G.R. No.

157451 Testamentary Capacity December 16, 2005

LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA, petitioner vs JOSEFINA C.
VALMONTE, respondent
G.R. No. 157451, December 1, !""5
FACTS#
Two years ater t!e arri"a# o $#acido rom t!e %nited &tates and
at t!e a'e o (0 !e wed )ose*na +a#monte w!o was t!en 2( years
o#d. ,-t in a #itt#e more t!an two years o wedded b#iss, $#acido died on
.ctober (, 1/(4. ,eore deat! !owe"er, $#acido e0ec-ted a notaria#
#ast wi## and testament, 'rantin' -nto said )ose*na certain properties,
written in 1n'#is! and consistin' o two 223 pa'es, and dated )-ne 15,
1/(4 b-t ac5now#ed'ed on#y on 6-'-st /, 1/(4. T!e oppositor 7eticia
attac5ed t!e menta# capacity o t!e testator, dec#arin' t!at at t!e time
o t!e e0ec-tion o t!e notaria# wi## t!e testator was a#ready (4 years
o#d and was no #on'er o so-nd mind. &!e 5new w!ereo s!e spo5e
beca-se in 1/(4 $#acido #i"ed in t!e 8a5ati residence and as5ed
7eticia9s ami#y to #i"e wit! !im and t!ey too5 care o !im. D-rin' t!at
time, t!e testator9s p!ysica# and menta# condition s!owed
deterioration, aberrations and seni#ity. T!is was corroborated by !er
da-'!ter 8ary )ane .rte'a or w!om $#acido too5 a ancy and wanted
to marry.
ISS$E#
:!et!er or not $#acido +a#monte !as testamentary capacity at
t!e time !e a##e'ed#y e0ec-ted t!e s-b;ect wi##.
%ELD#
T!e co-rt r-#ed t!at in determinin' t!e capacity o t!e testator to
ma5e a wi##, t!e Ci"i# Code 'i"es t!e o##owin' '-ide#ines<
=6rtic#e 7/(. >n order to ma5e a wi## it is essentia# t!at t!e testator be
o so-nd mind at t!e time o its e0ec-tion.
=6rtic#e 7//. To be o so-nd mind, it is not necessary t!at t!e testator
be in -## possession o a## !is reasonin' ac-#ties, or t!at !is mind be
w!o##y -nbro5en, -nimpaired, or s!attered by disease, in;-ry or ot!er
ca-se.
=>t s!a## be s-?cient i t!e testator was ab#e at t!e time o
ma5in' t!e wi## to 5now t!e nat-re o t!e estate to be disposed o, t!e
proper ob;ects o !is bo-nty, and t!e c!aracter o t!e testamentary
act.
=6rtic#e (00. T!e #aw pres-mes t!at e"ery person is o so-nd mind, in
t!e absence o proo to t!e contrary.
=T!e b-rden o proo t!at t!e testator was not o so-nd mind at
t!e time o ma5in' !is dispositions is on t!e person w!o opposes t!e
probate o t!e wi##@ b-t i t!e testator, one mont!, or #ess, beore
ma5in' !is wi## was p-b#ic#y 5nown to be insane, t!e person w!o
maintains t!e "a#idity o t!e wi## m-st pro"e t!at t!e testator made it
d-rin' a #-cid inter"a#.A
6ccordin' to 6rtic#e 7//, t!e t!ree t!in's t!at t!e testator m-st
!a"e t!e abi#ity to 5now to be considered o so-nd mind are as
o##ows< 213 t!e nat-re o t!e estate to be disposed o, 223 t!e proper
ob;ects o t!e testator9s bo-nty, and 243 t!e c!aracter o t!e
$a'e 1 o !
G.R. No. 157451 Testamentary Capacity December 16, 2005
testamentary act. 6pp#yin' t!is test to t!e present case, we *nd t!at
t!e appe##ate co-rt was correct in !o#din' t!at $#acido !ad
testamentary capacity at t!e time o t!e e0ec-tion o !is wi##.
>t m-st be noted t!at despite !is ad"anced a'e, !e was sti## ab#e
to identiy acc-rate#y t!e 5inds o property !e owned, t!e e0tent o !is
s!ares in t!em and e"en t!eir #ocations. 6s re'ards t!e proper ob;ects
o !is bo-nty, it was s-?cient t!at !e identi*ed !is wie as so#e
bene*ciary. 6s we !a"e stated ear#ier, t!e omission o some re#ati"es
rom t!e wi## did not aBect its orma# "a#idity. T!ere bein' no s!owin'
o ra-d in its e0ec-tion, intent in its disposition becomes irre#e"ant.
$a'e ! o !