Case No.

70
Pascual vs. De la Cruz, 28 SCRA 421, No. L-24819 May 30, 1969

Deceased: Catalina De la Cruz

Sole Heir: Atty. Andres Pascual

FACTS: Catalina dela Cruz (+) executed a will where she named Petitioner Andres Pascual as sole heir. Andres
Pascual is not related by blood to the deceased. Andres Pascual filed a petition for probate of the will. Oppositors
(nephews and nieces) contend that the will was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the
part of the Andres Pascual since the latter was a mere “stranger” to the deceased. Lower Court allowed the
probate ruling that the fact that Andres Pascual is stranger to the deceased cannot give rise to a presumption that
the will was procured through undue influence.

ISSUE: Should the will be voided?

RULING: NO. The evidence of contestants-appellants, that Atty. Andres Pascual purchased a building in Manila
for the testatrix, placed the title in his name, but caused the name "Catalina de la Cruz" to be painted thereon in
bold letters to mislead the deceased, even if true, demonstrates that proponent's influence was not such as to
overpower and destroy the free will of the testatrix. Because if the mind of the deceased were really subjugated,
then Pascual had no need to recourse to the deception averred.

The deceased considered Pascual like her own son. As a matter of fact, even her sisters loved Pascual to the extent
that Pascual is also made the sole heir to the property of the deceased’s sister. The Court finds nothing abnormal in
instituting Pascual as the deceased’s own beneficiary.

On the presumption of undue influence where the beneficiary participates in the drafting of execution of the will
favoring him –
The Court do not think that the presumption applies for in the normal course of events, Pascual (who is an
attorney) would follow the instructions of the testatrix, and a member of the bar in good standing may not be
convicted of unprofessional conduct except upon clear proof.

To be sufficient to avoid a will:

1. The influence exerted 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;
2. The it cannot be sustained on mere conjecture or suspicion, as it is not enough that there was opportunity
to exercise undue influence, or a possibility that it may have been exercised;
3. That it must be supported by substantial evidence that it was actually exercised;
4. That the burden is on the person challenging the will to show that such influence was exerted at the
time of its execution;
5. That mere general or reasonable influence is not sufficient to invalidate a will;
6. Nor is moderate and reasonable solicitation and entreaty addressed to the testator or omission of relatives,
not forced heirs, evidence of undue influence.

Tested against these rulings, the circumstances marshalled by the contestants certainly fail to establish actual
undue influence or improper pressure exercised on the testatrix by the proponent.

VERDICT: PROBATED.
 Case No. 71
Ozaeta v Cuartero (99 SCRA 1041-1042)

Testator: Carlos Palanca

Petitioners: Ramon Ozaeta (administrator)
Co-petitioners: Maria Cuartero et. al
FACTS:
CFI-Manila allowed the probate of the will purportedly executed by Carlos Palanca. In the will, petitioner Ozaeta
was appointed executor. Oppositors’ contention is that the will could not have been executed by Palanca on May
19, 1945, and in the manner described by petitioner's witnesses, and that, supposing it to have been so executed,
still it should not be allowed because it was allegedly procured thru fraud and improper pressure and influence.
ISSUE: WON there was a vice of consent in the execution of the will by the testator.
RULING: NO. Appellants' case is built mainly on surmises unsupported by the evidence. As to the question of
whether or not the will was obtained thru undue influence and improper pressure, it is not enough that there
was an opportunity to exercise undue influence or a possibility that it might have been exercised. There
must be substantial evidence that it was actually exercised.

As to Ratification,
The testator’s failure to revoke or otherwise alter the questioned will as soon as he left the house of the person
who is alleged to have unduly influenced him and moved to his own house where he lived up to 5 years after
execution of the will, constitutes a silent ratification of its contents and refutes the claim of undue influence and
improper pressure, even supposing that these circumstances were duly proved.

Case No. 72
Coso vs. Fernandez Deza, 42 Phil. 596, December 22, 1921

Decedent/Testator: Federico Gimenez Zoboli

Concubine: Rosario Lopez

FACTS: Testator, Federico Zoboli, a married man, became acquainted with Rosario Lopez in Spain and had illicit
relations with her for many years. In the his will, he gave the tercio de libre disposicion to their illegitimate son,
while a certain sum of money is given to Rosario as payment for expenses incurred when he was sick in Spain.
Oppositors claim that the will is invalid because it was procured by undue influence, due to the relationship of
Rosario with the testator.

ISSUE: Whether or not the will was procured with undue influence by Rosario Lopez.

RULING: NO. While it is shown that the testator entertained strong affections for Rosario, it does not appear that
her influence so overpowered and subjugated his mind as to "destroy his free agency and make him express the
will of another rather than his own."

He was an intelligent man, a lawyer by profession, appears to have known his own mind, and may well have been
actuated only by a legitimate sense of duty in making provisions for the welfare of his illegitimate son and by a
proper feeling of gratitude in repaying Rosario Lopez for the sacrifices she had made for him. Mere affection, even
if illegitimate, is not undue influence and does not invalidate a will. No imposition or fraud has been shown in
the present case.

VERDICT: PROBATED.
 Case no. 73
Leticia Valmonte Ortega v. Josefina c. Valmonte (2005)

Testator/Decedent: Placido Valmonte

Widow: Josefina Valmonte
Petitioner/Oppositor: Leticia Valmonte Ortega (sister of deceased)

Facts: Two years after the arrival of Placido Valmonte from the US and at the age of 80, he wed respondent
Josefina Valmonte who was then 28 years old. Placido eventually died. At age 83, Placido executed a last will and
testament bequeathing to Josefina his properties. The allowance to probate of this will was opposed by petitioner
Leticia Valmonte Ortega, Placido’s sister, alleging that Josefina conspired with the notary public and the three
attesting witnesses in deceiving Placido to sign it. Deception is allegedly reflected in the varying dates of the
execution and the attestation of the will.

Issue: Whether the signature of Placido in the will was procured by fraud or trickery, hence, should be disallowed.

Ruling: NO. The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of fraud at the time of
its execution. In this case, other than the self-serving allegations of petitioner, no evidence of fraud was ever
presented.

Fraud is a trick, secret devise, false statement, or pretense, by which the subject of it is cheated. It may be of such
character that the testator is misled or deceived as to the nature or contents of the document which he executes, or
it may relate to some extrinsic fact, in consequence of the deception regarding which the testator is led to make a
certain will which, but for fraud, he would not have made.

It is a settled doctrine that the omission of some relatives does not affect the due execution of a will. That the
testator was tricked into signing it was not sufficiently established by the fact that he had instituted his wife, who
was more than fifty years his junior, as the sole beneficiary; and disregarded petitioner and her family, who were
the ones who had taken “the cudgels of taking care of [the testator] in his twilight years.

Moreover, as correctly ruled by the appellate court, the conflict between the dates appearing on the will does not
invalidate the document, “because the law does not even require that a [notarial] will x x x be executed and
acknowledged on the same occasion.”

VERDICT: PROBATED.
AR

Case No. 74
Rule of Equality
Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon, 33 SCRA 554

Deceased: Agripina Valdez

Compulsory Heirs:
Children (6): Marina Dizon-Rivera (petitioner)
Estela, Tomas, Bernardita, Josefina and Angelina Dizon (respondents)
Grandchild: Lilia Dizon (only child of a predeceased son) (respondent)

FACTS:
1. Testator Agripina Valdez left a will naming as beneficiaries her 7 compulsory heirs and 7 grandchildren.
2. The will was admitted to probate. The appraised value of her properties is P1,811,695.60.
3. The legitime of each of the 7 compulsory heirs is P129,362.11 (1/7 of ½ of the estate).
4. In her will, the testator commanded that her property be divided in accordance with her testamentary
disposition, whereby she devised and bequeathed specific real properties. In said division, Marina (P1.1M)
and Tomas (P131k) are receiving more than their legitimes.
5. Marina (executrix) filed her project of partition adjudicating the estate as follows:
a. to each (except Marina and Tomas) are adjudicated the properties respectively given them in the will (PLUS
cash and/or properties to complete their respective legitimes to P129,254.96);
b. Marina and Tomas are adjudicated the properties that they received in the will (LESS the cash and/or
properties necessary to complete the prejudiced legitime mentioned);
6. Oppositors submitted their counter-project partition: (I think ito yung Article 846)
a. The shares they should receive should consist their legitime (from the ½ of the estate) plus the
devises in their favor proportionally reduced (from the other ½).
ISSUES: Whose project partition is proper?

RULING: That of executrix Marina. Decisive of the issues at bar is the fact that the testatrix' testamentary
disposition was in the nature of a partition of her estate by will. The decedent’s will was a valid partition of her
estate, as contemplated and authorized in the first paragraph of Art 1080 NCC, providing that “Should a person
make a partition of his estate … by will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the
legitime of the compulsory heirs."

The adjudications and assignments in the testatrix' will of specific properties to specific heirs cannot be considered
all devises, for it clearly appear from the whole context of the will and the disposition by the testatrix of her whole
estate that her clear intention was to partition her whole estate through her will. 

The testamentary dispositions of the testatrix, being dispositions in favor of compulsory heirs, do not have to be
taken only from the free portion of the estate, for the second paragraph of Article 842 of the Civil Code precisely
provides that one who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene the
provisions of this Code with regard to the legitime of said heirs.

The dispositions by the testatrix constituted a partition by will, and, upholding the primacy of the testator's last
will and testament, have to be respected insofar as they do not prejudice the legitime of the other compulsory
heirs.

Thus, the oppositor’s right was merely to demand completion of their legitime under Article 906 of the Civil Code
and this has been complied with in the approved project of partition, and they can no longer demand a further
share from the remaining portion of the estate.

NOTE: No discussion of Article 846 because I think the provision did not apply since the heirs here were instituted
with designation of their shares. The rule of equality is not applicable.
 Case No. 75
Austria vs. Reyes, 31 SCRA 754, No. L-23079 February 27, 1970

Deceased: Basilia Austria vda. de Cruz

Petitioners/Oppositors: Nephews and niece of Basilia
Respondents/Heirs: Five (5) legally adopted children of Basilia

FACTS: Basilia Austria vda. de Cruz filed a petition for probate, ante mortem (before death), of her last will and
testament and was granted. Under her will, the bulk of her estate shall pass on to her five (5) children
(respondents), whom she assumed and declared as her legally adopted children.

Two years after her will was probated, Basilia died. The petitioners, nephews and niece of late Basilia, intervened
in the partition of estate alleging that they are the nearest blood relatives of late Basilia and that the respondents
had not been in fact legally adopted, making them mere strangers.

ISSUE: May the institution of heirs in the will of late Basilia be annulled on grounds of its alleged intrinsic nullity?

RULING: NO.
Late Basilia, in using the phrases “mga sapilitang tagapagmana” and “sapilitang mana” offers no absolute
indication that the decedent would have willed her estate other than the way she did if she had known that
she was mistaken in treating the heirs as her legally adopted children.

Before the institution of heirs may be annulled under article 850 of the Civil Code, the following requisites must
concur:
1. The cause for the institution of heirs must be stated in the will;
2. The cause must be shown to be false; and
3. It must appear from the face of the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had
known the falsity of the cause.

Further, annulling the institution would exclude the respondents from the inheritance, then the petitioners and the
other nephews and nieces would succeed to the bulk of the estate by intestacy—a result which would subvert the
clear wishes of the decedent. Testacy should be given greater favor than intestacy.

IMPORTANT: At all events, the legality of the adoption of the respondents by the testatrix can be assailed only in a
separate action brought for that purpose, and cannot be the subject of a collateral attack.

VERDICT: PROBATED.