RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
BaguioCity

FIRSTDIVISION

ANTONIOB.BALTAZAR, G.R.No.174489
SEBASTIANM.BALTAZAR,
ANTONIOL.MANGALINDAN,
ROSIEM.MATEO, Present:
NENITAA.PACHECO,
VIRGILIOREGALA,JR., CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
andRAFAELTITCO, LEONARDODECASTRO,
Petitioners, BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,and
versus VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.

LORENZOLAXA, Promulgated:
Respondent. April11,2012
xx

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

Itisincumbentuponthosewhoopposetheprobateofawilltoclearlyestablishthatthedecedentwas
notofsoundanddisposingmindatthetimeoftheexecutionofsaidwill.Otherwise,thestateisduty
boundtogivefulleffecttothewishesofthetestatortodistributehisestateinthemannerprovidedinhis
[1]
willsolongasitislegallytenable.

[2] [3]
BeforeusisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari oftheJune15,2006Decision oftheCourt
[4]
ofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.80979whichreversedtheSeptember30,2003Decision ofthe
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch52,Guagua,PampangainSpecialProceedingsNo.G1186.The
assailed CA Decision granted the petition for probate of the notarial will of Paciencia Regala
(Paciencia),towit:
 WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,findingtheappealtobeimpressedwithmerit,thedecision
in SP. PROC. NO. G1186 dated 30 September 2003, is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered
GRANTINGthepetitionfortheprobateofthewillofPACIENCIAREGALA.

[5]
SOORDERED.


[6]
Also assailed herein is the August 31, 2006 CA Resolution which denied the Motion for
Reconsiderationthereto.

PetitionerscallustoreversetheCAsassailedDecisionandinsteadaffirmtheDecisionofthe
RTCwhichdisallowedthenotarialwillofPaciencia.

FactualAntecedents

Pacienciawasa78yearoldspinsterwhenshemadeherlastwillandtestamententitledTauliNangBilin
[7]
oTestamentoMissPacienciaRegala (Will)inthePampangodialectonSeptember13,1981.The
Will,executedinthehouseofretiredJudgeErnestinoG.Limpin(JudgeLimpin),wasreadtoPaciencia
twice.Afterwhich,Pacienciaexpressedinthepresenceoftheinstrumentalwitnessesthatthedocument
isherlastwillandtestament.Shethereafteraffixedhersignatureattheendofthesaiddocumenton
[8] [9]
page3 andthenontheleftmarginofpages1,2and4thereof.

ThewitnessestotheWillwereDra.MariaLiobaA.Limpin(Dra.Limpin),FranciscoGarcia
(Francisco) and Faustino R. Mercado (Faustino). The three attested to the Wills due execution by
[10]
affixing their signatures below its attestation clause and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4
[11]
thereof, inthepresenceofPacienciaandofoneanotherandofJudgeLimpinwhoactedasnotary
public.
Childless and without any brothers or sisters, Paciencia bequeathed all her properties to respondent
LorenzoR.Laxa(Lorenzo)andhiswifeCorazonF.LaxaandtheirchildrenLunaLorellaLaxaand
KatherineRossLaxa,thus:

xxxx

Fourth In consideration of their valuable services to me since then up to the present by the
spousesLORENZOLAXAandCORAZONF.LAXA,IherebyBEQUEATH,CONVEYandGIVEall
mypropertiesenumeratedinparcels1to5untothespousesLORENZOR.LAXAandCORAZONF.
 LAXAandtheirchildren,LUNALORELLALAXAandKATHERINELAXA,andthespousesLorenzo
R. Laxa and Corazon F. Laxa both of legal age, Filipinos, presently residing at Barrio Sta. Monica,
[Sasmuan],Pampangaandtheirchildren,LUNALORELLAandKATHERINEROSSLAXA,whoare
stillnotoflegalageandlivingwiththeirparentswhowoulddecidetobequeathsincetheyarethechildren
ofthespouses

xxxx

[Sixth]Shouldotherpropertiesofminemaybediscoveredasidefromthepropertiesmentioned
inthislastwillandtestament,IamalsobequeathingandgivingthesametothespousesLorenzoR.Laxa
andCorazonF.LaxaandtheirtwochildrenandIalsocommandthemtooffermassesyearlyfortherepose
ofmysoulandthatofD[]aNicomedaRegala,EpifaniaRegalaandtheirspousesandwithrespecttothe
fishpondsituatedatSanAntonio,IlikewisecommandtofulfillthewishesofD[]aNicomedaRegalain
[12]
accordancewithhertestamentasstatedinmytestament.xxx


The filial relationship of Lorenzo with Paciencia remains undisputed. Lorenzo is Paciencias
nephewwhomshetreatedasherownson.Conversely,LorenzocametoknowandtreatedPacienciaas
[13]
hisownmother. PaciencialivedwithLorenzosfamilyinSasmuan,Pampangaanditwasshewho
raisedandcaredforLorenzosincehisbirth.SixdaysaftertheexecutionoftheWilloronSeptember19,
1981,PaciencialeftfortheUnitedStatesofAmerica(USA).There,sheresidedwithLorenzoandhis
familyuntilherdeathonJanuary4,1996.

Intheinterim,theWillremainedinthecustodyofJudgeLimpin.

More than four years after the death of Paciencia or on April 27, 2000, Lorenzo filed a
[14]
petition withtheRTCofGuagua,PampangafortheprobateoftheWillofPacienciaandforthe
issuanceofLettersofAdministrationinhisfavor,docketedasSpecialProceedingsNo.G1186.

Therebeingnooppositiontothepetitionafteritsduepublication,theRTCissuedanOrderon
[15]
June13,2000 allowingLorenzotopresentevidenceonJune22,2000.Onsaiddate,Dra.Limpin
testifiedthatshewasoneoftheinstrumentalwitnessesintheexecutionofthelastwillandtestamentof
[16]
Paciencia on September 13, 1981. The Will was executed in her fathers (Judge Limpin) home
[17]
office,inherpresenceandoftwootherwitnesses,FranciscoandFaustino. Dra.Limpinpositively
[18]
identified the Will and her signatures on all its four pages. She likewise positively identified the
[19]
signatureofherfatherappearingthereon. QuestionedbytheprosecutorregardingJudgeLimpins
presentmentalfitness,Dra.Limpintestifiedthatherfatherhadastrokein1991andhadtoundergo
[20]
brainsurgery. Thejudgecanwalkbutcannolongertalkandrememberhername.Becauseofthis,
[21]
Dra.Limpinstatedthatherfathercannolongertestifyincourt.

The following day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar (Antonio) filed an
[22]
opposition to Lorenzos petition. Antonio averred that the properties subject of Paciencias Will
belongtoNicomedaRegalaMangalindan,hispredecessorininteresthence,Pacienciahadnorightto
[23]
bequeaththemtoLorenzo.

Barely a month after or on July 20, 2000, Antonio, now joined by petitioners Sebastian M.
Baltazar,VirgilioRegala,Jr.,NenitaA.Pacheco,FelixB.Flores,RafaelTitco,RosieM.Mateo(Rosie)
[24]
andAntonioL.MangalindanfiledaSupplementalOpposition contendingthatPacienciasWillwas
nullandvoidbecauseownershipofthepropertieshadnotbeentransferredand/ortitledtoPaciencia
[25]
beforeherdeathpursuanttoArticle1049,paragraph3oftheCivilCode. Petitionersalsoopposed
theissuanceofLettersofAdministrationinLorenzosfavorarguingthatLorenzowasdisqualifiedtobe
[26]
appointedassuch,hebeingacitizenandresidentoftheUSA. PetitionersprayedthatLettersof
[27]
AdministrationbeinsteadissuedinfavorofAntonio.

[28]
LaterstillonSeptember26,2000,petitionersfiledanAmendedOpposition askingtheRTC
todenytheprobateofPacienciasWillonthefollowinggrounds:theWillwasnotexecutedandattested
toinaccordancewiththerequirementsofthelawthatPacienciawasmentallyincapabletomakeaWill
atthetimeofitsexecutionthatshewasforcedtoexecutetheWillunderduressorinfluenceoffearor
threatsthattheexecutionoftheWillhadbeenprocuredbyundueandimproperpressureandinfluence
byLorenzoorbysomeotherpersonsforhisbenefitthatthesignatureofPacienciaontheWillwas
forgedthatassumingthesignaturetobegenuine,itwasobtainedthroughfraudortrickeryand,that
PacienciadidnotintendthedocumenttobeherWill.Simultaneously,petitionersfiledanOpposition
[29]
andRecommendation reiteratingtheiroppositiontotheappointmentofLorenzoasadministratorof
thepropertiesandrequestingfortheappointmentofAntonioinhisstead.

 [30]
OnJanuary29,2001,theRTCissuedanOrder denyingtherequestsofbothLorenzoand
AntoniotobeappointedadministratorsincetheformerisacitizenandresidentoftheUSAwhilethe
lattersclaimasacoownerofthepropertiessubjectoftheWillhasnotyetbeenestablished.

Meanwhile,proceedingsonthepetitionfortheprobateoftheWillcontinued.Dra.Limpinwas
recalledforcrossexaminationbythepetitioners.Shetestifiedastotheageofherfatheratthetimethe
latternotarizedtheWillofPacienciathelivingarrangementsofPacienciaatthetimeoftheexecution
[31]
oftheWillandthelackofphotographswhentheeventtookplace.

AsidefromDra.Limpin,LorenzoandMonicoMercado(Monico)alsotookthewitnessstand.
Monico,sonofFaustino,testifiedonhisfatherscondition.Accordingtohimhisfathercannolonger
talk and express himself due to brain damage. A medical certificate was presented to the court to
[32]
supportthisallegation.

Forhispart,Lorenzotestifiedthat:from1944untilhisdeparturefortheUSAinApril1980,he
livedinSasmuan,Pampangawithhisfamilyandhisaunt,Pacienciain1981Pacienciawenttothe
USAandlivedwithhimandhisfamilyuntilherdeathinJanuary1996therelationshipbetweenhim
andPacienciawaslikethatofamotherandchildsincePacienciatookcareofhimsincebirthandtook
himinasanadoptedsonPacienciawasaspinsterwithoutchildren,andwithoutbrothersandsistersat
thetimeofPacienciasdeath,shedidnotsufferfromanymentaldisorderandwasofsoundmind,was
notblind,deaformutetheWillwasinthecustodyofJudgeLimpinandwasonlygiventohimafter
Paciencias death through Faustino and he was already residing in the USA when the Will was
[33]
executed. LorenzopositivelyidentifiedthesignatureofPacienciainthreedifferentdocumentsand
intheWillitselfandstatedthathewasfamiliarwithPacienciassignaturebecauseheaccompaniedher
[34]
inhertransactions. Further,Lorenzobeliedanddeniedhavingusedforce,intimidation,violence,
coercionortrickeryuponPacienciatoexecutetheWillashewasnotinthePhilippineswhenthesame
[35]
wasexecuted. Oncrossexamination,LorenzoclarifiedthatPacienciainformedhimabouttheWill
[36]
shortlyafterherarrivalintheUSAbutthathesawacopyoftheWillonlyafterherdeath.

AstoFrancisco,hecouldnolongerbepresentedincourtashealreadydiedonMay21,2000.

 [37]
Forpetitioners,RosietestifiedthathermotherandPacienciawerefirstcousins. Sheclaimed
tohavehelpedinthehouseholdchoresinthehouseofPacienciatherebyallowinghertostaytherein
frommorninguntileveningandthatduringtheperiodofherserviceinthesaidhousehold,Lorenzos
[38]
wifeandhischildrenwerestayinginthesamehouse. Sheservedinthesaidhouseholdfrom1980
[39]
untilPacienciasdeparturefortheUSAonSeptember19,1981.

OnSeptember13,1981,RosieclaimedthatshesawFaustinobringsomethingforPacienciato
[40]
signatthelattershouse. Rosieadmitted,though,thatshedidnotseewhatthatsomethingwasas
[41]
samewasplacedinsideanenvelope. However,sherememberedPacienciainstructingFaustinoto
[42]
firstlookformoneybeforeshesignsthem. AfewdaysafteroronSeptember16,1981,Paciencia
[43]
wenttothehouseofAntoniosmotherandbroughtwithherthesaidenvelope. Upongoinghome,
[44]
however, the envelope was no longer with Paciencia. Rosie further testified that Paciencia was
referredtoasmagulyanorforgetfulbecauseshewouldsometimesleaveherwalletinthekitchenthen
[45]
startlookingforitmomentslater. Oncrossexamination,itwasestablishedthatRosiewasneithera
doctornorapsychiatrist,thatherconclusionthatPacienciawasmagulyanwasbasedonherpersonal
[46] [47]
assessment, andthatitwasAntoniowhorequestedhertotestifyincourt.

[48]
Inhisdirectexamination,AntoniostatedthatPacienciawashisaunt. HeidentifiedtheWill
and testified that he had seen the said document before because Paciencia brought the same to his
[49]
mothershouseandshowedittohimalongwithanotherdocumentonSeptember16,1981. Antonio
[50]
allegedthatwhenthedocumentswereshowntohim,thesamewerestillunsigned. Accordingto
[51]
him,Pacienciathoughtthatthedocumentspertainedtoaleaseofoneofherricelands, anditwashe
who explained that the documents were actually a special power of attorney to lease and sell her
fishpond and other properties upon her departure for the USA, and a Will which would transfer her
[52]
propertiestoLorenzoandhisfamilyuponherdeath. Uponhearingthis,Pacienciaallegedlyuttered
thefollowingwords:WhywillInever[return],whywillIsellallmyproperties?WhoisLorenzo?Ishe
theonly[son]ofGod?Ihaveotherrelatives[whoshould]benefitfrommyproperties.WhyshouldIdie
 [53]
already? Thereafter,AntonioadvisedPaciencianottosignthedocumentsifshedoesnotwantto,to
whichthelatterpurportedlyreplied,Iknownothingaboutthose,throwthemawayoritisuptoyou.The
[54]
moreIwillnotsignthem. Afterwhich,PaciencialeftthedocumentswithAntonio.Antoniokeptthe
unsigneddocuments
[55]
andeventuallyturnedthemovertoFaustinoonSeptember18,1981.

RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt

[56]
OnSeptember30,2003,theRTCrendereditsDecision denyingthepetitionthus:

WHEREFORE,thiscourthereby(a)deniesthepetitiondatedApril24,2000and(b)disallows
thenotarizedwilldatedSeptember13,1981ofPacienciaRegala.

[57]
SOORDERED.


ThetrialcourtgaveconsiderableweighttothetestimonyofRosieandconcludedthatatthetime
PacienciasignedtheWill,shewasnolongerpossessedofsufficientreasonorstrengthofmindtohave
[58]
testamentarycapacity.

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

Onappeal,theCAreversedtheRTCDecisionandgrantedtheprobateoftheWillofPaciencia.
TheappellatecourtdidnotagreewiththeRTCsconclusionthatPacienciawasofunsoundmindwhen
sheexecutedtheWill.Itratiocinatedthatthestateofbeingmagulyandoesnotmakeapersonmentally
[59]
unsoundso[as]torender[Paciencia]unfitforexecutingaWill. Moreover,theoppositorsinthe
probateproceedingswerenotabletoovercomethepresumptionthateverypersonisofsoundmind.
Further, no concrete circumstances or events were given to prove the allegation that Paciencia was
[60]
trickedorforcedintosigningtheWill.
[61]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by the CA in its
[62]
Resolution datedAugust31,2006.

 Hence,thispetition.

Issues

PetitionerscomebeforethisCourtbywayofPetitionforReviewonCertiorariascribingupon
theCAthefollowingerrors:

I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED THE
PROBATE OF PACIENCIAS WILL DESPITE RESPONDENTS UTTER FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITHSECTION11,RULE76OFTHERULESOFCOURT

II.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINMAKINGCONCLUSIONSNOT
INACCORDANCEWITHTHEEVIDENCEONRECORD

III.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINRULINGTHATPETITIONERS
FAILEDTOPROVETHATPACIENCIAWASNOTOFSOUNDMINDATTHETIMETHEWILL
[63]
WASALLEGEDLYEXECUTED


The pivotal issue is whether the authenticity and due execution of the notarial Will was sufficiently
establishedtowarrantitsallowanceforprobate.

OurRuling

Wedenythepetition.

Faithfulcompliancewiththeformalities
laiddownbylawisapparentfromthefaceoftheWill.

Courtsaretaskedtodeterminenothingmorethantheextrinsicvalidityofa
[64]
Willinprobateproceedings. ThisisexpresslyprovidedforinRule75,Section1oftheRulesof
Court,whichstates:

Rule75
PRODUCTIONOFWILL.ALLOWANCEOFWILLNECESSARY.

 Section1.Allowancenecessary.Conclusiveastoexecution.Nowillshallpasseitherreal
orpersonalestateunlessitisprovedandallowedinthepropercourt.Subjecttotherightofappeal,
suchallowanceofthewillshallbeconclusiveastoitsdueexecution.


Dueexecutionofthewilloritsextrinsicvaliditypertainstowhetherthetestator,beingofsound
[65]
mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. These
formalitiesareenshrinedinArticles805and806oftheNewCivilCode,towit:

Art.805.Everywill,otherthanaholographicwill,mustbesubscribedattheendthereofbythe
testatorhimselforbythetestator'snamewrittenbysomeotherpersoninhispresence,andbyhisexpress
direction,andattestedandsubscribedbythreeormorecrediblewitnessesinthepresenceofthetestator
andofoneanother.

Thetestatororthepersonrequestedbyhimtowritehisnameandtheinstrumentalwitnessesofthe
will,shallalsosign,asaforesaid,eachandeverypagethereof,exceptthelast,ontheleftmargin,andall
thepagesshallbenumberedcorrelativelyinlettersplacedontheupperpartofeachpage.

Theattestationshallstatethenumberofpagesuseduponwhichthewilliswritten,andthefactthat
thetestatorsignedthewillandeverypagethereof,orcausedsomeotherpersontowritehisname,under
hisexpressdirection,inthepresenceoftheinstrumentalwitnesses,andthatthelatterwitnessedandsigned
thewillandallthepagesthereofinthepresenceofthetestatorandofoneanother.
Iftheattestationclauseisinalanguagenotknowntothewitnesses,itshallbeinterpretedtothem.
Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses.Thenotarypublicshallnotberequiredtoretainacopyofthewill,orfileanotherwiththe
OfficeoftheClerkofCourt.


Here,acarefulexaminationofthefaceoftheWillshowsfaithfulcompliancewiththeformalities
laiddownbylaw.Thesignaturesofthetestatrix,Paciencia,herinstrumentalwitnessesandthenotary
public,areallpresentandevidentontheWill.Further,theattestationclauseexplicitlystatesthecritical
requirement that the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses signed the Will in the presence of one
anotherandthatthewitnessesattestedandsubscribedtotheWillinthepresenceofthetestatorandof
one another. In fact, even the petitioners acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the Will may be
authenticalthoughtheyquestionherstateofmindwhenshesignedthesameaswellasthevoluntary
natureofsaidact.

TheburdentoprovethatPacienciawasofunsoundmindat
thetimeoftheexecutionofthewillliesontheshouldersofthe
petitioners.


 Petitioners,throughtheirwitnessRosie,claimthatPacienciawasmagulyanorforgetfulsomuch
sothatiteffectivelystrippedheroftestamentarycapacity.TheylikewiseclaimedintheirMotionfor
[66]
Reconsideration filedwiththeCAthatPacienciawasnotonlymagulyanbutwasactuallysuffering
[67]
fromparanoia.

Wearenotconvinced.

WeagreewiththepositionoftheCAthatthestateofbeingforgetfuldoesnotnecessarilymakea
[68]
personmentallyunsoundsoastorenderhimunfittoexecuteaWill. Forgetfulnessisnotequivalent
tobeingofunsoundmind.Besides,Article799oftheNewCivilCodestates:

Art.799.Tobeofsoundmind,itisnotnecessarythatthetestatorbeinfullpossessionofallhis
reasoningfaculties,orthathismindbewhollyunbroken,unimpaired,orunshatteredbydisease,injuryor
othercause.

Itshallbesufficientifthetestatorwasableatthetimeofmakingthewilltoknowthenatureofthe
estatetobedisposedof,theproperobjectsofhisbounty,andthecharacterofthetestamentaryact.


Inthiscase,apartfromthetestimonyofRosiepertainingtoPacienciasforgetfulness,thereisno
substantialevidence,medicalorotherwise,thatwouldshowthatPacienciawasofunsoundmindatthe
timeoftheexecutionoftheWill.Ontheotherhand,wefindmoreworthyofcredenceDra.Limpins
testimonyastothesoundnessofmindofPacienciawhenthelatterwenttoJudgeLimpinshouseand
voluntarilyexecutedtheWill.ThetestimonyofsubscribingwitnessestoaWillconcerningthetestators
[69]
mental condition is entitled to great weight where they are truthful and intelligent. More
importantly,atestatorispresumedtobeofsoundmindatthetimeoftheexecutionoftheWillandthe
burdentoproveotherwiseliesontheoppositor.Article800oftheNewCivilCodestates:

Art.800.Thelawpresumesthateverypersonisofsoundmind,intheabsenceofprooftothe
contrary.

Theburdenofproofthatthetestatorwasnotofsoundmindatthetimeofmakinghisdispositions
isonthepersonwhoopposestheprobateofthewillbutifthetestator,onemonth,orless,beforemaking
hiswillwaspubliclyknowntobeinsane,thepersonwhomaintainsthevalidityofthewillmustprovethat
thetestatormadeitduringalucidinterval.


 Here,therewasnoshowingthatPacienciawaspubliclyknowntobeinsaneonemonthorless
beforethemakingoftheWill.Clearly,thus,theburdentoprovethatPacienciawasofunsoundmind
liesupontheshouldersofpetitioners.Howeverandasearliermentioned,nosubstantialevidencewas
presented by them to prove the same, thereby warranting the CAs finding that petitioners failed to
dischargesuchburden.

Furthermore,weareconvincedthatPacienciawasawareofthenatureofherestatetobedisposedof,
theproperobjectsofherbountyandthecharacterofthetestamentaryact.Asaptlypointedoutbythe
CA:

A scrutiny of the Will discloses that [Paciencia] was aware of the nature of the document she
executed.Shespeciallyrequestedthatthecustomsofherfaithbeobserveduponherdeath.Shewaswell
aware of how she acquired the properties from her parents and the properties she is bequeathing to
LORENZO,tohiswifeCORAZONandtohistwo(2)children.Athirdchildwasbornaftertheexecution
[70]
ofthewillandwasnotincludedthereinasdevisee.

Bare allegations of duress or influence of fear or threats,
undueandimproperinfluenceandpressure,fraudandtrickery
cannotbeusedasbasistodenytheprobateofawill.


AnessentialelementofthevalidityoftheWillisthewillingnessofthetestatorortestatrixto
execute the document that will distribute his/her earthly possessions upon his/her death. Petitioners
claimthatPacienciawasforcedtoexecutetheWillunderduressorinfluenceoffearorthreatsthatthe
executionoftheWillhadbeenprocuredbyundueandimproperpressureandinfluencebyLorenzoor
by some other persons for his benefit and that assuming Paciencias signature to be genuine, it was
obtainedthroughfraudortrickery.ThesearegroundedontheallegedconversationbetweenPaciencia
and Antonio on September 16, 1981 wherein the former purportedly repudiated the Will and left it
unsigned.

Wearenotpersuaded.
WetakeintoconsiderationtheunrebuttedfactthatPaciencialovedandtreatedLorenzoasher
ownsonandthatloveevenextendedtoLorenzoswifeandchildren.Thiskindofrelationshipisnot
unusual.Itisinfactnotunheardofinourcultureforoldmaidsorspinsterstocareforandraisetheir
nephews and nieces and treat them as their own children. Such is a prevalent and accepted cultural
practicethathasresultedinmanyfamilydiscordsbetweenthosefavoredbythetestamentarydisposition
ofatestatorandthosewhostandtobenefitincaseofintestacy.

Inthiscase,evidenceshowstheacknowledgedfactthatPacienciasrelationshipwithLorenzoand
hisfamilyisdifferentfromherrelationshipwithpetitioners.Theveryfactthatshecaredforandraised
Lorenzoandlivedwithhimbothhereandabroad,evenifthelatterwasalreadymarriedandalreadyhas
children,highlightsthespecialbondbetweenthem.ThisunquestionedrelationshipbetweenPaciencia
andthedeviseestendstosupporttheauthenticityofthesaiddocumentasagainstpetitionersallegations
ofduress,influenceoffearorthreats,undueandimproperinfluence,pressure,fraud,andtrickerywhich,
asidefrombeingfactualinnature,arenotsupportedbyconcrete,substantialandcredibleevidenceon
record.Itisworthstressingthatbarearguments,nomatterhowforceful,ifnotbasedonconcreteand
[71]
substantial evidence cannot suffice to move the Court to uphold said allegations. Furthermore,a
purportedwillisnot[tobe]deniedlegalizationondubiousgrounds.Otherwise,theveryinstitutionof
testamentarysuccessionwillbeshakentoitsfoundation,forevenifawillhasbeendulyexecutedin
fact,whetherxxxitwillbeprobatedwouldhavetodependlargelyontheattitudeofthoseinterestedin
[72]
[theestateofthedeceased].

Courtshouldbeconvincedbytheevidencepresentedbeforeit
thattheWillwasdulyexecuted.

PetitionersdisputetheauthenticityofPacienciasWillonthegroundthatSection11ofRule76of
theRulesofCourtwasnotcompliedwith.Itprovides:

RULE76
ALLOWANCEORDISALLOWANCEOFWILL
Section11.Subscribingwitnessesproducedoraccountedforwherewillcontested.Ifthewillis
contested,allthesubscribingwitnesses,andthenotaryinthecaseofwillsexecutedundertheCivilCode
ofthePhilippines,ifpresentinthePhilippinesandnotinsane,mustbeproducedandexamined,andthe
death,absence,orinsanityofanyofthemmustbesatisfactorilyshowntothecourt.Ifallorsomeofsuch
witnesses are present in the Philippines but outside the province where the will has been filed, their
deposition must be taken. If any or all of them testify against the due execution of the will, or do not
remember having attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful credibility, the will may nevertheless, be
allowedifthecourtissatisfiedfromthetestimonyofotherwitnessesandfromalltheevidencepresented
thatthewillwasexecutedandattestedinthemannerrequiredbylaw.

Ifaholographicwilliscontested,thesameshallbeallowedifatleastthree(3)witnesseswho
knowthehandwritingofthetestatorexplicitlydeclarethatthewillandthesignatureareinthehandwriting
of the testator in the absence of any competent witnesses, and if the court deem it necessary, expert
testimonymayberesortedto.(Emphasissupplied.)


Theyinsistthatallsubscribingwitnessesandthenotarypublicshouldhavebeenpresentedin
courtsinceallbutonewitness,Francisco,arestillliving.

Wecannotagreewithpetitioners.

WenotethattheinabilityofFaustinoandJudgeLimpintoappearandtestifybeforethecourtwas
satisfactorilyexplainedduringtheprobateproceedings.Astestifiedtobyhisson,Faustinohadaheart
attack,wasalreadybedriddenandcouldnolongertalkandexpresshimselfduetobraindamage.To
prove this, said witness presented the corresponding medical certificate. For her part, Dra. Limpin
testifiedthatherfather,JudgeLimpin,sufferedastrokein1991andhadtoundergobrainsurgery.At
thattime,JudgeLimpincouldnolongertalkandcouldnotevenrememberhisdaughtersnamesothat
Dra.Limpinstatedthatgivensuchcondition,herfathercouldnolongertestify.Itiswelltonotethatat
thatpoint,despiteampleopportunity,petitionersneitherinterposedanyobjectionstothetestimoniesof
said witnesses nor challenged the same on cross examination. We thus hold that for all intents and
purposes, Lorenzo was able to satisfactorily account for the incapacity and failure of the said
subscribingwitnessandofthenotarypublictotestifyincourt.BecauseofthistheprobateofPaciencias
WillmaybeallowedonthebasisofDra.Limpinstestimonyprovinghersanityandthedueexecutionof
theWill,aswellasontheproofofherhandwriting.Itisanestablishedrulethat[a]testamentmaynot
bedisallowedjustbecausetheattestingwitnessesdeclareagainstitsdueexecutionneitherdoesithave
tobenecessarilyallowedjustbecausealltheattestingwitnessesdeclareinfavorofitslegalizationwhat
is decisive is that the court is convinced by evidence before it, not necessarily from the attesting
witnesses,althoughtheymusttestify,thatthewillwasorwasnotdulyexecutedinthemannerrequired
[73]
bylaw.

Moreover,itbearsstressingthat[i]rrespectivexxxofthepostureofanyofthepartiesasregards
theauthenticityanddueexecutionofthewillxxxinquestion,itisthemandateofthelawthatitisthe
[74]
evidencebeforethecourtand/or[evidencethat]oughttobebeforeitthatiscontrolling. Thevery
existenceof[theWill]isinitselfprimafacieproofthatthesupposed[testatrix]haswilledthat[her]
estatebedistributedinthemannerthereinprovided,anditisincumbentuponthestatethat,iflegally
[75]
tenable,suchdesirebegivenfulleffectindependentoftheattitudeofthepartiesaffectedthereby.
This,coupledwithLorenzosestablishedrelationshipwithPaciencia,theevidenceandthetestimoniesof
disinterestedwitnesses,asopposedtothetotallackofevidencepresentedbypetitionersapartfromtheir
selfservingtestimonies,constrainustotiltthebalanceinfavoroftheauthenticityoftheWillandits
allowanceforprobate.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheDecisiondatedJune15,2006andtheResolution
datedAugust31,2006oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.80979areAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsinthe
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.



 RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
GonzalesVda.dePrecillav.Narciso,150BPhil.437,473(1972).
[2]
Rollo,pp.931.
[3]
CA rollo, pp. 177192 penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S.
AbdulwahidandVicenteQ.Roxas.
[4]
Records,pp.220246pennedbyJudgeJonelS.Mercado.
[5]
CArollo,p.192.
[6]
Id.at212.
[7]
ExhibitG,FolderofExhibits,pp.3639.
[8]
ExhibitG11,id.at38.
[9]
ExhibitsG9,G10,andG11,id.at36,37and39.
[10]
ExhibitG6,idat38.
[11]
ExhibitsG4,G5,andG7,id.at36,37and39.
[12]
EnglishTranslationoftheLastWillandTestamentofMissPacienciaRegala,ExhibitsH1andH2,id.at4142.
[13]
TSNdatedApril18,2001,pp.26.
[14]
Records,pp.13.
[15]
Id.at1314.
[16]
TSNdatedJune22,2000,p.2.
[17]
Id.at5.
[18]
Id.at24.
[19]
Id.at3.
[20]
Id.at2.
[21]
Id.at6.
[22]
MotionwithLeaveofCourttoAdmitInstantOppositiontoPetitionofLorenzoLaxarecords,pp.1718.
[23]
Id.at17.
[24]
Id.at2528.
[25]
Article1049.Acceptancemaybeexpressortacit.
xxxx
Actsofmerepreservationorprovisionaladministrationdonotimplyanacceptanceoftheinheritanceif,throughsuchacts,thetitleor
capacityofanheirhasnotbeenassumed.
[26]
Records,p.26.
[27]
Id.at27.
[28]
Id.at4243.
[29]
Id.at4445.
[30]
Id.at52.
[31]
TSNdatedJanuary18,2001,pp.24.
[32]
Id.at56.
[33]
TSNdatedApril18,2001,pp.128.
[34]
Id.at915.
[35]
Id.at1617.
[36]
Id.at2425.
[37]
TSNdatedNovember27,2002,p.4.
[38]
Id.at5.
[39]
TSNdatedDecember4,2002,p.8
[40]
Id.pp.23.
[41]
Id.at4.
[42]
Id.
[43]
Id.at7.
[44]
Id.at8.
[45]
Id.at9.
[46]
Id.at10.
[47]
Id.at11.
[48]
TSNdatedJanuary7,2003,p.3.
[49]
Id.at68.
[50]
Id.at12.
[51]
Id.at11.
[52]
Id.at16.
[53]
Id.at17.
[54]
Id.
[55]
Idat1819.
[56]
Records,pp.220246.
[57]
Id.at246.
[58]
Id.at245246.
[59]
CArollo,p.185.
[60]
Id.at188.
[61]
Id.at193199.
[62]
Id.at212.
[63]
Rollo,p.18.
[64]
Pastor,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,207Phil.758,766.(1983).
[65]
Id.
[66]
CArollo,pp.193199.
[67]
Id.at194195.
[68]
TorresandLopezdeBuenov.Lopez,48Phil.772,810(1926)Sanchov.Abella,58Phil.728,732733(1933).
[69]
Id.at811.
[70]
CArollo,pp.185186.
[71]
GonzalesVda.dePrecillav.Narciso,supranote1at445.
[72]
Id.at474.
[73]
Id.at452.
[74]
Id.at453.
[75]
Id.at473.