Peer Review Request Letter Last Will and Testament Handwriting Forgery Fraud
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME Courtroom
BaguioFIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 174489 Apr xi, 2012
ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN One thousand. BALTAZAR, ANTONIO Fifty. MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACHECO, VIRGILIO REGALA, JR., and RAFAEL TITCO, Petitioners,
vs.
LORENZO LAXA, Respondent.D E C I Southward I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
It is incumbent upon those who oppose the probate of a will to conspicuously establish that the decedent was not of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution of said will. Otherwise, the country is duty-bound to requite full effect to the wishes of the testator to distribute his estate in the mode provided in his will so long as it is legally tenable.1
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 of the June fifteen, 2006 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-One thousand.R. CV No. 80979 which reversed the September 30, 2003 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Guagua, Pampanga in Special Proceedings No. Chiliad-1186. The assailed CA Decision granted the petition for probate of the notarial will of Paciencia Regala (Paciencia), to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the appeal to be impressed with merit, the decision in SP. PROC. NO. G-1186 dated 30 September 2003, is hereby Gear up ASIDE and a new one entered GRANTING the petition for the probate of the will of PACIENCIA REGALA.
SO ORDERED.five
Also assailed herein is the Baronial 31, 2006 CA Resolution6 which denied the Move for Reconsideration thereto.
Petitioners call the states to contrary the CA�s assailed Decision and instead assert the Conclusion of the RTC which disallowed the notarial will of Paciencia.
Factual Antecedents
Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will and testament entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia Regala"7 (Will) in the Pampango dialect on September 13, 1981. The Will, executed in the business firm of retired Judge Ernestino Yard. Limpin (Judge Limpin), was read to Paciencia twice. After which, Paciencia expressed in the presence of the instrumental witnesses that the document is her concluding will and testament. She thereafter affixed her signature at the end of the said document on page 38 and so on the left margin of pages i, ii and 4 thereof.9
The witnesses to the Will were Dra. Maria Lioba A. Limpin (Dra. Limpin), Francisco Garcia (Francisco) and Faustino R. Mercado (Faustino). The three attested to the Volition�s due execution past affixing their signatures below its attestation clause10 and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and four thereof,11 in the presence of Paciencia and of i another and of Judge Limpin who acted equally notary public.
Childless and without whatsoever brothers or sisters, Paciencia bequeathed all her backdrop to respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa (Lorenzo) and his married woman Corazon F. Laxa and their children Luna Lorella Laxa and Katherine Ross Laxa, thus:
ten 10 x x
4th - In consideration of their valuable services to me since then up to the present past the spouses LORENZO LAXA and CORAZON F. LAXA, I hereby Bequeath, CONVEY and Give all my properties enumerated in parcels 1 to v unto the spouses LORENZO R. LAXA and CORAZON F. LAXA and their children, LUNA LORELLA LAXA and KATHERINE LAXA, and the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa and Corazon F. Laxa both of legal age, Filipinos, presently residing at Barrio Sta. Monica, [Sasmuan], Pampanga and their children, LUNA LORELLA and KATHERINE ROSS LAXA, who are still not of legal age and living with their parents who would decide to bequeath since they are the children of the spouses;
x 10 x ten
[Sixth] - Should other properties of mine may be discovered aside from the properties mentioned in this terminal will and testament, I am also bequeathing and giving the same to the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa and Corazon F. Laxa and their ii children and I also command them to offer masses yearly for the repose of my soul and that of D[ñ]a Nicomeda Regala, Epifania Regala and their spouses and with respect to the fishpond situated at San Antonio, I likewise command to fulfill the wishes of D[ñ]a Nicomeda Regala in accordance with her testament every bit stated in my attestation. ten x x12
The filial relationship of Lorenzo with Paciencia remains undisputed. Lorenzo is Paciencia�s nephew whom she treated as her own son. Conversely, Lorenzo came to know and treated Paciencia as his own mother.xiii Paciencia lived with Lorenzo�south family in Sasmuan, Pampanga and information technology was she who raised and cared for Lorenzo since his nascence. Half-dozen days after the execution of the Will or on September 19, 1981, Paciencia left for the The states of America (United states of america). There, she resided with Lorenzo and his family until her death on January iv, 1996.
In the interim, the Will remained in the custody of Judge Limpin.
More than four years after the expiry of Paciencia or on April 27, 2000, Lorenzo filed a petition14 with the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the probate of the Will of Paciencia and for the issuance of Letters of Administration in his favor, docketed equally Special Proceedings No. M-1186.
There beingness no opposition to the petition after its due publication, the RTC issued an Order on June 13, 200015 allowing Lorenzo to present testify on June 22, 2000. On said date, Dra. Limpin testified that she was one of the instrumental witnesses in the execution of the terminal volition and testament of Paciencia on September 13, 1981.16 The Volition was executed in her begetter�south (Gauge Limpin) home function, in her presence and of two other witnesses, Francisco and Faustino.17 Dra. Limpin positively identified the Will and her signatures on all its four pages.18 She besides positively identified the signature of her father appearing thereon.nineteen Questioned by the prosecutor regarding Approximate Limpin�due south present mental fitness, Dra. Limpin testified that her father had a stroke in 1991 and had to undergo brain surgery.20 The judge can walk but can no longer talk and remember her name. Because of this, Dra. Limpin stated that her father can no longer testify in courtroom.21
The following 24-hour interval or on June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Baltazar (Antonio) filed an opposition22 to Lorenzo�s petition. Antonio averred that the properties subject of Paciencia�s Will belong to Nicomeda Regala Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest; hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath them to Lorenzo.23
Barely a month after or on July twenty, 2000, Antonio, now joined by petitioners Sebastian K. Baltazar, Virgilio Regala, Jr., Nenita A. Pacheco, Felix B. Flores, Rafael Titco, Rosie M. Mateo (Rosie) and Antonio L. Mangalindan filed a Supplemental Opposition24 contending that Paciencia�south Will was zilch and void because ownership of the properties had not been transferred and/or titled to Paciencia before her expiry pursuant to Article 1049, paragraph three of the Civil Lawmaking.25 Petitioners likewise opposed the issuance of Letters of Assistants in Lorenzo�s favor arguing that Lorenzo was disqualified to be appointed as such, he being a citizen and resident of the USA.26 Petitioners prayed that Letters of Administration exist instead issued in favor of Antonio.27
After even so on September 26, 2000, petitioners filed an Amended Opposition28 asking the RTC to deny the probate of Paciencia�s Volition on the following grounds: the Will was non executed and attested to in accordance with the requirements of the police force; that Paciencia was mentally incapable to brand a Will at the fourth dimension of its execution; that she was forced to execute the Will nether duress or influence of fear or threats; that the execution of the Will had been procured by undue and improper force per unit area and influence by Lorenzo or past some other persons for his benefit; that the signature of Paciencia on the Will was forged; that assuming the signature to be genuine, it was obtained through fraud or trickery; and, that Paciencia did non intend the document to be her Volition. Simultaneously, petitioners filed an Opposition and Recommendation29 reiterating their opposition to the appointment of Lorenzo as ambassador of the properties and requesting for the engagement of Antonio in his stead.
On January 29, 2001, the RTC issued an Order30 denying the requests of both Lorenzo and Antonio to be appointed administrator since the one-time is a citizen and resident of the USA while the latter�south merits as a co-owner of the backdrop subject of the Will has not still been established.
Meanwhile, proceedings on the petition for the probate of the Will connected. Dra. Limpin was recalled for cross-examination by the petitioners. She testified as to the age of her father at the time the latter notarized the Will of Paciencia; the living arrangements of Paciencia at the time of the execution of the Will; and the lack of photographs when the event took place. 31
Aside from Dra. Limpin, Lorenzo and Monico Mercado (Monico) as well took the witness stand. Monico, son of Faustino, testified on his father�southward condition. Co-ordinate to him his father can no longer talk and express himself due to brain damage. A medical certificate was presented to the court to support this accusation. 32
For his part, Lorenzo testified that: from 1944 until his divergence for the USA in April 1980, he lived in Sasmuan, Pampanga with his family and his aunt, Paciencia; in 1981 Paciencia went to the United states of america and lived with him and his family unit until her expiry in January 1996; the human relationship between him and Paciencia was like that of a mother and child since Paciencia took care of him since birth and took him in every bit an adopted son; Paciencia was a spinster without children, and without brothers and sisters; at the time of Paciencia�south death, she did not endure from any mental disorder and was of audio mind, was not blind, deaf or mute; the Will was in the custody of Judge Limpin and was only given to him after Paciencia�s death through Faustino; and he was already residing in the USA when the Will was executed.33 Lorenzo positively identified the signature of Paciencia in three different documents and in the Will itself and stated that he was familiar with Paciencia�s signature because he accompanied her in her transactions.34 Farther, Lorenzo belied and denied having used strength, intimidation, violence, coercion or trickery upon Paciencia to execute the Will as he was not in the Philippines when the same was executed.35 On cross-examination, Lorenzo clarified that Paciencia informed him about the Will soon later her arrival in the United states of america but that he saw a re-create of the Volition only after her death.36
As to Francisco, he could no longer be presented in courtroom as he already died on May 21, 2000.
For petitioners, Rosie testified that her mother and Paciencia were first cousins.37 She claimed to accept helped in the household chores in the house of Paciencia thereby allowing her to stay therein from morning until evening and that during the period of her service in the said household, Lorenzo�s wife and his children were staying in the aforementioned house.38 She served in the said household from 1980 until Paciencia�southward difference for the United states on September xix, 1981.39
On September 13, 1981, Rosie claimed that she saw Faustino bring "something" for Paciencia to sign at the latter�s business firm.40 Rosie admitted, though, that she did not run across what that "something" was every bit same was placed inside an envelope.41 Even so, she remembered Paciencia instructing Faustino to outset look for money before she signs them.42 A few days subsequently or on September sixteen, 1981, Paciencia went to the house of Antonio�s female parent and brought with her the said envelope.43 Upon going dwelling house, nevertheless, the envelope was no longer with Paciencia.44 Rosie farther testified that Paciencia was referred to as "magulyan" or "forgetful" because she would sometimes leave her wallet in the kitchen and so start looking for it moments subsequently.45 On cross test, it was established that Rosie was neither a doctor nor a psychiatrist, that her decision that Paciencia was "magulyan" was based on her personal assessment,46 and that it was Antonio who requested her to testify in court.47
In his direct examination, Antonio stated that Paciencia was his aunt.48 He identified the Will and testified that he had seen the said document before because Paciencia brought the same to his female parent�s house and showed it to him along with another document on September 16, 1981.49 Antonio alleged that when the documents were shown to him, the same were still unsigned.fifty According to him, Paciencia thought that the documents pertained to a charter of one of her rice lands,51 and it was he who explained that the documents were actually a special power of attorney to lease and sell her fishpond and other backdrop upon her difference for the Usa, and a Will which would transfer her properties to Lorenzo and his family upon her death.52 Upon hearing this, Paciencia allegedly uttered the following words: "Why will I never [return], why will I sell all my backdrop?" Who is Lorenzo? Is he the only [son] of God? I accept other relatives [who should] benefit from my backdrop. Why should I die already?"53 Thereafter, Antonio advised Paciencia not to sign the documents if she does not want to, to which the latter purportedly replied, "I know nothing near those, throw them abroad or it is upward to y'all. The more I will not sign them."54 After which, Paciencia left the documents with Antonio. Antonio kept the unsigned documents
and eventually turned them over to Faustino on September 18, 1981.55
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On September 30, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision56 denying the petition thus:
WHEREFORE, this courtroom hereby (a) denies the petition dated April 24, 2000; and (b) disallows the notarized will dated September thirteen, 1981 of Paciencia Regala.
And so ORDERED.57
The trial courtroom gave considerable weight to the testimony of Rosie and concluded that at the fourth dimension Paciencia signed the Will, she was no longer possessed of sufficient reason or force of heed to have testamentary capacity.58
Ruling of the Courtroom of Appeals
On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC Decision and granted the probate of the Volition of Paciencia. The appellate court did not concur with the RTC�south conclusion that Paciencia was of unsound listen when she executed the Volition. It ratiocinated that "the state of being �magulyan� does not make a person mentally unsound then [equally] to render [Paciencia] unfit for executing a Will."59 Moreover, the oppositors in the probate proceedings were not able to overcome the presumption that every person is of audio mind. Further, no concrete circumstances or events were given to prove the allegation that Paciencia was tricked or forced into signing the Will.sixty
Petitioners moved for reconsideration61 but the motility was denied by the CA in its Resolution62 dated August 31, 2006.
Hence, this petition.
Issues
Petitioners come before this Court past way of Petition for Review on Certiorari ascribing upon the CA the following errors:
I.
THE HONORABLE Court OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT Allowed THE PROBATE OF PACIENCIA�S WILL DESPITE RESPONDENT�Due south UTTER FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 11, Rule 76 OF THE RULES OF COURT;
2.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN MAKING CONCLUSIONS NOT IN Accord WITH THE EVIDENCE ON Record;
Three.
THE HONORABLE Court OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO Testify THAT PACIENCIA WAS Not OF Audio Heed AT THE Fourth dimension THE Will WAS ALLEGEDLY EXECUTED63
The pivotal issue is whether the authenticity and due execution of the notarial Will was sufficiently established to warrant its allowance for probate.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
Faithful compliance with the formalities laid downward by law is credible from the face of the Will.
Courts are tasked to determine nothing more than the extrinsic validity of a Volition in probate proceedings.64 This is expressly provided for in Dominion 75, Section one of the Rules of Court, which states:
Dominion 75
Product of Volition. Allowance of Volition Necessary.
Department 1. Assart necessary. Conclusive every bit to execution. � No will shall laissez passer either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court. Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due execution.
Due execution of the volition or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the testator, being of sound heed, freely executed the volition in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.65 These formalities are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Lawmaking, to wit:
Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic volition, must be subscribed at the stop thereof by the testator himself or past the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his limited direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his proper noun and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper office of each folio.
The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the volition and every page thereof, or caused another person to write his name, under his express management, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one some other.
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, information technology shall be interpreted to them.
Art. 806. Every volition must be best-selling before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall non be required to retain a copy of the volition, or file another with the Office of the Clerk of Courtroom.
Hither, a careful examination of the face of the Volition shows faithful compliance with the formalities laid down by constabulary. The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her instrumental witnesses and the notary public, are all present and evident on the Will. Further, the attestation clause explicitly states the critical requirement that the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses signed the Will in the presence of one another and that the witnesses attested and subscribed to the Will in the presence of the testator and of one another. In fact, fifty-fifty the petitioners acceded that the signature of Paciencia in the Will may be accurate although they question her state of mind when she signed the same too as the voluntary nature of said act.
The burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the will lies on the shoulders of the petitioners.
Petitioners, through their witness Rosie, claim that Paciencia was "magulyan" or forgetful so much so that it finer stripped her of testamentary chapters. They also claimed in their Motion for Reconsideration66 filed with the CA that Paciencia was not only "magulyan" but was really suffering from paranoia.67
We are not convinced.
We agree with the position of the CA that the state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a Volition.68 Forgetfulness is not equivalent to beingness of unsound mind. As well, Commodity 799 of the New Ceremonious Code states:
Fine art. 799. To be of audio mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered past disease, injury or other cause.
Information technology shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be tending of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
In this case, apart from the testimony of Rosie pertaining to Paciencia�south forgetfulness, there is no substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, that would evidence that Paciencia was of unsound heed at the time of the execution of the Will. On the other paw, we detect more worthy of acceptance Dra. Limpin�southward testimony as to the soundness of mind of Paciencia when the latter went to Judge Limpin�south business firm and voluntarily executed the Will. "The testimony of subscribing witnesses to a Will concerning the testator�south mental condition is entitled to great weight where they are truthful and intelligent."69 More importantly, a testator is presumed to exist of sound mind at the time of the execution of the Will and the burden to bear witness otherwise lies on the oppositor. Article 800 of the New Civil Code states:
Art. 800. The constabulary presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
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 volition; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval.
Here, in that location was no showing that Paciencia was publicly known to be insane 1 month or less before the making of the Will. Clearly, thus, the burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound heed lies upon the shoulders of petitioners. However and equally earlier mentioned, no substantial evidence was presented past them to testify the same, thereby warranting the CA�south finding that petitioners failed to discharge such burden.
Furthermore, we are convinced that Paciencia was aware of the nature of her estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of her bounty and the grapheme of the testamentary act. Equally aptly pointed out by the CA:
A scrutiny of the Will discloses that [Paciencia] was aware of the nature of the document she executed. She specially requested that the community of her faith be observed upon her death. She was well aware of how she caused the properties from her parents and the properties she is bequeathing to LORENZO, to his wife CORAZON and to his 2 (2) children. A third child was born subsequently the execution of the will and was not included therein as devisee.70
Bare allegations of duress or influence of fear or threats, undue and improper influence and pressure, fraud and trickery cannot exist used every bit basis to deny the probate of a will.
An essential element of the validity of the Volition is the willingness of the testator or testatrix to execute the document that will distribute his/her earthly possessions upon his/her death. Petitioners claim that Paciencia was forced to execute the Volition under duress or influence of fear or threats; that the execution of the Will had been procured past undue and improper pressure level and influence by Lorenzo or by some other persons for his benefit; and that bold Paciencia�southward signature to be genuine, information technology was obtained through fraud or trickery. These are grounded on the alleged conversation between Paciencia and Antonio on September sixteen, 1981 wherein the sometime purportedly repudiated the Will and left information technology unsigned.
We are not persuaded.
We take into consideration the unrebutted fact that Paciencia loved and treated Lorenzo as her own son and that beloved fifty-fifty extended to Lorenzo�south married woman and children. This kind of human relationship is not unusual. It is in fact non unheard of in our civilisation for old maids or spinsters to care for and enhance their nephews and nieces and care for them equally their own children. Such is a prevalent and accepted cultural practice that has resulted in many family discords between those favored past the testamentary disposition of a testator and those who stand to benefit in example of intestacy.
In this case, evidence shows the acknowledged fact that Paciencia�s human relationship with Lorenzo and his family is different from her relationship with petitioners. The very fact that she cared for and raised Lorenzo and lived with him both here and away, even if the latter was already married and already has children, highlights the special bond between them. This unquestioned relationship between Paciencia and the devisees tends to support the authenticity of the said certificate as against petitioners� allegations of duress, influence of fright or threats, undue and improper influence, pressure, fraud, and trickery which, bated from beingness factual in nature, are not supported by concrete, substantial and credible evidence on record. It is worth stressing that bare arguments, no matter how forceful, if not based on concrete and substantial testify cannot suffice to move the Court to uphold said allegations.71 Furthermore, "a purported volition is non [to exist] denied legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary succession will be shaken to its foundation, for fifty-fifty if a will has been duly executed in fact, whether ten ten x it will be probated would take to depend largely on the attitude of those interested in [the estate of the deceased]."72
Courtroom should be convinced by the bear witness presented earlier it that the Will was duly executed.
Petitioners dispute the authenticity of Paciencia�s Will on the ground that Section 11 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Courtroom was not complied with. It provides:
RULE 76
Allowance or Disallowance of Will
Section 11. Subscribing witnesses produced or accounted for where will contested. � If the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and the notary in the instance of wills executed nether the Civil Code of the Philippines, if present in the Philippines and not insane, must be produced and examined, and the death, absenteeism, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the court. If all or some of such witnesses are present in the Philippines but exterior the province where the will has been filed, their deposition must exist taken. If any or all of them evidence against the due execution of the will, or do not call back having attested to it, or are otherwise of hundred-to-one credibility, the will may withal, be immune if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses and from all the show presented that the will was executed and attested in the style required by police.
If a holographic will is contested, the same shall exist immune if at least three (three) witnesses who know the handwriting of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator; in the absence of any competent witnesses, and if the court deem information technology necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. (Accent supplied.)
They insist that all subscribing witnesses and the notary public should have been presented in court since all but one witness, Francisco, are even so living.
Nosotros cannot agree with petitioners.
Nosotros note that the inability of Faustino and Estimate Limpin to appear and bear witness before the court was satisfactorily explained during the probate proceedings. As testified to past his son, Faustino had a eye attack, was already bedridden and could no longer talk and express himself due to brain damage. To prove this, said witness presented the corresponding medical document. For her role, Dra. Limpin testified that her begetter, Judge Limpin, suffered a stroke in 1991 and had to undergo brain surgery. At that time, Judge Limpin could no longer talk and could not even call back his daughter�south name and then that Dra. Limpin stated that given such condition, her father could no longer testify. It is well to note that at that bespeak, despite ample opportunity, petitioners neither interposed any objections to the testimonies of said witnesses nor challenged the same on cross examination. We thus concur that for all intents and purposes, Lorenzo was able to satisfactorily account for the incapacity and failure of the said subscribing witness and of the notary public to testify in court. Because of this the probate of Paciencia�southward Will may exist allowed on the basis of Dra. Limpin�due south testimony proving her sanity and the due execution of the Volition, as well as on the proof of her handwriting. It is an established dominion that "[a] testament may not be disallowed just because the attesting witnesses declare confronting its due execution; neither does it have to exist necessarily allowed just considering all the attesting witnesses declare in favor of its legalization; what is decisive is that the court is convinced by show before it, non necessarily from the attesting witnesses, although they must prove, that the will was or was not duly executed in the manner required by police force."73 1�wphi1
Moreover, it bears stressing that "[i]rrespective x x x of the posture of whatsoever of the parties as regards the actuality and due execution of the volition x x x in question, it is the mandate of the police force that it is the evidence before the court and/or [evidence that] ought to be before it that is controlling."74 "The very being 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 country that, if legally tenable, such desire be given full outcome independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby."75 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 cocky-serving testimonies, constrain us to tilt the residue in favor of the authenticity of the Volition and its allowance for probate.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Conclusion dated June fifteen, 2006 and the Resolution dated August 31, 2006 of the Courtroom of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80979 are AFFIRMED.
So ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate JusticeWE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate JusticeLUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate JusticeMARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate JusticeC E R T I F I C A T I O Due north
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, information technology is hereby certified that the conclusions in the higher up Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the stance of the Court�s Segmentation.
RENATO C. CORONA
Primary JusticeFootnotes
1 Gonzales Vda. de Precilla 5. Narciso, 150-B Phil. 437, 473 (1972).
2 Rollo, pp. 9-31.
iii CA rollo, pp. 177-192; penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Vicente Q. Roxas.
four Records, pp. 220-246; penned by Guess Jonel Due south. Mercado.
5 CA rollo, p. 192.
six Id. at 212.
7 Showroom "G", Folder of Exhibits, pp. 36-39.
eight Exhibit "Thou-11," id. at 38.
9 Exhibits "Thou-nine," "G-x," and "G-xi," id. at 36, 37 and 39.
10 Exhibit "G-6," id at 38.
eleven Exhibits "K-iv," "Grand-5," and "Grand-7," id. at 36, 37 and 39.
12 English Translation of the Last Will and Testament of Miss Paciencia Regala, Exhibits "H-one" and "H-2," id. at 41-42.
xiii TSN dated April xviii, 2001, pp. 2-six.
14 Records, pp. 1-iii.
15 Id. at 13-14.
16 TSN dated June 22, 2000, p. 2.
17 Id. at five.
18 Id. at 2-iv.
nineteen Id. at 3.
20 Id. at 2.
21 Id. at half dozen.
22 Motility with Leave of Courtroom to Acknowledge Instant Opposition to Petition of Lorenzo Laxa; records, pp. 17-18.
23 Id. at 17.
24 Id. at 25-28.
25 Article 1049. Acceptance may exist express or tacit.
10 x x 10
Acts of mere preservation or provisional administration do not imply an credence of the inheritance if, through such acts, the title or capacity of an heir has non been causeless.
26 Records, p. 26.
27 Id. at 27.
28 Id. at 42-43.
29 Id. at 44-45.
30 Id. at 52.
31 TSN dated Jan 18, 2001, pp. two-four.
32 Id. at five-6.
33 TSN dated April 18, 2001, pp. one- 28.
34 Id. at ix-15.
35 Id. at sixteen-17.
36 Id. at 24-25.
37 TSN dated November 27, 2002, p. 4.
38 Id. at 5.
39 TSN dated December 4, 2002, p. eight
40 Id. pp. 2-three.
41 Id. at 4.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 7.
44 Id. at 8.
45 Id. at ix.
46 Id. at 10.
47 Id. at 11.
48 TSN dated January seven, 2003, p. 3.
49 Id. at 6-8.
50 Id. at 12.
51 Id. at 11.
52 Id. at 16.
53 Id. at 17.
54 Id.
55 Id at 18-nineteen.
56 Records, pp. 220-246.
57 Id. at 246.
58 Id. at 245-246.
59 CA rollo, p. 185.
sixty Id. at 188.
61 Id. at 193-199.
62 Id. at 212.
63 Rollo, p. xviii.
64 Pastor, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 207 Phil. 758, 766. (1983).
65 Id.
66 CA rollo, pp. 193-199.
67 Id. at 194-195.
68 Torres and Lopez de Bueno v. Lopez, 48 Phil. 772, 810 (1926); Sancho 5. Abella, 58 Phil.728, 732-733 (1933).
69 Id. at 811.
lxx CA rollo, pp. 185-186.
71 Gonzales Vda. de Precilla v. Narciso, supra note 1 at 445.
72 Id. at 474.
73 Id. at 452.
74 Id. at 453.
75 Id. at 473.
The Lawphil Projection - Arellano Constabulary Foundation
Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_174489_2012.html
0 Response to "Peer Review Request Letter Last Will and Testament Handwriting Forgery Fraud"
Post a Comment