Case Summary (G.R. No. 157451)
Procedural Posture
The petition is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision that reversed the trial court and approved probate of the testator’s notarial will and ordered issuance of letters testamentary to Josefina. The CA’s denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also assailed. The Supreme Court considered the petition and denied it, affirming the CA.
Material Facts
Placido returned to the Philippines in 1980, married Josefina (then 28) on February 5, 1982, and executed a notarial last will and testament typed and dated June 15, 1983, but acknowledged on August 9, 1983. The will bequeathed one-half of the described co-owned property to his wife and the remainder of his real and personal property (including a U.S. savings account) to her, and appointed her sole executrix, exempt from bond. Placido died October 8, 1984 of cor pulmonale.
Content and Formal Execution of the Will
The will was two pages: the substantive dispositions and part of the attestation clause on the first page, continuation of attestation and acknowledgement on the second page. The will bore a June 15, 1983 date on the body but was actually signed and acknowledged on August 9, 1983, per the notary’s explanation. The notary testified he prepared the will after initial instructions, kept it secured, and that the testator and witnesses returned to sign on August 9, 1983. The notary and the three subscribing witnesses testified they read/explained the will to the testator (in Ilocano), witnessed his signature, and found him physically and mentally capable at execution.
Grounds of Opposition at Trial
Leticia opposed probate alleging: failure to disclose all assets (especially U.S. assets); failure to identify heirs for notice; non-compliance with formalities; lack of testamentary capacity due to senility; execution under duress, undue influence, fraud, or trick; and lack of probity of the proposed executrix Josefina. Trial testimony included proponent’s witnesses (notary and three witnesses) and oppositor’s testimony (Leticia and her daughter Mary Jane Ortega).
Trial Court Ruling
The trial court found two grounds proved: non-compliance with legal formalities and mental incapacity of the testator at execution (advanced senility), and accordingly disallowed probate.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA reversed the trial court, admitted the will to probate, and found the notary and subscribing witnesses credible. The CA held the testator had testamentary capacity at execution and that alleged sexual exhibitionism or uncouth behavior did not equate to unsoundness of mind. The CA also accepted the explanation for the date variance and found formalities observed.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The petitioner framed three issues: (I) whether the probate court’s findings deserve great respect (i.e., deference to the trial court); (II) whether the signature was procured by fraud or trickery such that the instrument was not intended as a will; and (III) whether the testator had testamentary capacity at execution.
Standard of Review and Burden of Proof
The Supreme Court reiterated that a Petition for Review under Rule 45 ordinarily raises questions of law, but factual findings of an appellate court that differ from trial court findings may be examined. The law favors probate; the burden of proving invalidity (fraud, incapacity, undue influence, etc.) lies on the opponent of probate. Fraud must be proved; only upon credible evidence of fraud does the burden shift to the proponent.
Analysis on Alleged Fraud and Irregularities
The Court analyzed the fraud allegation—conspiracy among respondent, the notary, and witnesses, and the suspicious age disparity between husband and wife—and found no credible evidence of fraud. The discrepancy in dates (June 15 body date vs. August 9 acknowledgment/signature) was satisfactorily explained by the notary and the witnesses: the document was prepared earlier, the parties were to sign on June 15 but the notary was absent, and actual signing/acknowledgement occurred August 9; the notary placed the proper acknowledgement date in handwriting rather than altering the typed body. The Court emphasized that omission of relatives from a will does not invalidate it and that no evidence showed the subscribing witnesses had any motive to conspire or benefited from the will. The Court found the testimonies of the notary and the three
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157451)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Full citation: 514 Phil. 436, Third Division, G.R. No. 157451, December 16, 2005, Decision penned by Justice Panganiban.
- Nature of action before the Supreme Court: Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the December 12, 2002 Decision and March 7, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44296.
- Relief sought below and on appeal: Petitioner sought disallowance of probate of the alleged last will and testament of Placido Valmonte and opposed the appointment of Josefina C. Valmonte as executrix.
- Disposition below: Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and allowed probate of the will, ordering issuance of letters testamentary to respondent Josefina C. Valmonte. The trial court had disallowed probate.
- Supreme Court disposition: Petition denied; assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals affirmed; costs against petitioner.
Summary of Facts
- Testator: Placido Valmonte — long-time resident/worker in the United States; returned to the Philippines in 1980 and lived in the house and lot at #9200 Catmon St., San Antonio Village, Makati, titled jointly with his sister Ciriaca Valmonte in TCT No. 123468.
- Marriage: Two years after returning (stated in the record as at the age of 80) Placido married Josefina Cabansag Valmonte, then 28 years old; marriage solemnized by Judge Perfecto Laguio, Jr. on February 5, 1982.
- Death: Placido died on October 8, 1984; stated cause of death: COR PULMONALE.
- The will: A notarial last will and testament in English, consisting of two pages, dated June 15, 1983 but acknowledged on August 9, 1983.
- First page contains substantive dispositions and part of the attestation clause; signed by the testator at the end/bottom of that page and by the three instrumental witnesses on the left margin.
- Second page continues the attestation clause and contains the acknowledgment; witnesses signed at the end of the attestation clause and again on the left margin.
- Express terms included (inter alia):
- Burial in the Catholic Cemetery under Catholic rites and a suitable monument to be provided by executrix (wife).
- Bequest of one half (1/2) portion of described co-owned property (Lot 4-A, Block 13 described on plan Psd-28575, LRC (GLRO) situated in Makati) covered by TCT No. 123468, and the two-storey building thereon located at No. 9200 Catmon Street, Makati — described as jointly registered with deceased sister Ciriaca Valmonte as co-owners, share and share alike.
- All the rest, residue and remainder of real and personal properties including a savings account bank book in the USA (in possession of a nephew) and other assets were given to wife Josefina C. Valmonte.
- Appointment of Josefina C. Valmonte as sole executrix, exempt from filing a bond.
- The will contains the testator’s recitation of being “83 years of age and being of sound and disposing mind and memory” (as set out in the instrument).
- Discovery and value: Josefina testified she serendipitously found the will in Placido’s attache case after his death; estimated total value of properties real and personal at about P100,000.00.
Oppositor’s (Petitioner’s) Grounds and Contentions at Trial and on Review
- Grounds of opposition asserted by Leticia Valmonte Ortega:
- Petitioner (proponent) failed to allege all assets of the testator, especially those in the USA.
- Failure to state names, ages, residences of heirs and failure to give proper notice to heirs pursuant to law.
- Will not executed and attested as required by law; legal solemnities and formalities not complied with.
- Testator was mentally incapable at the time of execution — alleged advanced senility.
- Will executed under duress, fear, or threats.
- Will procured by undue and improper influence/pressure by respondent or her agents.
- Signature of testator procured by fraud or trick; testator did not intend the instrument to be his will at the time of signing.
- Opposition to appointment of Josefina as executrix alleging want of understanding and integrity.
Evidence Presented at Trial (Proponent and Oppositor)
- Proponent’s evidence (respondent Josefina and witnesses):
- Josefina’s testimony: after marriage they lived in Bacnotan, La Union at her parents’ house but traveled monthly to Manila for Placido’s $366 monthly pension and stayed at the Makati residence; at times Placido travelled alone to save expenses. Josefina denied prior knowledge of the will until after his death; asserted Placido was mentally and physically capable (cooked, cleaned, shopped two to three kilometers, traveled alone to claim pension); testified testator was hospitalized only for a cold that resulted in death.
- Notary public Atty. Floro Sarmiento: testified he prepared the will upon request in early June 1983, asked them to return on June 15, 1983 to sign, but was out of town on that date; the will was kept locked in his drawer, and they returned on August 9, 1983 to acknowledge and sign. He explained the contents to the testator in Ilocano, and testified the testator was physically and mentally capable at signature.
- Instrumental witnesses: spouses Eugenio Gomez, Jr. and Feliza Gomez (wedding sponsors) and Josie Collado — corroborated the notary: they accompanied Placido to instruct the notary; they returned as instructed and ultimately signed on August 9, 1983; testified testator executed the will in their presence while of sound mind and in good health; contents were explained in Ilocano/Tagalog; Josefina was not present during execution.
- Oppositor’s evidence (Leticia and daughter Mary Jane Ortega):
- Leticia: asserted Josefina should not inherit alone; claimed Placido in 1983 lived in Makati and had requested Leticia’s family to live with him and take care of him, and that during that time his physical and mental condition deteriorated — aberrations and senility.
- Mary Jane Ortega: corroborated that Placido took a fancy to her and wanted to marry her, supporting claim of mental deterioration or aberrant behavior.
Trial Court Findings
- The trial court