homework help,online homework help,online tutors,online tutoring,research paper help,do my homework, https://www.homeworkping.com/

1. 1
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Online Tutoring
https://www.homeworkping.com/G.R. No.
174489 April 11, 2012
ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR, ANTONIO L.
MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACHECO, VIRGILIO
REGALA, JR., and RAFAEL TITCO, Petitioners,
vs.
LORENZO LAXA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
It is incumbent upon those w ho opposethe probate of a w ill toclearly
establish that the decedent w as not of sound and disposing mind at
the time of the execution of said w ill. Otherw ise, the state is duty -
bound to give full effect to the w ishes of the testator to distribute his
estate in the manner provided in his w ill so long as it is legally tenable.1
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 of the June 15, 2006
Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 80979 w hich
reversed the September 30,2003 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 52, Guagua, Pampanga in Special Proceedings No. G-
1186. The assailed CA Decision granted the petition for probate of the
notarial w ill of Paciencia Regala (Paciencia), to w it:
WHEREFORE, premises considered,finding the appeal to be impressed
w ith merit,the decision in SP. PROC. NO. G-1186 dated 30 September
2003, is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered GRANTING the
petition for the probate of the w ill of PACIENCIA REGALA.
SO ORDERED.5
Also assailed herein is the August 31, 2006 CA Resolution6 w hich
denied the M otion for Reconsideration thereto.
Petitioners call us to reverse the CA’s assailed Decision and instead
affirm the Decision of the RTC w hich disallow ed the notarial w ill of
Paciencia.
Factual Antecedents
Paciencia w as a 78 year old spinster w hen she made her last w ill and
testament entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento M iss Paciencia
Regala"7 (Will) in the Pampango dialect on September 13, 1981. The
Will, executed in the house of retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin (Judge
Limpin), w as read to Paciencia tw ice. After w hich, Paciencia
expressed in the presence of the instrumental w itnesses that the
document is her last w ill and testament. She thereafter affixed her
signature at the end of the said document on page 38 and then on
the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof.9
The w itnesses to the Will wereDra. M aria Lioba A. Limpin (Dra. Limpin),
Francisco Garcia (Francisco) and Faustino R. M ercado (Faustino). The
three attested to the Will’s due execution by affixing their signatures
below its attestation clause10and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and
4 thereof,11 in the presence of Paciencia and of one another and of
Judge Limpin w ho acted as notary public.
Childless and w ithout any brothers or sisters,Paciencia bequeathed all
her properties to respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa (Lorenzo) and his w ife
Corazon F. Laxa and their children Luna Lorella Laxa and Katherine
Ross Laxa, thus:
x x x x
Fourth - In consideration of their valuable services to me since then up
to the present by the spouses LORENZO LAXA and CORAZON F. LAXA, I
hereby BEQUEATH,CONVEY and GIVE all my properties enumeratedin
parcels 1 to 5 unto the spouses LORENZO R. LAXA and CORAZON F.
LAXA and their children, LUNA LORELLA LAXA and KATHERINE LAXA,
and the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa and Corazon F. Laxa both of legal
age, Filipinos, presently residing at Barrio Sta. M onica, [Sasmuan],
Pampanga and their children, LUNA LORELLA and KATHERINE ROSS
LAXA, w ho are still not of legal age and living w ith their parents w ho
w ould decide to bequeath since they are the children of the spouses;
x x x x
[Sixth] - Should other properties of mine may be discovered aside from
the properties mentioned in this last w ill and testament, I am also
bequeathing and giving the same to the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa and
Corazon F. Laxa and their two children and I also command them to
offer masses yearly for the repose of my soul and that of D[ñ]a
Nicomeda Regala, Epifania Regala and their spouses and w ith
respect to the fishpond situated at San Antonio, I likew ise command
to fulfill the w ishes of D[ñ]a Nicomeda Regala in accordance w ith her
testament as stated in my testament. x x x 12
The filial relationship of Lorenzo w ith Paciencia remains undisputed.
Lorenzo is Paciencia’s nephew w hom she treated as her ow n son.
Conversely,Lorenzo came to know and treated Paciencia as his ow n
mother.13 Paciencia lived w ith Lorenzo’s family in Sasmuan,
Pampanga and it w as she w ho raised and cared for Lorenzo since his
birth. Six days after the execution of the Will or on September 19, 1981,
Paciencia left for the United States of America (USA). There, she
resided w ith Lorenzo and his family until her death on January 4, 1996.
In the interim, the Will remained in the custody of Judge Limpin.
M ore than four years after the death of Paciencia or on April 27, 2000,
Lorenzo filed a petition14 w ith the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the
probate of the Will of Paciencia and for the issuance of Letters of
Administration in his favor, docketed as Special Proceedings No. G-
1186.
There being no opposition to the petition after its due publication, the
RTC issued an Order on June 13, 200015 allow ing Lorenzo to present
evidence on June 22, 2000. On said date,Dra. Limpin testified that she
w as one of the instrumental witnesses in the execution of the last w ill
and testament of Paciencia on September 13, 1981.16 The Will w as
executed in her father’s (Judge Limpin) home office, in her presence
and of tw o other w itnesses, Francisco and Faustino.17 Dra. Limpin
positively identified the Will and her signatures on all its four

2. 2
pages.18 She likew ise positively identified the signature of her father
appearing thereon.19 Questioned by the prosecutor regarding Judge
Limpin’s present mental fitness,Dra. Limpin testified that her father had
a stroke in 1991 and had to undergo brain surgery.20 The judge can
w alk but can no longer talk and remember her name. Because of this,
Dra. Limpin stated that her father can no longer testify in court.21
The follow ing day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar
(Antonio) filed an opposition22 to Lorenzo’s petition. Antonio averred
that the properties subject of Paciencia’s Will belong to Nicomeda
Regala M angalindan, his predecessor-in-interest; hence, Paciencia
had no right to bequeath them to Lorenzo.23
Barely a month after or on July 20, 2000, Antonio, now joined by
petitioners Sebastian M . Baltazar, Virgilio Regala, Jr., Nenita A.
Pacheco, Felix B. Flores, Rafael Titco, Rosie M . M ateo (Rosie) and
Antonio L. M angalindan filed a Supplemental
Opposition24 contending that Paciencia’s Will w as null and void
because ow nership of the properties had not been transferred and/or
titled to Paciencia before her death pursuant to Article 1049,
paragraph 3 of the Civil Code.25 Petitioners also opposed the issuance
of Letters of Administration in Lorenzo’s favor arguing that Lorenzow as
disqualified to be appointed as such, he being a citizen and resident
of the USA.26 Petitioners prayed that Letters of Administration be
instead issued in favor of Antonio.27
Later still on September 26, 2000, petitioners filed an Amended
Opposition28 asking the RTC to deny the probateof Paciencia’s Will on
the follow ing grounds: the Will w as not executed and attested to in
accordance w ith the requirements of the law ; that Paciencia w as
mentally incapable to make a Will at the time of its execution;that she
w as forced to execute the Will under duress or influence of fear or
threats; that the execution of the Will had been procured by undue
and improper pressure and influence by Lorenzo or by some other
persons for his benefit;that the signature of Paciencia on the Will w as
forged; that assuming the signature to be genuine, it w as obtained
through fraud or trickery; and, that Paciencia did not intend the
document to be her Will. Simultaneously, petitioners filed an
Opposition and Recommendation29 reiterating their opposition to the
appointment of Lorenzo as administrator of the properties and
requesting for the appointment of Antonio in his stead.
On January 29,2001, the RTC issued an Order30 denying the requests
of both Lorenzo and Antonio to be appointed administrator since the
former is a citizen and resident of the USA w hile the latter’s claim as a
co-ow ner of the properties subject of the Will has not yet been
established.
M eanw hile, proceedings on the petition for the probate of the Will
continued. Dra. Limpin w as recalled for cross-examination by the
petitioners. She testified as to the age of her father at the time the
latter notarized the Will of Paciencia; the living arrangements of
Paciencia at the time of the execution of the Will; and the lack of
photographs w hen the event took place. 31
Aside from Dra. Limpin, Lorenzo and M onico M ercado (M onico) also
took the w itness stand. Monico,son of Faustino,testified on his father’s
condition. According to him his father can no longer talk and express
himself due to brain damage. A medical certificate w as presented to
the court to support this allegation. 32
For his part, Lorenzo testified that: from 1944 until his departure for the
USA in April 1980,he lived in Sasmuan, Pampanga w ith his family and
his aunt, Paciencia; in 1981 Paciencia w ent to the USA and lived w ith
him and his family until her death in January 1996; the relationship
betw een him and Paciencia w as like that of a mother and child since
Paciencia took care of him since birth and took him in as an adopted
son; Paciencia w as a spinster w ithout children, and w ithout brothers
and sisters; at the time of Paciencia’s death, she did not suffer from
any mental disorder and w as of sound mind, w as not blind, deaf or
mute;the Will w as in the custody of Judge Limpin and w as only given
to him after Paciencia’s death through Faustino; and he w as already
residing in the USA w hen the Will w as executed.33 Lorenzo positively
identified the signature of Paciencia in three different documents and
in the Will itself and stated that he w as familiar w ith Paciencia’s
signature because he accompanied her in her transactions.34 Further,
Lorenzo belied and denied having used force, intimidation, violence,
coercion or trickery upon Paciencia to execute theWill as he w as not
in the Philippines w hen the same w as executed.35 On cross-
examination,Lorenzo clarified that Paciencia informed him about the
Will shortly after her arrival in the USA but that he saw a copy of the Will
only after her death.36
As to Francisco, he could no longer be presented in court as he
already died on M ay 21, 2000.
For petitioners,Rosie testified that her mother and Paciencia w ere first
cousins.37 She claimed to have helped in the household chores in the
house of Paciencia thereby allowing her to stay therein from morning
until evening and that during the period of her service in the said
household, Lorenzo’s w ife and his children w ere staying in the same
house.38 She served in the said household from 1980 until Paciencia’s
departure for the USA on September 19, 1981.39
On September 13, 1981, Rosie claimed that she saw Faustino bring
"something" for Paciencia to sign at the latter’s house.40 Rosie
admitted,though,that she did not see w hat that "something" w as as
same w as placed inside an envelope.41 How ever, she remembered
Paciencia instructing Faustino to first look for money before she signs
them.42 A few days after or on September 16,1981,Paciencia w ent to
the house of Antonio’s mother and brought w ith her the said
envelope.43 Upon going home,however,the envelope was no longer
w ith Paciencia.44 Rosie further testified that Paciencia w as referred to
as "magulyan" or "forgetful" because she w ould sometimes leave her
w allet in the kitchen then start looking for it moments later.45 On cross
examination,it w as established that Rosie w as neither a doctor nor a
psychiatrist, that her conclusion that Paciencia w as "magulyan" w as
based on her personal assessment,46 and that it w as Antonio w ho
requested her to testify in court.47
In his direct examination, Antonio stated that Paciencia w as his
aunt.48 He identified the Will and testified that he had seen the said
document before because Paciencia brought the same to his
mother’s house and show ed it to him along w ith another document
on September 16,1981.49 Antonio alleged that w hen the documents
w ere shown to him,the same w ere still unsigned.50 According to him,
Paciencia thought that the documents pertained to a lease of one of
her rice lands,51 and it w as he w ho explained that the documents
w ere actually a special pow er of attorney to lease and sell her
fishpond and other properties upon her departure for the USA, and a
Will w hich w ould transfer her properties to Lorenzo and his family upon
her death.52 Upon hearing this, Paciencia allegedly uttered the
follow ing w ords: "Why w ill I never [return], w hy w ill I sell all my
properties?" Who is Lorenzo? Is he the only [son] of God? I have other
relatives [w ho should] benefit from my properties. Why should I die
already?"53 Thereafter, Antonio advised Paciencia not to sign the
documents if she does not w ant to, to w hich the latter purportedly
replied, "I know nothing about those, throw them aw ay or it is up to
you. The more I w ill not sign them."54 After w hich, Paciencia left the
documents w ith Antonio. Antonio kept the unsigned documents
and eventually turned them over to Faustinoon September 18,1981.55
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On September 30, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision56 denying the
petition thus:
WHEREFORE, this court hereby (a) denies the petition dated April 24,
2000;and (b) disallow s the notarized will dated September 13, 1981 of
Paciencia Regala.

3. 3
SO ORDERED.57
The trial court gave considerable w eight tothe testimony of Rosie and
concluded that at the time Paciencia signed the Will, she w as no
longer possessed of sufficient reason or strength of mind to have
testamentary capacity.58
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC Decision and granted the
probate of the Will of Paciencia. The appellate court did not agree
w ith the RTC’s conclusion that Paciencia w as of unsound mind w hen
she executed the Will. It ratiocinated that "the state of being
‘magulyan’ does not make a person mentally unsound so [as] to
render [Paciencia] unfit for executing a Will."59 M oreover, the
oppositors in the probate proceedings werenot able to overcome the
presumption that every person is of sound mind. Further, no concrete
circumstances or events w ere given to prove the allegation that
Paciencia w as tricked or forced into signing the Will.60
Petitioners moved for reconsideration61 but the motion was denied by
the CA in its Resolution62 dated August 31, 2006.
Hence, this petition.
Issues
Petitioners come before this Court by w ay of Petition for Review on
Certiorari ascribing upon the CA the follow ing errors:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED
WHEN IT ALLOWED THE PROBATE OF PACIENCIA’S WILL
DESPITE RESPONDENT’S UTTER FAILURE TO COM PLY WITH
SECTION 11, RULE 76 OF THE RULES OF COURT;
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
M AKING CONCLUSIONS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
EVIDENCE ON RECORD;
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
RULING THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THAT PACIENCIA
WAS NOT OF SOUND M IND AT THE TIM E THE WILL WAS
ALLEGEDLY EXECUTED63
The pivotal issue is w hether the authenticity and due execution of the
notarial Will w as sufficiently established to w arrant its allow ance for
probate.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
Faithful compliance w ith the formalities laid dow n by law is apparent
from the face of the Will.
Courts are tasked to determinenothing morethan the extrinsic validity
of a Will in probate proceedings.64 This is expressly provided for in Rule
75, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, w hich states:
Rule 75
Production of Will. Allow ance of Will Necessary.
Section 1. Allow ance necessary. Conclusive as to execution. – No w ill
shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allow ed
in the proper court. Subject to the right of appeal, such allow ance of
the w ill shall be conclusive as to its due execution.
Due execution of the w ill or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the
testator,being of sound mind,freely executed the w ill in accordance
w ith the formalities prescribed by law.65 These formalities are enshrined
in Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code, to w it:
Art. 805. Every w ill,other than a holographic w ill,must be subscribed at
the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name
w ritten by some other person in his presence, and by his express
direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible
w itnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the
instrumental w itnesses of the w ill, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each
and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all
the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the
upper part of each page.
The attestation shall statethe number of pages used upon w hich the
w ill is w ritten,and the fact that the testator signed the w ill and every
page thereof,or caused some other person to w rite his name, under
his express direction,in the presence of the instrumental w itnesses,and
that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof
in the presence of the testator and of one another.
If the attestation clause is in a language not know n to the witnesses, it
shall be interpreted to them.
Art. 806. Every w ill must be acknow ledged before a notary public by
the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be required
to retain a copy of the w ill, or file another w ith the Office of the Clerk
of Court.
Here, a careful examination of the face of the Will show s faithful
compliance w ith the formalities laid dow n by law . The signatures of
the testatrix, Paciencia, her instrumental w itnesses 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 w itnesses signed the Will in the presence of one
another and that the w itnesses 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 her state of mind w hen she signed
the same as w ell as the voluntary nature of said act.
The burden to prove that Paciencia w as of unsound mind at the time
of the execution of the w ill lies on the shoulders of the petitioners.
Petitioners, through their w itness Rosie, claim that Paciencia w as
"magulyan" or forgetful so much so that it effectively stripped her of
testamentary capacity. They likew ise claimed in their M otion for
Reconsideration66 filed w ith the CA that Paciencia w as not only
"magulyan" but w as actually suffering from paranoia.67
We are not convinced.
We agree w ith 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.68 Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of
unsound mind. Besides, Article 799 of the New Civil Code states:

4. 4
Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in
full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be w holly
unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other
cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator w as able at the time of making the
w ill to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper
objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
In this case, apart from the testimony of Rosie pertaining to
Paciencia’s forgetfulness,there is no substantial evidence, medical or
otherw ise, that w ould show that Paciencia w as of unsound mind at
the time of the execution of the Will. On the other hand,w e find more
w orthy of credence Dra. Limpin’s testimony as to the soundness of
mind of Paciencia w hen the latter went to Judge Limpin’s house and
voluntarily executed the Will. "Thetestimony of subscribing w itnesses to
a Will concerning the testator’s mental condition is entitled to great
w eight wherethey are truthful and intelligent."69 M ore importantly, a
testator is presumedto be of sound mind at the time of the execution
of the Will and the burden to prove otherw ise lies on the oppositor.
Article 800 of the New Civil Code states:
Art. 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the
absence of proof to the contrary.
The burden of proof that the testator w as not of sound mind at the
time of making his dispositions is on the person w ho opposes the
probate of the w ill; but if the testator, one month, or less, before
making his w ill w as publicly know n to be insane, the person w ho
maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it
during a lucid interval.
Here,there w as no show ing that Paciencia w as publicly know n to be
insane one month or less before the making of the Will. Clearly, thus,
the burden to prove that Paciencia w as of unsound mind lies upon
the shoulders of petitioners. How ever and as earlier mentioned, no
substantial evidence w as presented by them to prove the same,
thereby w arranting the CA’s finding that petitioners failed to
discharge such burden.
Furthermore, w e are convinced that Paciencia w as aw are of the
nature of her estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of her
bounty and the character of the testamentary act. As aptly pointed
out by the CA:
A scrutiny of the Will discloses that [Paciencia] w as aw are of the
nature of the document she executed. She specially requested that
the customs of her faith be observed upon her death. She w as w ell
aw are of how she acquired the properties from her parents and the
properties she is bequeathing to LORENZO, to his w ife CORAZON and
to his tw o (2) children. A third child w as born after the execution of the
w ill and w as not included therein as devisee.70
Bare allegations of duress or influence of fear or threats, undue and
improper influence and pressure, fraud and trickery cannot be used
as basis to deny the probate of a w ill.
An essential element of the validity of the Will is the w illingness of the
testator or testatrix to execute the document that will distribute his/her
earthly possessions upon his/her death. Petitioners claim that
Paciencia w as forced to execute the Will under duress or influence of
fear or threats; that the execution of the Will had been procured by
undue and improper pressure and influence by Lorenzo or by some
other persons for his benefit; and that assuming Paciencia’s signature
to be genuine, it w as obtained through fraud or trickery. These are
grounded on the alleged conversation betw een Paciencia and
Antonio on September 16, 1981 w herein the former purportedly
repudiated the Will and left it unsigned.
We are not persuaded.
We take into consideration the unrebutted fact that Paciencia loved
and treated Lorenzo as her ow n son and that love even extended to
Lorenzo’s w ife and children. This kind of relationship is not unusual. It is
in fact not unheard of in our culture for old maids or spinsters to care
for and raise their nephew s and nieces and treat them as their ow n
children. Such is a prevalent and accepted cultural practice that has
resulted in many family discords betw een those favored by the
testamentary disposition of a testator and those who stand to benefit
in case of intestacy.
In this case, evidence show s theacknowledged fact that Paciencia’s
relationship w ith Lorenzo and his family is different from her relationship
w ith petitioners. The very fact that she cared for and raised Lorenzo
and lived w ith him both here and abroad, even if the latter w as
already married and already has children, highlights the special bond
betw een them. This unquestioned relationship betw een Paciencia
and the devisees tends to support the authenticity of the said
document as against petitioners’ allegations of duress, influence of
fear or threats, undue and improper influence, pressure, fraud, and
trickery w hich, aside from being factual in nature, are not supported
by concrete, substantial and credible evidence on record. It is w orth
stressing that bare arguments,no matter how forceful,if not based on
concrete and substantial evidence cannot suffice to move the Court
to uphold said allegations.71 Furthermore, "a purported w ill is not [to
be] denied legalization on dubious grounds. Otherw ise, the very
institution of testamentary succession w ill be shaken to its foundation,
for even if a w ill has been duly executed in fact,w hether x x x it will be
probated w ould have to depend largely on the attitude of those
interested in [the estate of the deceased]."72
Court should be convinced by the evidence presented before it that
the Will w as duly executed.
Petitioners dispute the authenticity of Paciencia’s Will on the ground
that Section 11 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Court w as not complied with.
It provides:
RULE 76
Allowance or Disallowance of Will
Section 11. Subscribing wit nesses produced or account ed for where
will cont est ed. – If the w ill is contested, all the subscribing w itnesses,
and the notary in the case of w ills executed under the Civil Code of
the Philippines, if present in the Philippines and not insane, must be
produced and examined,and the death, absence, or insanity of any
of them must be satisfactorily shown tothe court. If all or some of such
w itnessesare present in the Philippines but outsidethe province where
the w ill has been filed, their deposition must be taken. If any or all of
them testify against the due execution of the w ill,or do not remember
having attested to it, or are otherw ise of doubtful credibility, the w ill
may nevertheless, be allow ed if the court is satisfied from the
testimony of other witnesses and from all the evidence presented that
the w ill w as executed and attested in the manner required by law .
If a holographic w ill is contested,the same shall be allow ed if at least
three (3) w itnessesw hoknow the handwriting of the testator explicitly
declare that the w ill and the signature are in the handw riting of the
testator;in the absence of any competent w itnesses, and if the court
deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. (Emphasis
supplied.)
They insist that all subscribing w itnesses and the notary public should
have been presented in court since all but one w itness, Francisco, are
still living.
We cannot agree w ith petitioners.
We note that the inability of Faustino and Judge Limpin to appear and
testify before the court was satisfactorily explained during the probate

5. 5
proceedings. As testified to by his son, Faustino had a heart attack,
w as already bedridden and could no longer talk and express himself
due to brain damage. To prove this, said w itness presented the
corresponding medical certificate. For her part, Dra. Limpin testified
that her father, Judge Limpin, suffered a stroke in 1991 and had to
undergo brain surgery. At that time,Judge Limpin could no longer talk
and could not even remember his daughter’s name so that Dra.
Limpin stated that given such condition, her father could no longer
testify. It is w ell to notethat at that point, despite ample opportunity,
petitioners neither interposed any objections to the testimonies of said
w itnesses nor challenged the same on cross examination. We thus
hold that for all intents and purposes,Lorenzo w as able to satisfactorily
account for the incapacity and failure of the said subscribing w itness
and of the notary public to testify in court. Because of this the probate
of Paciencia’s Will may be allow ed on the basis of Dra. Limpin’s
testimony proving her sanity and the due execution of the Will, as w ell
as on the proof of her handw riting. It is an established rule that "[a]
testament may not be disallowed just because the attesting witnesses
declare against its due execution; neither does it have to be
necessarily allow edjust because all the attesting w itnesses declare in
favor of its legalization; w hat is decisive is that the court is convinced
by evidence before it, not necessarily from the attesting w itnesses,
although they must testify,that the will was or w as not duly executed
in the manner required by law ."731âwphi1
M oreover,it bears stressing that "[i]rrespective x x x of the posture of
any of the parties as regards the authenticity and due execution of
the w ill x x x in question, it is the mandate of the law that it is the
evidence before the court and/or [evidence that] ought tobe before
it that is controlling."74 "The very existence of [the Will] is in itself prima
facie proof that the supposed [testatrix]has w illed that [her] estatebe
distributed in the manner therein provided, and it is incumbent upon
the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given full effect
independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby."75This,
coupled w ith Lorenzo’s established relationship w ith Paciencia, the
evidence and the testimonies of disinterested w itnesses, as opposed
to the total lack of evidence presented by petitioners apart from their
self-serving testimonies, constrain us to tilt the balance in favor of the
authenticity of the Will and its allow ance for probate.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 15, 2006
and the Resolution dated August 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 80979 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-6801 March 14, 1912
JULIANA BAGTAS, plaintiffs-appellee,
vs.
ISIDRO PAGUIO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Salas and Kalaw for appellant s.
Jose Sant iago for appellee.
TRENT, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of the
Province of Bataan, admitting to probate a document w hich w as
offered as the last w ill and testament of PioquintoPaguio y Pizarro. The
w ill purports to have been executed in the pueblo of Pilar, Province of
Bataan,on the 19th day of April, 1908. The testator died on the 28th of
September, 1909, a year and five months follow ing the date of the
execution of the w ill. The w ill w as propounded by the executrix,
Juliana Bagtas,w idow of the decedent,and the opponents are a son
and several grandchildren by a former marriage, the latter being the
children of a deceased daughter.
The basis of the opposition to the probation of the will is that the same
w as not executed according to the formalities and requirements of
the law touching w ills,and further that the testator was not in the full of
enjoyment and use of his mental faculties and w as without the mental
capacity necessary to execute a valid w ill.
The record show s that the testator, Pioquinto Paguio, for some
fourteen of fifteen years prior to the time of his death suffered from a
paralysis of the left side of his body;that a few years prior to his death
his hearing became impaired and that he lost the pow er of speech.
Ow ing to the paralysis of certain muscles his head fell to one side, and
saliva ran from his mouth. He retained the use of his right hand,
how ever, and w as able to w rite fairly w ell. Through the medium of
signs he w as able to indicate his w ishes to his w ife and to other
members of his family.
At the time of the execution of the w ill there w ere present the four
testamentary witnesses, Agustin Paguio, Anacleto Paguio, and Pedro
Paguio, and attorney, Señor M arco, and one Florentino Ramos.
Anacleto Paguio and the attorney have since died,and consequently
their testimony w as not available upon the trial of the case in the
low er court. The other three testamentary w itnesses and the w itness
Florentino Ramos testified as to the manner in w hich the w ill w as
executed. According to the uncontroverted testimony of these
w itnesses the w ill w as executed in the follow ing manner:
Pioquinto Paguio, the testator, w rote out on pieces of paper notes
and items relating to the disposition of his property, and these notes
w ere in turn delivered to Señor Marco,who transcribed them and put
them in form. The w itnesses testify that the pieces of paper upon
w hich the notes w erewritten are delivered to attorney by the testator;
that the attorney read them to the testator asking if they w ere his
testamentary dispositions; that the testator assented each time w ith
an affirmative movement of his head; that after the w ill as a w hole
had been thus w ritten by the attorney, it w as read in a loud voice in
the presence of the testator and the w itnesses; that Señor M arco
gave the document to the testator;that the latter, after looking over
it, signed it in the presence of the four subscribing w itnesses; and that
they in turn signed it in the presence of the testator and each other.
These are the facts of record w ith reference to the execution of the
w ill and w e are in perfect accord w ith the judgment of the lower court
that the formalities of the Code of Civil Procedure have been fully
complied w ith.
This brings us now to a consideration of appellants' second assignment
of error, viz, the testator's alleged mental incapacity at the time of the
execution of the w ill. Upon this point considerable evidence w as
adduced at the trial. One of the attesting w itnesses testified that at
the time of the execution of the w ill the testator w as in his right mind,
and that although he w as seriously ill, he indicated by movements of
his head w hat his w ishes w ere. Another of the attesting w itnesses
stated that he w as not able to say whether decedent had the full use
of his mental faculties or not,because he had been ill for some years,
and that he (the w itnesses) was not a physician. The other subscribing
w itness,Pedro Paguio,testified in the low er court as a w itness for the
opponents. He w as unable to state w hether or not the w ill w as the
w ish of the testator. The only reasons he gave for his statement w ere
the infirmity and advanced age of the testator and the fact that he
w as unable to speak. The witness stated that the testator signed the
w ill, and he verified his ow n signature as a subscribing w itness.
Florentino Ramos, although not an attesting w itness, stated that he
w as present w hen the w ill w as executed and his testimony w as
cumulative in corroboration of the manner in w hich the w ill w as
executed and as to the fact that the testator signed the w ill. This
w itness also stated that he had frequently transacted matters of
business for the decedent and had w ritten letters and made
inventories of his property at his request,and that immediately before
and after the execution of the w ill he had performed offices of his
character. He stated that the decedent was able to communicate his
thoughts by w riting.The testimony of this w itness clearly indicates the
presence of mental capacity on the part of the testator. Among other
w itnesses for the opponents w ere tw o physician, Doctor Basa and

6. 6
Doctor Viado. Doctor Basa testified that he had attended thetestator
some four or five years prior to his death and that the latter had
suffered from a cerebral congestion from w hich the paralysis resulted.
The follow ing question w as propounded to Doctor Basa:
Q. Referring to mental condition in w hich you found him
the last time you attended him, do you think he w as in his
right mind?
A. I can not say exactly whether he w as in his right mind,
but I noted some mental disorder,because w hen I spoke to
him he did not answ er me.
Doctor Basa testified at more length, but the substance of his
testimony is that thetestator had suffered a paralysis and that he had
noticed some mental disorder. He does not say that the testator w as
not in his right mind at the time of the execution of the w ill, nor does
he give it at his opinion that he w as w ithout the necessary mental
capacity to make a valid w ill. He did not state in w hat way this mental
disorder had manifested itself other than that he had noticed that the
testator did not reply to him on one occasion w hen he visited him.
Doctor Viado, the other physician, have never seen the testator, but
his answ er was in reply to a hypothetical question as to w hat be the
mental condition of a person w ho w as 79 years old and w ho had
suffered from a malady such as the testator w as supposed to have
had according to the testimony of Doctor Basa, w hose testimony
Doctor Viado had heard. He replied and discussed at some length the
symptoms and consequences of the deceasefrom which the testator
had suffered; he read in support of his statements from a w ork by a
German Physician, Dr. Herman Eichost. In answ er,how ever,to a direct
question,he stated that he w ould be unable to certify to the mental
condition of a person w ho w as suffering from such a disease.
We do not think that the testimony of these two physicians in any w ay
strengthens the contention of the appellants. Their testimony only
confirms the fact that the testator had been for a number of years
prior to his death afflicted w ith paralysis, in consequence of w hich his
physician and mental strength was greatly impaired. Neither of them
attempted to state what was the mental condition of the testator at
the time he executed the will in question. Therecan be no doubt that
the testator's infirmities were of a very serious character, and it is quite
evident that his mind w as not as active as it had been in the earlier
years of his life. How ever,w ecan not include from this that he w anting
in the necessary mental capacity to dispose of his property by w ill.
The courts have been called upon frequently to nullify w ills executed
under such circumstances, but the w eight of the authority is in support
if the principle that it is only w hen those seeking to overthrow the w ill
have clearly established the charge of mental incapacity that the
courts w ill intervene to set aside a testamentary document of this
character. In the case of Bugnao vs. Ubag (14 Phil. Rep., 163), the
question of testamentary capacity w as discussed by this court. The
numerous citations there given from the decisions of the United States
courts are especially applicable to the case at bar and have our
approval. In this jurisdiction the presumption of law is in favor of the
mental capacity of the testator and the burden is upon the
contestants of the w ill to prove thelack of testamentary capacity. (In
the matter of the w ill of Cabigting, 14 Phil. Rep., 463; in the matter of
the w ill of Butalid, 10 Phil. Rep., 27; Hernaez vs. Hernaez, 1 Phil. Rep.,
689.)
The rule of law relating to the presumption of mental soundness is w ell
established, and the testator in the case at bar never having been
adjudged insane by a court of competent jurisdiction, this
presumption continues, and it is therefore incumbent upon the
opponents to overcome this legal presumption by proper evidence.
This w e think they have failed to do. There are many cases and
authorities w hich w e might cite to show that the courts have
repeatedly held that mere w eakness of mind and body, induced by
age and disease do not render a person incapable of making a w ill.
The law does not require that a person shall continue in the full
enjoyment and use of his pristine physical and mental pow ers in order
to execute a valid w ill. If such w ere the legal standard, few indeed
w ould be the number of w ills that could meet such exacting
requirements. The authorities,both medical and legal, are universal in
statement that the question of mental capacity is one of degree, and
that there are many gradations from the highest degree of mental
soundness to the low est conditions of diseased mentality w hich are
denominated as insanity and idiocy.
The right to dispose of property by testamentary disposition is as
sacred as any other right w hich a person may exercise and this right
should not be nullified unless mental incapacity is established in a
positive and conclusive manner. In discussing the question of
testamentary capacity, it is stated in volume 28, 70, of the American
and English Encyclopedia of Law , that —
Contrary to the very prevalent lay impression, perfect
soundness of mind is not essential to testamentary capacity.
A testator may be afflicted w ith a variety of mental
w eaknesses,disorders,or peculiarities and still be capable in
law of executing a valid w ill.(See the numerous cases there
cited in support of this statement.)
The rule relating to testamentary capacity is stated in Busw ell on
Insanity, section 365, and quoted w ith approval inCampbell vs.
Campbell (130 Ill., 466), as follow s:
To constitute a sound and disposing mind,it is not necessary
that the mind shall be w holly unbroken, unimpaired, or
unshattered by disease or otherw ise, or that the testator
should be in the full possession of his reasoning faculties.
In note, 1 Jarman on Wills, 38, the rule is thus stated:
The question is not so much, that w as the degreeof memory
possessed by the testator, as, had he a disposing memory?
Was he able to remember the property he w as about to
bequeath,the manner of disturbing it,and the objects of his
bounty? In a w ord, w ere his mind and memory sufficiently
sound to enable him to know and understand the business in
w hich he w as engaged at the time w hen he executed his
w ill. (See authorities there cited.)
In Wilson vs. Mit chell (101 Penn., 495), the follow ing facts appeared
upon the trial of the case: The testator died at the age of nearly 102
years. In his early years he w as an intelligent and w ell informed man.
About seven years prior to his death he suffered a paralytic stroke and
from that time his mind and memory w ere mush enfeebled. He
became very dull of hearing and in consequence of the shrinking of
his brain he w as affected with senile cataract causing total blindness.
He became filthy and obscene in his habits, although formerly he w as
observant of the properties of life. The court,in commenting upon the
case, said:
Neither age,nor sickness, nor extreme distress,nor debility of
body w ill affect the capacity to make a w ill, if sufficient
intelligence remains. The failure of memory is not sufficient to
create the incapacity, unless it be total, or extend to his
immediate family or property. . . .
x x x x x x x x x
Dougal (the testator) had lived over one hundred years
before he made the w ill, and his physical and mental
w eakness and defective memory w ere in striking contrast
w ith their strength in the meridian of his life. He w as blind;not
deaf, but hearing impaired; his mind acted slow ly, he w as
forgetful or recent events, especially of names, and
repeated questions in conversation; and sometimes, w hen

7. 7
aroused for sleep or slumber, w ould seem bew ildered. It is
not singular that some of those w ho had know n him w hen
he w as remarkable for vigor and intelligence, are of the
opinion that his reason w as so far gone that he w as
incapable of making a w ill, although they never heard him
utter an irrational expression.
In the above case the w ill w as sustained.In the case at bar w e might
draw the same contrast as w as pictured by the court in the case just
quoted. The striking change in the physical and mental vigor of the
testator during the last years of his life may have led some of those
w ho knew him in his earlier days to entertain doubts as to his mental
capacity to make a w ill, yet w e think that the statements of the
w itnessesto the execution of the w ill and statements of the conduct
of the testator at that time all indicate that he unquestionably had
mental capacity and that he exercised it on this occasion. At the time
of the execution of the w ill it does not appear that his conduct w as
irrational in any particular. He seems to have comprehended clearly
w hat the nature of the business w as in w hich he w as engaged. The
evidence show that thewriting and execution of the w ill occupied a
period several hours and that the testator w as present during all this
time,taking an active part in all the proceedings. Again, the w ill in the
case at bar is perfectly reasonable and its dispositions are those of a
rational person.
For the reasons above stated, the order probating the w ill should be
and the same is hereby affirmed,w ith costs of this instance against the
appellants.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Moreland,
JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 4445 September 18, 1909
CATALINA BUGNAO, proponent-appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO UBAG, ET AL., contestants-appellants.
Rodriguez and Del Rosario for appellant s.
Fernando Salas for appellee.
CARSON, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Oriental
Negros, admitting to probate a document purporting to be the last
w ill and testament of Domingo Ubag, deceased. The instrument w as
propounded by his w idow , Catalina Bugnao, the sole beneficiary
thereunder,and probate w as contested by the appellants, w ho are
brothers and sisters of the deceased, and w ho w ould be entitled to
share in the distribution of his estate, if probate w 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 sufficient to
establish the execution of the alleged w ill in the manner and form
prescribed in section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and that at
the time w hen it is alleged that the will w as executed, Ubag w as not
of sound mind and memory, and w as physically and mentally
incapable of making a w ill.
The instrument propoundedfor probate purports to be the last will and
testament of Domingo Ubag, signed by him in the presence of three
subscribing and attesting w itnesses, and appears upon its face to
have been duly executed in accordance w ith the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure touching the making of w ills.
Tw o of the subscribing w itnesses, Victor J. Bingtoy and Catalino
M ariño,testified in support of the will,the latter being the justice of the
peace of the municipality w herein it w as executed; and their
testimony was corroborated in all important details by thetestimony of
the proponent herself, w ho w as present w hen the w ill w as made. It
does not appear from the record w hy thethird subscribing w itness was
not called; but since counsel for the contestants makes no comment
upon his absence, w e think it may safely be inferred that there w as
some good and sufficient reason therefore. In passing, how ever, it
may be w ell to observe that, w hen because of death, sickness,
absence, or for any other reason, it is not practicable to call to the
w itness stand all the subscribing w itnesses to a w ill offered for probate,
the reason for the absence of any of these w itnesses should be made
to appear of record, and this especially in cases such as the one at
bar, w herein there is a contests.
The subscribing w itnesses gave full and detailed accounts of the
execution of the w ill and sw ore that the testator, at the time of its
execution, w as of sound mind and memory, and in their presence
attached his signature thereto as his last w ill and testament, and that
in his presence and in the presence of each other,they as w ell as the
third subscribing w itness. Despite the searching and exhaustive cross-
examination to w hich they w ere subjected, counsel for appellants
could point to no flaw in their testimony savean alleged contradiction
as to a single incident w hich occurred at or about the time w hen the
w ill w as executed a contradiction, how ever, w hich w e think is more
apparent than real. One of the w itnesses stated that the deceased
sat up in bed and signed his name to the w ill, and that after its
execution food was given him by his w ife;w hile the other testifiedthat
he w as assisted into a sitting position,and w as given something to eat
before he signed his name. We think the evidence discloses that his
w ife aided the sick man to sit up in bed at the time w hen he signed his
name to the instrument,and that he w as given nourishment w hile he
w as in that position, but it is not quite clear w hether this w as
immediately before or after, or both before and after he attached his
signature to the w ill. To say that the sick man sat up or raised himself
up in bed is not necessarily in conflict w ith the fact that he received
assistance in doing so; and it is not at all improbable or impossible that
nourishment might have been given to him both before and after
signing the w ill, and that one w itness might remember the former
occasion and the other w itness might recall the latter, although
neither w itness could recall both. But, how ever this may have been,
w e do not think that a slight lapse of memory on the part of one or the
other w itness,as to the precise details of an unimportant incident, to
w hich his attention may not have been particularly directed, is
sufficient to raise a doubt as to the veracity of these witnesses,or as to
the truth and accuracy of their recollection of the fact of the
execution of the instrument. Of course, a number of contradictions in
the testimony of alleged subscribing w itnesses to a w ill as to the
circumstances under w hich it w as executed, or even a single
contradiction as to a particular incident, w here the incident w as of
such a nature that the intention of any person w ho w as present must
have been directed to it,and w here the contradictory statements in
regard to it are so clear and explicit as to negative the possibility or
probability of mistake,might well be sufficient to justify the conclusion
that the w itnesses could not possibly have been present, together, at
the time w hen it is alleged the w ill w as executed; but the apparent
contradictions in the testimony of the w itnesses in the case at bar fall
far short of raising a doubt a to their veracity, and on the other hand
their testimony as a w hole gives such clear, explicit, and detailed
account of all that occurred, and is so convincing and altogether
satisfactory that w e have no doubt that the trial judge w ho heard
them testify properly accepted their testimony as w orthy of entire
confidence and belief.
The contestants put upon the stand four w itnesses for the purpose of
proving that at the time and on the occasion w hen the subscribing
w itnessestestified that the will was executed,these witnesses werenot
in the house w ith the testator, and that the alleged testator w as at
that time in such physical and mental condition that it w as impossible
for him to have made a w ill. Tw o of these w itnesses, upon cross-
examination,admitted that they were not in the house at or between
the hours of four and six in the afternoon of the day on w hich the w ill is
alleged to have been made, this being the time at w hich the
w itnesses in support of the w ill testified that it w as executed. Of the
other w itnesses, one is a contestant of the w ill, M acario Ubag, a
brother of the testator,and the other,Canuto Sinoy, his close relative.

8. 8
These w itnessesswore that they w ere in the house of the deceased,
w here he w as lying ill,at or about the time when it is alleged that the
w ill w as executed, and that at that time the alleged subscribing
w itnessesw ere not in the house, and the alleged testator w as so sick
that he w as unable to speak, to understand, or to make himself
understood,and that he w as w holly incapacitated to makea w ill. But
the testimony of M acario Ubag is in our opinion w holly unw orthy of
credence. In addition to his manifest interest in the result of the
investigation, it clearly discloses a fixed and settled purpose to
overthrow the will at all costs,and to that end an utter disregard of the
truth, and readiness to sw ear to any fact w hich he imagined w ould
aid in securing his object. An admittedly genuine and authentic
signature of the deceased w as introduced in evidence for
comparison w ith the signatureattached to the w ill, but this w itness in
his anxiety todeny the genuineness of the signature of his brother to
the w ill, promptly and positively sw ore that the admittedly genuine
signature w as not his brother's signature, and only corrected his
erroneous statement in response to a somew hat suggestive question
by his attorney which evidently gavehim to understand that his former
answ er w as likely to prejudice his ow n cause. On cross-examination,
he w as forced to admit that because his brother and his brother's wife
(in those favor the w ill was made) were Aglipayanos, he and his other
brothers and sisters had not visited them for many months prior to the
one particular occasion as to w hich testified;and he admitted further,
that,although he lived near at hand, at no time thereafter did he or
any of the other members of his family visit their dying brother, and
that they did not even attend the funeral. If the testimony of this
w itness could be accepted as true, it w ould be a remarkable
coincidence indeed,that the subscribing w itnessesto the alleged w ill
should have falsely pretended to have joined in its execution on the
very day, and at the precise hour, w hen this interested w itness
happened to pay his only visit to his brother during his last illness, so
that the testimony of this w itness w ould furnish conclusive evidence in
support of the allegations of the contestants that the alleged w ill w as
not executed at the time and place or in the manner and form
alleged by the subscribing w itnesses. We do not think that the
testimony of this w itness nor any of the other w itnesses for the
contestants is sufficient to raise even a doubt as to the truth of the
testimony of the subscribing witnesses as to the fact of the execution
of the w ill, or as to the manner and from in w hich it w as executed.
In the course of the proceedings,an admittedly genuine signature of
the deceased w as introduced in evidence, and upon a comparison
of this signature w ith the signature attached to the instrument in
question,w e are w holly of the opinion of the trial judge, w ho held in
this connection as follow s:
No expert evidence has been adduced w ith regard to
these tw o signatures, and the presiding judge of this court
does not claim to possess any special expert know ledge in
the matter of signatures; nevertheless, the court has
compared these two signatures,and does not find that any
material differences exists between the same. It is true that
the signature w hich appears in the document offered for
authentication discloses that at the time of w riting the
subscriber w as more deliberate in his movements, but tw o
facts must be acknow ledge: First, that the testator w as
seriously ill, and the other fact, that for some reason w hich is
not stated the testator was unable to see,and w as a person
w ho w as not in the habit of signing his name every day.
These facts should sufficiently explain w hatever difference
may exist betw een the tw o signatures, but the court finds
that the principal strokes in the tw o signatures are identical.
That the testator w as mentally capable of making the w ill is in our
opinion fully established by the testimony of the subscribing w itnesses
w ho sw ore positively that,at the time of its execution,he w as of sound
mind and memory. It is true that their testimony discloses the fact that
he w as at that time extremely ill,in an advanced stage of tuberculosis
complicated w ith severe intermittent attacks of asthma; that he w as
too sick to rise unaided from his bed; that he needed assistance even
to rise himself to a sitting position; and that during the paroxysms of
asthma to w hich he w as subject he could not speak; but all this
evidence of physical w eakness in no w ise establishes his mental
incapacity or a lack of testamentary capacity, and indeed the
evidence of the subscribing w itnesses as to the aid furnished them by
the testator in preparing the w ill, and his clear recollection of the
boundaries and physical description of the various parcels of land set
out therein,taken together with the fact that he w as able to give to
the person w ho w rote the w ill clear and explicit instructions as to his
desires touching the disposition of his property, is strong evidence of
his testamentary capacity.
Counsel for appellant suggests that the fact that the alleged w ill
leaves all the property of the testator to his widow , and w holly fails to
make any provision for his brothers or sisters, indicates a lack of
testamentary capacity and undue influence; and because of the
inherent improbability that a man w ould make so unnatural and
unreasonable a w ill,they contend that this fact indirectly corroborates
their contention that the deceasednever did in fact ex ecute the w ill.
But w hen it is considered that the deceased at the time of his death
had no heirs in the ascending or descending line; that a bitter family
quarrel had long separated him from his brothers and sisters, w ho
declined to have any relations w ith the testator because he and his
w ife w ere adherents of the Aglipayano Church; and that this quarrel
w as so bitter that none of his brothers or sisters,although some of them
lived in the vicinity,w ere present at the time of his death or attended
his funeral; w e think the fact that the deceased desired to leave and
did leave all of his property to his w idow and made no provision for his
brothers and sisters,w ho themselves weregrown men and w omen,by
no means tends to disclose either an unsound mind or the presence of
undue influence on the part of his w ife, or in any w ise corroborates
contestants' allegation that the w ill never w as executed.
It has been said that "the difficulty of stating standards or tests by
w hich to determine the degree of mental capacity of a particular
person has been everyw here recognized, and grow s out of the
inherent impossibility of measuring mental capacity, or its impairment
by disease or other causes" (Greene vs. Greene,145 III.,264, 276); and
that "it is probable that no court has ever attempted to lay dow n any
definite rule in respect to the exact amount of mental capacity
requisite for the making of a valid w ill, w ithout appreciating the
difficulty of the undertaking" (Trish vs. New ell, 62 III., 196, 203).
Betw een the highest degreeof soundness of mind and memory which
unquestionably carries w ith it full testamentary capacity, and that
degree of mental aberration generally know n as insanity or idiocy,
there are numberless degrees of mental capacity or incapacity, and
w hile on one hand it has been held that "mere w eakness of mind, or
partial imbecility from the diseaseof body,or from age,w ill not render
a person incapable of making a w ill,a w eak or feeble minded person
may make a valid w ill, provided he has understanding memory
sufficient to enable him to know w hat he is about, and how or to
w hom he is disposing of his property" (Lodge vs. Lodge,2 Houst. (Del.),
418); that, "To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not
necessary that the mind should be unbroken or unimpaired,
unshattered by disease or otherw ise" (Sloan vs. M axw ell, 3 N. J. Eq.,
563); that "it has not been understood that a testator must possess
these qualities (of sound and disposing mind and memory) in the
highest degree. . . . Few indeed w ould be the w ills confirmed, if this is
correct. Pain, sickness, debility of body, from age or infirmity, w ould,
according to its violence or duration,in a greater or less degree,break
in upon, w eaken,or derange the mind,but the derangement must be
such as deprives him of the rational faculties common to man"
(Den. vs. Vancleve, 5 N. J. L.,680); and, that "Sound mind does not
mean a perfectly balanced mind. The question of soundness is one of
degree" (Boughton vs. Knight, L. R.,3 P. & D., 64; 42 L. J. P., 25); on the
other hand, it has been held that "testamentary incapacity does not
necessarily require that a person shall actually be insane or of an
unsound mind. Weakness of intellect, w hether it arises from extreme
old age from disease,or great bodily infirmities or suffering, or from all
these combined,may render the testator incapable of making a valid
w ill, providing such w eakness really disqualifies her from know ing or
appreciating the nature, effects, or consequences of the act she is

9. 9
engaged in" (M anatt vs. Scott, 106 Iow a, 203; 68 Am. St. Rep., 293,
302).
But for the purposes of this decision it is not necessary for us to attempt
to lay dow n a definition of testamentary capacity w hich w ill cover all
possible cases w hich may present themselves, because, as w ill be
seen from w hat has already been said,the testator was,at the time of
making the instrument under consideration, endow ed w ith all the
elements of mental capacity set out in the follow ing definition of
testamentary capacity w hich has been frequently announced in
courts of last resort in England and the United States;and w hile is some
cases testamentary capacity has been held to exist in the absence of
proof of some of these elements,there can be no question that,in the
absence of proof of very exceptional circumstances, proof of the
existence of all these elementsin sufficient to establish the existence of
testamentary capacity.
Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the
nature of the transaction w hich the testator is engaged at
the time,to recollect the property to be disposed of and the
person w ho w ould naturally be supposed to have claims
upon the testator,and to comprehend the manner in w hich
the instrument w ill distributehis property among the objects
of his bounty.
(Cf. large array of cases cited in support of this definition in the
Encyclopedia of Law , vol. 23, p. 71, second edition.)
In our opinion, the evidence of record establishes in a strikingly
conclusive manner the execution of the instrument propounded as
the last w ill and testament of the deceased;that it w as made in strict
conformity w ith the requisites prescribed by law;and that, at the time
of its execution,the deceased w as of sound mind and memory, and
executed the instrument of his ow n free w ill and accord.
The order probating the will should be land is hereby affirmed,w ith the
cost of this instance against the appellants.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-24569 February 26, 1926
MANUEL TORRES, petitioner-appellant and
LUZ LOPEZ DE BUENO, appellant,
vs.
MARGARITA LOPEZ, opponent-appellee.
Aranet a & Zaragoza for appellant .
Marcaida, Capili & Ocampo and Thomas Cary Welch for appellee.
MALCOLM, J.:
This case concerns the probate of the alleged w ill of the late Tomas
Rodriguez y Lopez.
Tomas Rodriguez died in the City of M anila Philippine Islands. On
February 25, 1924, leaving a considerable estate. Shortly thereafter
M anuel Torres,one of the executors named in the w ill asked that the
w ill of Rodriguez be allow ed. Opposition w as entered by M argarita
Lopez, the first cousin of the deceased on the grounds: (1) That the
testator lacked mental capacity because at the time of senile
dement ia and was under guardianship; (2) that undue influence had
been exercised by the persons benefited in the document in
conjunction w ith others w ho acted in their behalf; and (3) that the
signature of Tomas Rodriguez to the document was obtained through
fraud and deceit. After a prolonged trial judgment w as rendered
denying the legalization of the w ill. In the decision of the trial judge
appeared, among others, these findings:
All this evidence taken together with the circumstances that
before and at the time Tomas Rodriguez was caused to sign
the supposed w ill Exhibit A, and the copies thereof there
already existed a final judgment as to his mental condition
w herein he w as declared physically and mentally
incapacitated to take care of himself and manage his
estate show s in a clear and conclusive manner that at the
time of signing the supposed w ill of Tomas Rodriguez did not
possess such mental capacity as w as necessary to be able
him to dispose of his property by the supposed w ill.
But even supposing as contended by petitioner's counsel
that Tomas Rodriguez w as at the time of execution of the
w ill, competent to make a w ill, the court is of the opinion
that the w ill cannot be probated for it appears from the
declaration of the attesting witness Elias Bonoan that w hen
the legatee Luz Lopez presented the supposed will,Exhibit A,
to Tomas Rodriguez, she told him to sign said Exhibit A
because it w as a document relative to the complaint
against one Castito, w hich Exhibit 4, then pending in the
justice of the peace court, and for the further reason that
said Tomas Rodriguez w as then under guardianship, due to
his being mentally and physically incapacitated and
therefore unable to manage his property and take care of
himself. It must also be taken into account that Tomas
Rodriguez w as an old man 76 years of age, and w as sick in
the hospital w hen his signature to the supposed w ill w as
obtained. All of this show s that the signature of Tomas
Rodriguez appearing in the w ill w as obtained through
fraudulent and deceitful representations of thosewho w ere
interested in it. (Record on Appeal, p. 23)
From the decision and judgment above-mentioned the proponents
have appealed. Two errors are specified,viz: (1) The court below erred
in holding that at the time of signing his w ill, Tomas Rodriguez did not
possess the mental capacity necessary to make the same,and (2) the
court below erred in holding that the signatures of Tomas Rodriguez to
the w ill w ere obtained through fraudulent and deceitful
representations,made by persons interested in the executions of said
w ill.
The record is voluminous — close to tw o thousand typew ritten pages,
w ith a varied assortment of exhibits. One brief contains tw o hundred
seventy-four pages, the other four hundred fifteen pages. The usual
oral argument has been had. The court must scale this mountains of
evidence more or less relevant and of argument intense and prolific to
discover the fertile valleys of fact and principle.
The topics suggested by the assignments of error — Testamentary
Capacity and Undue Influence — w ill be taken up separately and in
order. An attempt w ill be made under each subject first to make
findings of fact quite separate and apart from those of the judge and
second to make findings of law and the law by rendering judgment.
I. TESTAM ENTARY CAPACITY
A. Fact s. — For a long time prior to October, 1923, Tomas Rodriguez
w as in feeble health. His breakdown was undoubtedly due to organic
w eakness,to advancing years and to an accident w hich occurred in
1921 (Exhibit 6). Ultimately, on August 10 1923, on his initiative, Tomas
Rodriguez designated Vicente F. Lopez as the administrator of his
property (Exhibit 7).
On October 22, 1923, M argarita Lopez petitioned the Court of First
Instance of M anila to name a guardian for Tomas Rodriguez because
of his age and pathological state. This petition w as opposed by
Attorney Gregorio Araneta acting on behalf of Tomas Rodriguez for
the reason that w hile Rodriguez w as far from strong on account of his
years, he w as yet capable of looking after his property w ith the
assistance of his administrator, Vicente F. Lopez. The deposition of
Tomas Rodriguez w as taken and a perusal of the same show s that he

10. 10
w as able to answ er nearly all of the questions propoundedintelligently
(Exhibit 5-g). A trial had at w hich considerable oral testimony for the
petitioner w as received. At the conclusion of the hearing, an order
w as issued by the presiding judge, declaring Tomas Rodriguez
incapacitated to take care of himself and to manage his property
and naming Vicente F. Lopez as his guardian. (Exhibit 37).
Inasmuch as counsel for the appellee make such of one incident
w hich occurred in connection w ith the guardianship proceedings, it
may as w ell be mentioned here as later. This episode concerns the
effort of deputy sheriff Joaquin Garcia to make service on Tomas
Rodriguez on October 31, 1923. We w ill let the w itness tell in his ow n
w ords w hat happened on the occasions in question:
I found him lying dow n on his bed. . . . And w hen it (the
cleaning of his head) w as finished,I again entered his room,
and told him that I had an order of the court w hich I w anted
to read as I did read to him, but after reading the order he
asked me w hat the order meant;'I read it to you so that you
may appear before the court, understand,' then I read it
again, but he asked w hat the order said;in view of that fact
I left the order and departed from the house. (S. R., p. 642.)
To return to our narrative — possibly inspired by the latter portion of the
order of Judge Diaz, Tomas Rodriguez w as taken to the Philippine
General Hospital on November 27,1923. Therehe w as to remain sick in
bed until his death. The physician in charge during this period w as Dr.
Elias Domingo. In the clinical case record of the hospital under the
topic "Diagnosis (in full)," w e find the follow ing "Senility; Hernia inguinal;
Decubitus" (Exhibit 8).
On the door of the patient's room w as placed a placard reading —
"No visitors,except father,mother,sisters,and brothers." (Testimony of
head nurse physician, there w ere permitted to visit the patient only
the follow ing named persons: Santiago Lopez, M anuel Ramirez,
Romana Lopez, Luz Lopez de Bueno, Remedio Lopez, Benita Lopez,
Trinidad Vizcarra, Apolonia Lopez, Antonio Haman, and Gregorio
Araneta ((Exhibit 9). The list did not include the names of M argarita
Lopez and her husband Antonio Ventura. Indeed the last named
persons experienced considerable difficulty in penetrating in to the
room of Rodriguez.
Santiago Lopez states that on one occasion w hen he w as visiting
Tomas Rodriguez in the hospital ,Rodriguez expressed to him a desire
to make a w ill and suggested that the matter be taken up w ith
Vicente F. Lopez (S. R., p. 550). This information Santiago Lopez
communicated to Vicente F. Lopez,w ho then interview ed M aximino
M ina, a practicing attorney in the City of M anila, for the purpose of
securing him to prepare the w ill. In accordance w ith this request,
Judge M ina conferred w ith Tomas Rodriguez in the hospital in
December 16th and December 29th. He ascertained the w ishes of
Rodriguez and w rote up a testament in rough draft. The attorney
expected to return to the hospital on December 31st to have the w ill
executed but w as unable to do so on account of having to make a
trip to the provinces. Accordingly,the papers w ere left w ith Santiago
Lopez.
In corroboration of the above statements, w e transcribe a portion of
Judge M ina's testimony w hich has not been challenged in any w ay:
ARANETA: Q. Will you please tell your motive for holding an
interview w ith Vicente Lopez?
M AXIM INO M INA: A. Then I arrived in the house of Vicente
Lopez, after the usual greeting and other unimportant
things, he consulted me or presented the question as to
w hether or not D. Tomas could make his w ill, having
announced his desire to do so. I told him that it seemed that
w e w ere not called upon to decide or give an opinion as to
w hether or not he can make a w ill; it is a question to be
submitted to the court,but as he had announced his desire,
it is our duty to comply w ith it. Then he requested me to do
w hat w as necessary to comply w ith his w ishes: I told him I
w as to see him;then w e agreed that on the morning next to
the follow ing evening that is on the 16th, I should go to the
General Hospital and so I did.
Q. Did you go to the hospital in the evening of the 16th? —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you meet D. Tomas? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did D. Tomas tell you his desire to make a w ill?
OCAM PO: Leading.
ARANETA: I w ithdraw.What,if anything,did D. Tomas tell you
on that occasion w hen you saw him there? — A. He told me
that.
Q. Please tell us w hat conversation you had w ith D. Tomas
Rodriguez? — A. The conversation I had w ith him that
evening — according to my best recollection — I cannot tell
the exact w ords and perhaps the order. After the usual
greetings, Good evening, D. Tomas, ' Good evening,' How
are you,' ' How do you do? Very w ell, just came here in the
name of D. Vicente Lopez w hy does he not come. He
cannot come because he has many things to do, and
besides it is hard for him and makes him tired, so he told me
to come.' M ina,your tenant,attorney.' Are you an attorney?
Yes.' Where do you live? I live in Quiapo.' Oh, in Quiapo, a
good district, it is gay a commercial place you must have
some business there because that is a commercial place.
Unfortunately, I have none, D. Tomas.' Well, you must be
have because the profession alone does not give enough.
Where is your office? I w ork in the office of M r. Chicote. That
M r. Chicote must be rich, it seems to me that he is. The
profession gives almost nothing it is better to have
properties. I am an attorney but do not depend upon my
profession. I interrupted D. Tomas saying, since you w ant to
make a w ill,w hen and to w hom do you want to leave your
fortune? Then he said, To w hom else? To my cousin Vicente
Lopez and his daughter Luz Lopez. Which properties do you
w ant to give to your cousin and niece? All my properties,
Won't you specify the property to be given to each of
them? What for? All my property. Don't you have any other
relatives? Yes, sir I have. Won't you give any to those
relatives? What for? w as his answ er. Well, do you w ant to
specify said properties,to say w hat they are? and he again
said, What for? they know them,he is my attorney-in-fact as
to all property. I also said,Well and as legacy w on't you give
property to other persons? answ ers, I think, something, they
w ill know it. After being asked, Whom do you think, w ould
you w ant to be your executor? After hesitating a little, This
Torres, M anuel or Santiago Lopez also. Then I asked him,
What is your religion? He answ ered, Roman Apostolic
Catholic, and then he also asked me, and your? Also
Roman Apostolic Catholic, Where have you studied?' 'In the
University of Santo Tomas.' 'It is convenient to preserve the
Catholic religion that our descendants have left us. And you,
w hat did you have anything more to say as to your
testamentary dispositions? No, he answ ered. Then I remind
him, 'You know that Vicente Lopez has sent me to get these
dispositions of yours, and he said, Yes, do it.' I asked him,
When do you w ant it done? Later on, I w ill send for you.
After this believing to have done my duty,I bade him good-
bye.
Q. Did you have any other occasion to see him? — A. Yes.
Q. When? — A. On December 29,1923, also in the evening.

11. 11
Q. Why did you go to see him? — A. Because as I had not
received any message either from Vicente Lopez or Tomas
Rodriguez, as I had received notices in connection w ith the
few cases I had in the provinces particularly in Tayabas,
w hich compelled me to be absent from Manila until January
1st at least,for I might be there for several days,so I w ent to
the General Hospital of my ow n accord — since I had not
received any messages from them — w ith a rough draft
w hich I had prepared in accordance w ith w hat he had told
me in our conversation. After the greetings,I told him, Here I
am D. Tomas; this is the rough draft of your w ill in
accordance w ith your former statements to me in order to
submit it to you. Do you w ant to read it?' 'Please do me the
favor of reading it. I read it slow ly to him in order that he
could understand it . After reading, Is it all right, that is the
w ay,— few w ords — you see it takes only a few minutes;
now I can execute the w ill. We can do it takes only a few
minutes.' In view of that statement of his, I called his
attention,' But w e don't have witnesses, D. Tomas.' I looked
out through the door to see if I could call some w itnesses but
it w as late then and it w as thought better todo it on the 31st
of December. Then w e talked about other things, and he
again asked. Where w ere you born? I told him in Quiapo.
Ah, good district, and especially now that the fiesta of
Quiapo is coming near,' and then I interrupted him, Yes, the
fiesta of the Holy Child and of Our Lady of M ount Carmel'
because w e also talked about thefiesta of San Sebastian. I
again reminded him that w e could not do it because the
w itnessesw ere not there and he explained,Good Christmas
present,isn't it?' I did not tell him anything and in view of that
I did not deem it necessary to stay there any longer.
Q. With w hom did you make the arrangement to make the
w ill on the evening of the 31st of December — you said that
it w as agreed that the w ill be executed on the evening of
December 31st? — A. With Santiago Lopez and Don Tomas.
Q. Was the w ill executed on the 31st of December? — A.
What happened is this: In view of that agreement,I fixed up
the draft w hich I had, dating it the 31st of December,
putting everything in order;w eagreed that Santiago w ould
meet me on 31st day between five and six in the evening or
a little before,but it happened that beforethe arrival of that
date Santiago Lopez came and told me that I need not
trouble about going to the General Hospital; because it
could not be carried out for the reason that certain
requisites w erelacking. In view of this and bearing alw ays in
mind that on the follow ing day I had to go to the provinces,
I told Santiago Lopez that I would leave the papers with him
because I might go to the provinces.
Q. What may be the meaning of those w ords good
Christmas present? — A. They are given a Christmas present
w hen Christmas comes or on the occasion of Christmas.
Q. I show you this document w hich is marked Exhibit A, tell
me if that is the w ill or copy of the w ill w hich you delivered to
Santiago Lopez on December 21, 31, 1923? — A. With the
exception of the words '3 de enero de 1924' It seems to be
literally identical. (S. R. pp. 244-249.)
As the w itness stated,the will w hich w as prepared by him is identical
w ith that signed by the testator and the attesting w itnesses w ith the
single exception of the change of the date from December 31, 1923,
to January 3, 1924. Tw o copies besides the original of the w ill w ere
made. The w ill is brief and simple in terminology.
For purposes of record, w e copy the w ill as here translated intoEnglish:
ONLY PAGE
In the City of M anila,Philippines Islands, this January 3, 1924,
I, Tomas Rodriguez, of age and resident of the City of
M anila,Philippine Islands,do freely and voluntarily make this
my w ill and testament in the Spanish language w hich I
know , w ith the follow ing clauses:
First I declare that I am a Roman Apostolic Catholic, and
order that my body be buried in accordance w ith my
religion, standing and circumstances.
Second. I name my cousin Vicente F. Lopez and his
daughter Luz Lopez de Bueno as my only universal heirs of all
my property.
Third. I appoint D. M anuel Torres and D. Santiago Lopez as
my prosecutors.
In w itness w hereof I sign this typew ritten w ill, consisting of
one single page, in the presence of the w itness w ho sign
below .
(Sgd.) TOM AS RODRIGUEZ
(Left marginal signatures:)
TOM AS RODRIGUEZ
ELIAS BONOAN
V. L. LEGARDA
A. DE ASIS
We hereby certify that on the date and in the place above
indicated, Don Tomas Rodriguez executed this w ill,
consisting of one single typew ritten page, having signed at
the bottom of the w ill in the presence of us w ho saw as
w itnessesthe execution of this w ill,w esigned at the bottom
thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.
(Sgd.) V. L. LEGARDA
ELIAS BONOAN
A. DE ASIS
(Exhibit A.)
On the afternoon of January 3,1924 there gathered in the quarters of
Tomas Rodriguez in the Philippine General Hospital, Santiago Lopez
and Dr. A. De Asis, attesting w itness; and Dr. Elias Fernando Calderon,
Dr. Elias Domingo and Dr. Florentino Herrera, physicians, there for
purposes of observation. (Testimony of Elias Bonoan, S. R., p. 8 of Vl.
Legarda,S. R. p. 34. ) Possibly also M rs. Luz Lopez de Bueno and M rs.
Nena Lopez w ere present; at least they w ere hovering in the
background.
As to w hat actually happened,w e have in the record tw o absolutely
contradictory accounts. One emanates from the attesting w itness,
Doctor Bonoan. The other is the united testimony of all remaining
persons w ho w ere there.
Doctor Elias Bonoan w as the first w itness called at the trial. He testified
on direct examination as to formal matters, such as the identification
of the signatures to the w ill .On cross-examination, he rather started
the proponents of the w ill by stating that Luz Lopez de Bueno told
Tomas Rodriguez to sign the document it concerned a complaint
against Castito and that nobody read the w ill to the testator. Doctor
Bonoan's testimony along this line is as follow s:
QUESTIONS.
M ARCAIDA : Q. Why w ere you a witness to the will of Tomas
Rodriguez?

12. 12
Araneta: I object to the question as being immaterial.
Court: Objection overruled.
Dr. Bonoan: A. Because I w as called up by M rs. Luz by
telephone telling me tobe in the hospital at 3 o'clock sharp
in the afternoon of the 3d of January.
Q. Who is that Luz w hom you have mentioned? — A. Luz
Lopez, daughter of Vicente Lopez.
Q. What day, January 3, 1924? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did Luz Lopez talk to you in connection w ith your
going to the hospital? — A. On the morning of the 3d she
called me up by telephone.
Q. On the morning? — A. On the morning.
Q. Before January 3,1924,w hen the w ill of Tomas Rodriguez
w as signed, did Luz Lopez talk to you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many days approximately before w as it? — A. I
cannot tell the day,it w as approximately one w eek before,
— on that occasion w hen I w as called up by her about the
deceased Vicente Lopez.
Q. What did she tell you w hen you w ent to the house of
Vicente Lopez one w eek approximately before signing the
w ill? - A. That Tomas Rodriguez w ould make a w ill.
Q. Don't you know w here the w ill of Tomas Rodriguez w as
made? - A. In the General Hospital.
Q. Was that document w ritten in the hospital? — A. I have
not seen it.
Q. When you w ent to the General Hospital on January 3,
1924,w ho w ere the persons you met in the room w here the
patients w as ? — A. I met one of the nieces of the deceased
Tomas Rodriguez, M rs. Nena Lopez and Dna. Luz Lopez.
Q. Were those the only persons? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time approximately did you go to the General
Hospital on January 3d? — A. A quarter to 3.
Q. After you, w ho came? — A. Antonio de Asis, Doctor
Herrera, later on Doctor Calderon arrived w ith Doctor Elias
Domingo and lastly Santiago Lopez came and then M r.
Legarda.
Q. When you entered the room of the patient, D. Tomas
Rodriguez, in the General Hospital in w hat position did you
find him?— A. He w as lying dow n.
Q. Did you greet D. Tomas Rodriguez? A. I did.
Q. Did D. Tomas Rodriguez answ er you? — A. Dna. Nena
immediately answ ered in advance and introduced me to
him saying that I w as the brother of his godson.
Q. Did other persons w hom you have mentioned,viz,M essrs.
Calderon, Herrera, Domingo, De Asis and Legarda greet
Tomas Rodriguez?
ARANETA: I object to the question as being improper cross-
examination. It has not been the subject of the direct
examination.
COURT: Objection overruled.
ARANETA: Exception.
A. No, sir, they joined us.
Q. What w as D. Tomas told when he signed the will.? — A. To
sign it.
Q. Who told D. Tomas to sign the w ill? — A. Luz Lopez.
Q. What did Luz Lopez tell Tomas Rodriguez in order that he
should sign the w ill? — A. She told him to sign the document;
the deceased Tomas Rodriguez before signing the
document asked w hat that w as w hich he w as to sign.
Q. What did anybody answ er tothat question of D. Tomas?
— A. Luz Lopez told him to sign it because it concerned a
complaint against Castito. D. Tomas said, 'What is this?" And
Luz Lopez answ ered, 'You sign this document, uncle Tomas,
because this is about the complaint against Castito.
Q. Then Tomas Rodriguez signed the w ill? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who had the w ill? Who w as holding it? — A. M r. Vicente
Legarda had it his ow n hands.
Q. Was the w ill signed by Tomas Rodriguez lying down,on his
feet or seated? — A. Lying dow n.
Q. Was the w ill read by Tomas Rodriguez or any person
present at the time of signing the w ill, did they read it to
him? — A. Nobody read the w ill to him.
Q. Did not D. Tomas read the w ill? — A. I have not seen it.
Q. Were you present? — A. Yes, sir. ( S. R. p. 8)
As it w ould be quite impracticable to transcribe the testimony of all
the others w ho attended the making of the w ill, w e w ill let Vicente L.
Legarda, w ho appears to have assumed the leading role, tell w hat
transpired. He testified in part:
ARANETA : Q. Who exhibited to you those documents,
Exhibits A, A-1, and A-2?
LEGARDA: A. Santiago Lopez.
Q. Did he show you the samedocument? — A. First that is to
say the first document he presented to me w as a rough
draft, a tentative will,and it w as dated December 31st, and
I called his attention to the fact that the date w as not
December 31, 1923, and that it w as necessary to change
the date to January 3, 1924, and it w as done.
Q. And it w as then, w as it not w hen Exhibits A, A-1, and A-2
w ere w ritten? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you any know w here it w as w ritten? — A. In the
General Hospital.

13. 13
Q. Did any time elapse from your making the suggestion
that the document w hich you delivered to Santiago Lopez
be w ritten until those three Exhibits A, A-1, and A-2 w ere
presented to you? — A. About nine or ten minutes
approximately.
Q. The time to make it clean? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where w ere you during that time? — A. In the room of D.
Tomas Rodriguez.
Q. Were you talking w ith him during that time. — A. Yes, sir.
Q. About w hat things w ere you talking w ith him? — A. He
w as asking me about my health, that of my family how my
family w as my girl, w hether w e w ere living in Pasay, he
asked me about the steamer Ildefonso,he said that it w as a
pity that it had been lost because he knew that my father-
in-law w as the ow ner of the steamer Ildefonso.
x x x x x x x x x
Q. When those documents, Exhibit A, A-1, and A-2, that is
the original and tw o copies of the w ill signed by D. Tomas
Rodriguez w ere w ritten clean, w ill you please tell w hat
happened? — A. When Santiago Lopez gave them to me
clean, I approached D. Tomas Rodriguez and told him: Don
Tomas, here is this w ill w hich is ready for your signature.
Q. What did D. Tomas do w hen you said that his w ill you
w ere show ing to him w as ready? — A. The first thing he
asked w as: the w itnesses? Then I called the w itnesses —
Gentlemen,please come forward,and they came forw ard,
and I handed the documents to D. Tomas. D. Tomas got up
and then took his eyeglasses, put them on and as he saw
that the electric lamp at the center w as not sufficiently
clear, he said: 'There is no more light;' then somebody came
forw ard bringing an electric lamp.
Q. What did D. Tomas do w hen that electric lamp w as put in
place? — A. The eyeglasses were adjusted again and then
he began to read, and as he could not read much for a
long time, for he unexpectedly felt tired and took off the
eyeglasses, and as I saw that the poor man w as tired, I
suggested that it be read to him and he stopped reading
and I read the w ill to him.
Q. What happened after you had read it to him? — A. He
said to me,'Well, it is all right. It is my w ish and my w ill. Don't
you have any pen?' I asked a pen of those w ho w ere there
and handed it to D. Tomas.
Q. Is it true that Tomas Rodriguez asked at that time 'What is
that w hich I am going to sign?' and Luz Lopez told him: 'It is
in connection w ith the complaint against Castito?' — A. It is
not true, no, sir.
Q. During the signing of the w ill, did you hear Luz Lopez say
anything to Tomas Rodriguez? — A. No, Sir, she said nothing.
Q. According to you, Tomas Rodriguez signed of his ow n
accord? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did nobody tell him to sign? — A. Nobody.
Q. What happened after the signing of the w ill by Tomas
Rodriguez? — A. I called the w itnesses and w e signed in the
presence of each other and of Tomas Rodriguez.
Q. After the signing of the w ill, did you have any
conversation w ith Tomas Rodriguez? — A. Doctor Calderon
asked D. Tomas Rodriguez some questions.
Q. Do you remember the questions and the conversation
held betw een Doctor Calderon and D. Tomas after the
signing of the w ill? — A. I remember that afterw ards Doctor
Calderon talked to him about business. He asked him how
the business of making loans at 18 per cent. It seems that
Tomas Rodriguez answ ered: That loan at 18 per cent is
illegal, it is usury. (S. R., p. 38.)
In addition to the statements under oath made by M r. Legarda, an
architect and engineer in the Bureau of Public Works and professor of
engineering and architecture in the University of Santo Tomas,suffice it
to say that Luz Lopez de Bueno denied categorically the statements
attributed to her by Doctor Bonoan (S. R., p. 568). In this stand, she is
corroborated by Doctor Calderon, Domingo, and Herrera, the
attending physicians. On this point, Doctor Calderon the Director of
the Philippine General Hospital and Dean of the College of M edicine
in the University of the Philippines, testified:
M r. ARANETA: Q. What have you seen or heard w ith regard
to the execution of the w ill?
Dr. CALDERON: A. M r. Legarda handled the will to D. Tomas
Rodriguez. D. Tomas asked for his eyeglass, w anted to read
and it w as extremely hard for him to do so. M r. Legarda
offered to read the w ill, it w as read to him and he heard
that in that w ill Vicente Lopez and Luz Lopez w ere
appointed heirs; w e also saw him sign that w ill, and he
signed not only the original but also the other copies of the
w ill and w e also saw how the w itnesses signed the w ill; w e
heard that D. Tomas asked for light at that moment; he
heard that D. Tomas asked for light at that moment; he w as
at that time in a perfect mental state. And w e remained
there after the w ill was executed. I asked him, 'How do you
feel, how are you? Well I am well,' he answ ered.' How is the
business? There is a crisis at there is one good business,
namely,that of making loans at the rate of 18 per cent, 'and
he answ ered, 'That is usury.; When a man answ ers in that
w ay, ' That is usury it show s that he is all right.
Q. Were you present w hen M r. Legarda handed the w ill to
him? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did any person there tell Don Tomas that w as a
complaint to be filed against one Castito? — A. No, sir, I
have not heard anything of the kind.
Q. It w as said here that w hen the will was handed to him, D.
Tomas Rodriguez asked w hat that was which he w as to sign
and that Luz Lopez answ ered, 'That is but a complaint in
connection w ith Castito.' Isthat true? — A. I have not heard
anything of the kind.
Q. Had anybody told that to the deceased,w ouldyou have
heard it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was Luz Lopez there? — A. I don't remember having seen
her; I am not sure; D. Santiago Lopez and the three w itnesses
w ere there; I don't remember that Luz Lopez w as there.
Q. Had anybody told that to the deceased,w ouldyou have
heard it? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember w hether he w as given a pen or he
himself asked for it? — A. I don't know ; it is a detail w hich I

14. 14
don't remember well;so that w hether or not he was given a
pen or he himself asked for it, I do not remember.
Q. But did he sign w ithout hesitation ? — A. With no
hesitation.
Q. Did he sign w ithout anybody having indicated to him
w here he w as to sign? — A. Yes, w ithout anybody having
indicated it to him.
Q. Do you know w hether D. Tomas Rodriguez asked for more
light before signing? — A. He asked for more lights,as I have
said before.
Q. Do you remember that detail? — A. Yes, sir. They first
lighted the lamps, but as the light w as not sufficient, he
asked for more light.
Q. Do you remember very well that he asked for light? — A.
Yes, sir. (S. R. p.993).
A clear preponderance of the evidence exists in favor of the
testimony of Vicente Legarda,corroborated as it is by other w itnesses
of the highest standing in the community. The only explanation w e
can offer relative to the testimony of Doctor Bonoan is that possibly he
may have arrived earlier than the others w ith the exception of Luz
Lopez de Bueno,and that Luz Lopez de Bueno may have made some
sort of an effort to influence Tomas Rodriguez. There is how ever no
possible explanation of the statement of Doctor Bonoan to the effect
that no one read the w ill to Rodriguez w hen at least five other persons
recollect that Vicente Legarda read it to him and recall the details
connected w ith the reading.
There is one curious occurrence w hich transpired shortly after the
making of the w ill w hich should here be mentioned. It is that on
January 7, 1923 (1924), Luz Lopez de Bueno signed a document in
favor of Doctor Bonoan in the amount of one thousand pesos
(P1,000). This paper reads as follow :
Be it know by t hese present :
That I, Luz Lopez de Bueno in consideration of the services
w hich at my instance w ere and w ill w hen necessary be
rendered by Dr. Elias Bonoan in connection w ith the
execution of the w ill of my uncle,Don Tomas Rodriguez and
the due probate thereof, do hereby agree to pay said
doctor, by w ay of remuneratory donation, the sum of one
thousand pesos (P1,000),Philippine currency,as soon as said
services shall have been fully rendered and I shall be in
possession of the inheritance w hich in said w ill is given to me.
In w itness w hereof, I sign this document w hich w as freely
and spontaneously executed by me in M anila, this January
7, 1923.
(Sgd.) LUZ LOPEZ DE BUENO
(Exhibit 1)
There is a sharp conflict of testimony, as is natural betw een Doctor
Bonoan and Luz Lopez de Bueno relative to the execution of the
above document. We shall not attempt to settle these differences as
in the final analysis it w ill not affect the decision one w ay or the other.
The most reasonable supposition is that Luz Lopez de Bueno
imprudently endeavored to bring over Doctor Bonoan to her side of
the race by signing and giving to him Exhibit 1. But the event cannot
easily be explained aw ay.
Tomas Rodriguez passed aw ay in the Philippine General Hospital, as
w e said on February 25, 1924. Not even prior to his demise the tw o
actions in the Lopez family had prepared themselves for a fight over
the estate. The Luz Lopez faction had secured the services of Doctor
Domingo,the physician in charge of the Department of Insane of San
Lazaro Hospital an Assistant Professor of Nervous and M ental Diseases
in the University of the Philippines, as attending physician; as
associated w ith him for purposes of investigation Dr. Fernando
Calderon the Director of the Philippine General Hospital and Dr.
Florentino Herrera,a physician in active practice in the City of M anila;
and had arranged to have tw o members of the medical fraternity,
Doctors De Asis and Bonoan as attesting w itnesses. The M argarita
Lopez faction had taken equal precautions by calling a w itnesses in
the guardship proceedings Dr. Six to de los Angeles Professor and Chief
of the Department of Legal M edicine in the University of the
Philippines, and Dr. Samuel Tietze, w ith long experience in mental
diseases;thereafter by continuing Doctors de Los Angeles and Tietze
to examine Tomas Rodriguez and by associating with them Dr. William
Burke, a w ell-know n physician of the City of M anila. Skilled law yers
w ere available to aid and abet the medical experts. Out of such
situations, do w ill contests arise.
An examination of the certificates made by thetwo sets of physicians
and of their testimony show s that on most facts they concur. Their
deductions from these facts disclose a substantial divergence of
opinion. It is a hopeless task to try to reconcile the view s of these
distinguished gentlemen w ho honestly arrived at definite but
contradictory conclusions. The best that w e can do under the
circumstances is to set forth the findings of the Calderon committed
on the hand and of the De Los Angeles committee on the other.
Doctors Calderon, Domingo and Herrera examined Tomas Rodriguez
individually and jointly before the date when thewill w as executed. All
of them,as w e have noticed were,present at the signing of the will to
note the reactions of the testator. On the same day that the w ill w as
accomplished, the three doctors signed the follow ing certificate:
The undersigned,Drs. of M edicine,w ith offices in the City of
M anila,and engaged in the practice of their profession do
hereby certify:
That they have jointly examined M r. Tomas Rodriguez,
confined in the General Hospital, floor No. 3, room No. 361
on three different occasion and on different days and have
found that said patient is suffering from anemia, hernia
inguinal, chronic dyspepsia and senility.
As to his mental state theresult of the different tests to which
this patient w as submitted is that his intellectual faculties are
sound, except that his memory is w eak, w hich is almost a
loss for recent facts, or events w hich have recently
occurred, due to his physical condition and old age.
They also certify that they w ere present at the time he
signed his w ill on January 3, 1924, at 1:25 p.m. and have
found his mental state in the same condition as w as found
by the undersigned in their former examination and that in
executing said w ill the testator and full know ledge of the
contents thereof.
In testimony whereof,w e sign in M anila this January 3, 1924.
(Sgd.) FLORENTINO HERRERA
Tuberias 1264
Quiapo
(Sgd.) Dr. FERNANDO CALDERON
General Hospital
M anila