Case Digest (G.R. No. 6845)
Facts:
Yap Tua v. Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu, G.R. No. 6845, September 01, 1914, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johnson, J., writing for the Court.
On August 23, 1909, Perfecto Gabriel, representing petitioner Yap Tua, filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila a petition to probate the last will and testament of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong, who died on August 11, 1909; the instrument dated August 11, 1909 (Exhibit A) purportedly bore the signatures of the deceased and of witnesses Anselmo Zacarias, Severo Tabora, and Timoteo Paez. After notice, the petition was heard on September 18, 1909; witnesses including Paez and Pablo Agustin testified to the formal execution, and on September 29, 1909 Judge A. S. Crossfield ordered Exhibit A admitted to probate and appointed Yap Tua as executor, subject to bond to be fixed.
No further steps were taken until February 28, 1910, when Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu (objectors and appellants), asserting an interest and alleging minority, moved to intervene and sought appointment of a guardian ad litem; Gabriel La O was so appointed on March 1, 1910. On March 2, 1910 the guardian ad litem moved, invoking section 113 of the Code of Procedure, to set aside the September 29 order and to grant a rehearing on grounds that the August 11 will lacked proper witness authorization, that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity due to illness, that the signature was obtained by fraud and undue influence, and that an earlier will of August 6, 1909 (Exhibit 1) existed.
A rehearing was set for March 18, 1910. At the rehearing the objectors produced handwriting expert Tomas Puzon, physician Rufino R. Papa, and other witnesses; the guardian and several witnesses testified in support of the alleged August 6 will. Conversely, witnesses including Anselmo Zacarias, Julia de la Cruz, Yap Cao Quiang, and Lorenzo Yap Caong gave testimony supporting the execution and formalities of the August 11 will. The trial judge issued an extended opinion again concluding that Exhibit A was the last will and testament of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong, that it had been duly executed, and that the previously appointed administrator should continue.
The objectors appealed the trial court’s rehearing decision to this Court, assigning four errors: (I) undue influence in the execution of Exhibit A; (II) lack of testamentary capacity; (III) that the signature on Exhibit A was not identical to the ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did undue influence invalidate the will of August 11, 1909 (Exhibit A)?
- Was Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong mentally incapable of executing Exhibit A at the time of its signing?
- Was the signature on Exhibit A a legally sufficient signature, despite alleged differences from the August 6, 1909 will (Exhibit 1)?
- Was Exhibit A executed in accordance with the legal formalities requiring the testator’s and witnesses’...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)