34.

Gonzales vs Gonzales

FACTS:

At the center of the controversy here is an alleged third (3 rd) will by testatrix Manuela
Ibarra Vda. De Gonzales which she purportedly executed on November 18,1948, revoking or
invalidating two (2) other wills which she earlier executed, one dated November 16,1942 and
the other on May 5,1945. The 3rd will states that her estate should be distributed among his five
(5) children as if she died intestate.

Appellees Manuelita Gonzales Carungcong and Manuel Gonzales assails the validity of
the 3rd will and contends that the testatrix lacked the testamentary capacity when she allegedly
executed the instrument on November 18, 1948 because she was in a comatose and
unconscious state and could not talk or understand. These facts were based on hospital
records and on the testimony given by their family physician Dr. Jose C. Leveriza who
attended the testatrix during her last illness and who saw her on the day when the alleged
instrument was executed.

On the other hand, appellant Alejandro Gonzales Jr. attempted to show that Dr.
Leveriza was not an expert and argued that if the testatrix was in a comatose condition at the
time, Dr. Leveriza would not have ordered to “let her sit on bed or on a chair and let her turn on
her side sometime.”

ISSUE:
W/N the testatrix had sufficient testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the
alleged 3rd will?

HELD:

No.

The Court held that it is hard to rule that the testatrix had sufficient testamentary
capacity at the time of the execution of the alleged instrument….. In the first place,
Constancio Padilla (brother of Jose Padilla) merely asked the testatrix, first, if she was
agreeable to the instrument of revocation prepared by Jose Padilla, and secondly, if she was
agreeable to the signing of said document by Constancio Padilla, to which two questions the
testatrix allegedly answered "Yes". It is not pretended that the testatrix said more about the
matter or gave any further instruction. The attesting witnesses were not introduced to the
testatrix, and their presence was not even mentioned to her. it is obviously doubtful
whether the testatrix understood the meaning and extent of the ceremony. Assuming that
the testatrix answered in the affirmative the two questions of Constancio Padilla, without more,
we cannot fairly attribute to her manifestation of her desire to proceed, right then and there,
with the signing of the questioned instrument. In other words, contrary to the recital of the
attestation clause, the testatrix cannot rightly be said to have published her last will to
the attesting witnesses.