G.R. No. 174489, 11 April 2012, 669 SCRA 249

FACTS:

Paciencia was a 78 years old spinster when she made her last will and testament in the Pampango dialect on Sept. 13, 1981. The will, executed in the house of retired Judge Limpin, was read to Paciencia twice. After which, Paciencia expressed in the presence of the instrumental witnesses that the document is her last will and testament. She thereafter affixed her signature at the end of the said document on page 3 and then on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof.

Childless and without any brothers or sisters, Paciencia bequeathed all her properties to respondent Lorenzo Laxa and his wife Corazon Laza and their children Luna and Katherine. Lorenzo is Paciencia’s nephew whom she treated as her own son. Conversely, Lorenzo came to know and treated Paciencia as his own mother. Six days after the execution of the Will, Paciencia left for USA. There, she resided with Lorenzo and his family until her death.

Four years after the death of Paciencia, Lorenzo filed a petition with the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and for the issuance of Letters of Administration in his favor. Antonio Baltazar, petitioner filed an opposition to Lorenzo’s petition and averred that the properties subject of Paciencia’s Will belong to Nicomeda Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest; hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath them to Lorenzo.

For petitioners, Rosie testified that her mother and Paciencia were first cousins and that that Paciencia was referred to as magulyan or forgetful because she would sometimes leave her wallet in the kitchen then start looking for it moments later. On cross examination, it was established that Rosie was neither a doctor nor a psychiatrist, that her conclusion that Paciencia was magulyan was based on her personal assessment.

Petitioners filed an Amended Opposition asking the RTC to deny the probate of Paciencias Will on the grounds that Paciencia was mentally incapable to make a Will at the time of its execution, that she was forced to execute the Will under duress or influence of fear or threat and that the execution of the Will had been procured by undue and improper pressure and influence by Lorenzo.

Lorenzo testified that at the time of Paciencias death, she did not suffer from any mental disorder and was of sound mind, was not blind, deaf or mute. Lorenzo belied and denied having used force, intimidation, violence, coercion or trickery upon Paciencia to execute the Will as he was not in the Philippines when the same was executed.

RTC denies the petition for probate of the will and concluded that when Paciencia signed the will, she was no longer possessed of the sufficient reason or strength of mind to have the testamentary capacity. On appeal, CA reversed the decision of the RTC and granted the probate of the will. The petitioner went up to SC for a petition for review on Certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether the authenticity and due execution of the will was sufficiently established to warrant its allowance for probate.

HELD:

Yes. A careful examination of the face of the Will shows faithful compliance with the formalities laid down by law. The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses and the notary public, are all present and evident on the Will. Further, the attestation clause explicitly states the critical requirement that the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses attested and subscribed to the Will in the presence of the testator and of one another. In fact, even the petitioners acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the Will may be authentic although they question of her state of mind when she signed the same as well as the voluntary nature of said act.

The burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the will lies on the shoulders of the petitioners. The SC agree with the position of the CA that the state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a Will. Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind. Besides, Art. 799 of the NCC states: “To be of unsound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the Will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.”

*Case digest by Karen S. Tindugan, LLB-IV, Andres Bonifacio College Law School, SY 2018-2019