ORTEGA VS.

VALMONTE
G.R. No. 157451, December 16, 2005 478 SCRA 247

FACTS:

Like so many others before him, Placido toiled and lived for a long time in the
United States until he finally reached retirement. In 1980, Placido finally came home to
stay in the Philippines, and he lived in the house and lot located at #9200 Catmon St.,
San Antonio Village, Makati, which he owned in common with his sister Ciriaca
Valmonte and titled in their names in TCT 123468. Two years after his arrival from the
United States and at the age of 80 he wed Josefina who was then 28 years old, in a
ceremony solemnized by Judge Perfecto Laguio, Jr. on February 5, 1982. But in a little
more than two years of wedded bliss, Placido died on October 8, 1984 of a cause written
down as COR PULMONALE.

Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in English and
consisting of two (2) pages, and dated June 15, 1983 but acknowledged only on August
9, 1983. The first page contains the entire testamentary dispositions and a part of the
attestation clause, and was signed at the end or bottom of that page by the testator and
on the left hand margin by the three instrumental witnesses. The second page contains
the continuation of the attestation clause and the acknowledgment, and was signed by
the witnesses at the end of the attestation clause and again on the left hand margin.

The allowance to probate of this will was opposed by Leticia on the grounds that:

1. Petitioner failed to allege all assets of the testator, especially those found in the
USA;

2. Petitioner failed to state the names, ages, and residences of the heirs of the
testator; or to give them proper notice pursuant to law;

3. Will was not executed and attested as required by law and legal solemnities
and formalities were not complied with;

4. Testator was mentally incapable to make a will at the time of the alleged
execution he being in an advance sate of senility;

5. Will was executed under duress, or the influence of fear or threats;

6. Will was procured by undue and improper influence and pressure on the part
of the petitioner and/or her agents and/or assistants; and/or
 7. Signature of testator was procured by fraud, or trick, and he did not intend
that the instrument should be his will at the time of affixing his signature
thereto;’

and she also opposed the appointment as Executrix of Josefina alleging her want
of understanding and integrity.

Sifting through the evidence, the court a quo held that [t]he evidence adduced,
reduces the opposition to two grounds, namely:

1. Non-compliance with the legal solemnities and formalities in the execution

2. Mental incapacity of the testator at the time of the execution of the will as he
was then in an advanced state of senility

Reversing the trial court, the appellate court admitted the will of Placido
Valmonte to probate. The CA upheld the credibility of the notary public and the
subscribing witnesses who had acknowledged the due execution of the will. Moreover,
it held that the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the
will. It added that his "sexual exhibitionism and unhygienic, crude and impolite ways"6
did not make him a person of unsound mind.

Hence, this Petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the signature of Placido Valmonte in the subject will was
procured by fraud or trickery, and that Placido Valmonte never intended that the
instrument should be his last will and testament.
2. Whether or not the testator had testamentary at the time of the execution of the
will?

RULING:

1. No.

Petitioner does not dispute the due observance of the formalities in the execution
of the will, but maintains that the circumstances surrounding it are indicative of the
existence of fraud. Particularly, she alleges that respondent, who is the testator’s wife
and sole beneficiary, conspired with the notary public and the three attesting witnesses
in deceiving Placido to sign it. Deception is allegedly reflected in the varying dates of
the execution and the attestation of the will.
 The Court is not convinced. Fraud "is a trick, secret device, false statement, or
pretense, by which the subject of it is cheated. It may be of such character that the
testator is misled or deceived as to the nature or contents of the document which he
executes, or it may relate to some extrinsic fact, in consequence of the deception
regarding which the testator is led to make a certain will which, but for the fraud, he
would not have made.

The Court stresses that the party challenging the will bears the burden of
proving the existence of fraud at the time of its execution. The burden to show
otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will only upon a showing of credible evidence
of fraud. Unfortunately in this case, other than the self-serving allegations of petitioner,
no evidence of fraud was ever presented.

It is a settled doctrine that the omission of some relatives does not affect the due
execution of a will. That the testator was tricked into signing it was not sufficiently
established by the fact that he had instituted his wife, who was more than fifty years his
junior, as the sole beneficiary; and disregarded petitioner and her family, who were the
ones who had taken "the cudgels of taking care of [the testator] in his twilight years."

Moreover, as correctly ruled by the appellate court, the conflict between the
dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the document, "because the law does
not even require that a [notarial] will x x x be executed and acknowledged on the same
occasion. More important, the will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by
three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of the testator
and of one another. Furthermore, the testator and the witnesses must acknowledge the
will before a notary public. In any event, the Court agrees with the CA that "the
variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was
satisfactorily and persuasively explained by the notary public and the instrumental
witnesses.

2. Yes, the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the
will.

The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of
making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the
testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the
person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it
during a lucid interval.

According to Article 799, the 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 testator’s bounty, and (3) the character of the
testamentary act. Applying this test to the present case, 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.

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 the Court had 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.

* Case digest by Mary Tweetie Antonette G. Semprun, LLB-4, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY
2019-2020