Topic: Allowance Disallowance of Wills undue influence, in the sense above expressed, existed at the time of

Case No.: 42 Phil 596 its execution and we do not think that this burden has been carried
Case Name: Coso v Fernandez in the present case.
 He was a lawyer, and may have been influenced by his sense of duty
RELEVANT FACTS and gratitude.

 An unnamed testator had illicit relations with Rosario Lopez while in DISPOSITIVE
Spain. Rosario followed him and maintained close communication. No dispositive in the eSCRA copy, but it can be assumed that the decision of
 Eventually, a will by the testator gave free disposition to an CFI was reversed.
illegitimate son the testator had with Rosario, as well as payment by
way of reimbursement for expenses incurred by Rosario in taking
care of testator in Barcelona.
 Court of First Instance ruled to set aside the will on the ground of
undue influence.
 Hence, the appeal.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the will should be invalidated

RATIO DECIDENDI

No, the will should not be invalidated because there was no undue
influence

 The degree of undue influence must be of a kind that so overpowers

and subjugates the mind of the testator as to destroy his free agency
and make him express the will of another, rather than his own.
 Furthermore, influence must be actually exerted on the mind of the
testator in regard to the execution of the will in question, either at
the time of the execution of the will, or so near thereto as to be still
operative, with the object of procuring a will in favor of particular
parties, and it must result in the making of testamentary dispositions
which the testator would not otherwise have made.
 Mere affection, even if illegitimate, is not undue influence and does
not invalidate a will.
 The burden is upon the parties challenging the will to show that