Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, |
|
G.R. No. 174489 |
|
SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR, |
|
|
|
ANTONIO L. MANGALINDAN, |
|
|
|
ROSIE M. MATEO, |
|
Present: |
|
NENITA A. PACHECO, |
|
|
|
VIRGILIO REGALA, JR., |
|
|
|
and RAFAEL TITCO, |
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
Petitioners, |
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
LORENZO LAXA, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
April 11, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
It is incumbent upon those who oppose
the probate of a will to clearly establish that the decedent was not of sound
and disposing mind at the time of the execution of said will. Otherwise, the
state is duty-bound to give full effect to the wishes of the testator to
distribute his estate in the manner provided in his will so long as it is
legally tenable.[1]
Before us is a
Petition for Review on Certiorari[2]
of the June 15, 2006 Decision[3]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 80979 which reversed the September
30, 2003 Decision[4] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Guagua, Pampanga in Special
Proceedings No. G-1186. The assailed CA Decision
granted the petition for probate of the notarial will of Paciencia Regala
(Paciencia), to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the appeal
to be impressed with merit, the decision in SP. PROC. NO. G-1186 dated 30
September 2003, is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered GRANTING the petition
for the probate of the will of PACIENCIA REGALA.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Also assailed herein
is the August 31, 2006 CA Resolution[6]
which denied the Motion for
Reconsideration thereto.
Petitioners call
us to reverse the CAs assailed Decision and instead affirm the Decision of the
RTC which disallowed the notarial will of Paciencia.
Factual Antecedents
Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she made her
last will and testament entitled Tauli
Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia Regala[7] (Will)
in the Pampango dialect on September 13, 1981. The Will, executed in the house of retired
Judge Ernestino G. Limpin (Judge Limpin), was read to Paciencia twice. After which, Paciencia expressed in the
presence of the instrumental witnesses that the document is her last will and testament. She thereafter affixed her signature at the
end of the said document on page 3[8] and then
on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof.[9]
The witnesses
to the Will were Dra. Maria Lioba A. Limpin (Dra. Limpin), Francisco Garcia
(Francisco) and Faustino R. Mercado (Faustino).
The three attested to the Wills due execution by affixing their
signatures below its attestation clause[10] and on
the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof,[11] in the presence
of Paciencia and of one another and of Judge Limpin who acted as notary public.
Childless and without any brothers or sisters, Paciencia
bequeathed all her properties to respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa (Lorenzo) and his
wife Corazon F. Laxa and their children Luna Lorella Laxa and Katherine Ross
Laxa, thus:
x x x x
Fourth - In consideration of their valuable
services to me since then up to the present by the spouses LORENZO LAXA and
CORAZON F. LAXA, I hereby BEQUEATH, CONVEY and GIVE all my properties
enumerated in parcels 1 to 5 unto the spouses LORENZO R. LAXA and CORAZON F.
LAXA and their children, LUNA LORELLA
LAXA and KATHERINE LAXA, and the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa and Corazon F. Laxa
both of legal age, Filipinos, presently residing at Barrio Sta. Monica, [Sasmuan],
Pampanga and their children, LUNA LORELLA and KATHERINE ROSS LAXA, who are
still not of legal age and living with their parents who would decide to
bequeath since they are the children of the spouses;
x x x x
[Sixth] - Should other properties of mine may be
discovered aside from the properties mentioned in this last will and testament,
I am also bequeathing and giving the same to the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa and
Corazon F. Laxa and their two children and I also command them to offer masses
yearly for the repose of my soul and that of D[]a Nicomeda Regala, Epifania
Regala and their spouses and with respect to the fishpond situated at San Antonio,
I likewise command to fulfill the wishes of D[]a Nicomeda Regala in accordance
with her testament as stated in my testament. x x x[12]
The filial
relationship of Lorenzo with Paciencia remains undisputed. Lorenzo is Paciencias nephew whom she treated
as her own son. Conversely, Lorenzo came to know and treated Paciencia as his
own mother.[13] Paciencia lived with Lorenzos family in
Sasmuan, Pampanga and it was she who raised and cared for Lorenzo since his
birth. Six days after the execution of
the Will or on September 19, 1981, Paciencia left for the United States of
America (USA). There, she resided with Lorenzo
and his family until her death on January 4, 1996.
In the
interim, the Will remained in the custody of Judge Limpin.
More than
four years after the death of Paciencia or on April 27, 2000, Lorenzo filed a
petition[14]
with the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and
for the issuance of Letters of Administration in his favor, docketed as Special
Proceedings No. G-1186.
There being
no opposition to the petition after its due publication, the RTC issued an
Order on June 13, 2000[15] allowing
Lorenzo to present evidence on June 22, 2000.
On said date, Dra. Limpin testified that she was one of the instrumental
witnesses in the execution of the last will and testament of Paciencia on
September 13, 1981.[16] The Will was executed in her fathers (Judge
Limpin) home office, in her presence and of two other witnesses, Francisco and
Faustino.[17]
Dra. Limpin positively identified the Will
and her signatures on all its four pages.[18] She likewise
positively identified the signature of her father appearing thereon.[19] Questioned by the prosecutor regarding Judge
Limpins present mental fitness, Dra. Limpin testified that her father had a
stroke in 1991 and had to undergo brain surgery.[20] The judge can walk but can no longer talk and
remember her name. Because of this, Dra.
Limpin stated that her father can no longer testify in court.[21]
The
following day or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar (Antonio) filed
an opposition[22]
to Lorenzos petition. Antonio averred
that the properties subject of Paciencias Will belong to Nicomeda Regala
Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest; hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath
them to Lorenzo.[23]
Barely a
month after or on July 20, 2000, Antonio, now joined by petitioners Sebastian
M. Baltazar, Virgilio Regala, Jr., Nenita A. Pacheco, Felix B. Flores, Rafael
Titco, Rosie M. Mateo (Rosie) and Antonio L. Mangalindan filed a Supplemental Opposition[24] contending
that Paciencias Will was null and void because ownership of the properties had
not been transferred and/or titled to Paciencia before her death pursuant to
Article 1049, paragraph 3 of the Civil Code.[25] Petitioners also opposed the issuance of
Letters of Administration in Lorenzos favor arguing that Lorenzo was
disqualified to be appointed as such, he being a citizen and resident of the
Later still
on September 26, 2000, petitioners filed an Amended Opposition[28] asking
the RTC to deny the probate of Paciencias Will on the following grounds: the Will
was not executed and attested to in accordance with the requirements of the
law; that Paciencia was mentally incapable to make a Will at the time of its
execution; that she was forced to execute the Will under duress or influence of
fear or threats; that the execution of the Will had been procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence by Lorenzo or by some other persons for his
benefit; that the signature of Paciencia on the Will was forged; that assuming
the signature to be genuine, it was obtained through fraud or trickery; and,
that Paciencia did not intend the document to be her Will. Simultaneously, petitioners filed an
Opposition and Recommendation[29] reiterating
their opposition to the appointment of Lorenzo as administrator of the
properties and requesting for the appointment of Antonio in his stead.
On January
29, 2001, the RTC issued an Order[30] denying
the requests of both Lorenzo and Antonio to be appointed administrator since
the former is a citizen and resident of the
Meanwhile, proceedings
on the petition for the probate of the Will continued. Dra. Limpin was recalled for cross-examination
by the petitioners. She testified as to
the age of her father at the time the latter notarized the Will of Paciencia; the living arrangements of Paciencia at the
time of the execution of the Will; and the lack of photographs when the event
took place. [31]
Aside from
Dra. Limpin, Lorenzo and Monico Mercado (Monico)
also took the witness stand. Monico, son of Faustino, testified on his
fathers condition. According to him his
father can no longer talk and express himself due to brain damage. A medical certificate was presented to the
court to support this allegation. [32]
For his
part, Lorenzo testified that: from 1944 until his departure for the USA in
April 1980, he lived in Sasmuan, Pampanga with his family and his aunt, Paciencia;
in 1981 Paciencia went to the USA and lived with him and his family until her
death in January 1996; the relationship between him and Paciencia was like that
of a mother and child since Paciencia took care of him since birth and took him
in as an adopted son; Paciencia was a spinster without children, and without
brothers and sisters; at the time of Paciencias death, she did not suffer from
any mental disorder and was of sound mind, was not blind, deaf or mute; the Will
was in the custody of Judge Limpin and was only given to him after Paciencias
death through Faustino; and he was already residing in the USA when the Will
was executed.[33]
Lorenzo positively identified the
signature of Paciencia in three different documents and in the Will itself and stated
that he was familiar with Paciencias signature because he accompanied her in
her transactions.[34] Further, Lorenzo belied and denied having used
force, intimidation, violence, coercion or trickery upon Paciencia to execute
the Will as he was not in the
As to
Francisco, he could no longer be presented in court as he already died on May
21, 2000.
For
petitioners, Rosie testified that her mother and Paciencia were first cousins.[37] She claimed to have helped in the household
chores in the house of Paciencia thereby allowing her to stay therein from
morning until evening and that during the period of her service in the said
household, Lorenzos wife and his children were staying in the same house.[38] She served in the said household from 1980
until Paciencias departure for the
On
September 13, 1981, Rosie claimed that she saw Faustino bring something for
Paciencia to sign at the latters house.[40] Rosie admitted, though, that she did not see
what that something was as same was placed inside an envelope.[41] However, she remembered Paciencia instructing
Faustino to first look for money before she signs them.[42] A few days after or on September 16, 1981,
Paciencia went to the house of Antonios mother and brought with her the said envelope.[43] Upon
going home, however, the envelope was no longer with Paciencia.[44] Rosie further testified that Paciencia was
referred to as magulyan or forgetful
because she would sometimes leave her wallet in the kitchen then start looking
for it moments later.[45] On cross examination, it was established that
Rosie was neither a doctor nor a psychiatrist, that her conclusion that
Paciencia was magulyan was based on
her personal assessment,[46] and
that it was Antonio who requested her to testify in court.[47]
In his
direct examination, Antonio stated that Paciencia was his aunt.[48] He identified the Will and testified that he
had seen the said document before because Paciencia brought the same to his
mothers house and showed it to him along with another document on September
16, 1981.[49]
Antonio alleged that when the documents
were shown to him, the same were still unsigned.[50] According to him, Paciencia thought that the
documents pertained to a lease of one of her rice lands,[51] and it
was he who explained that the documents were actually a special power of
attorney to lease and sell her fishpond and other properties upon her departure
for the USA, and a Will which would transfer her properties to Lorenzo and his
family upon her death.[52] Upon hearing this, Paciencia allegedly uttered
the following words: Why will I never
[return], why will I sell all my properties? Who is Lorenzo? Is he the only [son] of God? I have other relatives [who should] benefit
from my properties. Why should I die
already?[53]
Thereafter, Antonio advised Paciencia
not to sign the documents if she does not want to, to which the latter
purportedly replied, I know nothing
about those, throw them away or it is up to you. The more I will not sign them.[54] After which, Paciencia left the documents with
Antonio. Antonio kept the unsigned documents
and eventually turned them
over to Faustino on September 18, 1981.[55]
Ruling of the Regional
Trial Court
On
September 30, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision[56] denying
the petition thus:
WHEREFORE, this court hereby (a) denies the
petition dated April 24, 2000; and (b) disallows the notarized will dated
September 13, 1981 of Paciencia Regala.
SO ORDERED.[57]
The trial court
gave considerable weight to the testimony of Rosie and concluded that at the
time Paciencia signed the Will, she was no longer possessed of sufficient
reason or strength of mind to have testamentary capacity.[58]
Ruling of the Court of
Appeals
On appeal,
the CA reversed the RTC Decision and granted the probate of the Will of
Paciencia. The appellate court did not
agree with the RTCs conclusion that Paciencia was of unsound mind when she
executed the Will. It ratiocinated that the
state of being magulyan does not
make a person mentally unsound so [as] to render [Paciencia] unfit for
executing a Will.[59] Moreover, the oppositors in the probate
proceedings were not able to overcome the presumption that every person is of
sound mind. Further, no concrete circumstances
or events were given to prove the allegation that Paciencia was tricked or
forced into signing the Will.[60]
Petitioners
moved for reconsideration[61] but the
motion was denied by the CA in its Resolution[62] dated
August 31, 2006.
Hence, this
petition.
Issues
Petitioners come before this Court by
way of Petition for Review on Certiorari ascribing
upon the CA the following errors:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED
WHEN IT ALLOWED THE PROBATE OF PACIENCIAS WILL DESPITE RESPONDENTS UTTER FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 11, RULE 76 OF THE RULES OF COURT;
II.
THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN MAKING CONCLUSIONS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
EVIDENCE ON RECORD;
III.
THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THAT
PACIENCIA WAS NOT OF SOUND MIND AT THE TIME THE WILL WAS ALLEGEDLY EXECUTED[63]
The pivotal issue is whether the authenticity and due execution
of the notarial Will was sufficiently established to warrant its allowance for
probate.
Our Ruling
We deny the
petition.
Faithful
compliance with the formalities
laid
down by law is apparent from the face of the Will.
Courts are
tasked to determine nothing more than the extrinsic validity of a
Will in probate proceedings.[64] This is expressly provided for in Rule 75,
Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which states:
Rule 75
Production of Will. Allowance of Will Necessary.
Section 1. Allowance
necessary. Conclusive as to execution. No will shall pass either real or
personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court. Subject to
the right of appeal, such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its
due execution.
Due
execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the
testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by law.[65] These formalities are enshrined in Articles
805 and 806 of the New Civil Code, to wit:
Art. 805. Every will,
other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the
testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his
presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or
more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
The testator or the
person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the
will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the
last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters
placed on the upper part of each page.
The attestation shall
state the number of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact
that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other
person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the
instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and
all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
If the attestation
clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to
them.
Art. 806. Every will
must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.
The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file
another with the Office of the Clerk of Court.
Here, a careful
examination of the face of the Will shows faithful compliance with the
formalities laid down by law. The
signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses and the
notary public, are all present and evident on the Will. Further, the attestation clause explicitly
states the critical requirement that the testatrix and her instrumental
witnesses signed the Will in the presence of one another and that the witnesses
attested and subscribed to the Will in the presence of the testator and of one
another. In fact, even the petitioners
acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the Will may be authentic although
they question her state of mind when she signed the same as well as the
voluntary nature of said act.
The
burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution
of the will lies on the shoulders of the petitioners.
Petitioners,
through their witness Rosie, claim that Paciencia was magulyan or forgetful so much so that it effectively stripped her
of testamentary capacity. They likewise claimed in their Motion for
Reconsideration[66]
filed with the CA that Paciencia was not only magulyan but was actually suffering from paranoia.[67]
We are not
convinced.
We agree
with the position of the CA that the state of being forgetful does not
necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to execute
a Will.[68] Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of
unsound mind. Besides, Article 799 of
the New Civil Code states:
Art. 799. To
be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession
of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken,
unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if
the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the
estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character
of the testamentary act.
In this case, apart from
the testimony of Rosie pertaining to Paciencias forgetfulness, there is no
substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, that would show that Paciencia was
of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the Will. On the other hand, we find more worthy of
credence Dra. Limpins testimony as to the soundness of mind of Paciencia when
the latter went to Judge Limpins house and voluntarily executed the Will. The testimony of subscribing witnesses to a Will
concerning the testators mental condition is entitled to great weight where
they are truthful and intelligent.[69] More importantly, a testator is presumed to be
of sound mind at the time of the execution of the Will and the burden to prove
otherwise lies on the oppositor. Article
800 of the New Civil Code states:
Art. 800. The law
presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the
contrary.
The burden of proof that
the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on
the person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month,
or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who
maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during
a lucid interval.
Here, there
was no showing that Paciencia was publicly known to be insane one month or less
before the making of the Will. Clearly,
thus, the burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind lies upon the
shoulders of petitioners. However and as
earlier mentioned, no substantial evidence was presented by them to prove the same,
thereby warranting the CAs finding that petitioners failed to discharge such
burden.
Furthermore, we are convinced that Paciencia was aware of
the nature of her estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of her bounty and
the character of the testamentary act. As
aptly pointed out by the CA:
A scrutiny of the Will discloses that [Paciencia]
was aware of the nature of the document she executed. She specially requested that the customs of
her faith be observed upon her death. She was well aware of how she acquired
the properties from her parents and the properties she is bequeathing to
LORENZO, to his wife CORAZON and to his two (2) children. A third child was
born after the execution of the will and was not included therein as devisee.[70]
Bare
allegations of duress or influence of fear or threats, undue and improper
influence and pressure, fraud and trickery cannot be used as basis to deny the
probate of a will.
An
essential element of the validity of the Will is the willingness of the
testator or testatrix to execute the document that will distribute his/her
earthly possessions upon his/her death.
Petitioners claim that Paciencia was forced to execute the Will under
duress or influence of fear or threats; that the execution of the Will had been
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence by Lorenzo or by some
other persons for his benefit; and that assuming Paciencias signature to be
genuine, it was obtained through fraud or trickery. These are grounded on the alleged conversation
between Paciencia and Antonio on September 16, 1981 wherein the former
purportedly repudiated the Will and left it unsigned.
We are not
persuaded.
We take
into consideration the unrebutted fact that Paciencia loved and treated Lorenzo
as her own son and that love even extended to Lorenzos wife and children. This kind of relationship is not unusual. It is in fact not unheard of in our culture
for old maids or spinsters to care for and raise their nephews and nieces and
treat them as their own children. Such
is a prevalent and accepted cultural practice that has resulted in many family
discords between those favored by the testamentary disposition of a testator
and those who stand to benefit in case of intestacy.
In this
case, evidence shows the acknowledged fact that Paciencias relationship with
Lorenzo and his family is different from her relationship with petitioners. The very fact that she cared for and raised
Lorenzo and lived with him both here and abroad, even if the latter was already
married and already has children, highlights the special bond between them. This
unquestioned relationship between Paciencia and the devisees tends to support
the authenticity of the said document as against petitioners allegations of
duress, influence of fear or threats, undue and improper influence, pressure,
fraud, and trickery which, aside from being factual in nature, are not
supported by concrete, substantial and credible evidence on record. It is worth stressing that bare arguments, no
matter how forceful, if not based on concrete and substantial evidence cannot
suffice to move the Court to uphold said allegations.[71] Furthermore, a purported will is not [to be]
denied legalization on dubious grounds.
Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary succession will be
shaken to its foundation, for even if a will has been duly executed in fact,
whether x x x it will be probated would have to depend largely on the attitude
of those interested in [the estate of the deceased].[72]
Court
should be convinced by the evidence presented before it that the Will was duly
executed.
Petitioners
dispute the authenticity of Paciencias Will on the ground that Section 11 of
Rule 76 of the Rules of Court was not complied with. It provides:
Allowance or Disallowance of Will
Section 11. Subscribing witnesses produced or accounted for where will contested.
If the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and the notary in
the case of wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines, if present
in the Philippines and not insane, must be produced and examined, and the
death, absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the
court. If all or some of such witnesses are present in the
If a holographic will is contested, the same shall
be allowed if at least three (3) witnesses who know the handwriting of the
testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the
handwriting of the testator; in the absence of any competent witnesses, and if
the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. (Emphasis
supplied.)
They insist
that all subscribing witnesses and the notary public should have been presented
in court since all but one witness, Francisco, are still living.
We cannot
agree with petitioners.
We note
that the inability of Faustino and Judge Limpin to appear and testify before
the court was satisfactorily explained during the probate proceedings. As testified
to by his son, Faustino had a heart attack, was already bedridden and could no
longer talk and express himself due to brain damage. To prove this, said witness presented the
corresponding medical certificate. For
her part, Dra. Limpin testified that her father, Judge Limpin, suffered a
stroke in 1991 and had to undergo brain surgery. At that time, Judge Limpin could no longer
talk and could not even remember his daughters name so that Dra. Limpin stated
that given such condition, her father could no longer testify. It is well to note that at that point, despite
ample opportunity, petitioners neither interposed any objections to the testimonies
of said witnesses nor challenged the same on cross examination. We thus hold that for all intents and
purposes, Lorenzo was able to satisfactorily account for the incapacity and
failure of the said subscribing witness and of the notary public to testify in
court. Because of this the probate of
Paciencias Will may be allowed on the basis of Dra. Limpins testimony proving
her sanity and the due execution of the Will, as well as on the proof of her
handwriting. It is an established rule
that [a] testament may not be disallowed just because the attesting witnesses
declare against its due execution; neither does it have to be necessarily
allowed just because all the attesting witnesses declare in favor of its
legalization; what is decisive is that the court is convinced by evidence
before it, not necessarily from the attesting witnesses, although they must
testify, that the will was or was not duly executed in the manner required by
law.[73]
Moreover, it
bears stressing that [i]rrespective x x x of the posture of any of the parties
as regards the authenticity and due execution of the will x x x in question, it
is the mandate of the law that it is the evidence before the court and/or [evidence
that] ought to be before it that is controlling.[74] The very existence of [the Will] is in itself
prima facie proof that the supposed [testatrix]
has willed that [her] estate be distributed in the manner therein provided, and
it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given
full effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby.[75] This, coupled
with Lorenzos established relationship with Paciencia, the evidence and the testimonies
of disinterested witnesses, as opposed to the total lack of evidence presented
by petitioners apart from their self-serving testimonies, constrain us to tilt
the balance in favor of the authenticity of the Will and its allowance for
probate.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 15, 2006 and the
Resolution dated August 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
80979 are AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Gonzales Vda. de Precilla v. Narciso, 150-B Phil. 437, 473 (1972).
[2] Rollo, pp. 9-31.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 177-192; penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Vicente Q. Roxas.
[4] Records, pp. 220-246; penned by Judge
Jonel S. Mercado.
[5] CA rollo, p. 192.
[6]
[7] Exhibit G, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 36-39.
[8] Exhibit G-11, id. at 38.
[9] Exhibits G-9, G-10, and G-11, id. at
36, 37 and 39.
[10] Exhibit G-6, id at 38.
[11] Exhibits G-4, G-5, and G-7, id. at 36,
37 and 39.
[12] English Translation of the Last Will and Testament of Miss Paciencia Regala, Exhibits H-1 and H-2, id. at 41-42.
[13] TSN dated April 18, 2001, pp. 2-6.
[14] Records, pp. 1-3.
[15]
[16] TSN dated June 22, 2000, p. 2.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Motion with Leave of Court to Admit Instant Opposition to Petition of Lorenzo Laxa; records, pp. 17-18.
[23]
[24]
[25] Article 1049. Acceptance may be express or tacit.
x x x x
Acts of mere preservation or provisional
administration do not imply an acceptance of the inheritance if, through such
acts, the title or capacity of an heir has not been assumed.
[26] Records, p. 26.
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] TSN dated January 18, 2001, pp. 2-4.
[32]
[33] TSN dated April 18, 2001, pp. 1- 28.
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37] TSN dated November 27, 2002, p. 4.
[38]
[39] TSN dated December 4, 2002, p. 8
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48] TSN dated January 7, 2003, p. 3.
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55] Id at 18-19.
[56] Records, pp. 220-246.
[57]
[58]
[59] CA rollo, p. 185.
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63] Rollo, p. 18.
[64] Pastor, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 207 Phil. 758, 766. (1983).
[65]
[66] CA rollo, pp. 193-199.
[67]
[68] Torres and Lopez de Bueno v. Lopez, 48 Phil. 772, 810 (1926); Sancho v. Abella, 58 Phil.728, 732-733 (1933).
[69]
[70] CA rollo, pp. 185-186.
[71] Gonzales Vda. de Precilla v. Narciso, supra note 1 at 445.
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]