Case Digest: De Guzman vs. Intestate Estate of Francisco Benitez, G. R. No. 61167-68, January 20, 1989

Arts. 789-801 | Succession, Insanity

Provisions:

Art. 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its execution.

Art. 799. To be of sound 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 by disease, injury or other cause.

It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.

Art. 800. The law 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 will; 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.

Art. 801. Supervening incapacity does not invalidate an effective will, nor is the will of an incapable validated by the supervening of capacity. 

Ponente:
Griño-Aquino, J.

Petitioner: Fidel de Guzman

Respondents:  Dionisia Valenzuela and Melquiades Valenzuela

Recit Version:

Francisco Benitez passed away without any heirs. His first cousins, Dionisia and Melquiades Valenzuela, sought the administration of his estate. Dionisia had previously been Francisco's guardian due to his mental incapacity. However, Emiterio de Guzman contested, claiming Francisco had left a will in 1945 bequeathing his estate to him. 

The evidence showed that Francisco had a history of mental health issues, having been confined to a mental hospital multiple times between 1929 and 1941. The CFI-Laguna disallowed the will and appointed Dionisia as administratrix of his intestate estate.

Facts:

On 1970, Francisco Benitez, the only surviving child of Pascual Benitez and Camila Valenzuela, died without descendants, ascendants, nor brothers and sisters. 

 

He left behind an estate comprising a coconut land, a residential lot, and a savings account.

Dionisia Valenzuela and Melquiades Valenzuela are first-cousins of the deceased Francisco Benitez. They filed a petition for the administration of Francisco Benitez's intestate estate. 

Dionisia had previously served as the judicial guardian of Francisco's person and property due to the latter's incompetence on account of insanity.

Emiterio de Guzman opposed the administration petition, claiming the deceased left a will on August 18, 1945, bequeating his estate to him. A separate petition for the probate of this will was filed.

On 1973, Emiterio died. He was substituted by his heirs: Fidel, Cresencia and Rosalia, all surnamed De Guzman.

The evidence showed that from January 18, 1929 up to March 12, 1941 Francisco Benitez was confined at the National Mental Hospital for varying periods of time as follows:

DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF DISCHARGE
(a) January 18, 1929 March 12, 1929
(b) March 7, 1931 June 6, 1931
(c) November 12, 1936 November 29, 1937
(d) February 16, 1938 August 16, 1939
(e) July 9, 1940 March 12, 1941

CFI-Laguna: Disallowed the will of Francisco Benitez and appointed Dionisia Valenzuela administratrix of his intestate estate.

CA: Affirmed the decision of CFI-Laguna on the ground that at the time Francisco Benitez executed his supposed will on August 18, 1945, he was not possessed of a sound and disposing mind. Wherefore the same is not allowed probate.

Issue: WoN the finding that the deceased Francisco Benitez ‘was not possessed of a sound and disposing mind’ when he executed his will on August 18, 1945, is grounded merely on speculation, surmises and conjectures, as well as on hearsay and contradictory, biased, and obviously incredible testimony. NO

Held:

Plainly, the petition raises a purely factual issue, which We are not at liberty to review because in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth, may be raised. 

In any event, the decision of the Court of Appeals reveals that Court carefully weighed the evidence on the question of the testamentary capacity, or lack of it, of the deceased Francisco Benitez and found "no compelling reason to disturb the lower court’s findings and conclusions." 

The resolution of that question hinged on the credibility of the witnesses. The cardinal rule on that point is that the trial courts, assessment of the credibility of witnesses while testifying is generally binding on the appellate court because of its superior advantage in observing their conduct and demeanor and its findings, when supported by convincingly credible evidence, shall not be disturbed on appeal.