Title
Baltazar vs. Laxa
Case
G.R. No. 174489
Decision Date
Apr 7, 2012
A 78-year-old spinster executed a valid will, bequeathing her properties to her nephew and family. Oppositors claimed mental incapacity, but the Supreme Court upheld the will, affirming compliance with legal formalities and the testator's sound mind.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 174489)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Testator and Execution of the Will
    • Paciencia Regala, a 78-year-old spinster, executed a notarial will in Pampango dialect on September 13, 1981, at retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin’s residence.
    • The will was read twice to her; she signed at the end of page 3 and on the left margins of pages 1, 2, and 4.
    • Instrumental witnesses Dra. Maria Lioba A. Limpin, Francisco Garcia, and Faustino R. Mercado attested and signed in her presence and that of one another; Judge Limpin notarized.
    • Paciencia, childless and without siblings, bequeathed all properties to her nephew Lorenzo R. Laxa, his wife Corazon F. Laxa, and their children, with instructions for masses and compliance with the wishes of a deceased relative.
  • Post-Execution Events and Initial Probate Petition
    • Six days after execution, Paciencia left for the USA and resided with Lorenzo’s family until her death on January 4, 1996; the will remained with Judge Limpin.
    • On April 27, 2000, Lorenzo filed a petition for probate (SP Proc. No. G-1186) in the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga; no opposition appeared after publication; RTC set hearings.
  • Opposition and Trial Court Ruling
    • Antonio Baltazar and others filed oppositions on grounds that the properties were not titled to Paciencia, Lorenzo was disqualified as administrator (U.S. resident), and Paciencia lacked testamentary capacity, was unduly influenced, or subject to fraud.
    • RTC, after testimony from witnesses for both sides—including Dra. Limpin, Lorenzo, Monico Mercado, Rosie Mateo, and Antonio Baltazar—denied probate on September 30, 2003, finding Paciencia “magulyan” (forgetful) and mentally unfit.
  • Court of Appeals Reversal
    • On June 15, 2006, the CA reversed the RTC, granted probate, holding that forgetfulness does not negate testamentary capacity, the presumption of sound mind stood unrebutted, and formalities complied with.
    • CA denied reconsideration on August 31, 2006.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA erred in admitting the will for probate despite alleged non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court.
  • Whether petitioners proved that Paciencia was not of sound and disposing mind at execution.
  • Whether evidence sufficed to establish undue influence, fraud, or duress in procuring the will.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.