1. Octavio S. Maloles II vs. Pacita De Los Reyes Phillips G.R. No.

129505, January 31, 2000

Facts: Dr. Arturo de Santos, Filipino and a resident of Makati City, filed a petition for probate of his will in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. M-4223. In his petition, Dr. De Santos alleged that he had no compulsory heirs; that he had named in his will as sole legatee and devisee the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc.; that he disposed by his will his properties with an approximate value of not less than P2,000,000.00; and that copies of said will were in the custody of the named executrix, private respondent Pacita de los Reyes Phillips. A copy of the will was annexed to the petition for probate. Shortly after the probate of his will Dr. Arturo de Santos died on February 26, 1996.

Petitioner Octavio S. Maloles II filed a motion for intervention claiming that, as the only child of Alicia de Santos (testator's sister) and Octavio L. Maloles, Sr., he was the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest of kin of Dr. De Santos. He likewise alleged that he was a creditor of the testator and prayed for the reconsideration of the order allowing the will and the issuance of letters of administration in his name. Private respondent Pacita de los Reyes Phillips, the designated executrix of the will, filed a motion for the issuance of letters testamentary with Branch 61 later withdraw her motion and refilled a petition for the same purpose at the RTC, Makati assigned at Branch 65 in which an order issued appointing her as special administrator of Dr. De Santos estate.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner, being a creditor of the late Dr. Arturo de Santos, has a right to intervene and oppose the petition for issuance of letters testamentary filed by the respondent. Held: The private respondent herein is not an heir or legatee under the will of the decedent Arturo de Santos. Neither is he a compulsory heir of the latter. As the only and nearest collateral relative of the decedent, he can inherit from the latter only in case of intestacy. Since the decedent has left a will which has already been probated and disposes of all his properties the private respondent can inherit only if the said will is annulled. His interest in the decedent's estate is, therefore, not direct or immediate. His claim to being a creditor of the estate is a belated one, having been raised for the first time only in his reply to the opposition to his motion to intervene, and, as far as the records show, not supported by evidence. The opposition must come from one with a direct interest in the estate or the will, and the private respondent has none.

Even if petitioner is the nearest next of kin of Dr. De Santos, he cannot be considered an "heir" of the testator. It is a fundamental rule of testamentary succession that one who has no compulsory or forced heirs may dispose of his entire estate by will. Thus, Article 842 of the Civil Code provides: One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor of any person having capacity to succeed. One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene the provisions of this Code with regard to the legitimate of said heirs. Compulsory heirs are limited to the testator's (1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants; (2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and descendants; (3) The widow or widower; (4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction; (5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287 of the Civil Code. Petitioner, as nephew of the testator, is not a compulsory heir who may have been preterited in the testator's will.

2. LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA vs. JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE G.R. No. 157451, December 16, 2005 Facts: Placido Valmonte executed a notarial last will and testament leaving his properties in the Philippines to his wife Josefina Valmonte. He also left real and personal properties, including savings account bank book in USA which is in the possession of his nephew, to his wife. Lastly, he instituted herein respondent as the sole executrix of his last will and testament, and it be exempt from filing a bond. Petitioner Leticia Valmonte Ortega opposed the will declaring that respondent should not inherit because there are relatives who are just entitled to inherit from the testator. She attacked the mental capacity of the testator claiming deterioration, aberrations and senility of the testators physical and mental condition. Reversing the trial court, the appellate court admitted the will of Placido Valmonte to probate. The CA upheld the credibility and due execution of the will. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not Placido Valmonte has testamentary capacity at the time he allegedly executed the subject will. Held: The Court finds that the appellate court was correct in holding that Placido had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of his will. Applying Article 799 to the present case, there are three things that the testator must have the ability to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the nature of the estate to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the testators bounty, and (3) the character of the testamentary act. It must be noted that despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify accurately the kinds of property he owned, the extent of his shares in them and even their locations. As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. As we have stated earlier, the omission of some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There being no showing of fraud in its execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.

3. Spouses Ajero vs CA and Sand Gr no. 106720, September 15, 1994 Facts: A holographic will was executed by late Annie Sand, who died on Nov. 25, 1982. Petitioners Spouses Alejo and private respondent Clemente Sand were named as devisees in the will. Petitioners moved for the allowance of the decedents holographic. They alleged that the formalities required for a holographic will has been complied with. Private respondent however opposed the petition on the grounds that; neither the testaments body nor the signature therein was in decedents hand writing, that it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent and that the will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence. The trial Court admitted the will to probate for the fact that there were no convincing grounds presented and proven for the disallowance of the holographic. On appeal, the petition for probate of the will was dismissed. Hence this petition. Issue: WON the will failed to meet the requirements for its validity thus should not be probated. Held: The Court held that in case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity is the requirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself. Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator. The requirement that it must be corrected in case of alteration as provided in Art.813 and 814 affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions cannot de effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole testament void. Thus the court ruled that a holographic will can still be admitted to probate notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Art. 813 and 814, because only the requirements in Art, 810 and not those of the former are essential to the probate of a holographic will.

4. G.R. No. 76648 February 26, 1988 The Heirs of the Late Matilde Montinola-Sanson vs. Court of Appeals FACTS: Private respondent Atty. Hernandez filed a petition seeking for the probate of the holographic will of the late Herminia Montinola. The testatrix, who died single, parentless and childless at the age of 70 years, devised in this will several of her real properties to specified persons. petitioner Matilde Montinola Sanson, the only surviving sister of the deceased but who was not named in the said will, filed her Opposition to Probate of Will, alleging that the subject will was not entirely written, dated and signed by the testatrix herself and the same was falsely dated or antedated; that the testatrix was not in full possession of her mental faculties to make testamentary dispositions; that undue influence was exerted upon the person and mind of the testatrix by the beneficiaries named in the will; and that the will failed to institute a residual heir to the remainder of the estate. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion for new trial alleging that witnesses have been located whose testimonies could shed light as to the ill health of the testatrix as well as undue influence exerted on the latter and that her exclusion from the alleged holographic will was without rhyme or reason, being the only surviving sister of the testatrix with whom she shares an intimate relationship, thus demonstrating the lack of testamentary capacity of testatrix and since the testatrix failed to dispose of all of her estate is an indication of the unsoundness of her mind. The Probate Court allowed the probate of the disputed will. ISSUE: W/N the Holographic will was wholly written, dated and signed by the testator herself and whether she had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will? HELD: During the hearing before the probate court, not only were three (3) close relatives of the testatrix presented but also two (2) expert witnesses who declared that the contested will and signature are in the handwriting of the testatrix. These testimonies more than satisfy the requirements of Art. 811 of the Civil Code in conjunction with the probate of holographic wills. Article 842 of the Civil Code provides that one who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor of any person having capacity to succeed. It is within the right of the testatrix not to include her only sister who is not a compulsory heir in her will. Art. 841 of the Civil Code provides A will shall be valid even though it should not contain an institution of an heir, or such institution should not comprise the entire estate, and even though the person so instituted should not accept the inheritance or should be incapacitated to succeed. Thus, the fact that in her holographic will, testatrix disposed of only 11 of her real properties does not invalidate the will, or is it an indication that the testatrix was of unsound mind. The portion of the estate undisposed of shall pass on to the heirs of the deceased in intestate succession. The most authentic proof that deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the Will, is the Will itself which according to a report of one of the two expert witnesses reveals the existence of significant handwriting characteristics such as: spontaneity, freedom and good line quality that could not be achieved by the testatrix if it was

true that she was indeed of unsound mind and/or under undue influence or improper pressure when she made the Will. 5. Dy Yieng Sangio vs. Reyes G.R. Nos. 140371-72, November 27, 2006 Facts: A petition for the probate of the alleged holographic will of Segundo denominated as kasulatan sa pag aalis ng mana was filed by the petitioner. The private respondent moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings primarily on the ground that the document purporting to be the holographic will of Segundo did not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus did not meet the definition of a will under Article 783 of the Civil Code. According to private respondents, the will only showed an alleged act of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, and nothing else; that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor instituted as heir, devisee or legatee; hence there was preterition which would result to intestacy. Such being the case, private respondents maintained that while procedurally the court is called upon to rule only on the extrinsic validity of the will, it is not barred from delving into the intrinsic validity of the same, and ordering the dismissal of the petition for probate when on the face of the will it is clear that it contains no testamentary disposition of the property of the decedent. Issue: Whether or not the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a holographic will and whether a document not entitled last will and testament, could still be treated as a will. Held: A holographic will, as provided under Article 810 of the Civil Code, must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed. The document, even if captioned as Kasulatan ng Pag-alis ng Mana, was intended by the testator to be his last testamentary act and was executed by him in accordance with law in the form of a holographic will. Although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa

can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latters property, the disinheritance, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator in favor of those who would succeed in the in the disinherited heir. Antonip Baltazar Vs. Lorenzo Laxa April 11, 2012 Facts: This is a petition for certiorari on the decision of the CA which reversed the decision of the RTC. Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will and testament in the Pampango dialect on September 13, 1981. The Will, executed in the house of retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin, complying with all the procedures necessary for the validy of the will. The three witnesses attested to the Wills due execution by affixing their signatures thereon. Childless and without any brothers or sisters, Paciencia bequeathed all her properties to respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa and his wife Corazon F. Laxa and their children. Six days after the execution of the Will or on September 19, 1981, Paciencia left for the United States of America (USA). There, she resided with Lorenzo and his family until her death on January 4, 1996 More than four years after the death of Paciencia or on April 27, 2000, Lorenzo filed a petition with the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and for the issuance of Letters of Administration in his favor. There being no opposition to the petition after its due publication, the RTC issued an Order on June 13, 2000 allowing Lorenzo to present evidence on June 22, 2000. The following day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar filed an opposition to Lorenzos petition. Antonio averred that the properties subject of Paciencias Will belong to Nicomeda Regala Mangalindan, his predecessorin-interest; hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath them to Lorenzo. Barely a month after or on July 20, 2000, Antonio, now joined by other petitioners filed a Supplemental Opposition contending that Paciencias Will was null and void because ownership of the properties had not been transferred and/or titled to Paciencia before her death and that he is disqualifies to administer the estate being a US citizen. Later still on September 26, 2000, petitioners filed an Amended Opposition asking the RTC to deny the probate of Paciencias Will on the following grounds: the Will was not executed and attested to in accordance with the requirements of the law; that Paciencia was mentally incapable to make a Will at the time of its execution; that she was forced to execute the Will under duress or influence of fear or threats; that the execution of the Will had been procured by undue and improper pressure and influence by Lorenzo or by some other persons for his benefit; that the signature of

Paciencia on the Will was forged; that assuming the signature to be genuine, it was obtained through fraud or trickery; and, that Paciencia did not intend the document to be her Will. On January 29, 2001, the RTC issued an Order denying the requests of both Lorenzo and Antonio to be appointed administrator since the former is a citizen and resident of the USA while the latters claim as a co-owner of the properties subject of the Will has not yet been established. Meanwhile, proceedings on the petition for the probate of the Will continued. The witnesses testified and also Lorenzo . For petitioners, Rosie testified and claimed that she saw Faustino bring something for Paciencia to sign at the latters house. Rosie further testified that Paciencia was referred to as magulyan or forgetful. On September 30, 2003, the RTC rendered its decision denying the petition and disallowed the notarized will. The trial court gave considerable weight to the testimony of Rosie and concluded that at the time Paciencia signed the Will, she was no longer possessed of sufficient reason or strength of mind to have testamentary capacity. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC Decision and granted the probate of the Will of Paciencia. The appellate court did not agree with the RTCs conclusion that Paciencia was of unsound mind when she executed the Will. Further, no concrete circumstances or events were given to prove the allegation that Paciencia was tricked or forced into signing the Will. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition. Issues:
W/N C.A. gravely erred in ruling that petitioners failed to prove that Pacencia was not of sound mind at the time the will was allegedly executed

HELD: We deny the petition. Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law which are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code. A careful examination of the face of the Will shows faithful compliance with the formalities laid down by law. The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses and the notary public, are all present and evident on the Will. Further, the attestation clause explicitly states the critical requirement that the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses signed the Will in the presence of one another and that the witnesses attested and subscribed to the Will in the presence of the testator and of one another. In fact, even the petitioners acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the Will may be authentic although they question her state of mind when she signed the same as well as the voluntary nature of said act.

The burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the will lies on the shoulders of the petitioners. Petitioners claim that Paciencia was magulyan or forgetful so much so that it effectively stripped her of testamentary capacity. We agree with the position of the CA that the state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a Will. Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind. In this case, apart from the testimony of Rosie pertaining to Paciencias forgetfulness, there is no substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, that would show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the Will. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 15, 2006 and the Resolution dated August 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80979 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.