MANUEL TORRES and LUZ LOPEZ DE BUENO vs.

MARGARITA LOPEZ
G.R. No. L-24569

FACTS:

Tomas Rodriguez died 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 the execution of the will, he
had 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 on the
ground that at the time Tomas Rodriguez was caused to sign the supposed will, 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 enable him to dispose of his property by the
supposed will.

Said Tomas Rodriguez was then under guardianship, due to his being mentally and 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Tomas Rodriguez has testamentary capacity to consider the will valid.

RULING:

YES.
Tomas Rodriguez has testamentary capacity to constitute a will. Though there was conflict of
medical opinions on the soundness of mind of the testator. Drs. Calderon, Domingo, Herrera
claimed that testator had full understanding of the acts he was performing and that they were
witnesses in the said signing of the will. Code of Civil procedure prescribes a requisite that the
testator be of “sound mind”, a sound mind is a disposing mind. One of the grounds of disallowing a
will is if the testator is insane or otherwise incapable of the execution. With such the Court has
adopted a definition of “Testamentary Capacity” as:
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 . 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.

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.

SPOUSES AJERO v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 106720; September 15, 1994

FACTS:

The holographic will of the deceased was sought to be probated and the RTC ordered its
probate. However, on appeal to the CA, it was denied probate because of certain dispositions in
the will which were either unsigned and undated, or signed but not dated. It also found that the
erasures, alterations and cancellations made thereon had not been authenticated by decedent.

ISSUE:

Are the aforementioned reasons sufficient to deny probate?

WON the will should be probated -- YES
RULING:

NO.
The grounds for denial under Art. 839 are exclusive; hence no other ground can
serve to disallow a will.

In the case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity is the requirement that they be
totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself, as provided under Article 810. A
person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the
hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the
Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic
will that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator. Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows
that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but
not its probate. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that
these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole
testament void.

Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding non-compliance

with the provisions of Article 814. Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and
interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will have not been noted under his
signature, the Will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the
particular words erased, corrected or interlined.

Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on the date
of the holographic will or on testator's signature, their presence does not invalidate the will
itself. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes.
It is also proper to note that the requirements of authentication of changes and signing and
dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and 814) separate from that which
provides for the necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810).

Kalaw v. Relova
G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984

FACTS:

Gregorio Kalaw, the private respondent, claiming to be the sole heir of sister Natividad, filed a
peition for probate of the latter's holographic will in 1968. The will contained 2 alterations: a)
Rosa's name, designated as the sole heir was crossed out and instead "Rosario" was written
above it. Such was not initialed, b) Rosa's name was crossed out as sole executrix and
Gregorio's ma,e was written above it. This alteration was initialed by the testator.

Rosa contended that the will as first written should be given effect so that she would be the
sole heir. The lower court denied the probate due to the unauthenticated alterations and
additions.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the will is valid

RULING:

NO.
The will is voided or revoked since nothing remains in the will which could remain valid as there
was only one disposition in it. Such was altered by the substitution of the original heir with
another. To rule that the first will should be given effect is to disregard the testatrix' change of
mind. However, this change of mind cannot be given effect either as she failed to authenticate
it in accordance with Art. 814, or by affixing her full signature.