Valmonte vs. Valmonte

Leticia Valmonte Ortega vs Josefina Valmonte
G.R. No. 157451 December 16, 2005

Panganiban, J.
FACTS:
Placido lived in the US until he finally retired and came home to stay in the Philippines. 2 years after his arrival from
the US and at the age of 80 he wed Josefina who was then 28 yrs old. After 2 years of wedded bliss, Placido died
of cor pulmonale. He executed a notarial last will and testament written in english and consisting of 2 pages
dated June 15, 1983 but acknowledged only on Aug. 9 1983. He instituted Josefina as his sole heir to his properties
in the will and as its executrix. However, the allowance of the will was opposed by Leticia that there was
non-compliance with the legal formalities in the execution and attestation of the will and mental incapacity of
the testator at the time of the execution of the will. RTC disallowed probate of the will but was reversed by the CA.
CA upheld the credibility of the notary public and the subscribing witnesses who had acknowledged the due
execution of the will.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the execution of the will was indicative of the existence of fraud? NO.
2. WON Placido was capacitated to make a will? YES.
RULING:
1. The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of fraud at the time of its execution.
The burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will only upon a showing of credible evidence of
fraud. Unfortunately in this case, other than the self-serving allegations of petitioner, no evidence of fraud was
ever presented.
It is a settled doctrine that the omission of some relatives does not affect the due execution of a will. That the
testator was tricked into signing it was not sufficiently established by the fact that he had instituted his wife, who
was more than fifty years his junior, as the sole beneficiary; and disregarded petitioner and her family, who were
the ones who had taken "the cudgels of taking care of [the testator] in his twilight years."
Moreover, as correctly ruled by the appellate court, the conflict between the dates appearing on the will does
not invalidate the document, "because the law does not even require that a [notarial] will x x x be executed
and
acknowledged on the same occasion." The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that "the variance in the dates
of
the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained by the notary
public and the instrumental witnesses."
Petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of a "grand conspiracy" in the commission of a fraud. There was no
showing that the witnesses of the proponent stood to receive any benefit from the allowance of the will. The
testimonies of the three subscribing witnesses and the notary are credible evidence of its due execution. Their
testimony favoring it and the finding that it was executed in accordance with the formalities required by law
should be affirmed, absent any showing of ill motives.
2. Yes. According to Article 799, the three things that the testator must have the ability to know to be considered
of sound mind are as follows: (1) the nature of the estate to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the
testator's
bounty, and (3) the character of the testamentary act. Applying this test to the present case, Court of appeals
1
was correct in holding that Placido had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of his will. It must be
noted that despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify accurately the kinds of property he owned,
the
extent of his shares in them and even their locations. As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient
that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary.
Mere weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from disease of body, or from age, will not render a person
incapable
of making a will; a weak or feebleminded person may make a valid will, provided he has understanding and
memory sufficient to enable him to know what he is about to do and how or to whom he is disposing of his
property. To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired
or unshattered by disease or otherwise. It has been held that testamentary incapacity does not necessarily
require
that a person shall actually be insane or of unsound mind.
ANALYSIS:
1. I agree with the Supreme Court in finding that the evidence presented by Petitioner Leticia was not
preponderant to show the existence of fraud. Under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, burden of proof is
the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law - in this case preponderance of evidence. Leticia was not able to prove
such a burden of proof by presenting her self-serving testimonies. The following are her allegations in relation to
fraud in the execution of the will:
A. That there was collusion/deception between the respondent, the notary public and the three attesting
witnesses in the execution and attestation of the will;
B. That there was variation in the dates of the execution and attestation of the will;
C. That there was omission of some relatives in the will; and
D. That the testator was tricked into signing his will.
With regard to the first issue, she did not present any evidence other than her self-serving allegations. The
respondents, on the other hand, were able to present the due execution of the instrument by presenting and
providing the testimonies of the attesting witnesses and the notary public. As held in the case of In the matter of
the petition for probate of the will of Dorotea Perez vs. Hon. Avelino Rosal, the Supreme Court expressly stated
the
purpose of attestation and subscription. Attestation consists in witnessing the testator's execution of the will in
order
to see and take note mentally that those things are done which the statute requires for the execution of a will
and
that the signature of the testator exists as a fact. On the other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses'
names upon the same paper for the purpose of identification of such paper as the will which was executed by
the testator. Hence by presenting the testimonies of the attesting witnesses and the notary public, the
respondents
were able to prove the authenticity, due execution and identity of the notarial will of Placido.
On the second issue, the law does not require that a notarial will be executed and acknowledged on the same
occasion.
2
On the third issue, the omission of relatives does not invalidate the will as held in the case of Barrera vs.
Tampoco
where the testator mistakenly instituted a dead relative unwittingly because of her old age and big number of
relatives. Also in the case of Heirs of the Late Matilde Montinola-Sanson vs. CA, that neither is undue influence
present just because blood relatives, other than compulsory heirs have been omitted, for while blood ties are
strong in the Philippines, it is the testator's right to disregard non-compulsory heirs. The fact that some heirs are
more favored than others is proof of neither fraud nor undue influence. Diversity of apportionment is the usual
reason for making a testament, otherwise, the decedent might as well die intestate.
On the fourth issue, there was no evidence established that the testator was tricked into signing other than the
mere allegation of Leticia. One of the objects of formalities of wills is to close the door against bad faith and
fraud
and in this case respondents were able to properly establish the due execution, identity and authenticity of the
will of Placido.
2. I also agree with the Supreme Court that Placido was capacitated when he made his notarial will. Under Art.
800 of the Civil Code, the law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the
contrary. No proof was offered by Leticia to contradict the presumption under Art. 800 of the Civil Code. The
burden of proof was on Leticia to show that Placido was indeed incapacitated at the time of the execution of
his
will. The contention of Leticia that at the time of the execution of the will the testator was already 83 years old
and
was no longer of sound mind by that fact cannot be countenanced. As held in the case of Torres & Lopez vs.
Lopez, the Supreme Court held that neither old age, physical infirmities, weakness of memory, appointment of
guardian are sufficient singly or jointly to show testamentary incapacity and each case rests on its own facts.
Hence, Leticia’s argument finds no support in law and jurisprudence. The Supreme Court was correct in
upholding
the testator’s freedom of disposition
FILE NAME: class number_case title (1_abc v. def)

Valmonte vs. Valmonte

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valmonte vs. Valmonte

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valmonte vs. Valmonte

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leticia Valmonte Ortega vs Josefina Valmonte

G.R. No. 157451 December 16, 2005

FILE NAME: class number_case title (1_abc v. def)

You might also like