FACTS:
The case involves a petition for review seeking to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) allowing the probate of the will of Placido Valmonte. Placido was a retiree who returned to the Philippines from the United States and lived in a house and lot he owned jointly with his sister Ciriaca Valmonte. Placido married Josefina when he was 80 years old, but they were married for only a little over two years before Placido passed away. Placido executed a notarial last will and testament, leaving one-half of the jointly owned properties to his wife Josefina and appointing her as the sole executrix of his will. The will was opposed by Leticia, who raised several grounds, including failure to allege all the assets of the testator, failure to state the names, ages, and residences of the heirs, lack of compliance with legal formalities, and alleged mental incapacity and undue influence on the part of Josefina. Both parties presented witnesses at the hearing, including the petitioner Josefina and the instrumental witnesses to the will.
Josefina, the wife of the testator Placido, testified that they lived together in Bacnotan, La Union but would frequently travel to Manila to claim Placido's monthly pension and stay at their Makati residence. During one of his travels alone, Placido executed a notarial will, which Josefina discovered after his death. The will bequeathed Placido's properties to Josefina and named her as the executrix. Josefina estimated the value of the properties to be around P100,000.00. She also mentioned that Placido was of sound mind, despite his old age and occasional hospitalization for minor ailments.
Notary Public Floro Sarmiento testified that Placido and three witnesses went to his house in June 1983 to request the preparation of Placido's last will and testament. Sarmiento instructed them to return on June 15, 1983, but he was out of town at that time. They returned on August 9, 1983, and Sarmiento explained the terms of the will to them in Ilocano, the dialect Placido spoke and understood. Sarmiento also testified that Placido appeared physically and mentally capable when he signed the will.
The witnesses Eugenio and Feliza Gomez corroborated Sarmiento's testimony, stating that Placido requested their accompaniment to Sarmiento's house. They returned on August 9, 1983, and witnessed Placido sign the will. They attested that Placido was of sound mind and in good health during the execution of the will. Josefina was not present during the execution.
Leticia Ortega, an oppositor, argued that Josefina should not be the sole inheritor because there were other children from Placido's siblings entitled to inherit from him. Leticia also attacked Placido's mental capacity, stating that his physical and mental condition showed deterioration and senility during the time she and her family lived with him in 1983. Her daughter, Mary Jane Ortega, supported this claim.
ISSUES:
-
Whether or not the findings of the probate court are entitled to great respect.
-
Whether or not the signature of Placido Valmonte in the subject will was procured by fraud or trickery, and that Placido Valmonte never intended that the instrument should be his last will and testament.
-
Whether or not Placido Valmonte has testamentary capacity at the time he allegedly executed the subject will.
-
Whether there was fraud in the execution of the will.
-
Whether the variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation renders the will invalid.
-
Whether the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will.
RULING:
-
The Petition has no merit.
-
No evidence of fraud was ever presented by the petitioner, other than her self-serving allegations. The burden to prove the existence of fraud shifts to the proponent of the will only upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud. There was no showing that the witnesses of the proponent stood to receive any benefit from the allowance of the will. The testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses and the notary are credible evidence of its due execution. Therefore, the will was not executed through fraud.
-
The conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not render the will invalid. The law does not require that a notarial will be executed and acknowledged on the same occasion. The will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of the testator and of one another. Furthermore, the testator and the witnesses must acknowledge the will before a notary public. The variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily explained by the notary public and the instrumental witnesses.
-
The appellate court was correct in holding that the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will. The testator was able to accurately identify his property, the extent of his shares in them, and even their locations. He also identified his wife as the sole beneficiary, which was sufficient to determine the proper objects of his bounty. The omission of some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity, and there was no showing of fraud in its execution. Thus, intent in its disposition was irrelevant. The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions was on the person who opposed the probate of the will. However, since there was no evidence that the testator was publicly known to be insane one month or less before making the will, the person who maintained the validity of the will did not need to prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval.
PRINCIPLES:
-
The probate of a will is favored by public policy but must still comply with the procedures and requisites mandated by law.
-
The burden of proof lies with the party challenging the will to establish the existence of fraud.
-
A will may be disallowed if the testator was insane or mentally incapable of making a will at the time of its execution.
-
Fraud in the execution of a will involves deception or trickery that leads the testator to sign a document that he/she would not have otherwise signed.
CECILIA GUIMAO v. JESUS CAWED, G.R. NO. 146886, JULY 11, 2006
-
The burden of proving fraud in the execution of a will lies on the proponent of the will, and this burden is only shifted to the other party upon a showing of credible evidence of fraud.
-
The omission of some relatives in a will does not affect its due execution.
-
The conflict in dates on a will does not invalidate the document if it is otherwise executed and attested to in accordance with the law. The law does not require that a notarial will be executed and acknowledged on the same occasion.
-
The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will.
-
If the testator was publicly known to be insane one month or less before making the will, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval.
-
To be considered of sound mind, the testator must have the ability to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of the testator's bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
-
Mere weakness of mind, partial imbecility from disease or age, or mental aberration short of insanity or idiocy does not necessarily render a person incapable of making a valid will. It is sufficient that the person has understanding and memory sufficient to enable them to know what they are doing and how or to whom they are disposing their property.