Succession Full Text Case Art 800

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------
G.R. No. L-24569
February 26, 1926
MALCOLM, J.: This case concerns the probate of the alleged will of the late Tomas Rodriguez y Lopez. Tomas Rodriguez died in the City of Manila Philippine Islands. On February 25, 1924, leaving a considerable estate. Shortly thereafter Manuel Torres, one of the executors named in the will asked that the will of Rodriguez be allowed. Opposition was entered by Margarita Lopez, the first cousin of the deceased on the grounds: (1) That the testator lacked mental capacity because at the time of senile dementia and was under guardianship; (2) that undue influence had been exercised by the persons benefited in the document in conjunction with others who acted in their behalf; and (3) that the signature of Tomas Rodriguez to the document was obtained through fraud and deceit. After a prolonged trial judgment was rendered denying the legalization of the will. In the decision of the trial judge appeared, among others, these findings: All this evidence taken together with the circumstances that before and at the time Tomas Rodriguez was caused to sign the supposed will Exhibit A, and the copies thereof there already existed a final judgment as to his mental condition wherein he was declared physically and mentally incapacitated to take care of himself and manage his estate shows in a clear and conclusive manner that at the time of signing the supposed will of Tomas Rodriguez did not possess such mental capacity as was necessary to be able him to dispose of his property by the supposed will. But even supposing as contended by petitioner's counsel that Tomas Rodriguez was at the time of execution of the will, competent to make a will, the court is of the opinion that the will cannot be probated for it appears from the declaration of the attesting witness Elias Bonoan that when the legatee Luz Lopez presented the supposed will, Exhibit A, to Tomas Rodriguez, she told him to sign said Exhibit A because it was a document relative to the complaint against one Castito, which Exhibit 4, then pending in the justice of the peace court, and for the further reason that said Tomas Rodriguez was then under guardianship, due to his being mentally and
MANUEL TORRES, petitioner-appellant and LUZ LOPEZ DE BUENO, appellant, vs. MARGARITA LOPEZ, opponent-appellee.
physically incapacitated and therefore unable to manage his property and take care of himself. It must also be taken into account that Tomas Rodriguez was an old man 76 years of age, and was sick in the hospital when his signature to the supposed will was obtained. All of this shows that the signature of Tomas Rodriguez appearing in the will was obtained through fraudulent and deceitful representations of those who were interested in it. (Record on Appeal, p. 23) From the decision and judgment above-mentioned the proponents have appealed. Two errors are specified, viz: (1) The court below erred in holding that at the time of signing his will, Tomas Rodriguez did not possess the mental capacity necessary to make the same, and (2) the court below erred in holding that the signatures of Tomas Rodriguez to the will were obtained through fraudulent and deceitful representations, made by persons interested in the executions of said will. The record is voluminous close to two thousand typewritten pages, with a varied assortment of exhibits. One brief contains two hundred seventy-four pages, the other four hundred fifteen pages. The usual oral argument has been had. The court must scale this mountains of evidence more or less relevant and of argument intense and prolific to discover the fertile valleys of fact and principle. The topics suggested by the assignments of error Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence will be taken up separately and in order. An attempt will be made under each subject first to make findings of fact quite separate and apart from those of the judge and second to make findings of law and the law by rendering judgment. I. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY A. Facts. For a long time prior to October, 1923, Tomas Rodriguez was in feeble health. His breakdown was undoubtedly due to organic weakness, to advancing years and to an accident which occurred in 1921 (Exhibit 6). Ultimately, on August 10 1923, on his initiative, Tomas Rodriguez designated Vicente F. Lopez as the administrator of his property (Exhibit 7).
On October 22, 1923, Margarita Lopez petitioned the Court of First Instance of Manila to name a guardian for Tomas Rodriguez because of his age and pathological state. This petition was opposed by Attorney Gregorio Araneta acting on behalf of Tomas Rodriguez for the reason that while Rodriguez was far from strong on account of his years, he was yet capable of looking after his property with the assistance of his administrator, Vicente F. Lopez. The deposition of Tomas Rodriguez was taken and a perusal of the same shows that he was able to answer nearly all of the questions propounded intelligently (Exhibit 5-g). A trial had at which considerable oral testimony for the petitioner was received. At the conclusion of the hearing, an order was issued by the presiding judge, declaring Tomas Rodriguez incapacitated to take care of himself and to manage his property and naming Vicente F. Lopez as his guardian. (Exhibit 37). Inasmuch as counsel for the appellee make such of one incident which occurred in connection with the guardianship proceedings, it may as well be mentioned here as later. This episode concerns the effort of deputy sheriff Joaquin Garcia to make service on Tomas Rodriguez on October 31, 1923. We will let the witness tell in his own words what happened on the occasions in question: I found him lying down on his bed. . . . And when it (the cleaning of his head) was finished, I again entered his room, and told him that I had an order of the court which I wanted to read as I did read to him, but after reading the order he asked me what the order meant; 'I read it to you so that you may appear before the court, understand,' then I read it again, but he asked what the order said; in view of that fact I left the order and departed from the house. (S. R., p. 642.) To return to our narrative possibly inspired by the latter portion of the order of Judge Diaz, Tomas Rodriguez was taken to the Philippine General Hospital on November 27, 1923. There he was to remain sick in bed until his death. The physician in charge during this period was Dr. Elias Domingo. In the clinical case record of the hospital under the topic "Diagnosis (in full)," we find the following "Senility; Hernia inguinal; Decubitus" (Exhibit 8). On the door of the patient's room was placed a placard reading "No visitors, except father, mother, sisters, and brothers." (Testimony of
head nurse physician, there were permitted to visit the patient only the following named persons: Santiago Lopez, Manuel Ramirez, Romana Lopez, Luz Lopez de Bueno, Remedio Lopez, Benita Lopez, Trinidad Vizcarra, Apolonia Lopez, Antonio Haman, and Gregorio Araneta ((Exhibit 9). The list did not include the names of Margarita Lopez and her husband Antonio Ventura. Indeed the last named persons experienced considerable difficulty in penetrating in to the room of Rodriguez. Santiago Lopez states that on one occasion when he was visiting Tomas Rodriguez in the hospital , Rodriguez expressed to him a desire to make a will and suggested that the matter be taken up with Vicente F. Lopez (S. R., p. 550). This information Santiago Lopez communicated to Vicente F. Lopez, who then interviewed Maximino Mina, a practicing attorney in the City of Manila, for the purpose of securing him to prepare the will. In accordance with this request, Judge Mina conferred with Tomas Rodriguez in the hospital in December 16th and December 29th. He ascertained the wishes of Rodriguez and wrote up a testament in rough draft. The attorney expected to return to the hospital on December 31st to have the will executed but was unable to do so on account of having to make a trip to the provinces. Accordingly, the papers were left with Santiago Lopez. In corroboration of the above statements, we transcribe a portion of Judge Mina's testimony which has not been challenged in any way: ARANETA: Q. Will you please tell your motive for holding an interview with Vicente Lopez? MAXIMINO MINA: A. Then I arrived in the house of Vicente Lopez, after the usual greeting and other unimportant things, he consulted me or presented the question as to whether or not D. Tomas could make his will, having announced his desire to do so. I told him that it seemed that we were not called upon to decide or give an opinion as to whether or not he can make a will; it is a question to be submitted to the court, but as he had announced his desire, it is our duty to comply with it. Then he requested me to do what was necessary to comply with his wishes: I told him I was to see him; then we agreed that on the morning next to the following
evening that is on the 16th, I should go to the General Hospital and so I did. Q. Did you go to the hospital in the evening of the 16th? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you meet D. Tomas? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did D. Tomas tell you his desire to make a will? OCAMPO: Leading. ARANETA: I withdraw. What, if anything, did D. Tomas tell you on that occasion when you saw him there? A. He told me that. Q. Please tell us what conversation you had with D. Tomas Rodriguez? A. The conversation I had with him that evening according to my best recollection I cannot tell the exact words and perhaps the order. After the usual greetings, Good evening, D. Tomas, ' Good evening,' How are you,' ' How do you do? Very well, just came here in the name of D. Vicente Lopez why does he not come. He cannot come because he has many things to do, and besides it is hard for him and makes him tired, so he told me to come.' Mina, your tenant, attorney.' Are you an attorney? Yes.' Where do you live? I live in Quiapo.' Oh, in Quiapo, a good district, it is gay a commercial place you must have some business there because that is a commercial place. Unfortunately, I have none, D. Tomas.' Well, you must be have because the profession alone does not give enough. Where is your office? I work in the office of Mr. Chicote. That Mr. Chicote must be rich, it seems to me that he is. The profession gives almost nothing it is better to have properties. I am an attorney but do not depend upon my profession. I interrupted D. Tomas saying, since you want to make a will, when and to whom do you want to leave your fortune? Then he said, To whom else? To my cousin Vicente Lopez and his daughter Luz Lopez. Which properties do you want to give to your cousin and niece? All my properties, Won't you specify the property to be
given to each of them? What for? All my property. Don't you have any other relatives? Yes, sir I have. Won't you give any to those relatives? What for? was his answer. Well, do you want to specify said properties, to say what they are? and he again said, What for? they know them, he is my attorney-infact as to all property. I also said, Well and as legacy won't you give property to other persons? answers, I think, something, they will know it. After being asked, Whom do you think, would you want to be your executor? After hesitating a little, This Torres, Manuel or Santiago Lopez also. Then I asked him, What is your religion? He answered, Roman Apostolic Catholic, and then he also asked me, and your? Also Roman Apostolic Catholic, Where have you studied?' 'In the University of Santo Tomas.' 'It is convenient to preserve the Catholic religion that our descendants have left us. And you, what did you have anything more to say as to your testamentary dispositions? No, he answered. Then I remind him, 'You know that Vicente Lopez has sent me to get these dispositions of yours, and he said, Yes, do it.' I asked him, When do you want it done? Later on, I will send for you. After this believing to have done my duty, I bade him good-bye. Q. Did you have any other occasion to see him? A. Yes. Q. When? A. On December 29, 1923, also in the evening. Q. Why did you go to see him? A. Because as I had not received any message either from Vicente Lopez or Tomas Rodriguez, as I had received notices in connection with the few cases I had in the provinces particularly in Tayabas, which compelled me to be absent from Manila until January 1st at least, for I might be there for several days, so I went to the General Hospital of my own accord since I had not received any messages from them with a rough draft which I had prepared in accordance with what he had told me in our conversation. After the greetings, I told him, Here I am D. Tomas; this is the rough draft of your will in accordance with your former statements to me in order to submit it to you. Do you want to read it?' 'Please do me the favor of reading it. I read it slowly to him in order that he could understand it . After reading, Is it all right, that is the way, few words you see
it takes only a few minutes; now I can execute the will. We can do it takes only a few minutes.' In view of that statement of his, I called his attention, ' But we don't have witnesses, D. Tomas.' I looked out through the door to see if I could call some witnesses but it was late then and it was thought better to do it on the 31st of December. Then we talked about other things, and he again asked. Where were you born? I told him in Quiapo. Ah, good district, and especially now that the fiesta of Quiapo is coming near,' and then I interrupted him, Yes, the fiesta of the Holy Child and of Our Lady of Mount Carmel' because we also talked about the fiesta of San Sebastian. I again reminded him that we could not do it because the witnesses were not there and he explained, Good Christmas present, isn't it?' I did not tell him anything and in view of that I did not deem it necessary to stay there any longer. Q. With whom did you make the arrangement to make the will on the evening of the 31st of December you said that it was agreed that the will be executed on the evening of December 31st? A. With Santiago Lopez and Don Tomas. Q. Was the will executed on the 31st of December? A. What happened is this: In view of that agreement, I fixed up the draft which I had, dating it the 31st of December, putting everything in order; we agreed that Santiago would meet me on 31st day between five and six in the evening or a little before, but it happened that before the arrival of that date Santiago Lopez came and told me that I need not trouble about going to the General Hospital; because it could not be carried out for the reason that certain requisites were lacking. In view of this and bearing always in mind that on the following day I had to go to the provinces, I told Santiago Lopez that I would leave the papers with him because I might go to the provinces. Q. What may be the meaning of those words good Christmas present? A. They are given a Christmas present when Christmas comes or on the occasion of Christmas. Q. I show you this document which is marked Exhibit A, tell me if that is the will or copy of the will which you delivered to
Santiago Lopez on December 21, 31, 1923? A. With the exception of the words '3 de enero de 1924' It seems to be literally identical. (S. R. pp. 244-249.) As the witness stated, the will which was prepared by him is identical with that signed by the testator and the attesting witnesses with the single exception of the change of the date from December 31, 1923, to January 3, 1924. Two copies besides the original of the will were made. The will is brief and simple in terminology. For purposes of record, we copy the will as here translated into English: ONLY PAGE In the City of Manila, Philippines Islands, this January 3, 1924, I, Tomas Rodriguez, of age and resident of the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, do freely and voluntarily make this my will and testament in the Spanish language which I know, with the following clauses: First I declare that I am a Roman Apostolic Catholic, and order that my body be buried in accordance with my religion, standing and circumstances. Second. I name my cousin Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter Luz Lopez de Bueno as my only universal heirs of all my property. Third. I appoint D. Manuel Torres and D. Santiago Lopez as my prosecutors. In witness whereof I sign this typewritten will, consisting of one single page, in the presence of the witness who sign below. (Sgd.) TOMAS RODRIGUEZ
(Left TOMAS ELIAS V. A. DE ASIS
marginal L.
signatures:) RODRIGUEZ BONOAN LEGARDA
We hereby certify that on the date and in the place above indicated, Don Tomas Rodriguez executed this will, consisting of one single typewritten page, having signed at the bottom of the will in the presence of us who saw as witnesses the execution of this will, we signed at the bottom thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other. (Sgd.) ELIAS A. (Exhibit A.) V. DE L. LEGARDA BONOAN ASIS
On the afternoon of January 3, 1924 there gathered in the quarters of Tomas Rodriguez in the Philippine General Hospital, Santiago Lopez and Dr. A. De Asis, attesting witness; and Dr. Elias Fernando Calderon, Dr. Elias Domingo and Dr. Florentino Herrera, physicians, there for purposes of observation. (Testimony of Elias Bonoan, S. R., p. 8 of Vl. Legarda, S. R. p. 34. ) Possibly also Mrs. Luz Lopez de Bueno and Mrs. Nena Lopez were present; at least they were hovering in the background. As to what actually happened, we have in the record two absolutely contradictory accounts. One emanates from the attesting witness, Doctor Bonoan. The other is the united testimony of all remaining persons who were there. Doctor Elias Bonoan was the first witness called at the trial. He testified on direct examination as to formal matters, such as the identification of the signatures to the will .On cross-examination, he rather started the proponents of the will by stating that Luz Lopez de Bueno told Tomas Rodriguez to sign the document it concerned a complaint against Castito and that nobody read the will to the testator. Doctor Bonoan's testimony along this line is as follows:
QUESTIONS. MARCAIDA : Q. Why were you a witness to the will of Tomas Rodriguez? Araneta: I object to the question as being immaterial. Court: Objection overruled. Dr. Bonoan: A. Because I was called up by Mrs. Luz by telephone telling me to be in the hospital at 3 o'clock sharp in the afternoon of the 3d of January. Q. Who is that Luz whom you have mentioned? A. Luz Lopez, daughter of Vicente Lopez. Q. What day, January 3, 1924? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did Luz Lopez talk to you in connection with your going to the hospital? A. On the morning of the 3d she called me up by telephone. Q. On the morning? A. On the morning. Q. Before January 3, 1924, when the will of Tomas Rodriguez was signed, did Luz Lopez talk to you? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many days approximately before was it? A. I cannot tell the day, it was approximately one week before, on that occasion when I was called up by her about the deceased Vicente Lopez. Q. What did she tell you when you went to the house of Vicente Lopez one week approximately before signing the will? - A. That Tomas Rodriguez would make a will. Q. Don't you know where the will of Tomas Rodriguez was made? - A. In the General Hospital.
Q. Was that document written in the hospital? A. I have not seen it. Q. When you went to the General Hospital on January 3, 1924, who were the persons you met in the room where the patients was ? A. I met one of the nieces of the deceased Tomas Rodriguez, Mrs. Nena Lopez and Dna. Luz Lopez. Q. Were those the only persons? A. Yes, sir. Q. What time approximately did you go to the General Hospital on January 3d? A. A quarter to 3. Q. After you, who came? A. Antonio de Asis, Doctor Herrera, later on Doctor Calderon arrived with Doctor Elias Domingo and lastly Santiago Lopez came and then Mr. Legarda. Q. When you entered the room of the patient, D. Tomas Rodriguez, in the General Hospital in what position did you find him? A. He was lying down. Q. Did you greet D. Tomas Rodriguez? A. I did. Q. Did D. Tomas Rodriguez answer you? A. Dna. Nena immediately answered in advance and introduced me to him saying that I was the brother of his godson. Q. Did other persons whom you have mentioned, viz, Messrs. Calderon, Herrera, Domingo, De Asis and Legarda greet Tomas Rodriguez? ARANETA: I object to the question as being improper crossexamination. It has not been the subject of the direct examination. COURT: Objection overruled. ARANETA: Exception.
A. No, sir, they joined us. Q. What was D. Tomas told when he signed the will.? A. To sign it. Q. Who told D. Tomas to sign the will? A. Luz Lopez. Q. What did Luz Lopez tell Tomas Rodriguez in order that he should sign the will? A. She told him to sign the document; the deceased Tomas Rodriguez before signing the document asked what that was which he was to sign. Q. What did anybody answer to that question of D. Tomas? A. Luz Lopez told him to sign it because it concerned a complaint against Castito. D. Tomas said, 'What is this?" And Luz Lopez answered, 'You sign this document, uncle Tomas, because this is about the complaint against Castito. Q. Then Tomas Rodriguez signed the will? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who had the will? Who was holding it? A. Mr. Vicente Legarda had it his own hands. Q. Was the will signed by Tomas Rodriguez lying down, on his feet or seated? A. Lying down. Q. Was the will read by Tomas Rodriguez or any person present at the time of signing the will, did they read it to him? A. Nobody read the will to him. Q. Did not D. Tomas read the will? A. I have not seen it. Q. Were you present? A. Yes, sir. ( S. R. p. 8) As it would be quite impracticable to transcribe the testimony of all the others who attended the making of the will, we will let Vicente L. Legarda, who appears to have assumed the leading role, tell what transpired. He testified in part:
ARANETA : Q. Who exhibited to you those documents, Exhibits A, A-1, and A-2? LEGARDA: A. Santiago Lopez. Q. Did he show you the same document? A. First that is to say the first document he presented to me was a rough draft, a tentative will, and it was dated December 31st, and I called his attention to the fact that the date was not December 31, 1923, and that it was necessary to change the date to January 3, 1924, and it was done. Q. And it was then, was it not when Exhibits A, A-1, and A-2 were written? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you any know where it was written? A. In the General Hospital. Q. Did any time elapse from your making the suggestion that the document which you delivered to Santiago Lopez be written until those three Exhibits A, A-1, and A-2 were presented to you? A. About nine or ten minutes approximately. Q. The time to make it clean? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where were you during that time? A. In the room of D. Tomas Rodriguez. Q. Were you talking with him during that time. A. Yes, sir. Q. About what things were you talking with him? A. He was asking me about my health, that of my family how my family was my girl, whether we were living in Pasay, he asked me about the steamer Ildefonso, he said that it was a pity that it had been lost because he knew that my father-in-law was the owner of the steamer Ildefonso. xxx xxx xxx
Q. When those documents, Exhibit A, A-1, and A-2, that is the original and two copies of the will signed by D. Tomas Rodriguez were written clean, will you please tell what happened? A. When Santiago Lopez gave them to me clean, I approached D. Tomas Rodriguez and told him: Don Tomas, here is this will which is ready for your signature. Q. What did D. Tomas do when you said that his will you were showing to him was ready? A. The first thing he asked was: the witnesses? Then I called the witnesses Gentlemen, please come forward, and they came forward, and I handed the documents to D. Tomas. D. Tomas got up and then took his eyeglasses, put them on and as he saw that the electric lamp at the center was not sufficiently clear, he said: 'There is no more light;' then somebody came forward bringing an electric lamp. Q. What did D. Tomas do when that electric lamp was put in place? A. The eyeglasses were adjusted again and then he began to read, and as he could not read much for a long time, for he unexpectedly felt tired and took off the eyeglasses, and as I saw that the poor man was tired, I suggested that it be read to him and he stopped reading and I read the will to him. Q. What happened after you had read it to him? A. He said to me, 'Well, it is all right. It is my wish and my will. Don't you have any pen?' I asked a pen of those who were there and handed it to D. Tomas. Q. Is it true that Tomas Rodriguez asked at that time 'What is that which I am going to sign?' and Luz Lopez told him: 'It is in connection with the complaint against Castito?' A. It is not true, no, sir. Q. During the signing of the will, did you hear Luz Lopez say anything to Tomas Rodriguez? A. No, Sir, she said nothing. Q. According to you, Tomas Rodriguez signed of his own accord? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did nobody tell him to sign? A. Nobody. Q. What happened after the signing of the will by Tomas Rodriguez? A. I called the witnesses and we signed in the presence of each other and of Tomas Rodriguez. Q. After the signing of the will, did you have any conversation with Tomas Rodriguez? A. Doctor Calderon asked D. Tomas Rodriguez some questions. Q. Do you remember the questions and the conversation held between Doctor Calderon and D. Tomas after the signing of the will? A. I remember that afterwards Doctor Calderon talked to him about business. He asked him how the business of making loans at 18 per cent. It seems that Tomas Rodriguez answered: That loan at 18 per cent is illegal, it is usury. (S. R., p. 38.) In addition to the statements under oath made by Mr. Legarda, an architect and engineer in the Bureau of Public Works and professor of engineering and architecture in the University of Santo Tomas, suffice it to say that Luz Lopez de Bueno denied categorically the statements attributed to her by Doctor Bonoan (S. R., p. 568). In this stand, she is corroborated by Doctor Calderon, Domingo, and Herrera, the attending physicians. On this point, Doctor Calderon the Director of the Philippine General Hospital and Dean of the College of Medicine in the University of the Philippines, testified: Mr. ARANETA: Q. What have you seen or heard with regard to the execution of the will? Dr. CALDERON: A. Mr. Legarda handled the will to D. Tomas Rodriguez. D. Tomas asked for his eyeglass, wanted to read and it was extremely hard for him to do so. Mr. Legarda offered to read the will, it was read to him and he heard that in that will Vicente Lopez and Luz Lopez were appointed heirs; we also saw him sign that will, and he signed not only the original but also the other copies of the will and we also saw how the witnesses signed the will; we heard that D. Tomas asked for light at that moment; he heard that D. Tomas asked
for light at that moment; he was at that time in a perfect mental state. And we remained there after the will was executed. I asked him, 'How do you feel, how are you? Well I am well, ' he answered. ' How is the business? There is a crisis at there is one good business, namely, that of making loans at the rate of 18 per cent, 'and he answered, 'That is usury.; When a man answers in that way, ' That is usury it shows that he is all right. Q. Were you present when Mr. Legarda handed the will to him? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did any person there tell Don Tomas that was a complaint to be filed against one Castito? A. No, sir, I have not heard anything of the kind. Q. It was said here that when the will was handed to him, D. Tomas Rodriguez asked what that was which he was to sign and that Luz Lopez answered, 'That is but a complaint in connection with Castito.' Is that true? A. I have not heard anything of the kind. Q. Had anybody told that to the deceased, would you have heard it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was Luz Lopez there? A. I don't remember having seen her; I am not sure; D. Santiago Lopez and the three witnesses were there; I don't remember that Luz Lopez was there. Q. Had anybody told that to the deceased, would you have heard it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember whether he was given a pen or he himself asked for it? A. I don't know; it is a detail which I don't remember well; so that whether or not he was given a pen or he himself asked for it, I do not remember. Q. But did he sign without hesitation ? A. With no hesitation.
Q. Did he sign without anybody having indicated to him where he was to sign? A. Yes, without anybody having indicated it to him. Q. Do you know whether D. Tomas Rodriguez asked for more light before signing? A. He asked for more lights, as I have said before. Q. Do you remember that detail? A. Yes, sir. They first lighted the lamps, but as the light was not sufficient, he asked for more light. Q. Do you remember very well that he asked for light? A. Yes, sir. (S. R. p.993). A clear preponderance of the evidence exists in favor of the testimony of Vicente Legarda, corroborated as it is by other witnesses of the highest standing in the community. The only explanation we can offer relative to the testimony of Doctor Bonoan is that possibly he may have arrived earlier than the others with the exception of Luz Lopez de Bueno, and that Luz Lopez de Bueno may have made some sort of an effort to influence Tomas Rodriguez. There is however no possible explanation of the statement of Doctor Bonoan to the effect that no one read the will to Rodriguez when at least five other persons recollect that Vicente Legarda read it to him and recall the details connected with the reading. There is one curious occurrence which transpired shortly after the making of the will which should here be mentioned. It is that on January 7, 1923 (1924), Luz Lopez de Bueno signed a document in favor of Doctor Bonoan in the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000). This paper reads as follow: Be it know by these present: That I, Luz Lopez de Bueno in consideration of the services which at my instance were and will when necessary be rendered by Dr. Elias Bonoan in connection with the execution of the will of my uncle, Don Tomas Rodriguez and the due probate thereof, do hereby agree to pay said doctor, by way of
remuneratory donation, the sum of one thousand pesos (P1,000), Philippine currency, as soon as said services shall have been fully rendered and I shall be in possession of the inheritance which in said will is given to me. In witness whereof, I sign this document which was freely and spontaneously executed by me in Manila, this January 7, 1923. (Sgd.) (Exhibit 1) LUZ LOPEZ DE BUENO
lawyers were available to aid and abet the medical experts. Out of such situations, do will contests arise. An examination of the certificates made by the two sets of physicians and of their testimony shows that on most facts they concur. Their deductions from these facts disclose a substantial divergence of opinion. It is a hopeless task to try to reconcile the views of these distinguished gentlemen who honestly arrived at definite but contradictory conclusions. The best that we can do under the circumstances is to set forth the findings of the Calderon committed on the hand and of the De Los Angeles committee on the other. Doctors Calderon, Domingo and Herrera examined Tomas Rodriguez individually and jointly before the date when the will was executed. All of them, as we have noticed were, present at the signing of the will to note the reactions of the testator. On the same day that the will was accomplished, the three doctors signed the following certificate: The undersigned, Drs. of Medicine, with offices in the City of Manila, and engaged in the practice of their profession do hereby certify: That they have jointly examined Mr. Tomas Rodriguez, confined in the General Hospital, floor No. 3, room No. 361 on three different occasion and on different days and have found that said patient is suffering from anemia, hernia inguinal, chronic dyspepsia and senility. As to his mental state the result of the different tests to which this patient was submitted is that his intellectual faculties are sound, except that his memory is weak, which is almost a loss for recent facts, or events which have recently occurred, due to his physical condition and old age. They also certify that they were present at the time he signed his will on January 3, 1924, at 1:25 p.m. and have found his mental state in the same condition as was found by the undersigned in their former examination and that in executing said will the testator and full knowledge of the contents thereof.
There is a sharp conflict of testimony, as is natural between Doctor Bonoan and Luz Lopez de Bueno relative to the execution of the above document. We shall not attempt to settle these differences as in the final analysis it will not affect the decision one way or the other. The most reasonable supposition is that Luz Lopez de Bueno imprudently endeavored to bring over Doctor Bonoan to her side of the race by signing and giving to him Exhibit 1. But the event cannot easily be explained away. Tomas Rodriguez passed away in the Philippine General Hospital, as we said on February 25, 1924. Not even prior to his demise the two actions in the Lopez family had prepared themselves for a fight over the estate. The Luz Lopez faction had secured the services of Doctor Domingo, the physician in charge of the Department of Insane of San Lazaro Hospital an Assistant Professor of Nervous and Mental Diseases in the University of the Philippines, as attending physician; as associated with him for purposes of investigation Dr. Fernando Calderon the Director of the Philippine General Hospital and Dr. Florentino Herrera, a physician in active practice in the City of Manila; and had arranged to have two members of the medical fraternity, Doctors De Asis and Bonoan as attesting witnesses. The Margarita Lopez faction had taken equal precautions by calling a witnesses in the guardship proceedings Dr. Sixto de los Angeles Professor and Chief of the Department of Legal Medicine in the University of the Philippines, and Dr. Samuel Tietze, with long experience in mental diseases; thereafter by continuing Doctors de Los Angeles and Tietze to examine Tomas Rodriguez and by associating with them Dr. William Burke, a well-known physician of the City of Manila. Skilled
10
In testimony whereof, we sign in Manila this January 3, 1924. (Sgd.) Tuberias Quiapo FLORENTINO HERRERA 1264
there with Messrs. Herrera and Elias Domingo, examining Tomas Rodriguez and submitting to a mental test on the 28, 29, 10 and 31 of December and the 22nd of January, 1924 five consecutive days in which he have been together besides my particular visits. Q. Will you place state the result of the observation you made alone before those made by the three of you jointly? A. I asked Tomas Rodriguez some questions when I went alone there, I asked him were he was living formerly and he well remembered that in Intramuros, Calle Real; I asked him whether he remembered one Calderon who was living in the upper floor of the house and then he told me yes; than I asked him about his tenant by the name of Antonio Jimenez and he told me yes, now I remember that he had two daughters, Matilde and Paz. Then I told him that I had been living in the house of the gentlemen, Antonio Jimenez already dead in the upper story of the house belonged to Tomas Rodriguez; I told him that Antonio Jimenez was his tenant of the upper story, that is that he was living on the ground floor and Antonio Jimenez upstairs and he remembered all of this I also began to talk of my brother, Felipe Calderon, who he said of course that he knew; he remembered him because he was his companion and was a successful attorney. This was when I had an interview with him. Then in order to observe better and to be sure of my judgment or opinion about the mental state of Tomas Rodriguez, I saw him again and we began to speak of something which I don't remember now. In fine, we talked of things of interest and as I had finally accepted the request of Drs. Elias Domino and Florentino Herrera to join then the first and second time that Herrera, Domingo and myself went there, no stenographic notes were taken of what happened there. Q. So that before joining Doctors Herrera and Domingo you had already paid two visits to the patient? A. Yes, sir. Q. From the result f the conversation you had with Tomas Rodriguez on those two visits what is your opinion as to his mental capacity? A. That he was sick; that he was weak, but I have found absolutely no incoherence in his ideas; he
(Sgd.) Dr. General Manila (Sgd.) 613 Malate Dr.
FERNANDO
CALDERON Hospital
ELIAS
DOMINGO Remedios
(Exhibit E in relation with Exhibits C and D.) Doctor Calderon while on the witness-stand expressed a definite opinion as to the mentality of Tomas Rodriguez What follows is possibly the most significant of the doctor's statements: Dr. CALDERON testifying after interruption: A. I was naturally interested in finding out the true mental state of Tomas Rodriguez and that was the chief reason why I accepted and gave my cooperation to Messrs. Elias Domingo and Florentino Herrera because had I found that Tomas Rodriguez and Florentino Herrera because had I found that Tomas Rodriguez was really insane, I should have ordered his transfer to the San Lazaro Hospital or to other places, and would not have left him in the General Hospital. Pursuant to my desire, I saw Tomas Rodriguez in his room alone twice to have interviews with his, he begging a person whom I knew since several years ago; at the end of the interviews I became convinced that there was nothing wrong with him; I had not seen anything indicating that he was insane and for this reason I accepted the request of my companions and joined them; we have been on five different occasions examining Tomas Rodriguez jointly from the physical standpoint but chiefly from the standpoint of his mental state; I have been
11
answered my questions well and as I was observing him there were times when he did not remember things of the present because this must be admitted but on the other hand he had a wonderful memory of past events; in talking with him, you would not notice in the conversation any alteration in his mind nor that man had lost the reasoning power or logic. Q. Did you notice any loss of memory, or that his memory was weakening about things of the past? A. About things of the past, I mean that you talk to him now about specific matters, and after about five or ten minutes he no longer remembers what had been talked of. xxx xxx xxx
Q. From the question made by you and the answers given by Mr. Tomas Rodriguez on that occasion, what is your opinion as to his mental capacity? A. The following: That the memory of Tomas Rodriguez somewhat failed as to things of the present, but is all right with regard to matters or facts of the past; that his ideas were incoherent; that the thought with logic, argued even with power and generally in some of the interviews I have arrived at the conclusion that Tomas Rodriguez had an initiative of his own, did not need that anybody should make him any suggestion because he answered in such a way that if you permit me now to show you my stenographic notes, they will prove to you conclusively that he had an initiative of his own and had no need of anybody making him any question. (S. R. p. 72.) Doctor Elias Domingo, who was the attending physician for Tomas Rodriguez throughout all the time that Rodriguez in the hospital had examined him, was likewise certain that Rodriguez possessed sufficient mentality to make a will. Among other things, Doctor Domingo testified: ARANETA: Q. Have you known D. Tomas Rodriguez? Dr. DOMINGO: A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you attend D. Tomas Rodriguez as physician? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you begin to attend him as physician? A. On November 28, until his death. Q. On November 28 or October 28, 1923, do you remember? A. I had been attending him as physician from November 28th although it true that I had opportunities to see and examine him during the months of October and November. Q. What was the object of your visits or attendance during the months of October and November? A. It was for the purpose of observing his mental state.
Q. Do you remember the conversation you had with him for the first time when the three of you paid a visit to the patient? A. I don't remember the details, but I do remember the questions I put to him. I asked D. Tomas Rodriguez: You are an old man aged, sick: Yes, I am thinking to make a will. But why don't you decide? There is no hurry there is time to make a will, 'he said. Then in case you decide to make a will, to whom are you going to leave your property? Don't you have any relatives? I have a relative, Vicente Lopez, my first cousin, and Margarita Lopez my first cousin they are brothers.' In that case, to whom, do you want to leave your property? Why, I don't have much, very little, but I am decided to leave it to my cousin, Vicente Lopez and his daughter Luz Lopez. Why would you not give anything to Margarita Lopez? No because her husband is very bad, 'to use his exact language is very bad.' Q. Did you talk with him on that occasion about his estate? A. Yes, sir, he told me that he had three estates, one on Calle Magallanes, another on Calle Cabildo and the third on Calle Juan Luna and besides he had money in the Monte de Piedad and Hogar Filipino. xxx xxx xxx
12
Q. Did you really examine his mental condition or capacity during the months of October and November? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many times did you visit him? A. I don't remember exactly but I visited him about five or six times. xxx xxx xxx
Q. Please tell us the result of your examination during those months of October and November? A. I examined him physically and mentally; I am not going to tell here the physically result but the result of the mental examination, and that is: General Conduct: In most of the times that I have seen him I found him lying on his bed, smoking a cigarette and asked for a bottle of lemonade from time to time; I also observed that he was very careful when throwing the ash of the cigarette, seeing to it that it did not fall on the blankets; he also was careful not to throw the stub of the cigarette in any place to avoid fire; I made more observations as to his general conduct and I found that sometimes Don Tomas could move within the place although with certain difficulty. On two occasions I found him seated, once seated at the table, seated in the chair, and other on a rocking chair. I also examined his manner of talking and to all questions that I put to him he answered with a coherence and in a relevant manner, although sometimes he showed eagerness and certain delay. I based these points of my declaration on the questions which are usually asked when making a mental examination for instance I asked him, What is your name, 'and he correctly answered Tomas Rodriguez; I asked him if he was married and he answered 'No;' I asked him his profession and he answered that formerly he was an attorney but that at the time I was making the examination he was not practising the profession; I asked him with what he supported himself and he said that he lived upon his income, he said verbatim, 'I live on my income.' I also asked him what the amount of him income was and he answered that it was about P900; I asked him what the source of this income was and he said that it came from his property. Q. Did you ask him about his property? A. No, at that time.
Q. Proceed. A. I also observed his emotional status and effectivity. I found it rather superficial, and he oftentimes got angry due to his physical disease; I asked him if he had any relatives and he answered correctly saying that he had. He mentioned Vicente Lopez, Margarita Lopez, and Luz Lopez. As to his memory. His memory of the past. He very easily remembered past events and when he described them he did it with such pleasure the he used to smile afterwards if it was a fact upon which one must smile, His memory of recent facts was very much lessened. I say this because on various occasions and not having known me when he had a better memory, after I had seen him thrice he remembered my name and he recognized me. Insight and judgment. I arrived at the conclusion that he had fair knowledge of himself because he knew that he was sick and could not be moving with ease, but he believed that he could perform with sufficient ease mental acts; his judgment was also all right because I asked him this question: 'Supposing that you could find a bill of P5 in the vestibule of a hotel, what would you do with it ?' He told me that he would take the bill and give it to the manager in order that the latter may look for the owner if possible. His reasoning. I found that he showed a moderated retardation in the flow of his thought, especially with regard to recent events, but was quite all right as to past events, His capacity, He believed that he was capable of thinking properly although what did not permit him to do so was his physical decrepit condition. The conclusion is that his memory is lost for recent events tho not totally and diminution of his intellectual vigor. This is in few words the result of my examination. Tomas Rodriguez was likewise examined thoroughly by Doctors De los Angeles, Tietze, and Burke. Doctor De los Angeles had been a witness in the gurardianship proceedings and had seen the patient of November 6 and 7, 1923. Doctor Tietze had also been a witness in the guardianship case and had visited the patient on November 9 and 12, 1923, and on January 15, 1924. Doctors Tietze and Burke together examined Rodriguez on January 17, 20, and 24, 1924. The three physicians conducted a joint examination result, on March 15, 1924, they prepared and signed the following: MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
13
In the Matter of Tomas Rodriguez y Lopez, male, 76 years of age, single and residing or being confined in the Philippine General Hospital. We, the undersigned Doctors, Sixto de los Angeles, W. B. Burke, and Samuel Tietze, do hereby certify as follows: 1. That we are physicians, duly registered under the Medical Act, and are in the actual practice of the medical profession in the Philippines. 2. That on January 27th and 28th, and February 10th, 1924, at the Philippine General Hospital, we three have with care the diligence jointly and personally examined the person of said Tomas Rodriguez y Lopez; and previous to these dated, we have separately and partly jointly observed and examined said patient on various occasions; Dr. Sixto de los Angeles, at the patient's home, 246 Magallanes St., Manila, on November 6th and 7th , 1923; Dr. Samuel Tietze, at the patient's home on November 9th and 12th, 1923, and at the Philippine General Hospital no January 17th, 20th, and 24, 1924; and as a result of the medical examinations and the history of the case we found and hereby certify to the following conclusions: (a) That he was of unsound mind suffering from senile dementia, or of mental impairment exceeding to a pathological extent the unusual conditions and changes found to occur in the involutional period of life. (b) That he was under the influence of the above condition continuously, at least from November, 1923, till the date of our joint reexamination, January 27th and 28th, and February 10th, 1924; and that he would naturally have continued without improvement, as these cases of insanity are due to organic pathological changes of the brain. This form of mental disease is progressive in its pathological tendency, going on to progressive atropy and degeneration of the brain, the mental symptoms, of course, running parallel with such pathological basis.
(c) That on account of such disease and conditions his mind and memory were so greatly impaired as to make him unable to know or to appreciate sufficiently the nature, effect, and consequences of the business he was engaged in; to understand and comprehend the extent and condition of his properties; to collect and to hold in his mind the particulars and details of his business transactions and his relations to the persons who were or might have been the objects of his bounty; and to free himself from the influences of importunities, threats and ingenuities, so that with a relatively less resistance, he might had been induced to do what others would not have done. 3. We have diagnosed this case as senile demential of the simple type, approaching the deteriorated stage upon the following detailed mental examination: (a) Disorder of memory. There was almost an absolute loss of memory of recent events, to the extent that things and occurrences seen or observed only a few minutes previously were completely forgotten. Faces and names of person introduced to him were not remembered after a short moment even without leaving his bedside . He showed no comprehension of the elemental routine required in the management of his properties, i.e.: who were the lessees of his houses, what rents they were paying, who was the administrator of his properties, in what banks he deposited his money or the amount of money deposited in such banks. Regarding his personal relation, he forgot that Mr. Antonio Ventura is the husband of his nearest woman cousin; the Mrs. Margarita Lopez was married, saying that the latter was single or spinster, in spite of the fact that formerly, during the past twenty-five years, he was aware of their marriage life, He did not know the names of the sons and daughters of Mr. Vicente Lopez, one of his nearest relatives, even failing to name Mrs. Luz Lopez de Bueno, a daughter of said Vicente Lopez, and who now appears to be the only living beneficiary of his will. He also stated that Mr. Vicente Lopez frequently visited him in the hospital, though the latter died on January 7th, 1924. He did not recognized and remember the name and face of Doctor Domingo, his own physician. However, the memory for
14
remote events was generally good, which is a characteristic symptom of senile dementia. (b) Disorientation of time, place and persons. He could not name the date when asked (day or month); could not name the hospital wherein he was confined; and failed to recognize the fact that Doctor Domingo was his physician. (c) Disorders of perception. He was almost completely indifferent to what was going on about him. He also failed to recognize the true value of objects shown him, that is he failed to recognized the 'Saturday Evening Post' nor would he deny that it was a will when presented as such. He also failed to show normal intellectual perception. Making no effort to correlate facts or to understand matters discussed in their proper light. (d) Emotional deterioration. The patient was not known during his time of physical incapacity to express in any way or lament the fact that he was unable to enjoy the happiness that was due him with his wealth. As a matter of fact, he showed complete indifference. He showed loss of emotional control by furious outbreaks over trifling matter and actually behaved like a child; for example, if his food did not arrive immediately of when his cigar was not lit soon, he would becomes abusive in his language and show marked emotional outburst. If the servants did not immediately answer his call, he would break down and cry as a child. (e) Symptoms of decreased intellectual capacity. There was a laxity of the internal connection of ideas. The patient has shown no insight regarding his own condition. He did not appreciate the attitude of the parties concerned in his case; he would on several occasion become suspicious and fail to comprehend the purpose of our examination. He was inconsistent in his ideas and failed to grasp the meaning of his own statements. When questioned whether he would make a will, he stated to Doctor Tietze that he intended to bequeath his money to San Juan de Dios Hospital and Hospicio de San Jose. When He was informed, however, that he had made a will on January 31, 1924, he denied the latter statement, and
failed to explain the former. Although for a long time confined to bed and seriously ill for a long period, he expressed himself as sound physically and mentally, and in the false belief that he was fully able to administer his business personally. His impairment of the intellectual field was further shown by his inability, despite his knowledge of world affairs, to appreciate the relative value of the statement made by Doctor Tietze as follows: 'We have here a cheque of P2,000 from the King of Africa payable to you so that you may deposit it in the bank. Do you want to accept the cheque?' His answer was as follows: 'Now I cannot give my answer. It may be a surprise.' Such answer given by a man after long experience in business life, who had handled real estate property, well versed in the transaction of cheques, certainly shows a breaking down of the above field. No proper question were asked why the cheque was given by the King, who the King was, why he was selected by the King of Africa, or if there is a King of Africa at present. He further shows doubt in his mental capability by the following questions and answers: "MARCAIDA: P. Tiene usted actualmente algn asunto en los tribunales de justicia de Manila? -- R. No recuerdo en este momento. "P. De tener usted algn asunto propio en los tribunales de justicia de Manila, a qu abogado confiara usted la defensa del mismo?--R. Al Sr. Marcaida, como conocido antiguo. "P. Ha hablado usted y conferenciado alguna vez o varias veces en estos das, o sea desde el 25 de octubre de 1923 hasta hoy, con algn abogado para que le defendiera algn asunto ante el Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manila?--R. Con ninguno, porque en caso de nombrar, nombrara al Sr. Marcaida. (P. 5, deposition, Nov. 19, 1923.) "ARANETA: P. No recuerda usted que usted me ha encomendado como abogado para que me oponga a que le declaren a usted loco o incapacitado?--R. S,
15
seor, quien ha solicitado? (P. 9, deposition, Nov. 19, 1923.) "Dr. DOMINGO: P. Don Toms, me conoce usted? Se acuerda usted que soy el Doctor Domingo?--R. S. (P. 7, sten. N., Jan. 28, 1924.) "P. Quin soy, Don Toms, usted me conoce?--R. No s. (P. 6, sten. N., Feb. 10, 1924.) "Dr. NGELES: P. Me conoce usted, D. Toms?--R. Le conozco de vista. (P. 6, sten. N., Jan. 28, 1924.) "P. Nos vamos a despedir ya, Don Toms, de usted. Yo soy el Doctor ngeles, me conoce usted?--R. De nombre. "P. Este es el Doctor Burke, le conoce usted?--R. De nombre. "P. Este es el Doctor Domingo, le conoce usted?--R. De vista. "P. Este es el Doctor Burke, recuerda usted su nombre?--R. No. (P. 10, sten. N., Jan. 28, 1924.) "P.Usted conoce a este Doctor? (Sealando al Doctor Burke).--R. De vista; su nombre ya lo he olvidado, ya no me acuerdo. "P.Usted nos ve a los tres? (Doctores ngeles, Burke y Tietze).--R. Ya lo creo. "Dr. BURKE: P. Qu profesin tenemos? (Sealando a los Sres. ngeles, Burke y Tietze).--R. YO creo que son doctores. "P. Y lso dos? (Sealando a los Doctores ngeles y Tietze).--R. No. s.
"P. Y este seor? (Sealando al Doctor ngeles).-R. No me acuerdo en este momento. (P. 4. And 5, sten. N., Feb. 10, 1924.) (f) Other facts bearing upon the history of the case obtained by investigation of Doctor Angeles: I. Family History. His parents were noted to be of nervous temper and irritable. II. Personal history. He was a lawyer, but did not pursue his practice, devoting the greater part of his life to collecting antiquities, He was generally regarded by his neighbors as miserly and erratic in the ordinary habits of life. He lead a very unhygienic life, making no attempt to clean the filth of dirt that was around him. He was neglectful in personal habits. On April, 1921, he suffered an injury to his forehead, from which he became temporarily unconscious, and was confined in the Philippine General Hospital for treatment. He frequently complained of attacks of dizziness and headache, following this injury; suffered form a large hernia; and about two years ago, he was fined for failure in filing his income tax, from which incident, we have reason to believe, the onset of his mental condition took place. This incident itself can most probably be considered as a failure of memory. His condition became progressively worse up to his death. 4. The undersigned have stated all the above facts contained in this certificate to the best of our knowledge and belief. Manila, P.I., March 15, 1924. (Sgd.) SIXTO DE LOS W.B. BURKE, SAMUEL TIETZE (Exhibit 33 in relation with Exhibits 28 and 29.) Another angle to the condition of the patient on or about January 3, 1924, is disclosed by the treatment record kept daily by the nurses, in ANGELES M.D.
16
which appear the nurse's remarks. (Exhibits 8-A, 8-B, and 8-C.) In this connection, the testimony of the nurses is that Rodriguez was in the habit for no reason at all of calling "Maria, where are my 50 centavos, where is my key." In explanation of the observation made by the nurses, the nurse Apolonio Floreza testified. Direct questions of Attorney OCAMPO: Q. Among your observations on the 1st of January, 1924, you say 'with pains all over the body, and uttered some incoherent words of the same topics whenever is awakened.' How could you observe that he had pains all over the body? APOLONIO FLOREZA, nurse: A. I observed that by the fact that whenever I touched the body of the patient he complained of some pain. Q. On what part of the body did you touch him? A. On all the parts of his body. xxx xxx xxx
Q. Can you tell the court whether on those occasions when he said the name of Maria he said other words and was talking with somebody? A. He was talking to himself. Q. This remark on Exhibit 8-B when was it written by you? A. January 2, 1924. Q. In the observation correspondingly to January 2, 1924 you say, 'With pains over the body,' and later on talked too much whenever patient is awakened.' How did you happen to know the pain which you have noted here? A. The pains all over the body, I have observed them when giving him baths. Q. Besides saying that it ached when you touched the body, do you know whether he did any extraordinary thing? A. You mean to say acts? Q. Acts or words? A. Yes, sir, like those words which I have already said which he used to say Maria, the key, 50 centavos. Q. You say that he called Maria. What did he say about Maria on that date January 2, 1924? A. He used to say Maria where is Maria? Q. On that date January 2, 1924, did you answer him when he said Maria? A. No sir. Q. In this observation of yours appearing on page 8-C you say among other things with pain all over the body and shouted whenever he is given injection.' Did you really observe this in the patient? A. Yes, sir. Q. How did he shout? ARANETA: Objection as being immaterial. COURT: Overruled.
Q. How did you touch him, strongly or not? A. Slightly. Q. When you touched him slightly, what did he do? A. He said that it was aching. Q. What words did he say when, according to your note, he uttered incoherent words whenever he awakes? A. As for instance, 'Maria,' repeating it 'Where are my 50 centavos, where is my key?' Q. Did you hear him talk of Maria? A. Only the word Maria. Q. How long approximately was he talking uttering the name of 'Maria, Where are my 50 centavos,' and where is my key? A. For two or three minutes.
17
ARANETA: Exception. A. In a loud voice. Q. Besides shouting do you remember whether he said anything? A . He repeated the same words I have said before Maria the 50 centavos the key. Q. When did this observation occur which appear on page 8C? A. On January 3, 1924. (S. R. p. 5595.) On certain facts pertaining to the condition of Tomas Rodriguez there is no dispute. On January 3, 1924, Rodriguez had reached the advanced age of 76 years. He was suffering from anemia, hernia inguinal, chronic dypsia, and senility. Physically he was a wreck. As to the mental state of Tomas Rodriguez on January 3, 1924, Doctors Calderon, Domingo and Herrera admit that he was senile. They, together with Doctors De los Angeles, Tietze, and Burke, further declare that his memory however for remote events was generally good. He was given to irrational exclamations symptomatic of a deceased mind. While, however, Doctors Calderon Domingo, and Herrera certify that the intellectual faculties of the patient are "sound, except that his memory is weak," and that in executing the will the testator had full understanding of the act he was performing and full knowledge of the contents thereof, Doctors De Los Angeles, Tietze and Burke certify that Tomas Rodriguez was of unsound mind and that they diagnosed his case as senile dementia of the simple type approaching the deteriorated stage. Without attempting at this stage to pass in judgment on the antagonistic conclusions of the medical witnesses, or on other disputed point, insofar as the facts are concerned, a resolution of the case comes down to this: Did Tomas Rodriguez on January 3, 1924, possess sufficient mentality to make a will, or had he passed so far along in senile dementia as to require the court to find him of unsound? We leave the facts in this situation to pass on to a discussion of the legal phases of the case.
B. Law. The Code of Civil Procedure prescribes as a requisite to the allowance of a will that the testator be of "sound mind" (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 614). A "sound mind" is a "disposing mind." One of the grounds for disallowing a will is "If the testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapable of the execution." (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 634 [2].) Predicated on these statutory provisions, this court has adopted the following definition of testamentary capacity: "'Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed to have claims upon the testator, and to comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distribute his property among the objects of his bounty.'" (Bugnao vs. Ubag [1909], 14 Phil., 163, followed in Bagtas vs. Paguio [1912], 46 Phil., 701.) The mental capacity of the testator is determined as of the date of the execution of his will (Civil Code, art. 666). Various tests of testamentary capacity have been announced by the courts only later to be rejected as incomplete. Of the specific tests of capacity, neither old age, physical infirmities, feebleness of mind, weakness of the memory, the appointment of a guardian, nor eccentricities are sufficient singly or jointly to show testamentary incapacity. Each case rests on its own facts and must be decided by its own facts. There is one particular test relative to the capacity to make a will which is of some practical utility. This rule concerns the nature and rationality of the will. Is the will simple or complicated? Is it natural or unnatural? The mere exclusion of heirs will not, however, in itself indicate that the will was the offspring of an unsound mind. On the issue of testamentary capacity, the evidence should be permitted to take a wide range in order that all facts may be brought out which will assist in determining the question. The testimony of subscribing witnesses to a will concerning the testator's mental condition is entitled to great weight where they are truthful and intelligent. The evidence of those present at the execution of the will and of the attending physician is also to be relied upon. (Alexander on Willis, vol. I, pp. 433, 484; Wharton & Stille's Medical Jurisprudence, vol. I pp. 100 et seq.)
18
The presumption is that every adult is sane. It is only when those seeking to overthrow the will have clearly established the charge of mental incapacity that the courts will intervene to set aside a testamentary document. (Hernaez vs. Hernaez [1903], 1 Phil., 689; Bagtas vs. Paguio, supra.) Counsel for the appellee make capital of the testator being under guardianship at the time he made his will. Citing section 306 of the Code of Civil Procedure and certain authorities, they insist that the effect of the judgment is conclusive with respect to the condition of the person. To this statement we cannot write down our conformity. The provisions of the cited section were taken from California, and there the Supreme court has never held what is now urged upon us by the appellee. The rule announced that in some states, by force of statute, the finding of insanity is conclusive as to the existence of insanity during the continuance of adjudication, is found to rest on local statutes, of which no counterpart is found in the Philippines. (32 C.J., 647; Gridley vs. Boggs [1882], 62 Cal., 190; In the matter of the Estate of Johnson [1881], 57 Cal., 529.) Even where the question of insanity is out in issue in the guardianship proceedings, the most that can be said for the finding is that it raises a presumption of incapacity to make a will but does not invaluable the testament if competency can be shown. The burden of providing sanity in such case is cast upon the proponents. It is here claimed that the unsoundness of mind of the testator was the result of senile dementia. This is the form of mental decay of the aged upon which will are most often contested. A Newton, Paschal, a Cooley suffering under the variable weather of the mind, the flying vapors of incipient lunacy," would have proved historic subjects for expert dispute. Had Shakespeare's King Lear made a will, without any question it would have invited litigation and doubt. Senile dementia usually called childishness has various forms and stages. To constitute complete senile dementiathere must be such failure of the mind as to deprive the testator of intelligent action,. In the first stages of the diseases, a person may possess reason and have will power. (27 L. R. A., N. S. [1910], p. 89; Wharton & Stille's Medical Jurisprudence, vol. I. pp. 791 et seq.; Schouler on Wills, vol. I, pp. 145 et seq.)
It is a rather remarkable coincidence that of all the leading cases which have gone forth from this court, relating to the testator having a sound and disposing mind, and which have been brought to our notice by counsel, every one of them has allowed the will, even when it was necessary to reverse the judgment of the trial court. A study of these cases discloses a consistent tendency to protect the wishes of the deceased whenever it be legally possible. These decisions also show great tenderness on the part of the court towards the last will and testament of the aged. (See Hernaez vs. Hernaez [1903], 1 Phil., 689, per Arellano, C. J., In the matter of the will o f Butalid [1908] 10 Phil., 27 per Arellano, C. J.; Bugnao vs. Ubag [1909] 14. Phil., 163, per Carson, J.; Macapinlac vs. Alimurong [1910], 16 Phil., 41, per Arellano, C.J.; Bagtas vs. Paguio [1912], 22 Phil., 227, per Trent, J.; Galvez vs. Galvez [1913], 26 Phil., 243, per Torres, J.; Samson vs. Corrales Tan Quintin [1923], 44 Phil., 573, per Ostrand, J.; and Jocson vs. Jocson [1922], 46 Phil., 701, per Villamor, J.) Because of their peculiar applicability, we propose to make particular mention of four of the earlier cases of this court. In the case of Hernaez vs. Hernaez supra the subject of the action was the will executed by Dona Juana Espinosa. The annulment of the will was sought first upon the ground of the incapacity of the testatrix. She was over 80 years of age, so ill that three days extreme unction, and two days afterwards she died. Prior thereto she walked in a stooping attitude and gave contradictory orders," as a result of her senile debility." The chief Justice reached the conclusion that neither from the facts elicited by the interrogatories nor the documents presented "can the conclusion be reached that the testatrix was deprived of her mental faculties." The will was held valid and efficacious. In the case of In the matter of the will of Butalid, supra, the will was contested for the reason that Dominga Butalid at the date of the execution of the document was not in the date of the execution of the document was not in the free use of her intellectual powers, she being over 90 years of age, lying in bed seriously ill, senseless and unable to utter a single word so that she did not know what she was doing when she executed the will while the document was claimed to have been executed under the influence and by the direction of one of the heirs designated in the will. Yet after an examination of the evidence in the will. Yet after an examination of the evidence in the will. The Chief
19
Justice rendered judgment reversing the judgment appealed from and declaring the will presented for legalization to be valid and sufficient. In the case of Bugnao vs. Ubag, supra the court gave credence to the testimony of the subscribing witnesses who swore positively that at the time of the execution of the will the testator was of sound mind and memory. Based on these and other facts, Mr. Justice Carson, speaking for court, laid down the following legal principles: Between the highest degree of soundness of mind and memory which unquestionably carries with it full testamentary known as insanity or idiocy there are numberless degrees of mental capacity or incapacity and while on one hand it had been held that mere weakness of mind or partial imbecility from disease of body, or from age, will to render a person incapable of making a will a weak or feeble minded person may make a valid will provided he has understanding and memory sufficient to enable him to know what he is about and how or to whom he is disposing of his property' (Lodge vs. Lodge, 2 Houst. [Del.] 418); that, "To constitute a sound be unbroken or unimpaired, unshattered by disease or otherwise (Sloan vs. Maxwell, # N. J. Eq., 563); that it has not been understood that a testator must possess these qualities (of sound and disposing mind and memory) in the highest degree. . . .Few indeed would be the wills confirmed it this is correct. Pain, sickness, debility of body from age or infirmity, would according to its violence or duration in a greater or less degree, break in upon, weaken, or derange the mind, but the derangement must be such as deprives him of the rational faculties common to man' (Den. vs. Vancleve, 5 N. J. L., 680); and that Sound mind does not mean a perfectly balanced mind. The question of soundness is one of degree' (Boughton vs. Knight. L. R., 3 P. & D., 64; 42 L. P. P., 25); on the other hand, it has been held that testamentary incapacity does not necessarily require that a person shall actually be insane or of an unsound mind. Weakness of intellect, whether it arises from extreme old age, from disease, or great bodily infirmities of suffering, or from all these combined, may render the testator in capable of making a valid will, providing such weakness really disqualifies for from knowing or appreciating the nature, effects, or consequences of the act she is
engaged in (Manatt vs. Scott, 106 Iowa, 203; 68 Am. St. Rep., 293, 302). In the case of Nagtas vs. Paquio, supra, the record shows that the testator for some fourteen or fifteen years prior to the time of his death suffered from a paralysis of the left side of his body, that a few years prior to his death his hearing became impaired and that he had lost the power of speech. However, he retained the use of his hand and could write fairly well. Through the medium of signs, he was able to indicate his wishes to his family. The will was attacked n the ground that the testator lacked mental capacity at the time of its execution. The will was nevertheless admitted to probate, Mr. Justice Trent, speaking for the court, announcement the following pertinent legal doctrines: * * * There are many cases and authorities which we might cite to show that the courts have repeatedly held that mere weakness of mind and body, induced by age and disease do not render a person incapable of making a will. The law does not require that a person shall continue in the full enjoyment and use of his pristine physical and mental powers in order to execute a valid will. If such were the legal standard few indeed would be the number of wills that could meet such exacting requirements. The authorities, both medical and legal are universal in the statement that the question of mental capacity is one of degree and that there are many graduations from the highest degree of mental soundness to the lowest conditions of diseased mentality which are denominated as insanity and idiocy. The right to dispose of property by testamentary disposition is as sacred as any other right which a person may exercise and this right should be nullified unless mental incapacity is established in a positive and conclusive manner. In discussing the question of testamentary capacity, it is stated in volume 28, page 70, of the American and English Encyclopedia of Law that 'Contrary to the very prevalent lay impression perfect soundness of mind is not essential to testamentary capacity. A testator may be afflicted with a variety of mental weakness,
20
disorders or peculiarities and still be capable in law of executing a valid will.' (See the numerous cases there cited in support of this statement.) The rule relating to testamentary capacity is stated in Buswel on Insanity, section 365 and quoted with approval in Campbell vs. Campbell (130 Ill. 466) as follows: To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessary that the mind shall be wholly unbroken unimpaired or unshattered by disease or otherwise or that the testator should be in the full possession of his reasoning faculties. In note, 1 Jarnan on Wills, 38, the rule is thus stated: The question is not so much, what was the degree of memory possessed by the testator as had, he a disposing memory? Was he able to remember the property he was about to bequeth the manner of distributing it and the object of his bounty? In a word, were his mind and memory sufficiently sound to enable him to know and understand the business in which he was engaged at the time when he executed his will.' (See authorities there cited) In Wilson vs. Mitchell (101 Penn., 495), the following facts appeared upon the trial of the case: The testator died at the age of nearly 102 years. In his early years he was an intelligent and well informed man. About seven years prior to his death he suffered a paralytic stroke and from that time his mind and memory were much enfeebled. He became very dull of hearing and in consequence of the shrinking of his brain he was affected with senile cataract causing total blindness. He became filthy and obscene in his habits, although formerly he was observant of the proprieties of life. The court, in commenting upon the case, said: Neither age, nor sickness, nor extreme distress, nor debility of body will affect the capacity to make a will, if sufficient intelligence remains. The failure of memory is not sufficient to
create the incapacity, unless it be total or extend to his immediate family to property. . . . xxx xxx xxx
Dougal (the testator) had lived over one hundred years before he made the will and his physical and mental weakness and defective memory were in striking contrast with their strength in the meridian of his life. He was blind; not deaf, but hearing impaired; his mind acted slowly, he was forgetful of recent events, especially of names and repeated questions in conversation; and sometimes, when aroused from sleep or slumber, would seem bewildered. It is not singular that some of those who had known him when he was remarkable for vigor and intelligence are of the opinion that his reason was so far gone that he was incapable of making a will, although they never heard him utter an irrational expression. In the above case the will was sustained. In the case at bar we might draw the same contract as was pictured by the court in the case just quoted. . . . The particular difference between all of the Philippine case which are cited and the case at bar are that in none of the Philippine cases was there any declaration of incomplicated and in none of them were the facts quite as complicated as they are here. A case in point where the will was contested, because the testator was not of sound and disposing mind and memory and because at the time of the making of the will he was acting under the undue influence of his brothers and where he had a guardian when he executed his will, is Ames' Will ([1902] 40 Ore., 495). Mr. Justice Moore, delivering the opinion of the court, in part said: It is contended by contestant's counsel that on the day said pretended will purports to have been executed, Lowell was declared incompetent by a court which had jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter and that the decree therein appointing a guardian of his person and estate raises the distable presumption that he did not possess sufficient testamentary capacity at the time to overcome which required evidence so strong as to leave no reasonable doubt as to his
21
capacity to make a valid will, and the testimony introduced by the proponent being insufficient for that purpose the court erred in admitting it to probate. The appointment of a guardian of a person alleged to be non compos mentis, by a court having jurisdiction must necessarily create a presumption of the mental infirmity of the ward; but such decree does not conclusively show that the testamentary capacity of the person under guardianship is entirely destroyed and the presumption thus created may be overcome by evidence proving that such person at the time he executed a will was in fact of sound and disposing mind and memory: Stone vs. Damon, 12 Mass., 487; Breed vs. Pratt, 18 Pick, 115: In re Slinger's Will, 72 Wis., 22 (37 N. W. 236). The testimony shows that the testator retained a vivid recollection of the contents of the books he had read and studied when he was young but that he could not readily recall to his mind the ordinary incidents of his later life. The depth and intensity of mental impression always depend upon and are measured by the degree of attention given to the perception of truth, which demands reflection; and hence the inability of a person to recollect events and hence the inability is evidence of mental decay, because it manifest a want of power on concentration of the mind. The aged live in the past and the impression retained in their minds are those that were made in their younger days, because at that period of their lives they were able to exercise will power by giving attention. While the inability of a person of advanced years to remember recent events distinctly undoubtedly indicates a decay of the human faculties, it does not conclusively establish senile dementia, which is something more than a mere loss of mental power, resulting from old age and is not only a feeble condition of the mind but a derangement thereof. . . . The rule is settled in this state that if a testator at the time he executes his will understand the business in which he is engaged and has a knowledge of his property and how he wishes to dispose of it among those entitled to his bounty, he possess sufficient testamentary capacity, notwithstanding his old age, sickness debility of body, or extreme distress.
xxx
xxx
xxx
It is contented by contestant's counsel that if Lowell at the time he executed the pretended will, was not wholly lacking in testamentary capacity, he was, in consequence of age ill health, debility of body and infirmity of will power, Andrew and Joseph having knowledge thereof took advantage of his physical and mental condition and unduly influenced him to device and bequeth his property in the manner indicated, attempting thereby to deprive the contestant of all interest therein except such as was given her by statute. . . . Assuming that he was easily persuaded and that his brothers and the persons employed by them to care for him took advantage of his enfeebled condition and prejudiced his mind against the contestant did such undue influence render the will therefore executed void? . . . When a will has been properly executed, it is the duty of the courts to uphold it, if the testator possessed a sound and disposing mind and memory and was free from restraint and not acting under undue influence notwithstanding sympathy for persons legally entitled to the testator's bounty and a sense of innate justice might suggest a different testamentary disposition. Believing, as we do, that the findings of the circuit court are supported by the weight of the testimony its decree is affirmed. Insofar as the law on testamentary capacity to make a will is concerned and carrying alone one step further the question suggested at the end of the presentation of the facts on the same subject a resolution of the case comes down to this: Did Tomas Rodriguez on January 3, 1924, possess sufficient mentality to make a will which would meet the legal test regarding testamentary capacity and have the proponents of the will carried successfully the burden of proof and shown him to be of sound mind on that date? II. UNDUE INFLUENCE A. Facts. The will was attacked on the further ground of undue influence exercised by the persons benefited in the will in collaboration with others. The trial judge found this allegation to have been
22
established and made it one of the bases of his decision. it is now for us to say if the facts justify this finding. Tomas Rodriguez voluntary named Vicente F. Lopez as his administrator. The latter subsequently became his guardian. There is every indication that of all his relatives Tomas Rodriguez reposed the most confidence in Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter Luz Lopez de Bueno. Again, it was Vicente F. Lopez, who, on the suggestion of Rodriguez secured Maximino Mina to prepare the will, and it was Luz Lopez de Bueno who appears to have gathered the witnesses and physicians for the execution of the will. This faction of the Lopez family was also a favor through the orders of Doctor Domingo as to who could be admitted to see the patient. The trial judge entertained the opinion that there existed "a preconceived plan on the part of the persons who surrounded Tomas Rodriguez" to secure his signature to the testament. The trial judge may be correct in this supposition. It is hard to believe, however, that men of the standing of Judge Mina, Doctors Calderon, Domingo, Herrera, and De Asis and Mr. Legarda would so demean themselves and so fully their characters and reputation as to participate in a scheme having for its purpose to delude and to betray an old man in his age, rather named was acting according to the best of his ability to assist in a legitimate act in a legitimate manner. Moreover, considering the attitude of Tomas Rodriguez toward Margarita Lopez and her husband and his apparent enmity toward them, it seems fairly evident that even if the will had been made in previous years when Rodriguez was more nearly in his prime, he would have prepared somewhat a similar document. B. LAW. One of the grounds for disallowing a will is that it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the art of the beneficiary or some other person for his benefit (Code of Civil Procedure, sec., 634[4]). Undue influence, as here mentioned in connection with the law of wills and as further mentioned in the Civil Code (art. 1265), may be defined as that which compelled the testator to do that which is against the will from fear the desire of peace or from other feeling which is unable to resist. The theory of undue influence is totally rejected as not proved.
III. JUDGMENT To restate the combined issued of fact and law in this case pertaining to testamentary capacity: Did Tomas Rodriguez on January 3, 1924, possess sufficient mentality to make a will which would meet the legal test regarding testamentary capacity and have the proponents of the will carried successfully the burden of proof and shown him to be of sound mind on that date? Two of the subscribing witnesses to the will, one a physician clearly to the regular manner in which the will was executed and to the testator's mental condition. The other subscribing witness, also, a physician on the contrary testified to a fact which, if substantiated, would require the court to disallow the will. The attending physician and three other eminent members of the medical fraternity, who were present at the execution of the will, expressed opinions entirely favorable to the capacity of the testator. As against this we have the professional speculations of three other equally eminent members of the medical profession when the will was executed. The advantage on those facts is all with those who offer the will for probate. The will was short. It could easily be understood by a person in physical distress. It was reasonable, that is, it was reasonable if we take into account the evident prejustice of the testator against the husband of Margarita Lopez. With special reference of the definition of testamentary capacity, we may say this: On January 3, 1924, Tomas Rodriguez, in our opinion comprehended the nature of the transaction in which he was engaged. He had two conferences with his lawyer, Judge Mina, and knew what the will was to contain. The will was read to him by Mr. Legarda. He signed the will and its two copies in the proper places at the bottom and on the left margin. At that time the testator recollected the property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed to have claims upon him While for some months prior to the making of the will he had not manage his property he seem to have retained a distinct recollection of what it consisted and of his income. Occasionally his memory failed him with reference to the names of his relatives. Ordinarily, he knew who they were, he seemed to entertain a prediliction towards Vicente F. Lopez as would be natural since Lopez was nearest in which the instrument distributed the property naming
23
the objects of his bounty. His conversations with Judge Mina disclosed as insistence on giving all of his property to the two persons whom he specified. On January 3, 1924, Tomas Rodriguez may have been of advanced years, may have been physically decrepit, may have been weak in intellect, may have suffered a loss of memory, may have had a guardian and may have a been extremely eccentric, but he still possessed the spark of reason and of life, that strength of mind to form a fixed intention and to summon his enfeebled thoughts to enforce that intention, which the law terms "testamentary capacity." That in effect is the definite opinion which we reach after an exhaustive and exhausting study of a tedious record, after weighing the evidence for the oppositors, and after giving to the case the serious consideration which it deserves. The judgment of the trial court will be set aside and the will of Tomas Rodriguez will be admitted to probate without special pronouncement as to costs in this instance.
24
Succession Ramirez vs Ramirez ------------------------------------
G.R. No. L-19910 May 31, 1971 MAKALINTAL, J.: IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIE GARNIER GARREAU. LIRIO PFANNENSCHMIDT RAMIREZ, petitionerappellant, vs. JOSE MA. RAMIREZ, oppositor-appellee. At issue in this appeal is the due execution of the last will and testament of Maria Gamier Garreau, which was denied probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila in its order of August 15, 1961 (Special Proceeding No. 39365) on the ground of the testatrix' lack of testamentary capacity. Maria Gamier Garreau, widow of Ramon Ramirez, was a native of Asnier Paris, France, but a Filipino citizen residing in Madrid, Spain, where she died childless at the age of 84 on January 11, 1959. The will in question was an "open" one, executed before a notary public in Madrid on May 24, 1958, and instituting her niece Lirio (Lily) Pfannenschmidt now appellant, as sole and universal heir. Lirio is one of the four children of Jose Ramirez, brother of the testatrix husband Ramon, the other three being Elsa, Esperanza and Horacio. Ramon had a half-brother, Jorge P. Ramirez, whose son, Jose Maria Ramirez, now appellee, opposed the petition for probate filed by Urio on February 20, 1959, alleging in his opposition, inter alia, that there was a prior will executed by the testatrix in Manila in 1949. The photostat copy of that will, marked in the record as Exhibit D and Exhibit 2-J, shows that the testatrix instituted her husband as her universal 'heir, and in the event that he should predecease her (which he did), named her niece Lily Ramirez and her nephews Horacio Ramirez and Jose Ma. Ramirez as substitute heirs to all her properties in equal shares. This previous will, however, is not involved in this case, and has been referred to by the parties only in relation to the background circumstances concerning the execution of the "open" will in 1958. Ironically enough and certainly not without some overtones of poetic justice the order of the trial court denying probate is based in no small part on a number of letters written by the petitioner herself, in which she used quite strong terms to describe the mental infirmity of the testatrix. Those letters were written by her in 1956 and 1957 to her uncle, Jose Eugenio Ramirez de la Cavada, another brother of the testatrix husband, Ramon Ramirez. Even before then, however, the testatrix' mental condition was already the object of serious concern among her close relatives. The testimony of Jose Eugenio Ramirez, given in the form of deposition and submitted as Exhibit 3, discloses the following facts:
He arrived in Madrid in 1954. His niece Lily who was then residing there, came to him and said that she could not accept the fact that Jose Maria Ramirez (herein oppositor-appellee) had been named as heir in the will of her aunt, not being a member of the same family group. Lily, obviously referring to the 1949 will, then suggested to her uncle that he do something to correct the same, which suggestion he turned down, pointing out that the testatrix had the right to name her nephew Jose as one of her heirs. When he arrived in Madrid he found his sister-in-law "ya una mujer muy incapacitada." In 1955 he consulted a physician, Dr. Romero de Arcos and asked him to examine her. Dr. de Arcos had been treating the patient for various ailments, and it was he who suggested, after conducting his examination, that Dr. Jose Germain, competent specialist, be called to make his own diagnosis. The medical opinions of these two doctors will be discussed later. But from his own observations, Jose Eugenio Ramirez declared that his sister-in-law was even then mentally incapacitated, citing by way of example her attitude and personal reaction when her husband died in 1956. She was present at his death and saw his body just before he was buried; but when she went to her room after the funeral and saw that his bed was no longer there she came out crying asking where her husband was and saying that she was going to look for him. She had totally forgotten that he had passed away. Apart from that, she was easily susceptible to any suggestion from others, particularly those close to her, and after doing what she was told would promptly forget all about it. Another deponent, Julio Escribano Langa, a resident of Madrid who had known the spouses Ramon Ramirez and Maria Gamier Garreau for about nine years, testified to the same mental condition of the testatrix: her susceptibility to another person's influence; her lack of memory for recent events, her lack of understanding of, or volition for deciding, certain matters such as the making of a last will. Dr. Manuel Ramon de Arcos was first called to the Ramirez household in 1953 to treat Ramon Ramirez, and after that his wife, on a number of occasions until 1958. The material statements in his deposition are as follows: ... Alla por 1953 debia tener 77 o 78 aos de edad, y en esa seora se notaba cada vez mas falta de memoria, eso mucho, y a veces tenia cosas extranas, como imaginarse que habia hecho un viaje que no
habia hecho o de escribir cosas como sobre la casa de un cunado suyo en Palma donde nunca habia estado, y con el tiempo fue siguiendo la cosa asi pero motives de alarma en cuanto a su vida no. xxx xxx xxx Desde hacia tiempo ya que esta senora no tenia lucidez mental y antes se me pidio que yo certificara de su estado exacto y yo me encontre poco competente para ello, y efectivamente due que yo queria Ilevar adelante una exploracion en el sentido neurologico y yo necesitaba que alguien que se dedique a esa especialidad venga conmigo y entonces se Ilamano al Dr. Germain, y esto fue en marzo de 1955. El diagnostico a que Ilegamos, que despues fue confirmado, era de una involucion cerebral senil que Ilamanos a una involucion regresiva debido a defectos cerebrales de arteriosclerosis, y cuando se tiene eso cuando las cosas son asi realmente, la enfermedad no retrocede y la involucion avanza; es posible que algana vez yo la saludara y ella me contestara con mas afecto y pareciese que estaba mejor pero en realidad la involucion avanzaba como es normal. Dr. Jose Germain, who had been called in consultation by Dr. de Arcos in April 1955, presented an impressivecurriculum vitae attesting to his qualifications as a psychiatrist. The conclusions he arrived at after his examination of the patient are set forth in his deposition as follows: xxx xxx xxx P. Quiere usted explicar la naturalization de los servicios prestados por usted?
R. Sencillamente estudiar a la enferma bajo el punto de vista psiquiatrico y analizar sus reacciones ante las preguntas normales de orientation del tiempo y del espacio y contestaciones a una serie de pruebas o tests, y sobre esto forme un juicio que transmiti al Dr. Romero. P. Que juicio forms usted? R. Que esta senora padecia un proceso arterioesclerotic cerebral con alteracion del pensamiento y de la conducta que evidenciaba un estado de demencia presenila en evolucion. P. Ese estado de demencia presenilla la incapacitaba para realizar actos como un testamento con lucidez? R. Indudablemente. P. La evolucion de la enfermedad hace suponer posible que sea curable? R. No, seor, es un irreversible y progresivo. proceso
R. Si seor, pero perturbada. P. Gravemente perturbada? R. Perturbada para las circumstancias normales de la vida. P. Un sujeto en esas condiciones, tiene voluntad libre o es facilmente presionable de ser llevado por personas extranas a resoluciones no personales del enfermo? R. Todos estos enfermos lo que tienen es una disminucion del criterio personal y, por tanto, son susceptibles de ser influenciados. P. Normalmente por personal de su intimidad? R. Por cualquier persona, el primero que venga. P. Ha expedido usted un certificado? R. Si senor. P. Podia esta persona tener intervalos lucidos para que fueran validos? R. Repito que es un proceso irreversible y, por tanto, la sintomatologia tenia que seguir mas o menos en el primer plano de su personalidad. SR. GALLARDON: Nada mas.
P. Que experiencias hizo usted con la enferma? R. No recuerdo, pero eran las usuales. P. Tenia memoria?
xxx xxx xxx P. Pero usted conoce los requisitos para una incapacitacion? R. Si senor. P. Esta senora incurria en todos los elementos para ser incapacitada totalmente? R. Si senor. P. Al reconocer a ella, tenia usted algun prejuicio? R. No, senor. P. Usted dijo que era una enfermedad irreversible, es decir que no tiene curacion? R. Exacto. P. Pero puede mejorarse? R. No, senor, irreversible y progresiva es un proceso degenerativo cerebral. In the light of the foregoing expert medical opinions the letters written by herein appellant to her uncle, Jose Eugenio Ramirez, assume a vital significance on the issue of testamentary capacity, and of her own credibility as proponent of the probate of the will. In her letter of January 8, 1956 (Exh. 2-A) she wrote: I am trying to do all I can for poor Tia Marie who refuses to be helped. Poor dear she is getting worse and worse everyday. Her mind does not register anything y es terriblemente dura de cabeza.
In another letter (Exh. 2-B) dated July 15, 1956, she said to her uncle: I think it is my duty to look after her (Doa Marie) now that she is alone especially since the poor dear is completely in Irene's hands. * You will remember that Irene was with them when the thousands of pesos the Tios had for a rainy day were spent in two shakes of a lamb's tail. Appellant's letter of January 17, 1957 (Exh. 3-C) contained the following postcript: P.S. Everyday several times a day she (Doa Marie) tells me she is going back to Paris. This morning she asked me where Tio Ramon (who had died the previous year) was. On January 29, 1957 appellant again wrote a letter to her uncle, in which she said: Tia Marie has completely forgotten Irene from the second day she left. Irene must have told Tia Marie to ask Mr. Collard for the 40,000 telling her that with that money they would go to Paris and if Mr. Collard would have had the money to send, she would have kept it for herself, as Tia Marie would have forgotten about the money no sooner having collected it. Tia Marie signed for the money I went to collect and when I came back from the bank she did not ask me for it. She must have done that with Irene. Appellants, having suspected the maid Irene of taking advantage of Doa Marie's susceptibility to extraneous influence, succeeded in leaving her dismissed from the service; and Doa Maria had "completely forgotten (her) from the second day after she left." Such was the testatrix' mental condition that as early as 1956 appellant, in her letter of January 8, told her uncle that she was
thinking of having her aunt judicially pronounced incapacitated and asked him to send her "the papers of the doctors who declared Tios Ramon and Marie incapaces." Jose M. Cavanna, the Philippine administrator of the family of the testatrix, had the same idea, and so expressed it in his letter to appellant (Exh. 3-F) dated May 4, 1957, making reference to the fact that the testatrix had very little memory or almost none at all. He had deposited for her account in a bank in Madrid the sum of 100,000 pesetasso that she could draw regularly thereon which she did. However, when after a year he again went to Madrid Doa Marie, in the presence of her brother-in-law, Jose Eugenio Ramirez, denied ever having received any money from Cavanna. Referring to that incident, Cavanna continued in his letter to appellant: Recordandoles la suma que les habia dejado en mi visita el ano anterior, me lo negaron y aseguraron no haber recibido de mi ninguna cantidad de dinero. Estaba entonces presente D. Pepe Eugenio que habiendo oido sus insistentes protestas de no haber recibido el ano anterior cantidad alguna mia a exepcion de los giros mensuales, note que llego dudar de mis afirmaciones y entonces le invite ir al Banco en donde habia hecho el deposito para cerciorarse de aquellos hechos, en que trataban de negar mis afirmaciones. Al dia siguiente nos constituimos en el Banco D. Pepe Eugenio y yo y alli se corroboro todas mis afirmaciones y quedo probada la poca o casi ninguna memoria que existia en Da Marie, en vista del hecho de que ella misma habia firmado todos los cheques y no pudo seguir negando el hecho, confeso que se habia olvidado y no se volvio a hablar de ese asunto. Pero este hecho dio lugar que desde entonces los familiares comprendiendo el exceso de gastos que hacia y la suma tan gruesa que se habia gastado en aquel ano acordaron designar como en efecto se designo a Dn. Pepe Eugenio para que actuara en sus intereses en Espana y les enviara los fondos que se recibian de Manila en forma tal que no les hiciera falta nada para que no se les perdiera tantos fondos, pues Ilego a suspecharse de una sirvienta que entonces tenian
que resultaba mas que sirvienta una ama de compania. Tambien entonces habia hecho constar que se les enviaba trimestralmente las cuentas de sus fondos por duplicado con objeto de que despues de estudiada, dieran su conformidad y devolviesen uno de los ejemplares. No solo no devolvian el duplicado sino que no acusaban recibo de ella y en muchisimas ocasiones no sabian en donde lo habia dejado. En otra occasion anterior a estos acontecimientos tambien me aseguraron no haber recibido uno de los giros de $300.00 enviados y hechas las correspondientes avariguaciones resulto haber sido cobrador por Da Marie. Legal a pensarse la conveniencia de promover un expediente de tutela pero no se Ilevo a cabo para que no sufrieran en vida la vajacion de ser judicialmente declarados incapacitados por su avanza da edad. Lamenting the fact that her aunt was "completely in Irene's hands," and that "Irene has taken complete possession of every penny and gives Tia Marie no account of anything," * appellant expressed herself quite strongly in this wise: After all if the worst comes to the worst it is better that I who am a member of the family should cheat Tia Marie rather than an absolute stranger. The same fear was reiterated in her letter of February 2, 1957 (Exh. 3E); ... Que chasco y disgusto tendriamos si resultase Irene la heredera de los Tios. Cosa muy posible conociendo las cosas que ha hecho y lo engaados que tenia a los pobres Tios. A subsequent letter of appellant, dated April 9, 1957 (Exh. 2-K), this time addressed to her brother Horacio, reveals a significant development. Apparently the 1949 will, wherein Jose Maria Ramirez, appellee herein, was mentioned as one of the heirs, had been
changed with a new one eliminating him. Appellant wrote to her brother: Enclosed am sending Tia Marie's letter to you. As you will note the date is Feb. 2nd. I am doing this so that the letter appears to have been written before her new will. Keep her letter where it will be clear to see that the reason why Boby (appellee) does not appear in her new will is because he intended to take Tio Ramon to the "Tribunates," so if Boby by any chance tries to contend it you will have her letter as a farther proof that is what she had every intention to do. So Cillo (Horacio) for goodness sake keep it in a safe or in the bank until you will have use of it. Tear this letter no sooner read in case it falls into wrong hands. The less people know of the new will the better in case action should be taken against it. The foregoing letter appears quite conspiratorial, as, though the will referred to in it had been obtained by appellant in order to cut off Boby (appellee) from any share in the inheritance, and the enclosed letter of the testatrix had been antedated to February 2 so that it would appear "to have been written before her new will." For some reason not disclosed in the record, that will never came to light. Evidently Horacio was also an heir therein, but then was subsequently eliminated in the 1958 will which was actually presented for probate by appellant. The evidence hereinabove discussed, cumulatively considered, leads to the definite conclusion that Marie Gamier Garreau was indeed mentally incapacitated to make a will, that is, "to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of (her) bounty, and the character of the testamentary act" (Art. 799, Civil Code). As early as 1955, when she was examined by the family physician, Dr. Romero de Arcos and by a qualified psychiatrist, Dr. Jose Germain, she was already suffering from pre-senile dementia, a degenerative mental, infirmity that was described by them as "a progressive and irreversible process." The manifestations of this condition are amply illustrated in the letters written by appellant herself as well as in the testimony of her uncle, Jose Eugenio Ramirez. In fact these two were convinced that the testatrix should be placed under judicial guardianship, and actually took the initial steps towards that end. Appellant's subsequent turn-about in her opinion of the testatrix' mental condition is of course
understandable, considering that in the will she is named as sole and universal heir. But precisely for this reason not much reliance can be placed upon her testimony to the effect that the testatrix was possessed of the necessary testamentary capacity. The most pertinent evidence in behalf of appellant is the testimony of the notary public before whom the will in question was executed and the testimony of two of the three instrumental witnesses. The notary public, Braulio Nolasco Carrasquedo, gave the following statements on the subject of the testatrix' mental condition: 17. Sabe usted cual era el estado mental de dicha senora cuando otorgo el testamento anexo 1? R. A mi juicio estaba bien. 18. Haga usted el favor de explicar su contestacion a la pregunta anterior. R. No selo que quieren decir con esa pregunta. Yom juzgo que ella estaba capacitada y hay una clausula all de que esta capacitada legalmente. 19. Diga usted si Doa Maria Garnier Garreau se daba cuenta de que estaba otorgando un testamento? R. Se contesta con la repuesta anterior, pues si estaba capacitada sabia lo que hacia. 20. Diga usted si la testadora recordaba sus propriedades? R. Supongo que si aunque el en testamento no se permite a menos que se hagan legados, pero aqui es un testamento en terminos generales.
21. Diga usted si la testadora recordaba sus parientes? R. No puedo decir eso pero ella estaba con su sobrina, aunque supongo que recordara a sus parientes. As may be noted, the foregoing statements of the notary public are far from satisfactory. They are vague and evasive, and tend to beg the very issue. Thus the witness could not say, but merely supposed, that the testatrix had a recollection of her properties or of the relatives who would logically inherit from her and when asked to explain his answer to the question concerning her mental state, he simply referred to the certification in the will on that point. It would seem that he was aware that he had no sufficient basis for a categorical opinion on the subject, and so declined to fully commit himself. Manuel Gomez Tortajada was one of the instrumental witnesses. He affirmed that the testatrix was in "perfect" mental condition at the time of the execution of the will; that she knew "perfectly" that he was executing a will; that on another occasion she had even told him about certain properties of hers, and about her relatives, who were a niece and a sister of that niece. The testimony of this witness on deposition gives the distinct impression of officiousness, of pretending to be more intimately familiar with the affairs of the testatrix than their casual acquaintance justified. In any case his affirmation of the testatrix "perfect" mental condition was so obviously an exaggeration in the face of the clear and convincing evidence to the contrary that it only serves to weaken his credibility. The other instrumental witness was Antonio Fernandez Caballero. He likewise affirmed the good condition of the testatrix' mental faculties, saying that she had a recollection of her properties as well as of her relatives. The affirmation is rather strange' not to say incredible, considering that he met the testatrix for the first and only time in the office of the notary public on the occasion of the execution of the will, and that all that took place then was that the said will was read by the notary and then signed by the testatrix, the witnesses and the notary himself. And according to the latter he did not ask her anything about her properties or her relatives. Indeed this instrumental witness
admitted that he did not understand the language spoken by the testatrix on that occasion: R. Yo quicro decir que esta senora como hablaba algo diferente de nosotros todo lo que pudiera hablar no me entraba bien si ella hablaba con la sobrina, pero el lenguaje de ellas no lo entendia y no se si podian hablar de propiedades u otras cosas. P. But did the testatrix talk about her relatives on that occasion? R . Yo oi que ella hablaba con la senorita que le acompafiaba y creo que tenian parentezco pero hablaban en el idioma de ellas. Three additional witnesses, by way of rebuttal, were presented by appellant. The first was Dr. Suils Perez, whose deposition is marked Exhibit Q. He said that as a neurologist and a psychiatrist he was called several times in 1957 to Marie Garnier Garreau. His diagnosis was that she had a "brain lesion" "(lesion en el cerebro), but had a mentality corresponding to her age. "Era una mujer que en interes o atencion dejaba mucho que desear salvo en las cosas que le interesaban ... En un test que se hubiera hecho con ella hubieramos visto resultados contradictorias segun el momento de atencion en que se lo hicieramos que era muy variable." The foregoing testimony leaves much to he desired insofar as the issue of testamentary capacity is concerned: no reference whatsoever was made therein to the very elements of that issue, such as capacity to comprehend the nature of the testamentary act, the recollection of the properties to be disposed of and of the relatives who might have a claim upon the testatrix' generosity. Salustiano Reyero, a priest, was the second rebuttal witness for appellant, whose testimony was given in the form of deposition. The testatrix, he said, was in possession of her mental faculties, reacted well to questions directed at her, and even told him that she had a
house in Paris. His impression was that she was not susceptible to suggestion coming from or influence exerted by other persons. However, he qualified his assertions as follows: algunos ratos parecia que estaba alelada, "algunes veces note" eso cuando fui, y estaba como si no tuviera interest." Asked whether the testatrix remembered things normally, this witness answered: "Algunas veces no, cuando estaba ya Lily con ella que fue cuando la vi, porque no iba a ver a la difunta precisamente sino a Lily, y despues cuando volvia yo ya no se acordaba de que habia estado yo alli." Gonzalo Conejos Fernandez was the third rebuttal witness, also by deposition. A lawyer by profession, he said he was consulted by the testatrix, after he came to know her in 1956, about certain personal matters, among them the revocation of a power-of-attorney given to Jose M. Cavanna and the designation of another in his place as well as the proceedings for the adoption of appellant by the said testatrix. She consulted him also about what kinds of wills were permitted under the Spanish law, and told him that she had previously made a will in Manila where she was leaving her properties to her niece Lily, to a brother or a sister of the latter and to a "senor Ramirez," (evidently referring to appellee), but that because of certain actuations of appellee which did not please her she did not consider him deserving of being her heir. The witness was present at the execution of the will in question on May 24, 1958, and he noted, he said, that she was aware of the nature of the act in which she was engaged and that she had a recollection of her relatives and properties. From the tenor of his testimony the testatrix was a completely normal person during the period of their acquaintance; she was never absent-minded (alelada); and he did not know that she was suffering from cerebral arteriosclerosis or from pre-senile dementia. The testimony of this witness was not given weight by the trial court. It does suffer from the view point of credibility. He was presented as a rebuttal witness, who had been present during the taking of the depositions of the previous witnesses for appellant. He was therefore in a position to cure, as he apparently tried to do, the weaknesses in their statements. Although he was present when the will was executed, he actually remained in another room, the "antesala," which was separated by a glass partition from the room where the testatrix, the notary public and the instrumental witnesses transacted the business at hand.
The witness was quite elaborate about the motive behind the execution of the new will making appellant the sole heir. He said: ... esta Senora (testatrix) me dijo que tenia otorgado un testamento en Manila distribuyendo la herencia entre Lily, una hermana o hermano, y un Seor Ramirez (appellee), y que el motive de decidir que toda su herencia fuera de Lily, rectificando su anterior testamento, era debido aparte de las consideraciones de tipo afectivo a que me he referido al hecho de que ella estuvo casada con un Senor Ramirez, hijo natural de su padre, y que este Senor tenia un hijo legitimo, y a pesar de Ilevarse en buenas relaciones, cuando murio el hijo (evidently referring to appellee) de este hijo legitime quiso anular las disposiciones de su padre que no distinguio entre Ia condicion natural or legitimo, y por esta razon, a quien habia procedido de esa forma, que era sobrino de la difunta no le consideraba acreedora ser heredero de ella. If the foregoing were true, and had indeed been confided to the witness by the testatrix, it is strange that she should cut off from her new will not only the appellee but also the other nephew, Horacio Ramirez, appellant's full brother who was one of the heirs mentioned in the previous will executed in Manila and against whom the testatrix entertained no grievance. The issue here is essentially one of fact, and involves an appraisal of the conflicting evidence presented by the parties. That issue was addressed in the first instance to the trial Judge, and we cannot say that his conclusion as to the testamentary incapacity of the testatrix is erroneous. It is based mainly on expert medical testimony to the effect that her mental infirmity was observed by the family physician as far back as 1953 and confirmed in 1955 by a competent psychiatrist, who described the process of the mental degeneration as progressive and irreversible; on the written admissions and declarations of appellant herself, who would have no motive then to falsify the facts; and on the testimony of the testatrix' brother-in-law, Jose Eugenio Ramirez. On the question of credibility, we find no ground to disregard such evidence in favor of the vague, inconclusive statements of the notary public who authenticated the will and of the two instrumental witnesses, nor even of the testimony of the rebuttal witnesses, the
more categorical character of whose affirmations only serve to weaken their credibility, conflicting as they do not only with the evidence for appellee but also with that given by the other witnesses for appellant. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant.
Succession Junquera vs Borromeo ------------------------------------
G.R. No. L-18498
March 30, 1967 DIZON, J.:
TESTATE ESTATE OF VITO BORROMEO. JOSE H. JUNQUERA, petitioner-appellee, vs. CRISPIN BORROMEO, ET AL., oppositors-appellants. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, intervenor-appellant.
Vito Borromeo, a widower and permanent resident of the City of Cebu, died on March 13, 1952, in Paraaque, Rizal, at the age of 88 years, without forced heirs but leaving extensive properties in the province of Cebu. On April 19 of the same year, Jose H. Junquera, filed with the Court of First Instance of said province a petition for the probate of a one page document as the last will left by said deceased, devising all his properties to Tomas, Fortunato and Amelia, all surnamed Borromeo, in equal and undivided shares, and designating Junquera as executor thereof (Special Proceedings No. 916-R). The document now in the record as Exhibit "A" was dated May 17, 1946, drafted in Spanish, and allegedly signed, and thumbmarked by said deceased, in the presence of Dr. Cornelio G. Gandionco, Eusebio Cabiluna and Filiberto Leonardo as attesting witnesses. On June 14, 1952, the probate court appointed Junquera as special administrator of the estate. On November 14 of the same year, Teofilo Borromeo filed an opposition to the probate of the will based on the following grounds: (1) that the formalities required by law had not been complied with; (2) that the testator was mentally incapable of making a will at the time of its execution; (3) that the will was procured by undue and improper influence, on the part of the beneficiaries and/or some other person; (4) that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud; and (5) that the testator acted by mistake or did not intend the instrument he signed to be his will at the time he affixed his signature thereto. Upon motion of the abovenamed oppositor, on June 9, 1953, the Court removed Junquera as special administrator and appointed Dr. Patricio Beltran in his place. On November 27, 1953, Vitaliana Borromeo, a niece of the deceased, filed her own opposition to the probate of the will, on the ground that the signature "Vito Borromeo" appearing thereon was a forgery. Other oppositions were subsequently filed by Patrocinio Borromeo de
Tabotabo (her opposition was later withdrawn), Lilia Morre de Tabotabo, Lamberto Morre, Patricia Morre de Ranario, Aurora Morre de Borromeo, Ramon Ocampo, Isagani Morre and Rosario Morre, invoking substantially the same grounds mentioned heretofore. Meanwhile, Tomas, Amelia and Fortunato Borromeo, manifestly on behalf of the "Cebu Arcade Company, T. L. Borromeo y Cia.", a duly organized partnership controlled by them, filed a motion to exclude from the inventory of the Estate previously filed by the new special administrator, thirteen parcels of land situated in the City of Cebu with a total area of 2,148 square meters, alleging that during his lifetime the deceased testator had sold said lots to them, as evidenced by the document now in the record as Exhibit F-1 executed on May 17, 1945, confirming the alleged previous sale. After due hearing, the court, in its order of July 16, 1954, denied the motion for exclusion, ruling that movants' remedy was to file a separate accion reivindicatoria against the administrator. On October 28, 1955, the Republic of the Philippines filed a motion for leave to intervene and join the oppositors in contesting the probate of the will, on the ground that, should the estate be adjudicated the latter by intestacy, it stood to collect a considerable amount by way of estate and inheritance taxes. In its order of December 10 of the same year, the Court allowed the intervention. After a prolonged trial, on May 28, 1960, the Court rendered a decision denying the probate of the will and declaring itself without jurisdiction to pass upon the question of ownership over the thirteen lots which the Cebu Arcade etc. claimed as its own. All the parties appealed the proponents of the will from the portion of the decision denying probate, and the oppositors and the Republic of the Philippines, from that portion thereof where the court refused to decide the question of ownership of the thirteen lots already mentioned. The proponents of the disputed will, mainly with the testimony of the three attesting witnesses, Cornelio Gandionco, Filiberto Leonardo and Eusebio Cabiluna, sought to prove the following facts: In the morning of May 17, 1945, Tomas Borromeo, complying with the request of Vito Borromeo, went to the house of Atty. Filiberto Leonardo to request him to be a witness at the execution of the latter's
last will. Dr. Cornelio Gandionco, who at the time happened to be in the house of Leonardo, was likewise requested to act as such. Together, the three went to the residence of Vito Borromeo at Ramos Street, Cebu City. Upon their arrival the third witness, Eusebio Cabiluna, who was living on the ground floor of the house, was asked to come upstairs. Thereafter, in their presence, Vito Borromeo executed first, the document Exhibit "F" (deed of confirmation of an alleged previous sale to Cebu Arcade Company, T. L. Borromeo y Cia.) witnessed by Gandionco and Cabiluna. Later, Vito Borromeo, being of sound and disposing mind, and without pressure or influence exerted on him, dictated the substance of his will to Tomas Borromeo, who in turn typewrote it in proper legal language. The document was then read by Vito Borromeo, who later signed and thumbmarked it (Exhibit "A") and carbon copies thereof (Exhibits "E" and "K") in the presence of the attesting witnesses, who, in turn, signed the will and its copies in the presence of Vito Borromeo and of each other. Proponents also placed the Rev. Fr. Julio Corres, a Spanish Catholic priest who was the confessor of Vito Borromeo from 1942 to 1946, the Rev. Fr. Sergio Alfafara, who was his confessor from 1946 to 1947, and Vicenta Maacap, a mid-wife who lived in the testator's house and had served him from May 1945 up to his death on March 30, 1952 on the witness stand. The gist of their testimony is to the effect that at the time of the execution of the will, Vito Borromeo was still strong and could move around freely with the aid of a cane; that he was still mentally alert and was a man of strong will; that his right hand was unimpaired and he could write with it unaided; that as a matter of fact according to Vicenta Maacap he still wrote personal letters to Tomas Borromeo, could eat by himself and even played the piano. On the other hand, the oppositors presented several witnesses who testified that the signatures purporting to be those of Vito Borromeo on the document Exhibit "A" and its copies were forgeries; that they were too good and too perfect signatures and, therefore, quite impossible for the deceased an ailing man already 82 years old on May 17, 1945 to write; that he was found "positive for bacillus leprosy" by Dr. Antonio Garcia as early as 1926 or 1927, having been treated for it consistently by injections of chaulmoogra oil administered by Dr. Max Borromeo and Dr. Cornelio Gandionco; that Vito Borromeo's usual signatures during his better days had always been characterized by certain flourishes, technically called "rubric"; that Vito Borromeo had
also reared and educated two of the oppositors, Crispin Borromeo and the late Teofilo Borromeo and there was no conceivable reason why they were left out in the will, if any such will had really been made by him knowingly; that the testamentary witness Cornelio Gandionco, is a nephew of the other witness, Filiberto Leonardo, and was the fiance of Angeles Borromeo, a sister of Tomas Borromeo, one of the instituted heirs; that the third testamentary witness, Eusebio Cabiluna is the real father of Fortunato Borromeo, another instituted heir, who admittedly grew up and was reared by Vito Borromeo and his wife Juliana Evangelista since he was barely three months; that Amelia Borromeo, the third instituted heir, is a younger sister of Tomas Borromeo and dependent upon him; that on May 17, 1945, the deceased's leprosy was so far advanced that the fingers of his right hand were already hardened and atrophied, this making it difficult, if not impossible, for him to write; and that on the same date, his sense of hearing and his eyesight had been considerably impaired, his eyes being always watery due to the progress of his leprosy. The oppositors also presented Felipe Logan of the National Bureau of Investigation and Jose G. Villanueva, as handwriting experts, who testified, after examining the supposed signatures of the deceased in Exhibit "A" and comparing them with his accepted standard signatures, that the questioned signatures were forgeries. The proponents, however, presented their own handwriting expert, Martin Ramos, who testified to the contrary. The trial court refused to believe the testimony of the attesting witnesses and, as a result, denied the petition for probate, because, in its opinion, they appeared not to be "wholly disinterested persons" and because of the serious discrepancies in their testimonies with respect to the number of copies made of the disputed document. The court also found that the physical condition of the deceased at the time of the execution of the questioned document was such that it was highly improbable, if not impossible, for him to have affixed his signatures on the documents Exhibits A, E and K in the spontaneous and excellent manner they appear to have been written. Thus, the court was also led to believe the testimony of the handwriting experts for oppositors, adverse to the genuineness of the signatures of Vito Borromeo on the questioned document more than that of the handwriting expert presented by the proponents of the will.
It seems clear, therefore, that the main issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether or not the evidence of record is sufficient to prove the due execution of the will in question.1wph1.t It must be conceded that in this jurisdiction, the subscribing witnesses to a contested will are regarded as the best witnesses in connection with its due execution. It is similarly true, however, that to deserve full credit, their test, testimony must be reasonable and unbiased, and that, as in the case of any other witness, their testimony may be overcome by any competent evidence direct or circumstantial (Board, etc. vs. Shasser, 10 Kan. 585, 168 Pac. 836 [1917]). It is also an appellate practice of long standing in this jurisdiction to accord great weight to the findings of fact made by the trial court and not to disturb them unless said court had failed to consider material facts and circumstances or had given undue weight to, or misconstrued the testimony of particular witnesses, the reason for this being that the trial judge had full opportunity to hear and observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and was consequently in a better position than the reviewing court to determine the question of their credibility. While this is not applicable to the present case because His Honor, the judge who penned the appealed decision was not the same judge before whom the evidence of the parties was presented, it must be stated that, judging from the carefully written decision under review, it was only after a thorough study of the record that His Honor arrived at the conclusion that the subscribing witnesses do not appear to be wholly disinterested persons. On the matter of the number of copies made of the questioned will allegedly signed by the testator and the three subscribing witnesses, His Honor found that Cabiluna was very uncertain and confused; that a certain stage of his examination, he said that only two copies of the will were prepared the original and one carbon copy while at another stage he affirmed that he did not know whether or not there was a duplicate and that all he could say was that he had affixed his signature three times (Transcript, Marquiala, August 22, 1958, pp. 4950). In truth, however, he really signed six (6) times twice on the original and twice on each of the two copies. Adding confusion to the situation is the answer he gave when he was asked if Vito Borromeo
also signed the carbon copy, to which his answer was "I did not see" (Idem., p. 50). On the other hand, the other subscribing witness, Atty. Filiberto Leonardo, testified categorically that there were only the original and one carbon copy of the will and that the testator and all the subscribing witnesses signed both (Transcript, Marquiala, December 23, 1953, pp. 167, 210, and 218). However, the naked and highly disturbing fact is that, contrary to what is inferable from the vacillating testimony of Cabiluna and the categorical assertion of Atty. Leonardo, the proponents of the questioned will themselves presented three copies of said will; the original, a carbon duplicate copy and a carbon triplicate copy, now in the record as Exhibits A, E and K, respectively. While it is true that the testimony of these subscribing witnesses was given around eight years after the alleged execution of the questioned will, still we believe that the transaction in which they claim to have taken an important part is of such character and importance that it can not be a very easy matter for anyone of them to have a hazy recollection of the number of copies signed by the testator and by them. Stranger still would it be for them to say something in open contradiction with the reality on the matter. If, as may be clearly deduced from their testimony Cabiluna and Leonardo's there was only the original and one copy signed by the testator and the subscribing witnesses, why is it that three original and two copies were really in existence and were produced in court during the trial? In the case of the third subscribing witness, Dr. Cornelio Gandionco, the imputation was made by two witnesses, Dr. Teofilo Borromeo and Judge Crispin Borromeo, that he was the fiance of Angeles Borromeo, sister of Tomas Borromeo, who is one of the three heirs instituted in the questioned will, evidently to show that he is not a completely disinterested witness. The evidence to this effect appears to have remained unimpeached, although the proponents of the will could have done it by calling on Dr. Gandionco himself or on Angeles Borromeo to deny the imputation. Moreover, the evidence also disclose that Dr. Gandionco was the uncle of the other subscribing witness, Atty. Leonardo, and that, in fact, they were living together at the time of the alleged execution of
the will. This circumstance apparently trivial can not be taken lightly because in view of appellee's claim that Angeles Borromeo was the fiance of Dr. Gandionco, it would not be unreasonable to entertain the suspicion that both subscribing witnesses were not wholly disinterested. Material to this point is the fact established by the evidence that Atty. Leonardo was the notary public before whom the document Exhibit 4-A which purports to convey to a partnership controlled by the heirs instituted in the questioned will thirteen parcels of land situated in the commercial center of Cebu City was supposedly acknowledged by the testator on the same date May 17, 1945. In the light of the foregoing, We can not see our way clear to holding that the trial court erred in refusing to give full credit to the testimony of the three subscribing witnesses. It has also been held that the condition and physical appearance of a questioned document constitute a valuable factor which, if correctly evaluated in the light of surrounding circumstances, may help in determining whether it is genuine or forged. Subscribing witnesses may forget or exaggerate what they really know, saw, heard or did; they may be biased and, therefore, tell only half truths to mislead the court or favor one party to the prejudice of the other. This can not be said of the condition and physical appearance of the questioned document itself. Both, albeit silently, will reveal the naked truth, hiding nothing, forgetting nothing, and exaggerating nothing. For this reason, independently of the conflicting opinions expressed by the handwriting experts called to the witness stand by the parties, we have carefully examined and considered the physical appearance and condition of the original and two copies of the questioned will found in the record particularly the signatures attributed to the testator and We have come to the conclusion that the latter could not have been written by him. Upon the face of the original and two copies of the contested will (Exhibits A, E and K) appear a total of six alleged signatures of the testator. They are all well written along a practically straight line, without any visible sign of tremor or lack of firmness in the hand that wrote them. In fact, in the respects just adverted to, they appear better written than the unquestioned signatures, of attesting witnesses Gandionco and Cabiluna, inspite of the fact that on the date of the
alleged execution of the will (May 17, 1945) the testator was considerably older and in a much poorer physical condition than they. According to the evidence, the testator was then a sick man, eightytwo years old, with the entire left half of his body paralyzed since six years before, while the oldest attesting witness (Cabiluna) was around sixty-five years of age and Leonardo and Gandionco were only fortyfour and forty-five years old respectively, and were all in good health. Despite the obviously very poor physical condition of the testator, Leonardo claims that he signed the alleged will unaided, writing his name thereon slowly but continuously or without interruption, and that, on the same occasion, he signed his name several times not only on the original of the will and its copies but also on the original and several copies of the alleged confirmatory sale Exhibit F-1 and on his residence certificate. Considering all the attendant circumstances, we agree with the lower court that Vito Borromeo could not have written the questioned signatures. In view of what has been said heretofore, We find it unnecessary to examine and consider in detail the conflicting testimony of the handwriting experts presented by the parties: Martin Ramos by the proponents of the will, to sustain the genuineness of the questioned signatures, and Felipe Logan and Jose G. Villanueva, by the oppositors, to prove that said signatures are forgeries. We shall limit ourselves in this connection to quoting with approval the following portion of the appealed decision: What the Court finds to be a weakness in the conclusions of Martin Ramos, based on his comparative examination of the questioned and standard signatures of Vito Borromeo, is his apparent assumption that all the signatures were made by Vito Borromeo under equality or similarity of circumstances, that is, that in all instances Vito Borromeo had normal use of both of his hands, the right and the left. He failed to take into account that when Vito Borromeo allegedly affixed those signatures on May 17, 1945 on Exhibits 'A', 'E', and 'K' the left portion of his body, including the left hand, was already paralyzed, and Vito Borromeo was represented to have written his name alone by himself and unaided. Maybe, if he was previously apprised of those circumstances, he would hesitate to make the conclusion that those flawless signatures reading Vito Borromeo, written straight and in a form as good
as, if not better than, the signatures of three much younger attesting witnesses, were positively in the handwriting of the 82-year old, ailing, and paralytic Vito Borromeo. The Court consequently, finds itself not disposed to adopt his conclusions, but on the contrary is inclined toward the views of the other two experts witnesses, Felipe Logan and Jose G. Villanueva. As stated at the outset, the contested will is claimed to have been signed and thumbmarked by the testator. An examination of the thumbmarks, however, readily shows that, as the lower court found, the same are "glaringly far from being distinct and clear"; that "they are not a possible means of identification" nor can "they possibly be identified to be those of Vito Borromeo, or for that matter, of any other person whatsoever". It is, therefore, obvious, that they are of little use in the resolution of the issue before Us. We shall now consider the appeal, taken by the oppositors and the Republic of the Philippines from that portion of the decision where the lower court declined to decide with finality the question of who owns the thirteen parcels of land subject-matter of the confirmatory sale Exhibit F-1 and whether or not they should be included in or excluded from the inventory of properties of the Estate of the deceased Vito Borromeo. It appears that on February 11, 1954 Tomas, Amelia, and Fortunato Borromeo, through counsel, filed a motion for the exclusion from the inventory of the Estate of the thirteen lots therein mentioned, with a total area of 2,348 square meters, claiming that the same had been sold by the deceased Vito Borromeo during his lifetime to the Cebu Arcade, T. L. Borromeo y Cia. This motion for exclusion was denied by the lower court in its order of July 16, 1954, and the ruling was reiterated in the appealed decision "for the same reasons and considerations" upon which it rejected the probate of the will. The ruling on the matter, however, was expressly made provisional in nature. We believe, and so hold, that the resolution of the lower court on this matter is correct because said court, acting in its capacity as a probate court, had no jurisdiction to determine with finality the question of ownership involved. That such matter must be litigated in a separate
action has been the established jurisprudence in this jurisdiction (Ongsinco vs. Borja, L-7635, July 25, 1955; Mallari vs. Mallari, L-4656, February 23, 1953; Garcia vs. Martin, G.R. No. L-9233, June 29, 1957; Cordova vs. Ocampo, 73 Phil. 661; Pascual vs. Pascual, 73 Phil. 561 and others), except where a party merely prays for the inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of any particular property, in which case the probate court may pass upon provisionally, the question of inclusion or exclusion, but without prejudice to its final determination in an appropriate separate action (Garcia vs. Garcia, 67 Phil. 353; Marcelino vs. Antonio, 70 Phil. 388; Guinguing vs. Abuton, 48 Phil. 144, 147). In view of all the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.
Succession Gonzales vs Gonzales ------------------------------------
G.R. Nos. L-3272-73
November 29, 1951
PARAS, C.J.: On November 27, 1948, Manuel Ibarra Vda. de Gonzales (hereafter to be referred to as testatrix) died at the age of about seventy-eight years, leaving five children, namely, Alejandro Gonzales, Leopoldo Gonzales, Manolita Gonzales de Carungcong, and Juan Gonzales. The estate left by her is estimated at P150,000. On December 22, 1948, Manuel Gonzales filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a petition (Special Proceeding No. 837) for the probate of an alleged will executed by the testatrix on November 16, 1942 (Exhibit BManuel Gonzales), devising to Manuel Gonzales the greater portion of the estate, without impairing the legitimes of the other children. On December 31, 1948, Manolita G. de Carungcong filed in the same court a petition (Special Proceeding No. 838) for the probate of another alleged will executed by the testatrix on May 5, 1945 (Exhibit 1Manolita G. Carungcong), leaving to Manolita G. de Carungcong the greater bulk of the estate, without impairing the legitimes of the other children. In his opposition filed on February 16, 1949, Alejandro Gonzales, Jr. sought the disallowance of the wills executed on November 16, 1942, and May 5, 1945, on the ground that, assuming their validity, they had been revoked by the testatrix in an instrument executed by her on November 18, 1948 (Exhibit 2Alejandro and Juan Gonzales), with the result that her estate should be distributed as if she died intestate. With the exception of Leopoldo Gonzales, the children of the testatrix filed mutual oppositions to one or the other instruments tending to negative their respective positions. After a joint hearing, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision with the following dispositive pronouncements: All facts considered in the light of the evidence presented and in the manner in which the witnesses testified the court concludes and holds:
MANUEL GONZALES, petitioner-appellant, vs. MANOLITA GONZALES DE CARUNGCONG, petitioner-appellee; ALEJANDRO GONZALES, JR., and JUAN GONZALES, oppositorsappellants.
First: That Exhibit B Manuel Gonzales, though validly executed on November 16, 1942, was revoked by Exhibit 1Manolita G. Carungcong in accordance with the provisions of section 623 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Second: That Exhibit 2 Alejandro and Juan Gonzales being executed without the knowledge and testamentary capacity of the testatrix and being contrary to the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said document is hereby declared null and void. Third: That Exhibit 1 Manolita G. Carungcong having been executed in accordance with law the same is hereby declared as the true and last will and testament of the deceased Manuela Ibarra Viuda de Gonzales, and said will is hereby admitted probate. From this judgment petitioner Manuel Gonzales and oppositors Alejandro Gonzales, Jr. and Juan Gonzales have appealed. The appeal as to Juan Gonzales was dismissed in view of his failure to pay the proportionate share of the printing cost of the record on appeal. In the parts material to the present appeal, the will executed by the testatrix on May 5, 1945, is of the following form and tenor: IKALABING-DALAWA. Na ang aking HULING BILIN AT TESTAMENTONG ito ay binubuo ng PITONG (7) dahon o pagina na may bilang na sunud-sunod at ang bawa't dahon o pagina ay mayroong tunay kong lagda o firma, gayon din ang lahat ng aking saksi o testigos. SA KATUNAYAN ng lahat ng isinasaysay ko dito ay aking nilagdaan ito dito sa Imus, Kavite, Filipinas ngayong ika-5 ng Mayo ng taong 1945, na nakaharap dito sa ating paglagda o pagfirma ang tatlong saksi o testigos. At aking ding nilagdaan o pinirmahan ang tagilirang kaliwa ng lahat at bawa't dahon o pagina nitong testamento kong ito sa harap ng lahat at bawa't isang saksi o testigos at ang lahat at bawa't isa naman sa kanila ay nangagsilagda o nagsifirma din dito bilang saksi ko sa harap ko at sa harap ng lahat at bawa't isa sa kanila, at
ganoon din silang mga saksi ko ay nangag-lagda o nagsifirma sa tagilirang kaliwa ng lahat at bawa't isa sa mga dahon o pagina nitong aking testamento. (Sgd.) MANUELA Y. VDA. DE MANUELA IBARRA VDA. DE GONZALES Mga Saksi o Testigos: (Sgd.) BIENVENIDO (Sgd.) TAHIMIK (Sgd.) LUIS GAERLAN DE T. LOS REYES SAYOC GONZALES
It is contended for the appellants that this will does not contain any attestation clause; that, assuming the concluding paragraph to be the attestation clause, it is not valid because it is the act of the testatrix and not of the witnesses, and because it does not state the number of sheets or pages of the will. In the very recent case of Valentina Cuevas vs. Pilar Achacoso, G.R. No. L-3497, decided May, 1951 * we sustained, finding a precedent in Aldaba vs. Roque, 43 Phil., 378, an attestation clause made by the testator and forming part of the body of the will. Through Mr. Justice Bautista, we held: The clause above quoted is the attestation clause referred to in the law which, in our opinion, substantially complies with its requirements. The only apparent anomaly we find is that it appears to be an attestation made by the testator himself more than by the instrumental witnesses. This apparent anomaly, however, is not in our opinion serious nor substantial as to affect the validity of the will, it appearing that right under the signature of the testator, there appear the signatures of the three instrumental witnesses. Instrumental witnesses, as defined by Escriche in his Diccionario Razobada de Legislacion, y Jurisprudencia, Vol. 4, p. 1115, is on who takes part in the execution of an
instrument or writing" (in re will of Tan Diuco, 45 Phil., 807, 809). An instrumental witness, therefore, does not merely attest to the signature of the testator but also to the proper execution of the will. The fact that the three instrumental witnesses have signed the will immediately under the signature of the testator, shows that they have in fact attested not only to the genuineness of his signature but also to the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause. The attestation clause in question bears also similarity with the attestation clause in the will involved in Aldaba vs. Roque, (43 Phil., 378). In that case, the attestation clause formed part of the body of the will and its recital was made by the testatrix herself and was signed by her and by the three instrumental witnesses. In upholding the validity of the will, the court said: In reality, it appears that it is the testatrix who makes the declaration about the points in the last paragraph of the will; however, as the witnesses, together with the testatrix, have signed the said declaration, we are of the opinion and so hold that the words above quoted of the testament constitute a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Act No. 2465. Of course three of the Justices of this Court concurred in the result, "in the possibility that the testator in the present case, or the person or persons who prepared the will had relied upon the ruling laid down in the case ofAldaba vs. Roque, supra, and that it would now be unfair to reject the present will when in its preparation a ruling of this Court has been followed." But the case at bar still falls within this view, the will (Exhibit 1Manolita G. Carongcong) having been executed on May 5, 1945. The attestation clause contained in the body of the will being thus valid, the statement in the penultimate paragraph of the will hereinabove quoted as to the number of sheets or pages used, is sufficient attestation which may be considered in conjunction with the last paragraph. It is significant that the law does not require the attestation to be contained in a single clause. While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the
usual forms should be ignored, especially when the authenticity of the will is not assailed, as in this case. The result reached in respect of the sufficiency of the will (Exhibit 1 Manolita G. Carongcong) necessarily disposes of the contention of the appellant Manuel Gonzales that the trial court erred in not admitting to probate the will (Exhibit BManuel Gonzales), since the latter will must be considered revoked by the subsequent will (Exhibit 1 Manolita G. Carongcong). What remains to be discussed is the claim of appellant Alejandro Gonzales, Jr. that the will (Exhibit 1Manolita G. Carongcong) has been revoked by the testatrix in the instrument of November 18, 1948 (Exhibit 2Alejandro and Juan Gonzales) which provides as follows: Ako, MANUEL YBARRA VDA. DE GONZALES, may sapat na gulang at naninirahan sa ciudad ng Rizal, may mahusay at wastong pag-iisip at mabuting pagtatanda, sa pamamagitan ng kasulatang ito at bilang huling kapasiyahan ay sinasaysay ko ito at ipinahahayag sa ngayon sa alin mang testamento o huling habilin na napirmahan kong una sa kasulatang ito ay pinawawalan ko ng saysay at kabuluhang lahat pagkat hindi iyong tunay kong kalooban ngayon. Sa katunayan ng lahat ng ito at sa pagkat hindi ako makalagda ngayon ang pina-kiusapan si Constancio Padilla na ilagda ako sa kasulatang ito ngayon ika-17 ng Noviembre ng taong ito 1948, dito sa ciudad ng Pasay. Appellee Manolita G. de Carungcong, like Manuel Gonzales (as appellee), contends that the testatrix lacked the testamentary capacity when she allegedly executed the instrument of revocation, and their contention was sustained by the trial court. We have examined the record and found no valid reason for reversing the finding of said court which had the benefit of observing and hearing the witnesses testify. Upon the other hand, the following considerations amply support the appealed decision:. 1. For more than ten years prior to her death, the testatrix had suffered from hypertension. On November 14, 1948, she had aphasia and on
November 15, 1948, she was taken to the hospital upon advice of the family physician, Dr. Jose C. Leveriza. In the letter introducing her to the hospital authorities (Exhibit EManuel Gonzales), Dr. Leveriza stated that the testatrix was suffering from hypertension and cerebral thrombosis. Particularly on November 18, 1948, when the alleged instrument of revocation was executed by her, the testatrix was in a comatose and unconscious state and could not talk or understand. The following is the testimony of Dr. Leveriza portraying the physical condition of the testatrix up to November 18, 1948: P. Y que hizo usted cuando Doa Manuela I. Vda. de Gonzales ya estaba en el hospital?R. Me fui alla para examinarla. P. Cual era el resultado de su examen?R. Cuando fue al hospital a examinarla en el primer dia via que la aphasia se agravo, o sea que ha perdido el poder de hablar inteligentemente; tambien encontre que estaba inconsciente, durmiendo constantemente y no se le podia, despertar, tenia la respiracion fatigosa, lenta y con estertores, y no podia levantarse, asi que yo perscribi que diera el alimento por medio de hypodermoclysis, o sea por medio de inyecciones. Sr. PAMINTUAN.Quisieramos saber, Su Seoria, si se presenta al testigo como experto? Sr. SERRANO.Tambien quisiera saber si se presenta como madico de la familia o como medico experto?. Sr. ARCEGA.Presento al testigo como medico de cabecere y como medico experto al mismo tiempo. P. Y que hicieron en el hospital en vista de sus instrucciones?R. Cumplieron la prescripcion mia. P. Que sucedio con respecto al estado de la paciente? R. La paciente a medida que pasaban los dias se quedaba grave cada vez y mas graves los sintomas aun que al primer dia en que fue ella llevada al hospital.
P. Volviendome a la condicion de la paciente, en que estado se encontraba Doa Manuela I. Vda. de gonzales el 14 de noviembre de 1948 antes de ingresarla en el hospital? R. La encontre con aphasia, no podia hablar inteligentemente. "P. Puede usted explicar al Juzgado el curso de la enfermedad de Doa Manuela I. Vda. de Gonzales?R. Estuvo agravandose desde el segundo dia en que fue ingresada al hospital, y desde ese dia orinaba y deponia en la cama inconscientemente. xxx xxx xxx
(t.s.n., Laquindanum, March 21, 1949, pp. 24-26.) P. Explique usted al Juzgado el curso de la enfermedad de la paciente haciendo referencia de las fechas que aparecen en los Exhibitos 3 y 3-4?R. El noviembre 14, ordene el ingreso de la paciente al Mercy Hospital, porque tuvo paralisis parcial en la lengua, probablemente de origen embalismo o thrombosis cerebral, y como ya era de noche no se llevo al hospital, sino el dia 15 de noviembre en donde le he hecho dos visitas; la condicion de la paciente continuo empeorando hasta el dia 25 de noviembre en que sobrevino la complicacion de pneumonia hypostatica hasta que fallecio el noviembre 27, 1948, a las 2:30 p.m. xxx xxx xxx
(t.s.n., Laquindanum, March 21, 1948, pp. 28-29.) JUZGADO.P. Como llego usted a esa conclusion de que desde el 14 de noviembre de 1948 en que usted ordeno la entrega de la paciente al hospital empeoro su salud hasta que murio el dia 27 de noviembre de 1948?-R. Porque cada vez mas se acentua su estado comatoso, y demas su respiracion se hacia mas fatigosa cada vez que pasaban los dias, y con estertores.
P. Y como estaba su estado mental?R. Estaba completamente inconsciente desde el dia en que entro en el hospital. Sr. ARCEGA. P. Podia hablar la paciente en la fecha en que fue ingresada al hospital?-R. No, seor. P. Despues del 15 de noviembre de 1948 en que segun usted fue ingresada la paciente en el hospital podia hablar ella y hacer entender sus palabras?R. No, seor. P. Y que hacia la paciente?R. Estaba durmiendo continuamente, no podia abrir sus ojos por si sola, sino que yo abria para ver la pupila. P. Trato usted de tener conversacion con la paciente? R. Naturalmente trataba, pero contestaba, y ni creo que me entendia. P. Podia levantarse la paciente?R. No, seor, porque estaba en estado comtosos, y para prevenir la pneumonia hypostatica dos o tres hombres tenian que levantaria y ponerla algo de costado o algo asi reclinada. P. Y que resultado tuvo esa precaucion que usted tomo? R. Se ha retrasado o retardado le pneumonia, pero sobrevino, al fin, que siempre es fatal. P. Usted dijo que al fin sobrevino la pneumonia, que efecto tuvo esa pneumonia a la paciente?R. Precipito la muerte de la paciente. P. El 18 de noviembre de 1948, segun testimonio de los testigos, otorgaron el documento Exhibit 2-Alejandro y Juan Gonzales, puede usted decir al Juzgado en que estado se encontraba Doa Manuela I. Vda. de Gonzales?R. Estaba en estado comatoso. P. Por que sabe usted eso?R. Porque en esa fecha yo la visite dos veces: una por la maana y otra por la tarde.
P. Y estando en el estado comatoso, como usted, dice, puede usted decir al Juzgado si podia ella hablar o entender sus palabras o su deseo?R. No, seor. P. Hizo usted esfuerzos para hacerie comprender sus palabras?R. Siempre examinaba a ella para ver si reaccionaba favorablemente la paciente, pero cada vez era peor. P. Puede usted decir si en aquella fecha la paciente podia siquiera hacer movimiento de cabeza?R. No, seor, porque la parte derecha del cuerpo tenia hemiflejia o paralisis. P. Cual es la causa de oso que usted dice hemiflejia o paralisis?R. Generalmente se debe a una hemorragia cerebral o trombosis del cerebro. P. Teniendo hemorragia cerebral o trombosis del cerebro, segun usted, cual es la parte del cuerpo humano que queda afectada?R. La cabeza y tambien los brazos, como los miembros del cuerpo. P. Que quiere usted decir como los miembros del cuerpo? R. Las manos y los pies. P. Podia mover la paciente sus manos y su cuerpo?R. La parte izquierda si. P. Y la parte derecha?-R. No, seor.
JUZGADO.Pero una persona en ese estado de salud, como estaba la paciente Doa Manuela I. Vda. de Gonzales, el 18 de noviembre de 1948, podia comprender palabras dichas a ella o indicaciones hechas por alguna persona a ella?R. No, seor.(t.s.n. Laquindanum, March 21, 1948, pp. 30-33.). While appellant Alejandro Gonzales, Jr. has attempted to show that Dr. Leveriza was not an expert, the latters's testimony remains uncontradicted. The fact that the testimony of the attesting witnesses
tends to imply that the testatrix was of sound mind at the time the alleged instrument of revocation was executed, cannot prevail over the findings of the attending physician, Dr. Leveriza, because even Dr. Ramon C. Talavera (an attesting witness) testified that although he had not examined the testatrix, her case appeared serious; that he had a hunch that "they were taking advantage of the last moment of the deceased and they were trying to make me an instrument in the accomplishment of their aims," and that he had the idea that the testatrix was in doubtful condition because he "could only judge from the people going there.". It is also argued that if the testatrix was in a comatose condition, Dr. Leveriza would not have ordered to "let her sit on bed or on chair and let her turn on her side sometime." However, Dr. Leveriza has given the reason for this prescription, namely, to avoid hypostatic pneumonia. In support of the contention that the testimony of the attesting witnesses should be given more credence than the opinion of an expert witness, reliance is placed on the case of Caguioa vs. Calderon, 20 Phil., 400; Bagtas vs. Paguio, 22 Phil., 227; Galvez vs. Galvez, 26 Phil., 243; Samson vs. Corrales Tan Quintin, 44 Phil., 573; Amata vs. Tablizo, 48 Phil., 485, and Neyra vs. Neyra, 42, Off. Gaz., 2790 ** These cases are notably distinguishable from the case at bar. The former refer to situations in which the doctors were not in a position to certify definitely as the testamentary capacity of the testators at the time the wills therein involved were executed, because they had not observed the testators on said dates or never saw them; whereas the case now before us involves a family physician who attended the testatrix during her last illness and saw her on the day when the alleged instrument of revocation was executed. 2. We cannot help expressing our surprise at the fact that the instrument of revocation was allegedly executed on November 18, 1948, when, according to the testimony of Jose Padilla, the latter was asked by the testatrix to prepare the necessary document as early as in the month of May, 1948, and reminded about it for the second time weeks before November 1, 1948, and for the third time several days before the latter date (November 1, 1948). The first excuse given by
Jose Padilla for the delay is that he was busy and the children of the testatrix had certain disputes which he tried to settle. The second excuse is that he was not able to secure soon enough from Alejandro Gonzales, Jr. some documents of transfer which he wanted to examine in connection with the preparation of the desired instrument of revocation. We are inclined to state that these excuses are rather poor. If Jose Padilla was too busy to give attention to the matter, he could have very easily informed the testatrix and the latter, if really desirous of revoking her former wills, would have employed another to prepare the requisite document. The fact that there were disputes between the children of the testatrix certainly was not an obstacle to the accomplishment of the wish of the testatrix. Neither was it necessary to examine the documents relating to the properties of the testatrix, since the instrument of revocation could be prepared without any reference to the details of her estate. Indeed, the instrument (Exhibit 2Alejandro and Juan Gonzales) is couched in general terms. 3. Even under the theory of the appellant Alejandro Gonzales, Jr. it is hard to rule that the testatrix had sufficient testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the alleged instrument of revocation. In the first place, Constancio Padilla (brother of Jose Padilla) merely asked the testatrix, first, if she was agreeable to the instrument of revocation prepared by Jose Padilla, and secondly, if she was agreeable to the signing of said document by Constancio Padilla, to which two questions the testatrix allegedly answered "Yes". It is not pretended that the testatrix said more about the matter or gave any further instruction. The attesting witnesses were not introduced to the testatrix, and their presence was not even mentioned to her. it is obviously doubtful whether the testatrix understood the meaning and extent of the ceremony. Assuming that the testatrix answered in the affirmative the two questions of Constancio Padilla, without more, we cannot fairly attribute to her manifestation of her desire to proceed, right then and there, with the signing of the questioned instrument. In other words, contrary to the recital of the attestation clause, the testatrix cannot rightly be said to have published her last will to the attesting witnesses. The appealed decision is, therefore, affirmed without costs. So ordered.

Succession Full Text Case Art 800

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Succession Full Text Case Art 800

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

G.R. No. L-24569

February 26, 1926

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

(Left TOMAS ELIAS V. A. DE ASIS

signatures:) RODRIGUEZ BONOAN LEGARDA

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

(Sgd.) Dr. General Manila (Sgd.) 613 Malate Dr.

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Torres vs Lopez ------------------------------------

Succession Ramirez vs Ramirez ------------------------------------

Succession Ramirez vs Ramirez ------------------------------------

Succession Ramirez vs Ramirez ------------------------------------

Succession Ramirez vs Ramirez ------------------------------------

Succession Ramirez vs Ramirez ------------------------------------

Succession Ramirez vs Ramirez ------------------------------------

Succession Ramirez vs Ramirez ------------------------------------

Succession Ramirez vs Ramirez ------------------------------------

Succession Ramirez vs Ramirez ------------------------------------

Succession Junquera vs Borromeo ------------------------------------

G.R. No. L-18498

March 30, 1967 DIZON, J.:

Succession Junquera vs Borromeo ------------------------------------

Succession Junquera vs Borromeo ------------------------------------

Succession Junquera vs Borromeo ------------------------------------

Succession Junquera vs Borromeo ------------------------------------

Succession Junquera vs Borromeo ------------------------------------

Succession Gonzales vs Gonzales ------------------------------------

G.R. Nos. L-3272-73

November 29, 1951

Succession Gonzales vs Gonzales ------------------------------------

Succession Gonzales vs Gonzales ------------------------------------

Succession Gonzales vs Gonzales ------------------------------------

Succession Gonzales vs Gonzales ------------------------------------

Succession Gonzales vs Gonzales ------------------------------------

Succession Gonzales vs Gonzales ------------------------------------

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen