the

alleged *ill in the manner and form prescri#ed in section @%2 of the ode of ivil Proced$re; and

that at the time *hen it is alleged that the *ill *as eec$ted, G#ag *as not of so$nd mind and

memory, and *as physically and mentally incapa#le of ma5ing a *ill.

The instr$ment propo$nded for pro#ate p$rports to #e the last *ill and testament of 0omingo G#ag,

signed #y him in the presence of three s$#scri#ing and attesting *itnesses, and appears $pon its



face to have #een d$ly eec$ted in accordance *ith the provisions of the ode of ivil Proced$re

to$ching the ma5ing of *ills.

T*o of the s$#scri#ing *itnesses, ictor J. ingtoy and atalino Mari4o, testified in s$pport of the

*ill, the latter #eing the 6$stice of the peace of the m$nicipality *herein it *as eec$ted; and their

testimony *as corro#orated in all important details #y the testimony of the proponent herself, *ho

*as present *hen the *ill *as made. It does not appear from the record *hy the third s$#scri#ing

*itness *as not called; #$t since co$nsel for the contestants ma5es no comment $pon his a#sence,

*e thin5 it may safely #e inferred that there *as some good and s$fficient reason therefore. In

passing, ho*ever, it may #e *ell to o#serve that, *hen #eca$se of death, sic5ness, a#sence, or for

any other reason, it is not practica#le to call to the *itness stand all the s$#scri#ing *itnesses to a

*ill offered for pro#ate, the reason for the a#sence of any of these *itnesses sho$ld #e made to

appear of record, and this especially in cases s$ch as the one at #ar, *herein there is a contests.

The s$#scri#ing *itnesses gave f$ll and detailed acco$nts of the eec$tion of the *ill and s*ore that

the testator, at the time of its eec$tion, *as of so$nd mind and memory, and in their presence

attached his signat$re thereto as his last *ill and testament, and that in his presence and in the

presence of each other, they as *ell as the third s$#scri#ing *itness. 0espite the searching and

eha$stive cross-eamination to *hich they *ere s$#6ected, co$nsel for appellants co$ld point to no

fla* in their testimony save an alleged contradiction as to a single incident *hich occ$rred at or

a#o$t the time *hen the *ill *as eec$ted a contradiction, ho*ever, *hich *e thin5 is more

apparent than real. 1ne of the *itnesses stated that the deceased sat $p in #ed and signed his

name to the *ill, and that after its eec$tion food *as given him #y his *ife; *hile the other testified

that he *as assisted into a sitting position, and *as given something to eat #efore he signed his

name. >e thin5 the evidence discloses that his *ife aided the sic5 man to sit $p in #ed at the time

*hen he signed his name to the instr$ment, and that he *as given no$rishment *hile he *as in that

position, #$t it is not <$ite clear *hether this *as immediately #efore or after, or #oth #efore and

after he attached his signat$re to the *ill. To say that the sic5 man sat $p or raised himself $p in #ed

is not necessarily in conflict *ith the fact that he received assistance in doing so; and it is not at all

impro#a#le or impossi#le that no$rishment might have #een given to him #oth #efore and after signing the *ill, and that one *itness might remem#er the former occasion and the other *itness

might recall the latter, altho$gh neither *itness co$ld recall #oth. $t, ho*ever this may have #een,

*e do not thin5 that a slight lapse of memory on the part of one or the other *itness, as to the

precise details of an $nimportant incident, to *hich his attention may not have #een partic$larly

directed, is s$fficient to raise a do$#t as to the veracity of these *itnesses, or as to the tr$th and

acc$racy of their recollection of the fact of the eec$tion of the instr$ment. 1f co$rse, a n$m#er of

contradictions in the testimony of alleged s$#scri#ing *itnesses to a *ill as to the circ$mstances

$nder *hich it *as eec$ted, or even a single contradiction as to a partic$lar incident, *here the

incident *as of s$ch a nat$re that the intention of any person *ho *as present m$st have #een

directed to it, and *here the contradictory statements in regard to it are so clear and eplicit as to

negative the possi#ility or pro#a#ility of mista5e, might *ell #e s$fficient to 6$stify the concl$sion that

the *itnesses co$ld not possi#ly have #een present, together, at the time *hen it is alleged the *ill*as eec$ted; #$t the apparent contradictions in the testimony of the *itnesses in the case at #ar

fall far short of raising a do$#t a to their veracity, and on the other hand their testimony as a *hole

gives s$ch clear, eplicit, and detailed acco$nt of all that occ$rred, and is so convincing and

altogether satisfactory that *e have no do$#t that the trial 6$dge *ho heard them testify properly

accepted their testimony as *orthy of entire confidence and #elief.

The contestants p$t $pon the stand fo$r *itnesses for the p$rpose of proving that at the time and on

the occasion *hen the s$#scri#ing *itnesses testified that the *ill *as eec$ted, these *itnesses



*ere not in the ho$se *ith the testator, and that the alleged testator *as at that time in s$ch physical

and mental condition that it *as impossi#le for him to have made a *ill. T*o of these *itnesses,

$pon cross-eamination, admitted that they *ere not in the ho$se at or #et*een the ho$rs of fo$r

and si in the afternoon of the day on *hich the *ill is alleged to have #een made, this #eing the

time at *hich the *itnesses in s$pport of the *ill testified that it *as eec$ted. 1f the other

*itnesses, one is a contestant of the *ill, Macario G#ag, a #rother of the testator, and the other,

an$to 8inoy, his close relative. These *itnesses s*ore that they *ere in the ho$se of thedeceased, *here he *as lying ill, at or a#o$t the time *hen it is alleged that the *ill *as eec$ted,

and that at that time the alleged s$#scri#ing *itnesses *ere not in the ho$se, and the alleged

testator *as so sic5 that he *as $na#le to spea5, to $nderstand, or to ma5e himself $nderstood, and

that he *as *holly incapacitated to ma5e a *ill. $t the testimony of Macario G#ag is in o$r opinion

*holly $n*orthy of credence. In addition to his manifest interest in the res$lt of the investigation, it

clearly discloses a fied and settled p$rpose to overthro* the *ill at all costs, and to that end an

$tter disregard of the tr$th, and readiness to s*ear to any fact *hich he imagined *o$ld aid in

sec$ring his o#6ect. An admittedly gen$ine and a$thentic signat$re of the deceased *as introd$ced

in evidence for comparison *ith the signat$re attached to the *ill, #$t this *itness in his aniety to

deny the gen$ineness of the signat$re of his #rother to the *ill, promptly and positively s*ore that

the admittedly gen$ine signat$re *as not his #rothers signat$re, and only corrected his erroneo$s

statement in response to a some*hat s$ggestive <$estion #y his attorney *hich evidently gave him

to $nderstand that his former ans*er *as li5ely to pre6$dice his o*n ca$se. 1n cross-eamination,

he *as forced to admit that #eca$se his #rother and his #rothers *ife Bin those favor the *ill *as

madeC *ere Aglipayanos, he and his other #rothers and sisters had not visited them for many

months prior to the one partic$lar occasion as to *hich testified; and he admitted f$rther, that,

altho$gh he lived near at hand, at no time thereafter did he or any of the other mem#ers of his family

visit their dying #rother, and that they did not even attend the f$neral. If the testimony of this *itness

co$ld #e accepted as tr$e, it *o$ld #e a remar5a#le coincidence indeed, that the s$#scri#ing

*itnesses to the alleged *ill sho$ld have falsely pretended to have 6oined in its eec$tion on the very

day, and at the precise ho$r, *hen this interested *itness happened to pay his only visit to his

#rother d$ring his last illness, so that the testimony of this *itness *o$ld f$rnish concl$sive evidence

in s$pport of the allegations of the contestants that the alleged *ill *as not eec$ted at the time and

place or in the manner and form alleged #y the s$#scri#ing *itnesses. >e do not thin5 that the

testimony of this *itness nor any of the other *itnesses for the contestants is s$fficient to raise even

a do$#t as to the tr$th of the testimony of the s$#scri#ing *itnesses as to the fact of the eec$tion of

the *ill, or as to the manner and from in *hich it *as eec$ted.

In the co$rse of the proceedings, an admittedly gen$ine signat$re of the deceased *as introd$ced in

evidence, and $pon a comparison of this signat$re *ith the signat$re attached to the instr$ment in

<$estion, *e are *holly of the opinion of the trial 6$dge, *ho held in this connection as follo*s9

o epert evidence has #een add$ced *ith regard to these t*o signat$res, and the

presiding 6$dge of this co$rt does not claim to possess any special epert 5no*ledge in the

matter of signat$res; nevertheless, the co$rt has compared these t*o signat$res, and doesnot find that any material differences eists #et*een the same. It is tr$e that the signat$re

*hich appears in the doc$ment offered for a$thentication discloses that at the time of *riting

the s$#scri#er *as more deli#erate in his movements, #$t t*o facts m$st #e ac5no*ledge9

"irst, that the testator *as serio$sly ill, and the other fact, that for some reason *hich is not

stated the testator *as $na#le to see, and *as a person *ho *as not in the ha#it of signing

his name every day.



These facts sho$ld s$fficiently eplain *hatever difference may eist #et*een the t*o

signat$res, #$t the co$rt finds that the principal stro5es in the t*o signat$res are identical.

That the testator *as mentally capa#le of ma5ing the *ill is in o$r opinion f$lly esta#lished #y the

testimony of the s$#scri#ing *itnesses *ho s*ore positively that, at the time of its eec$tion, he *as

of so$nd mind and memory. It is tr$e that their testimony discloses the fact that he *as at that time

etremely ill, in an advanced stage of t$#erc$losis complicated *ith severe intermittent attac5s of

asthma; that he *as too sic5 to rise $naided from his #ed; that he needed assistance even to rise

himself to a sitting position; and that d$ring the paroysms of asthma to *hich he *as s$#6ect he

co$ld not spea5; #$t all this evidence of physical *ea5ness in no *ise esta#lishes his mental

incapacity or a lac5 of testamentary capacity, and indeed the evidence of the s$#scri#ing *itnesses

as to the aid f$rnished them #y the testator in preparing the *ill, and his clear recollection of the

#o$ndaries and physical description of the vario$s parcels of land set o$t therein, ta5en together

*ith the fact that he *as a#le to give to the person *ho *rote the *ill clear and eplicit instr$ctions

as to his desires to$ching the disposition of his property, is strong evidence of his testamentary

capacity.

o$nsel for appellant s$ggests that the fact that the alleged *ill leaves all the property of the testator

to his *ido*, and *holly fails to ma5e any provision for his #rothers or sisters, indicates a lac5 of

testamentary capacity and $nd$e infl$ence; and #eca$se of the inherent impro#a#ility that a man

*o$ld ma5e so $nnat$ral and $nreasona#le a *ill, they contend that this fact indirectly corro#orates

their contention that the deceased never did in fact eec$te the *ill. $t *hen it is considered that

the deceased at the time of his death had no heirs in the ascending or descending line; that a #itter

family <$arrel had long separated him from his #rothers and sisters, *ho declined to have any

relations *ith the testator #eca$se he and his *ife *ere adherents of the Aglipayano h$rch; and

that this <$arrel *as so #itter that none of his #rothers or sisters, altho$gh some of them lived in the

vicinity, *ere present at the time of his death or attended his f$neral; *e thin5 the fact that the

deceased desired to leave and did leave all of his property to his *ido* and made no provision for

his #rothers and sisters, *ho themselves *ere gro*n men and *omen, #y no means tends to

disclose either an $nso$nd mind or the presence of $nd$e infl$ence on the part of his *ife, or in any*ise corro#orates contestants allegation that the *ill never *as eec$ted.

It has #een said that 3the diffic$lty of stating standards or tests #y *hich to determine the degree of

mental capacity of a partic$lar person has #een every*here recognized, and gro*s o$t of the

inherent impossi#ility of meas$ring mental capacity, or its impairment #y disease or other ca$ses3

BDreene vs. Dreene, %!+ III., (@!, (=@C; and that 3it is pro#a#le that no co$rt has ever attempted to

lay do*n any definite r$le in respect to the eact amo$nt of mental capacity re<$isite for the ma5ing

of a valid *ill, *itho$t appreciating the diffic$lty of the $nderta5ing3 BTrish vs. e*ell, @( III., %&@,

('7C.

et*een the highest degree of so$ndness of mind and memory *hich $n<$estiona#ly carries *ith it

f$ll testamentary capacity, and that degree of mental a#erration generally 5no*n as insanity or idiocy, there are n$m#erless degrees of mental capacity or incapacity, and *hile on one hand it has

#een held that 3mere *ea5ness of mind, or partial im#ecility from the disease of #ody, or from age,

*ill not render a person incapa#le of ma5ing a *ill, a *ea5 or fee#le minded person may ma5e a

valid *ill, provided he has $nderstanding memory s$fficient to ena#le him to 5no* *hat he is a#o$t,

and ho* or to *hom he is disposing of his property3 BLodge vs.Lodge, ( )o$st. B0el.C, !%2C; that, 3To

constit$te a so$nd and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind sho$ld #e $n#ro5en or

$nimpaired, $nshattered #y disease or other*ise3 B8loan vs. Ma*ell, 7 . J. E<., +@7C; that 3it has



not #een $nderstood that a testator m$st possess these <$alities Bof so$nd and disposing mind and

memoryC in the highest degree. . . . "e* indeed *o$ld #e the *ills confirmed, if this is correct. Pain,

sic5ness, de#ility of #ody, from age or infirmity, *o$ld, according to its violence or d$ration, in a

greater or less degree, #rea5 in $pon, *ea5en, or derange the mind, #$t the derangement m$st #e

s$ch as deprives him of the rational fac$lties common to man3 B0en. vs. ancleve, + . J. L.,@2'C;

and, that 38o$nd mind does not mean a perfectly #alanced mind. The <$estion of so$ndness is one

of degree3 Bo$ghton vs. /night, L. F.,7 P. Q 0., @!; !( L. J. P., (+C; on the other hand, it has #eenheld that 3testamentary incapacity does not necessarily re<$ire that a person shall act$ally #e insane

or of an $nso$nd mind. >ea5ness of intellect, *hether it arises from etreme old age from disease,

or great #odily infirmities or s$ffering, or from all these com#ined, may render the testator incapa#le

of ma5ing a valid *ill, providing s$ch *ea5ness really dis<$alifies her from 5no*ing or appreciating

the nat$re, effects, or conse<$ences of the act she is engaged in3 BManatt vs. 8cott, %'@ Io*a, ('7;

@2 Am. 8t. Fep., (&7, 7'(C.

$t for the p$rposes of this decision it is not necessary for $s to attempt to lay do*n a definition of

testamentary capacity *hich *ill cover all possi#le cases *hich may present themselves, #eca$se,

as *ill #e seen from *hat has already #een said, the testator *as, at the time of ma5ing the

instr$ment $nder consideration, endo*ed *ith all the elements of mental capacity set o$t in the

follo*ing definition of testamentary capacity *hich has #een fre<$ently anno$nced in co$rts of last

resort in England and the Gnited 8tates; and *hile is some cases testamentary capacity has #een

held to eist in the a#sence of proof of some of these elements, there can #e no <$estion that, in the

a#sence of proof of very eceptional circ$mstances, proof of the eistence of all these elements in

s$fficient to esta#lish the eistence of testamentary capacity.

Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nat$re of the transaction *hich the

testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the property to #e disposed of and the person

*ho *o$ld nat$rally #e s$pposed to have claims $pon the testator, and to comprehend the

manner in *hich the instr$ment *ill distri#$te his property among the o#6ects of his #o$nty.

Bf. large array of cases cited in s$pport of this definition in the Encyclopedia of La*, vol. (7, p. =%,second edition.C

In o$r opinion, the evidence of record esta#lishes in a stri5ingly concl$sive manner the eec$tion of

the instr$ment propo$nded as the last *ill and testament of the deceased; that it *as made in strict

conformity *ith the re<$isites prescri#ed #y la*; and that, at the time of its eec$tion, the deceased

*as of so$nd mind and memory, and eec$ted the instr$ment of his o*n free *ill and accord.

The order pro#ating the *ill sho$ld #e land is here#y affirmed, *ith the cost of this instance against

the appellants.

Testamentary Capacity and Intent

Documents

Transcript of Testamentary Capacity and Intent