Placido executed a will leaving all his property to his wife Josefina who was 50 years younger than him. Leticia contested the will, claiming Placido lacked mental capacity and Josefina conspired to trick him into signing. The court upheld the will, finding Placido had sufficient mental capacity despite his age and accurately identified his property and wife as beneficiary. The conflict in dates on the will did not invalidate it. As relatives were not required to inherit, their omission did not affect the will's validity absent fraud in its execution.
Placido executed a will leaving all his property to his wife Josefina who was 50 years younger than him. Leticia contested the will, claiming Placido lacked mental capacity and Josefina conspired to trick him into signing. The court upheld the will, finding Placido had sufficient mental capacity despite his age and accurately identified his property and wife as beneficiary. The conflict in dates on the will did not invalidate it. As relatives were not required to inherit, their omission did not affect the will's validity absent fraud in its execution.
Placido executed a will leaving all his property to his wife Josefina who was 50 years younger than him. Leticia contested the will, claiming Placido lacked mental capacity and Josefina conspired to trick him into signing. The court upheld the will, finding Placido had sufficient mental capacity despite his age and accurately identified his property and wife as beneficiary. The conflict in dates on the will did not invalidate it. As relatives were not required to inherit, their omission did not affect the will's validity absent fraud in its execution.
Placido executed a will leaving all his property to his wife Josefina who was 50 years younger than him. Leticia contested the will, claiming Placido lacked mental capacity and Josefina conspired to trick him into signing. The court upheld the will, finding Placido had sufficient mental capacity despite his age and accurately identified his property and wife as beneficiary. The conflict in dates on the will did not invalidate it. As relatives were not required to inherit, their omission did not affect the will's validity absent fraud in its execution.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA
- versus JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE
G.R. No. 157451 December 16, 2005 Facts: Placido, after arrival from the United States and at the age of 80, married Josefina who was then 28 years old but more than two years of wedding, he died. He executed a notarial last will and testament written in English and consisting of 2 pages, and dated 15 June 1983but acknowledged only on 9 August 1983. According to the notary public who notarized the testators will, after the testator instructed him on the terms and dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary public told them to come back on August 15 1983 to give him time to prepare. The testator and his witnesses returned on the appointed date but the notary public was out of town so they were instructed by his wife to come back on August 9 1983. He reasoned that he no longer changed the typewritten date of June 15 1983 because he did not like the document to appear dirty. The oppositor Leticia declared that Josefina should not inherit alone because aside from her, there are other children from the siblings of Placido who are just as entitled to inherit from him. She attacked the mental capacity of the testator, declaring that at the time of the execution of the notarial will the testator was already 83 years old and was no longer of sound mind and that Josefina conspired with the notary public and the 3 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 or not the will of placido can be admitted to probate. HELD: Yes. 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, 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 be executed and acknowledged on the same occasion. More important, the will must be subscribed by the testator, as well as by three or more credible witnesses who must also attest to it in the presence of the testator and of one another. Furthermore, the testator and the witnesses must acknowledge the will before a notary public. In any event, the variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained by the notary public and the instrumental witnesses. Lastly, Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify accurately the kinds of property he owned, the extent of his shares in them and even their location. As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. The omission of some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There being no showing of fraud in its execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.
