G.R. No. 76648 - Heirs of Montinola-Sanson vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners: The heirs of the late Matilde Montinola-Sanson, sister of the deceased.
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Eduardo F. Hernandez, the named executor in the will.
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the probate of a holographic will of the late Herminia Montinola.

April 22, 1981: Eduardo F. Hernandez filed a petition for probate of the holographic will executed January 28, 1980.
May 5, 1981: Hernandez appointed Special Administrator of the estate with consent of heirs except the petitioner.
June 29, 1981: Matilde Montinola Sanson filed Opposition to Probate of Will, alleging that the will was not wholly handwritten, was antedated, that testatrix lacked testamentary capacity, was under undue influence, and failed to dispose the entire estate.
March 21, 1985: Regional Trial Court (Branch XXII, Manila) ruled in favor of probate of the will.
August 29, 1986: Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision in toto.
September 24, 1986: Petitioner filed a motion for new trial attaching an affidavit of merit citing newly discovered witnesses.
October 13, 1986: Court of Appeals denied the motion for new trial for non-compliance with procedural requirements and because evidence was cumulative.
October 27, 1986: Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of new trial.
November 20, 1986: Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration as a second motion for reconsideration filed out of time.
November 3, 1986: Petitioner died and was substituted by her heirs in this petition.

Testatrix, Herminia Montinola, died single, childless, and parentless at 70 years old.
The holographic will was allegedly executed January 28, 1980.
The will disposed several real properties to designated beneficiaries and appointed Eduardo Hernandez as executor.
Petitioner was excluded in the will despite being testatrix’s surviving sister.
Petitioner claimed the will was not wholly handwritten, was antedated to conceal the actual date, the testatrix lacked capacity, undue influence was exerted, and the will failed to name residual heirs.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioners' motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence sought to be presented was merely cumulative.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for reconsideration of the resolution denying the motion for new trial.
Whether the holographic will was wholly written, dated, and signed by the testatrix in accordance with legal requirements.
Whether the will was fraudulently antedated to conceal its actual date and to shield it from challenges concerning testamentary capacity.
Whether the testatrix was subjected to undue influence or improper pressure by beneficiaries of the will.
Whether the contested holographic will should have been admitted to probate.