You are on page 1of 4

Articles 796-803 Bagtas vs.

Paguio Testators body was paralyzed on the left side, his hearing was impaired, he had lost his power of speech, his head fell to one side, and saliva ran from his mouth. However, he retained the use of his right hand and was able to write fairly well. The question is whether or not the testator was of sound mind. SC ruled that the presumption of a sound mind was not rebutted. Witnesses testified that the testator wrote the disposition in pieces of paper; he was asked whether they were indeed dispositions to which he nodded his head in affirmation; and the will was read to him out loud.

BAGTAS vs. PAGUIO March 14, 1912

FACTS: Paguio suffered from paralysis of the left side of his body until his death. In the probation of his will, it was contended that he was not in full enjoyment and use of his mental faculties and was without the mental capacity necessary to execute a will

HELD: In this jurisdiction, there is a presumption in favor of mental capacity of the testator and the burden is upon the contestants of the will to prove the lack of the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will. In this case, the testator has never been adjudged insane. Paralysis is not equivalent to mental incapacity. It is not necessary that a person must be in full possession of his mental and reasoning faculties to be able to be considered of sound mind. It is not necessary that his mind be unbroken, unshattered by disease, injury


ALSUA-BETTS, et al vs. CA July 30, 1979 FACTS: After executing a holographic will which was later probated during his lifetime, the deceased executed another will, but this second will he did not submit to the court for probate while still alive.

HELD: The mental faculties of persons suffering from ADDISONS DISEASE remain unimpaired, partly due to the fact that on account of the sleep they enjoy, they necessarily receive the benefit of physical and mental rest. Like patients suffering from TUBERCULOSIS, INSOMNIA or DIABETES, they preserve their mental faculties until the moment of their death. Even if the testator is ill and his hand is guided in signing will, lying down and unable to move or stand up unassisted, the testator is not considered to of unsound mind . Delirium when it beclouds the mind so as not to understand the nature of act, extent of property, and objects of bounty is an indication of an unsound mind.

HELD: The fact of non-submission to probate during his lifetime of the second will does not indicate any defect in the requisite testamentary capacity. Besides, a will is revocable at any time by the testator was still alive.

Gonzales vs. Gonzales de Carungcong Two alleged wills were presented for probate to which the petitioner opposed presenting an instrument revoking the said wills allegedly executed by the testator. The family physician who attended to the testator during her last illness and saw her on the day the said instrument was allegedly executed, testified that during that time the testator was in a comatose and unconscious state. SC upheld this testimony as against the testimony of attesting witnesses tending to imply that the testator was of sound mind.

In the Matter of the summary settlement of the Estate of the decease Anacleta Abellana Lucio BALONAN, petitioner-appellee vs. Eusebia ABELLANA, et al., oppositors-appellants. G.R. No. L-15153, August 31, 1960 FACTS: The last Will and Testament sought to be probated consists in two (2) typewritten pages. The first page is signed by Juan Bello and on the left margin appears the signatures of the three (3) instrumental witnesses. On the second page appears the signature of said witnesses, at the bottom of which appears the signature of the notary public and below said signature is his designation as notary public. On the left margin of the second page (last page of the will) appears the signature of Juan Bello under whose name appears handwritten the phrase, Por la Testadore Anacleta Abellana (For the Testate of Anacleta Abellana). The will is duly acknowledged before the notary public. ISSUE: Whether or not the signature of Juan Bello above the typewritten statement, Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana comply with the requirements of law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be executed. RULING: Article 805 of the Civil Code provides: Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end there of by the testator himself or by the testators 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 law requires that the testator himself sign the will, or if he cannot do so, the testators name must be written by some other person in his presence and by his express direction. In this case, the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana does not appear written under the will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan Bello. There is therefore, a failure to comply with the express requirement in the law that the testator must himself sign the will, or that his name be affixed thereto by some other person in his presence and by his express direction. Hence, the will of the deceased Anacleta Abellana must not be admitted to probate.

TORRES, LOPEZ DE BUENO vs. LOPEZ February 26, 1926

HELD: If the testator made the will after he had been judicially declared insane, and before such judicial order had been set aside, the testator is presumed insane. The law requires that proponents of the will shall have the burden of proof to show that the testator had soundness of mind if the testator made the will after a judicial determination of his insanity.

NAYVE vs. MOJAL December 29, 1924 FACTS: The defects attributed to the will are: (a) (b) (c) (d) not having been signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and every sheet on the left margin; the sheets of the document not being paged with letters; the attestation clause does not state the number of sheets or pages actually used of the will; and the testator does not appear to have signed all the sheets in the presence of the 3 witnesses, and the latter to have attested and signed all the sheets in the presence of the testator and of each other.

HELD: (a) As each and every page used of the will bears the signatures of the testator and the witnesses, the fact that said signatures do not all appear on the left margin of each page does not detract from the validity of the will. Paging with Arabic numerals and not with letters is within the spirit of the law, and is just as valid as paging with letters. The last paragraph of the will in question and the attestation clause, coming next to it, are of the following tenor: "In witness whereof, I set my hand unto this will here in the town of Camalig, Albay, Philippine Islands, this 26th day of November, nineteen hundred and eighteen, composed of four sheets, including the next X X X" The number of sheets is stated in said last paragraph of the will. The attestation clause must state the number of sheets or pages composing the will; but when, as in the case before us, such fact, while it is not stated in the attestation clause, appears at the end of the will proper, so that no proof aliunde is necessary of the number of the sheets of the will, then there can be no doubt that it complies with the intention of the law that the number of sheets of which the will is composed be shown by the document itself, to prevent the number of the sheets of the will from being unduly increased or decreased. (d) The attestation clause above set out it is said that the testator signed the will "in the presence of each of the witnesses" and the latter signed "in the presence of each other and of the testator." So that, as to whether the testator and the attesting witnesses saw each other sign the will, such a requirement was clearly and sufficiently complied with. What is not stated in this clause is whether the testator and the witnesses signed all the sheets of the will. The fact of the testator and the witnesses having signed all the sheets of the will may be proven by the mere examination of the document, although it does not say anything about this, and if that is the fact, as it is in the instant case, the danger of fraud in this respect, which is what the law tries to avoid, does not exist.

(b) (c)