Antonio Baltazar vs. Lorenzo Laxa, GR. No. 174489, April 11, 2012

DOCTRINE: The state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a person mentally unsound to render him unfit to execute a Will.

CASE TITLE: Antonio Baltazar vs. Lorenzo Laxa, GR. No. 174489, April 11, 2012, J. DEL CASTILLO

FACTS

Paciencia was a 78-year-old spinster when she made her last will and testament entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia Regala" (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 38 and then on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof.

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. More than four years after the death of Paciencia or on April 27, 2000, Lorenzo filed a petition14 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.

Petitioner Antonio Baltazar (Antonio) filed an opposition to Lorenzo’s petition. Antonio averred that the properties subject of Paciencia’s Will belong to Nicomeda Regala Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest; hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath them to Lorenzo.

Petitioners filed an Amended Opposition asking the Regional Trial Court to deny the probate of Paciencia’s 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.

Rosie Mateo, one of the petitioners, 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, hence she was mentally incapable to make a will at the time of its execution.

The RTC rendered its Decision denying the petition and disallowed the notarized will dated September 13, 1981 of Paciencia Regala. 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.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC Decision and granted the probate of the Will of Paciencia. The appellate court did not agree with the RTC’s 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."

ISSUE

Whether or not Pacencia had no testamentary capacity to execute her last will and testament for having been forgetful.

HELD

No. The state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a person mentally unsound to render him unfit to execute a will. Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind. As provided under Art. 799 of the Civil Code, 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. Furthermore, Rosie’s conclusion that Paciencia was magulyan was only based on her personal assessment in contrast to Dra. Limpin’s testimony as to the soundness of mind of Paciencia when the latter went to Judge Limpin’s house and voluntarily executed the Will.

The testimony of subscribing witnesses to a Will concerning the testator’s mental condition is entitled to great weight where they are truthful and intelligent. Lastly, 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.