24.

Antonio Baltazar, Sebastian Baltazar, Antonio Magalindan, Rosie Mateo, Nonita Pacheco, Virgilio Regala,
and Rafael Titco vs. Lorenzo Laxa (Soundness of the Minds)

Facts: Pacencia Regala was a 78-year old spinster who executed a Will bequeathing all of her properties to her
nephew, Respondent Lorenzo Laxa. The Will was executed in the house of Judge Ernestino Limpin who read it
loud to Pacencia, in the presence of witnesses Francisco Garcia, Faustino Garcia and Dr. Maria Lioba Limpin.
Being without children and siblings, Pacencia bequeathed all her properties to Lorenzo as they had filial
relationship like a mother and a son. Four years later, Pacencia died.

Lorenzo filed a Petition for the Probate of the Will of Pacencia before the RTCs. He presented evidence of their
relationship as well as presented as witness, Dr. Limpin, who attested to that the Will was made in their house,
executed by Pacencia and witnessed by her. However, Petitioner Antonio Baltazar filed an Opposition to the
Probate of the Will claiming that Pacencia was not of unsound mind during the time the Will was executed,
aside from claims that Pacencia was under duress and forced the sign the Will. He presented as witness one of
the petitioner, Rosie Mateo, who testified that Pacencia was magulayan or forgetful.

The RTC ruled against the Probate of the Will because Pacencia was of unsound mind at the time of the
execution of the Will being forgetful. In appeal, however, the CA reversed the RTC’s decision and granted the
probate of the Will of Pacencia. The CA ratiocinated that being forgetful does not make a person mentally sound
so as to render Pacencia unfil for executing a Will. Further, the Petitioners failed to overcome the presumption
that every person is of sound mind.

ISSUE: W/N the probate of the will shall be allowed on basis of capacity of Pacencia to execute the will.

Ruling: Yes, it was allowed. Under Art. 799, it is provided that full possession of all reasoning faculties of the
testator is not necessary for a person to be of sound mind, or that the person’s mind be wholly unbroken,
unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. In the present case, the testimony of Rosie that
Pacencia was considered forgetful does not make the latter of unsound mind that would effectively stripped
her of testamentary capacity. Thus, forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind.

Other than the claim that Pacencia was forgetful, there was no substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, that
would show that Pacencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the Will. Thus, a testator is
presumed to be of sound mind at the time of the execution of the Will while the burden of proof lies on those
who opposed it as provided under Art. 800. Absent thereof, the presumption shall prevail.

The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the
person who opposes the probate of the will. It is worth stressing that bare arguments, no matter how forceful,
if not based on concrete and substantial evidence cannot suffice to move the Court to uphold said allegations.
"The very existence of the Will is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed [testatrix] has willed that [her]
estate be distributed in the manner therein provided, and it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable,
such desire be given full effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby."

This, coupled with Lorenzo’s established relationship with Paciencia, the evidence and the testimonies of
disinterested witnesses, as opposed to the total lack of evidence presented by petitioners apart from their self-
serving testimonies, constrain us to tilt the balance in favor of the authenticity of the Will and its allowance for
probate.