Case Summary (G.R. No. 157451)
Proceedings Below
The trial court disallowed probate, finding non-compliance with execution formalities and testator’s mental incapacity. On appeal (CA-GR CV No. 44296), the Court of Appeals reversed, admitted the will, and ordered issuance of letters testamentary to Josefina. Leticia’s motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.
Formal Requirements and Execution of the Will
Placido’s will, typed and dated June 15, 1983, contains dispositive clauses on the first page and attestation clauses on both pages. It was signed by the testator and three credible witnesses in the presence of each other. Acknowledgment before Notary Sarmiento occurred on August 9, 1983. Variance in dates was satisfactorily explained as resulting from the notary’s absence on June 15.
Allegations of Fraud and Capacity
Leticia contended that Josefina conspired with the notary and witnesses, procured the will by fraud or undue influence, and that Placido lacked testamentary capacity due to senility and psychological decline. She cited the significant age disparity and Placido’s alleged mental and physical deterioration in Leticia’s household.
Findings of the Court of Appeals
The appellate court credited the testimonies of Notary Sarmiento and the three attesting witnesses. It ruled that:
- The will complied with Civil Code formalities (Articles 805–806).
- There was no credible evidence of fraud, undue influence, or trickery.
- Placido possessed testamentary capacity—he knew the nature of his estate, the objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
Legal Standards for Will Probate
Under Article 839, a will is disallowed for failure of formalities, mental incapacity, duress, undue influence, fraud, or mistake. The proponent must prove compliance with formal requisites and, absent a public record of insanity within one month before execution, heirs contesting capacity bear the burden to show unsoundness of mind.
Analysis of Fraud Allegations
Fraud must involve deception regarding the document’s nature or contents. Leticia presented no evidence of collusion or benefit to the witnesses. The notary and witnesses uniformly testified to the proper explanation of the will (in Ilocano) and to Placido’s clear intent. Discrepancies in dates were reconciled by credible testimony, and no proof of conspiracy was offered.
Determination of Testamentary Capacity
Articles 798–800 require that at execution the te
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157451)
Procedural Background
- Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (G.R. No. 157451), filed by Leticia Valmonte Ortega.
- Seeks to reverse and set aside the December 12, 2002 Decision and March 7, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 44296.
- Trial court disallowed probate of the will.
- Court of Appeals reversed, allowed probate, and ordered issuance of letters testamentary to Josefina C. Valmonte.
- Opponent’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied, prompting the present petition.
Material Facts
- Placido Valmonte, a long-time pensionado in the United States, returned to the Philippines in 1980.
- Co-owned a Makati house and lot (TCT No. 123468) with his sister Ciriaca Valmonte.
- Married Josefina Cabansag (aged 28) on February 5, 1982; Placido was then about 80 years old.
- Placido died on October 8, 1984 of cor pulmonale.
- Executed a two-page notarial last will and testament dated June 15, 1983 (acknowledged August 9, 1983), in which he:
- Directed burial under Catholic rites and monument by his executrix (wife).
- Bequeathed one-half of his co-owned property and the entire residue of real and personal properties, including a U.S. savings account, to Josefina.
- Appointed Josefina as sole executrix, exempt from bond.
Opposition and Grounds
- Leticia Valmonte Ortega opposed probate on multiple grounds, alleging:
- Failure to list all assets, especially those in the U.S.
- Failure to give statutory notice to all heirs (names, ages, residences).
- Lack of compliance with formalities in execution and attestation.
- Mental incapacity (advanced senility) of Placido at execution.
- Duress, undue influence, fraud, or trickery in procuring Placido’s signature.
- Objected to appointment of Josefina as executrix based on alleged want of understanding and integrity.
Trial Court Findings
- Reduced opposition to two principal grounds:
- Non-compliance with legal formalit