Ortega v Valmonte

Doctrine: The law favors the probate of a will. Upon those who oppose it rests the burden of showing why
it should not be allowed.

Facts:

Placido, after retiring from U.S., came back to live in the house he owned in common with his sister Ciriaca
Valmonte. Two years thereafter, at the age of 80, he married Josefina (herein respondent) who was then 28.
A little more than 2 years later Placido died. The latter had executed a notarial last will and testament written
in English and in 2 pages, disposing his properties to his beloved wife.

The probate of the will was opposed by Leticia on the grounds of failure to allege all assets, to state the
names of the heirs, follow the solemnities and formalities so required, and that the testator was senile, that
the will was executed under duress, undue influence, and lastly, that the signature of the signature was
procured through fraud. Further she questioned the assignment of Josefina as executrix and alleged further
that the latter should not inherit alone as there are other children from the siblings of Placido who are
entitled to inherit from him.

On the other hand, Josefina testified in court along with the notary public, and the witnesses of the will, as
to the due execution of the will and the capacity of Placido at the time of the execution of the will.

The RTC found the grounds of non-compliance with the legal solemnities and formalities in the execution
and attestation of the will; and mental incapacity of the testator at the time of the execution of the will, duly
proven. As such RTC did not admit the will to probate.

CA reversed the RTC. The CA upheld the credibility of the notary public and the subscribing witnesses
who acknowledged the due execution of the will and that the testator had testamentary capacity at the time
of the execution.

Issue: WON the CA erred in admitting Placido’s will to probate?

Ruling.

NO. First, the SC ruled that there was no fraud in the execution of the will. Fraud is defined as a trick, secret
device, false statement, or pretense, by which the subject (testator) of it is cheated. The deception must be
of such nature that the testator was led to make a will that he would have not made. The SC further stressed
that the party who challenges the will has the burden to prove the existence of fraud at the time of its
execution. In this case, respondent failed to adduce evidence of such existence aside from their self-serving
allegations.

As to the conflicting dates, the SC ruled that the same does not invalidate the will as the law does not require
that the will be executed and acknowledged on the same date. What is more important is that it must be
subscribed by the testator and 3 witnesses in the presence of each other before a notary public.

Lastly, on the capacity of the testator to make a will, the SC explained that there are 3 things that the testator
must have know to be considered of sound mind: the nature of the estate to be disposed, the proper objects
of the testator’s bounty, and the character of the testamentary act. All of which was found present in this
case. Placido was able to identify with precision the property and interest he owned, he had identified his
wife as sole beneficiary.
Considering the aforementioned, Palcido’s will must be admitted to probate.

(Other doctrine: the omission of some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity.)