Case Digest (G.R. No. 16763) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case involves Pascual Coso (petitioner and appellant) versus Fermina Fernandez Deza and others (objectors and appellees). The issue arose from a will executed by a testator, a married Filipino man, who had a longstanding illicit relationship with Rosario Lopez beginning in 1898 in Spain. The testator returned to the Philippines, and Rosario Lopez followed him to Manila in February 1918, maintaining close contact until his death in February 1919. The will in question granted the tercio de libre disposición (one-third of the estate that the testator could freely dispose of) to an illegitimate son fathered by the testator with Rosario Lopez. The will also provided for a reimbursement payment of nineteen hundred Spanish duros to Rosario Lopez for expenses incurred in caring for the testator during a severe illness from 1909 to 1916 in Barcelona. The Court of First Instance of Manila set aside the will on the ground of undue influence allegedly exerted by Rosario Lopez on the te
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 16763) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the parties and the will
- The testator was a married man and resident of the Philippine Islands.
- He became acquainted with Rosario Lopez in Spain in 1898 and had illicit relations with her for many years.
- Rosario Lopez followed the testator to Manila in February 1918 and stayed in close contact with him until his death in February 1919.
- The testator executed a will which gave the *tercio de libre disposicion* (one-third of the estate subject to free disposition) to his illegitimate son by Rosario Lopez.
- The will also provided for the payment to Rosario Lopez of 1,900 Spanish duros as reimbursement for expenses incurred while taking care of the testator in Barcelona during his severe illness from 1909 to 1916.
- Legal challenge and context
- The Court of First Instance of Manila set aside the will on the ground that Rosario Lopez exerted undue influence over the testator’s mind.
- The testator was a lawyer by profession, intelligent, and apparently aware of his own mind.
- The main legal question is whether the influence exercised by Rosario Lopez over the testator was of such a character as to vitiate the will.
Issues:
- Whether the influence exerted by Rosario Lopez on the testator constituted undue influence sufficient to invalidate the will.
- Whether the will expresses the testator’s own free will or the will imposed by another.
- Whether there was any imposition, fraud, or destruction of the testator’s free agency.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)