Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 76
Rule 76. Allowance or Disallowance of Will
RULE 76
Allowance or Disallowance of Will
Section 1. Who may petition for the allowance of will. —
Any executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will,
or any other person interested in the estate,
may, at any time after the death of the testator,
petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed,
whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.
The testator himself may, during his lifetime,
petition the court for the allowance of his will.
When Will May Be Probated
Ordinarily, probate proceedings are instituted only after the death of the testator, so much so that, after approving and allowing the will, the court proceeds to issue letters testamentary and settle the estate of the testator.
However, Article 838 of the Civil Code authorizes the filing of a petition for probate of the will filed by the testator himself. It provides:
No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court having jurisdiction for the allowance of his will. In such case, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court for the allowance of wills after the testator's death shall govern.
The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional Rules of Court as may be necessary for the allowance of wills on petition of the testator. Subject to the right of appeal, the allowance of the will, either during the lifetime of the testator or after his death, shall be conclusive as to its due execution.
The rationale for allowing the probate of wills during the lifetime of the testator has been explained by the Code Commission, viz.:
Most of the cases that reach the courts involve either the testamentary capacity of the testator or the formalities adopted in the execution of wills. There are relatively few cases concerning the intrinsic validity of testamentary dispositions. It is far easier for the courts to determine the mental condition of a testator during his lifetime than after his death.
Fraud, intimidation, and undue influence are minimized. Furthermore, if a will does not comply with the requirements prescribed by law, the same may be corrected at once. The probate during the testator's life, therefore, will lessen the number of contests upon wills. Once a will is probated during the lifetime of the testator, the only questions that may remain for the courts to decide after the testator's death will refer to the intrinsic validity of the testamentary dispositions. It is possible, of course, that even when the testator himself asks for the allowance of the will, he may be acting under duress or undue influence, but these are rare cases.
After a will has been probated during the lifetime of the testator, it does not necessarily mean that he cannot alter or revoke the same before his death. Should he make a new will, it would also be allowable on his petition, and if he should die before he has had a chance to present such petition, the ordinary probate proceeding after the testator's death would be in order.
Who May File Petition for Probate
Section 1 enumerates the persons who may petition for the allowance of the will:
executor,
devisee,
legatee,
any other person interested in the estate, and
the testator himself.
A devisee or legatee named in a will need not be a relative of the decedent to enable such person to file the petition.
An interested party allowed to petition for probate is one who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor.
The petition for probate shall prosper regardless of whether the petitioner has the will in his possession, or if the will is lost or destroyed.
As a general rule, the petition for probate is filed after the testator's death.
As mentioned earlier, the action does not prescribe and cannot be barred by laches since that would be against public policy.
As an exception, the will may be admitted to probate even before the testator's death, provided that the testator himself petitions the court for its allowance.
The petition for probate filed during the testator's lifetime may only be initiated by the testator himself.
The persons enumerated in the first paragraph of Section 1 do not have the right to institute probate proceedings while the testator is alive, that right being solely reserved in favor of the testator.
The making of joint wills is prohibited, either for the testator's reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person.
However, separate wills may be probated jointly.
Ante-mortem probate is the proving of the testator's will to be a valid will while the testator is still alive.
Section 2. Contents of petition. —
A petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to the petitioner:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or decedent;
(c) The probable value and character of the property of the estate;
(d) The name of the person for whom letters are prayed;
(e) If the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it.
But no defect in the petition shall render void the allowance of the will,
or the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration with the will annexed.
J-NARHLD-PVC-NPLP-NPC
JNP-NN
When Section 2 mandates the allegation of jurisdictional facts in the petition for probate, it refers to the following:
Testator's death; and
Testator's residence at the time of death; or The place where the testator left estate, if he is a non-resident: and
That the will has been delivered to the court and is in the possession thereof, unless not yet delivered; and
The value of the estate to determine the court with jurisdiction.
"Jurisdictional facts" refer to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the time of his death in the province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left in such province .
The names of the heirs and their respective addresses are required to be stated in the petition for probate because it allows the court to determine the persons who are entitled to notice as well as the manner notice shall be given.
Section 3. Court to appoint time for proving will. Notice thereof to be published. —
When a will is delivered to, or a petition for the allowance of a will is filed in,
the court having jurisdiction,
such court shall fix a time and place for proving the will
when all concerned may appear to contest the allowance thereof,
and shall cause notice of such time and place
to be published three (3) weeks successively,
previous to the time appointed,
in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
But no newspaper publication shall be made
where the petition for probate has been filed by the testator himself.
How jurisdiction acquired
The probate court acquires jurisdiction over the settlement proceedings in two ways:
Attachment of a copy of the will to the petition
Delivery of the will to the court.
The original copy of the will need not be attached to the petition for probate.
It is sufficient that a copy thereof is annexed to the petition since the submission of the original will is not a jurisdictional requirement.
If the will is delivered to the court, it may, motu propio, take steps to fix time and place for proving the will and issue corresponding notices.
Mere delivery of will sufficient
The use in Section 3 of the disjunctive in the words "when a will is delivered to, or a petition for the allowance of a will is filed" plainly indicates that the court may act upon the mere deposit therein of a decedent's testament, even if no petition for its allowance is as yet filed.
Where the petition for probate is made after the deposit of the will, the petition is deemed to relate back to the time when the will was delivered.
Notice of hearing
The court has to comply with two obligations after the will is delivered to the court or a petition for its allowance is filed:
Fix the time and place for proving the will when all concerned may appear to contest its allowance; and
Cause the notice of the time and place to be published for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
Section 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to be notified by mail or personally. —
The court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed
for proving the will to be addressed
to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator
resident in the Philippines at their places of residence,
and deposited in the post office with the postage thereon
prepaid at least twenty (20) days before the hearing,
if such places of residence be known.
A copy of the notice must in like manner be mailed
to the person named as executor,
if he be not the petitioner; also,
to any person named as coexecutor not petitioning,
if their places of residence be known.
Personal service of copies of the notice
at least (10) days before the day of hearing shall be equivalent to mailing.
If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will,
notice shall be sent only to his compulsory heirs.
Notice to Heirs, Devisees, Legatees, and Executors
The court must send copies of the notice of the hearing for proving the will to:
heirs,
legatees, and
devisees.
The notice must be mailed at least 20 days before the hearing if their residence is known.
The notice must also be sent to:
The executor (if not the petitioner).
Any co-executor who is not a petitioner.
Personal service of the notice at least 10 days before the hearing is considered equivalent to mailing.
If the testator petitions for the allowance of their own will, notice is required only for compulsory heirs.
When the settlement proceeding is initiated by persons other than the testator, the court is required to send notice of the time and place of hearing to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees who are residents of the Philippines.
The court's obligation to send notice attaches only when the heirs, devisees, and legatees are known and their residence are known.
Only the known heirs, legatees, and devisees are required to be notified by the court.
Persons who are neither compulsory nor testate heirs of the decedent need not be notified by the court in a petition for probate.
Alaban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156021, September 23, 2005:
Respondent Francisco Provido (Francisco) filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado (Soledad). Francisco alleged that he was the heir of the decedent and the executor of her will.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Iloilo admitted the will to probate and issued letters testamentary to Francisco.
More than four months later, petitioners filed a motion for the reopening of the probate proceedings and opposed the allowance of the will of the decedent, as well as the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent, claiming that they are the intestate heirs of the decedent. The RTC denied petitioners' motion. The RTC held that petitioners were deemed notified of the hearing by publication. Moreover, the RTC's decision was already final and executory even before petitioners' filing of the motion to reopen.
It appears that one of the petitioners, Dolores M. Flores (Flores), who is a niece of Soledad, filed a petition for letters of administration with the RTC of General Santos City, claiming that Soledad died intestate without any issue, survived by five groups of collateral heirs. Flores, armed with a Special Power of Attorney from most of the other petitioners, prayed for her appointment as administratrix of the estate of the decedent. The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, stating that the probate court in Iloilo has jurisdiction since the venue for a petition for the settlement of the estate of a decedent is the place where the decedent died.
Were the petitioners notified of the petition for probate of the will?
YES.
It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it. Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they eventually became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the notice of hearing.
According to the Rules, notice is required to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator. A perusal of the will shows that respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the decedent. Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personally notify them of the same.
The non-inclusion of petitioners’ names in the petition and the alleged failure to personally notify them of the proceedings do not constitute extrinsic fraud. Petitioners were not denied their day in court, as they were not prevented from participating in the proceedings and presenting their case before the probate court.
If notice is given through personal service, the interested parties must be notified at least 10 days before the hearing.
If notice is given through registered mail, it should be sent at least 20 days before the date of the hearing.
In addition, the requirement of publication constitutes as constructive notice that binds the whole world.
A settlement proceeding may be annulled if it is shown that the notice is not published in accordance with Section 3.
On the other hand, when it is the testator who files the petition for probate, only the testator's compulsory heirs are notified by the court. In such case, the publication requirement may be dispensed with.
Personal notice under Section 4 of Rule 76 is not a jurisdictional requirement
Leriou v. Longa, G.R. No. 203923, October 8, 2018
Respondent-minors Yohanna and Victoria, represented by their mother, Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz, instituted a special proceeding entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Enrique T. Longa, Petition for Letters of Administration," with the RTC in Muntinlupa City alleging that Enrique died intestate, survived by petitioners Eleptherios and Stephen and respondents Yohanna and Victoria, his legitimate and illegitimate children, respectively; and that Enrique left several properties with no creditors.
The RTC issued an Order appointing Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz (respondent-administratrix) as the administratrix of Enrique's estate. The RTC issued the Letters of Administration.
The petitioners opposed the appointment.
Petitioners alleged that they were denied due process because respondents failed to adduce evidence, i.e., Return of Service, to show that petitioners were furnished with the Petition for Letters of Administration and the RTC Order dated July 4, 2007.
Petitioners assert that the emails between respondent-administratrix and petitioner Eleptherios, and the stamp "RECEIVED" of the DFA Records Division, do not prove that they actually received the Petition for Letters of Administration and the RTC Order.
Petitioners contend that, without the mandatory and jurisdictional requirement on notice to the known heirs of the decedent, all proceedings before the RTC relative to the Petition for Letters of Administration are null and void. On the other hand, the respondents claim that the petitioners are disqualified from administering the estate because they are non-residents.
Is personal notice under Section 4 of Rule 76 a jurisdictional requirement?
NO. Contrary to petitioners' argument that personal notice under Section 4 of Rule 76 is a jurisdictional requirement, the Court, in Alaban v. Court of Appeals, explained that it is just a matter of personal convenience.
Moreover, it should be emphasized that a testate or intestate settlement of a deceased's estate is a proceeding in rem, such that the publication under Section 3 of the same Rule vests the court with jurisdiction over all persons who are interested therein.
In the instant case, the court Order was published for three consecutive weeks in Balita, a newspaper of general circulation. By such publication, which constitutes notice to the whole world, petitioners are deemed notified about the intestate proceedings of their father's estate.
The instant case is analogous to Pilapil v. Heirs of Endonp Brones, where some of the heirs did not receive any personal notice about the intestate proceedings, yet they were deemed notified through publication since the intestate proceeding is in rem. The Court in Pilapil adjudged:
While it is true that since the CFI was not informed that Maximino still had surviving siblings and so the court was not able to order that these siblings be given personal notices of the intestate proceedings, it should be borne in mind that the settlement of estate, whether testate or intestate, is a proceeding in rem, and that the publication in the newspapers of the filing of the application and of the date set for the hearing of the same, in the manner prescribed by law, is a notice to the whole world of the existence of the proceedings and of the hearing on the date and time indicated in the publication.
The publication requirement of the notice in newspapers is precisely for the purpose of informing all interested parties in the estate of the deceased of the existence of the settlement proceedings, most especially those who were not named as heirs or creditors in the petition, regardless of whether such omission was voluntarily or involuntarily made.
Section 5. Proof at hearing. What sufficient in absence of contest. —
At the hearing compliance with the provisions
of the last two preceding sections must be shown
before the introduction of testimony in support of the will.
All such testimony shall be taken under oath and reduced to writing.
If no person appears to contest the allowance of the will,
the court may grant allowance thereof
on the testimony of one of the subscribing witnesses only,
if such witness testify that the will was executed as is required by law.
In the case of a holographic will,
it shall be necessary that at least one witness
who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator
explicitly declare that the will and the signature
are in the handwriting of the testator.
In the absence of any such competent witness,
and if the court deem it necessary,
expert testimony may be resorted to.
Proof at hearing
Testimony Requirements for Probate
Compliance with notice and publication requirements must be proven before presenting testimony.
All testimony must be under oath and recorded in writing.
Allowance of the Will
If uncontested, the will may be allowed based on the testimony of one subscribing witness confirming its lawful execution.
Authentication of Holographic Will
At least one witness familiar with the testator’s handwriting and signature must verify authenticity.
If no such witness is available, the court may require expert handwriting analysis.
The petitioner should present, to the satisfaction of the probate court, the following:
Evidence that the order of the court fixing the time and place for proving the will has been published for three successive weeks prior to the time appointed;
Evidence that a notice of such hearing has been served upon the known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the resident testator at least 20/10 days prior;
If the petitioner is not the executor, evidence that notice has been served upon the executor, if his/her place of residence is known; and
Testimonies of the subscribing witnesses in support of the will.
Proof of Notice and Publication
Before the court proceeds with hearing the petition for probate, it must be shown that notices were given to the proper parties and that the petitioner complied with the publication requirement.
Compliance with the required publication may be proved by presenting to the court the affidavit of the publisher and copies of the actual newspapers on which the notice was published.
The court, however, is not compelled to dismiss the petition for probate if it fails to require or the petitioner fails to show proof of notice and publication.
Required Testimony
If no one contests the petition for probate, as a general rule, the testimony of one witness is sufficient for the court to admit the will to probate.
When a notarial will is under probate, the testimony of one of the witnesses to the will that the substantive requirements were complied with is sufficient.
As to a holographic will, the testimony of one witness is sufficient as long as the said witness knows the handwriting and signature of the testator and explicitly declares that the will is in the handwriting and has the signature of the testator.
The court may resort to expert testimony if there is no competent person who can testify to the foregoing.
However, if the testator himself petitions for the probate of his holographic will, his affirmation of the said will and his signature thereon are sufficient to prove its genuineness and due execution.
Section 6. Proof of lost or destroyed will. Certificate thereupon. —
No will shall be proved as a lost or destroyed will
unless the execution and validity of the same be established,
and the will is proved to have been in existence
at the time of the death of the testator,
or is shown to have been fraudulently or accidentally destroyed
in the lifetime of the testator without his knowledge,
nor unless its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved
by at least two (2) credible witnesses.
When a lost will is proved,
the provisions thereof must be distinctly stated and
certified by the judge, under the seal of the court,
and the certificate must be filed and recorded
as other wills are filed and recorded.
Proof of Lost or Destroyed Will
A lost or destroyed notarial will may be proved by a photocopy of the same, coupled with the testimony of the subscribing witnesses.
As a rule, the original holographic will must be presented to the court during the settlement proceedings.
The rationale is that if the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the will cannot be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will.
It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will.
However in Bonilla v. Aranza:
The Supreme Court ruled that a photocopy of the testator's holographic will may be presented in lieu of the original that was lost.
Whether the will was a notarial or a holographic one, its loss or destruction may only be proved upon the concurrence of the following requisites:
Its execution and validity are established;
It must have been in existence at the time of the testator's death or is shown to have been fraudulently or accidentally destroyed during the lifetime of the testator without his knowledge; and
Its provisions must be clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses.
When a will is proved as lost, its provisions must be distinctly stated and certified by the judge under the seal of the court.
The certification must also be filed and recorded in compliance with Section 13.
Section 7. Proof when witnesses do not reside in province. —
If it appears at the time fixed for the hearing
that none of the subscribing witnesses resides in the province,
but that the deposition of one or more of them can be taken elsewhere,
the court may, on motion, direct it to be taken,
and may authorize a photographic copy of the will
to be made and to be presented to the witness on his examination,
who may be asked the same questions with respect to it,
and to the handwriting of the testator and others,
as would be pertinent and competent if the original will were present.
Section 8. Proof when witnesses dead or insane or do not reside in the Philippines. —
If the appears at the time fixed for the hearing
that the subscribing witnesses are dead or insane,
or that none of them resides in the Philippines,
the court may admit the testimony of other witnesses
to prove the sanity of the testator, and the due execution of the will;
and as evidence of the execution of the will,
it may admit proof of the handwriting of the testator
and of the subscribing witnesses, or of any of them.
Testimony of Witnesses Other Than Subscribing Witnesses
As a rule, and with respect to a notarial will, the courts must examine the testimony of the subscribing witnesses.
The court may, however, examine witnesses other than the subscribing witnesses in the following instances:
The subscribing witness is insane;
The subscribing witness is dead; or
None of the subscribing witnesses reside in the Philippines.
Where none of the subscribing witnesses reside in the province where the probate proceeding is pending, the petitioner may file a motion with the court for the taking of their deposition.
When deposition is resorted to, the court may authorize a photographic copy of the will to be made and presented to the witness during the examination.
Such witness may be asked questions with respect to matters pertaining to the will.
Deposition may be resorted to if the deponent lives at least 100 kilometers away from the territorial jurisdiction of the probate court.
The insanity, death, or non-residence of the subscribing witnesses in the Philippines shall not prevent the court from admitting the will into probate as long as the testator's sanity and the due execution of the will are proved.
As long as the petitioner is able to prove that the testator was sane at the time the will was executed and the due execution thereof, the court should admit the will into probate.
If the testimony of any of the surviving subscribing witnesses can be taken, even through deposition, proof of the will by non-subscribing witnesses cannot be authorized.
Section 10. Contestant to file grounds of contest. —
Anyone appearing to contest the will
must state in writing his grounds for opposing its allowance,
and serve a copy thereof
on the petitioner and other parties interested in the estate.
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 case of wills
executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines,
if present in the Philippines and not insane,
must be produced and examined,
and the death, absence, 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 outside the province where the will has been filed,
their deposition must be taken.
If any or all of them testify against the due execution of the will,
or do not remember having attested to it,
or are otherwise of doubtful credibility,
the will may nevertheless, be allowed
if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses
and from all the evidence presented
that the will was executed and attested in the manner required by law.
If a holographic will is contested,
the same shall be allowed
if at least three (3) 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 it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.
Subscribing Witnesses in Contested Wills
If the will is contested:
All subscribing witnesses and the notary (for wills under the Civil Code) must be produced and examined, if they are present in the Philippines and not insane.
Death, absence, or insanity of any witness must be satisfactorily shown to the court.
If witnesses are outside the province:
Their deposition must be taken.
If witnesses testify against the will's due execution or are of doubtful credibility:
The will may still be allowed if the court is satisfied by other evidence and testimony that the will was executed and attested as required by law.
For contested holographic wills:
The will may be allowed if at least three witnesses who know the testator's handwriting confirm the will and signature.
If no competent witnesses are available, expert testimony may be used if deemed necessary by the court.
When a notarial will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, as well as the notary public who notarized the will, must testify in the probate proceedings.
With respect to a holographic will, at least three witnesses must testify as to the testator's handwriting and signature. If the court deems it necessary and in the absence of any competent witness, the probate court may examine an expert witness.
As an exception, when the testator himself petitions for the probate of his holographic will, the burden is on the person contesting the will to disprove its genuineness and due execution.
Section 12. Proof where testator petitions for allowance of holographic will. —
Where the testator himself petitions for the probate of his holographic will
and no contest is filed,
the fact that he affirms
that the holographic will and the signature
are in his own handwriting,
shall be sufficient evidence of the genuineness and due execution thereof.
If the holographic will is contested,
the burden of disproving the genuineness and due execution
thereof shall be on the contestant.
The testator to rebut the evidence for the contestant.
A summary of the required testimonies for purposes of probate is shown below:
Notarial Will
Uncontested
The court may grant allowance thereof on the testimony of one of the subscribing witnesses only, if such witness testifies that the will was executed as required by law.
Contested
All the subscribing witnesses and the notary public must testify as to the due execution and attestation of the will.
Holographic Will
Uncontested
At least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declares that the will and signature are in the handwriting of the testator.
In the absence of such, if the court deems necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.
Contested
The will shall be allowed if at least three witnesses who know the handwriting of the testator explicitly declare that the will and signature are in the handwriting of the testator.
In the absence of such, if the court deems necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.
Holographic Will Petitioned by the Testator Himself
The fact that he affirms that the holographic will and the signature are in his own handwriting shall be sufficient evidence of the genuineness and due execution thereof.
The burden of disproving the genuineness and due execution thereof shall be on the contestant.
The testator may, in his turn, present such additional proof as may be necessary to rebut the evidence for the contestant.
Section 9. Grounds for disallowing will. —
The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:
(a) If not executed and attested as required by law;
(b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, at the time of its execution;
(c) If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary, or of some other person for his benefit;
(e) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, and he did not intend that the instrument should be his will at the time of fixing his signature thereto.
EXCLUSIVE
NEAL
I,MIMW,TE
E,DIFT
P,UIPI,BOPB
SPFT,NIW
Disallowance of a will
All of the formalities required by the statute are of equal importance, and the courts have no discretion to dispense with them, or supply a defect caused by a failure to comply with some of them.
Parol or extrinsic evidence is not admissible to show that a decedent intended to execute his will according to all the formalities prescribed by statute.
Section 9 is a reproduction of Article 839 of the Civil Code.
A will cannot be disallowed for grounds other than those stated above.
As such, if the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions in a holographic will, the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render the whole testament void.
In addition, if there are unauthenticated alterations, cancellations, or insertions made on the date of the holographic will or on the testator's signature, their presence does not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes.
The grounds for the disallowance of a will are exclusive and may be categorized into three main groups:
Noncompliance with the legal formalities required by law;
Lack of testamentary capacity; and
The will was not duly executed.
In other words, the grounds under Section 9 may fall under the following categories:
Legal formalities
not executed and attested as required by law
Testamentary capacity
testator insane or otherwise mentally incapable to make will at time of execution
Due execution
executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary, or some other person, for his benefit;
signature of testator procured by fraud or trick and he did not intend that the instrument be his will at time of fixing his signature
Formal requisites
The disallowance of a will for failure to comply with the legal formalities under Section 9(a) refers to those requirements under Articles 804 to 819 of the Civil Code, viz:
Article 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. (n)
Article 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express 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 name 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 part of each page.
The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, 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 another.
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them. (n)
Article 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.
Article 807. If the testator be deaf, or a deaf-mute, he must personally read the will, if able to do so; otherwise, he shall designate two persons to read it and communicate to him, in some practicable manner, the contents thereof. (n)
Article 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged. (n)
Article 809. In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of article 805. (n)
Article 810. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed. (678, 688a)
Article 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required.
In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. (619a)
Article 812. In holographic wills, the dispositions of the testator written below his signature must be dated and signed by him in order to make them valid as testamentary dispositions. (n)
Article 813. When a number of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed without being dated, and the last disposition has a signature and a date, such date validates the dispositions preceding it, whatever be the time of prior dispositions. (n)
Article 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature. (n)
Article 815. When a Filipino is in a foreign country, he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms established by the law of the country in which he may be. Such will may be probated in the Philippines. (n)
Article 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes. (n)
Article 817. A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country, which is executed in accordance with the law of the country of which he is a citizen or subject, and which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own country, shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of the Philippines. (n)
Article 818. Two or more persons cannot make a will jointly, or in the same instrument, either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person. (669)
Article 819. Wills, prohibited by the preceding article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in the Philippines, even though authorized by the laws of the country where they may have been executed. (733a)
Thus, the formal requisites for a notarial will are as follows:
It must be in writing and executed in the language known to the testator;
It must be subscribed at the end, as a rule, by the testator himself;
At least three witnesses must attest and subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of one another;
The testator and the witnesses must sign each and every page, except the last, on the left margin;
All the pages of the will must be numbered;
The attestation must state:
The number of pages of the will;
The fact that the testator signed the will and every page in the presence of the witnesses; and
The witnesses signed the will and all its pages in the testator's presence and of one another.
The testator and the witnesses must acknowledge the will before a notary public.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the will has substantially complied with the requisites for notarial wills, the court may admit it to probate.
Substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.
The substantial compliance rule applies only in the absence of bad faith, forgery, fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence.
As long as it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with Article 805, any defect or imperfection in the form of the attestation or in the language used shall not invalidate a testamentary privilege.
As to holographic wills, the law only requires the following:
It must be in writing and executed in the language known to the testator; and
The testator himself must entirely write, date, and sign the will.
Also, under Article 811 of the Civil Code, in the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator.
If the will is contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required.
This means that no holographic will can be probated, without the testimony of at least one witness if the will is uncontested, and at least three witnesses if the same is contested.
Ajero vs. Court of Appeals:
The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. Therefore, the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. However, we cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document being adjudged as the will of the testator, which is why if the holographic will is contested, that law requires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.
Testamentary capacity
Section 9(b) refers to the testator's testamentary capacity to make a will. The testator's testamentary capacity is determined at the time the will was executed and no other.
Consequently, even if the testator becomes insane after he executes his will, the insanity shall not nullify the will.
Conversely, a will cannot be validated if the person who executes a will without testamentary capacity later gains it.
Torres v. Lopez, G.R. No. L-24569, February 26, 1926:
The Supreme Court defined testamentary capacity as the capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed to have claims upon the testator, and to comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distribute his property among the objects of his bounty.
Adopting this definition, Article 799 of the Civil Code refers to testamentary capacity as the testator's ability to know the following:
The nature of the estate to be disposed of;
The objects of his bounty; and
The character of the testamentary act.
Substantive requirements
Articles 796 to 803 of the Civil Code prescribe the testamentary capacity and intent of the testator, thus:
Article 796. All persons who are not expressly prohibited by law may make a will. (662)
Article 797. Persons of either sex under eighteen years of age cannot make a will. (n)
Article 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its execution. (n)
Article 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. (n)
Article 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. (n)
Article 801. Supervening incapacity does not invalidate an effective will, nor is the will of an incapable validated by the supervening of capacity. (n)
Article 802. A married woman may make a will without the consent of her husband, and without the authority of the court. (n)
Article 803. A married woman may dispose by will of all her separate property as well as her share of the conjugal partnership or absolute community property. (n)
Due execution
While testamentary capacity looks into the testator's capacity to dispose, due execution refers to the testator's voluntariness to dispose of his estate.
If a person is unduly influenced or pressured to execute a will, there is really no intent to bestow that property.
Section 13. Certificate of allowance attached to prove will. To be recorded in the Office of Register of Deeds. —
If the court is satisfied, upon proof taken and filed,
that the will was duly executed,
and that the testator at the time of its execution
was of sound and disposing mind,
and not acting under duress, menace, and undue influence, or fraud,
a certificate of its allowance, signed by the judge,
and attested by the seal of the court
shall be attached to the will
and the will and certificate filed and recorded by the clerk.
Attested copies of the will devising real estate
and of certificate of allowance thereof,
shall be recorded in the register of deeds
of the province in which the lands lie.
Once the will is admitted to probate, the following must be done:
The judge shall issue a certificate of allowance of the will, which must be signed by the judge and attested by the seal of the court;
The clerk must record and file the certificate of allowance;
The will must be recorded in the register of deeds of the province where the land is located.
Cases:
Cuizon vs. Ramolete (129 SCRA 494)
In 1961, Marciano Cuizon applied for land registration of parcels in Opao, Mandaue City.
In 1970, he distributed his property between his two children, Rufina and Irene.
In 1971, Irene Cuizon sold salt beds to petitioners (Francisco, Rosita, and Purificacion Cuizon) but retained usufructuary rights.
In 1976, a TCT was issued in Irene Cuizon's name.
In 1978, Irene died. Rufina, her alleged half-sister and sole heir, executed an extrajudicial settlement adjudicating the estate to herself.
Rufina confirmed and ratified the 1971 sale and waived her rights, leading to the issuance of a TCT in favor of the petitioners.
In 1978, Domingo Antigua was appointed administrator of Irene’s estate.
Antigua included the property in the estate inventory and filed a motion to sell the salt.
CFI: Granted the motion, ordering Juan Arche (petitioner) to turn over the salt and other products to the administrator.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the probate court had no jurisdiction over the titled property already owned by them.
Whether the probate court have jurisdiction over parcels of land covered by a TCT issued in favor of non-parties to the intestate proceedings when included in the estate inventory.
A probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed by third parties.
It may only include properties in the inventory if undisputed.
If title is contested, the matter must be resolved in a separate civil action.
Since the property was:
Sold before Irene’s death (1971);
Titled under the Torrens System in petitioners' names (TCT No. 12665); and
Possessed by the petitioners,
The probate court lacked jurisdiction to order its inclusion in the estate inventory.
The court's order was void for exceeding jurisdiction.
Even if there were allegations of fraud, they should be resolved in a separate civil action.
Sanchez vs. CA (279 SCRA 647)
Rosalia S. Lugod is the only legitimate child of Juan C. Sanchez and Maria Villafranca.
The petitioners (Rolando, Florida Mierly, Alfredo, and Myrna Sanchez) are Juan C. Sanchez’s illegitimate children.
After Maria Villafranca’s death in 1967, Rosalia filed for letters of administration over her mother’s and senile father’s estates.
Juan C. Sanchez passed away in 1968, and the petitioners filed a separate petition for letters of administration over his estate.
In 1969, both parties executed a compromise agreement dividing Juan C. Sanchez’s properties.
Rosalia was appointed administratrix of Juan’s estate.
In 1970, the agreement was modified, reducing the share of the illegitimate children from 48 hectares to 36 hectares.
In 1980, the petitioners sought to annul the compromise agreement, alleging fraud, and requested Rosalia to submit a new inventory.
CFI: Declared the deeds of sale made by Juan C. Sanchez and Maria Villafranca to Rosalia and her children as simulated and fictitious, ordering collation and partition of the properties.
CA: Annulled the trial court’s decision, declaring the compromise agreement valid and binding.
Whether the CA erred in allowing private respondent's recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Certiorari as a Remedy:
Certiorari is allowed when a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction as a probate court by nullifying the deeds of sale and disregarding the compromise agreement without sufficient basis.
The probate court lacked authority to determine ownership with finality.
The trial court’s actions were more than errors of judgment; they were jurisdictional overreach.
Since the decision was void for lack of jurisdiction, certiorari was a proper remedy.
Validity of Compromise Agreement:
A compromise agreement is a consensual contract, perfected upon the meeting of the minds of the parties (Art. 2028, Civil Code).
Judicial approval is not required for its validity.
The agreement was freely negotiated over four months, with multiple drafts and legal representation for all parties.
Compromise agreements are encouraged under Art. 2029 of the Civil Code.
Whether court approval was required due to the minority of some heirs.
Deed of Partition:
The document was actually a deed of partition, not merely a compromise, making it valid under Art. 1082 of the Civil Code.
The partition met legal requirements:
no will,
debts paid,
minors represented by a guardian, and
executed through a public instrument
Fraud Allegations:
Allegations of fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court found no substantial evidence of fraud.
A Memorandum of Agreement was later executed to correct land area discrepancies, further proving voluntariness of the compromise.
Estoppel:
Petitioners consumed benefits from the compromise, making rescission impossible.
They questioned the agreement only after nine years, raising suspicions of dissatisfaction rather than fraud.
The Court reaffirmed that courts cannot void contracts just because parties later regret them (volenti non fit injuria).
The intestate proceedings were essentially concluded, as the parties had already consummated the compromise agreement, and the heirs had received their respective shares.
Sumilang vs. Ramagosa (GR No. L-23135,December 26, 1967)
In 1959, Hilarion Ramagosa died.
In 1960, Mariano Sumilang filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of Hilarion Ramagosa.
The will, written in Tagalog and dated February 26, 1949, named Sumilang as the sole heir.
The petition was opposed by Saturnino and Santiago Ramagosa, who claimed the will was executed under duress and was not truly intended by the deceased. They also asserted their own right to inherit.
Other oppositors, claiming to be next of kin, sought only the disallowance of the will.
After Sumilang presented his evidence, the oppositors moved for the dismissal of the probate petition, arguing that the will had been revoked by implication when Ramagosa sold the properties mentioned in the will to Sumilang and his brother six years before his death.
Sumilang opposed the motion, arguing that the oppositors lacked legal standing and had no valid interest in the estate.
CFI: Denied the motion to dismiss and struck out the oppositors' pleadings, ruling that they were not within the fifth degree of consanguinity to the deceased and thus had no legal interest in the estate.
Whether the oppositors, who were found to be strangers to the testator, had legal standing to intervene in the probate proceedings.
Whether the will was revoked by implication due to the testator’s prior sale of the properties.
Extrinsic Validity:
Probate proceedings are limited to determining the extrinsic validity of a will—whether it was executed with the required formalities and whether the testator had testamentary capacity.
The alleged revocation by implication (through the sale of properties) was irrelevant to the probate process.
Even if the properties were sold, it would not affect the validity of the will itself but only the specific bequest or legacy.
No Legal Standing:
Oppositors had no legal standing since they were not heirs or claimants of the estate.
Probate proceedings should not be disrupted by those with no legitimate interest.
Rodriguez vs. De Borja (GR No. L-21993, June 21, 1966)
In 1963, Rev. Fr. Celestino Rodriguez died in Manila.
On March 4, 1963, Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan delivered a purported last will and testament of Fr. Rodriguez to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan.
On March 8, 1963, Maria Rodriguez and Angela Rodriguez filed a petition to examine the alleged will but later withdrew it on March 11, 1963.
On March 12, 1963, at 8:00 A.M., Maria and Angela Rodriguez filed a petition for intestate proceedings before the CFI of Rizal, alleging that Fr. Rodriguez was a resident of ParaΓ±aque, Rizal, and died without a will.
On March 12, 1963, at 11:00 A.M., Pangilinan and Jacalan filed a petition for probate of the will in CFI of Bulacan.
It was stipulated that Fr. Rodriguez:
Was born in ParaΓ±aque, Rizal.
Served as a Parish Priest in Hagonoy, Bulacan, for 33 years (1930-1963).
Was buried in ParaΓ±aque, Rizal.
Owned real properties in Rizal, Cavite, Quezon City, and Bulacan.
Which court had jurisdiction over the settlement of Fr. Rodriguez’s estate—CFI of Rizal (intestate proceedings) or CFI of Bulacan (probate proceedings)?
The CFI of Bulacan had jurisdiction over the case because:
The will was deposited in Bulacan on March 4, 1963, eight days before the intestate petition in Rizal.
Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court grants exclusive jurisdiction to the court that first takes cognizance of the case.
Delivery of the will alone vested jurisdiction in Bulacan, even if the probate petition was filed later.
Domicile affects only venue, not jurisdiction.
Even assuming Fr. Rodriguez’s domicile was in Rizal, it would not invalidate the jurisdiction of the Bulacan court.
Probate Over Intestate Proceedings:
The petitioners (Rodriguez heirs) acted in bad faith by filing intestate proceedings after knowing about the will in Bulacan.
Intestate succession is only subsidiary—it applies only if there is no valid will. Thus, intestate proceedings in Rizal could not proceed while the probate case was pending.
The CFI of Bulacan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the probate proceedings.
Alaban vs. CA (GR No. 156021, Sept. 23, 2005)
Francisco Provido filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of Soledad Provido Elevencionado.
RTC: Allowed the probate of the will and issued letters testamentary to Francisco Provido.
Petitioners, the alleged intestate heirs, moved to reopen the probate proceedings, arguing that:
The RTC lacked jurisdiction due to non-payment of the correct docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to heirs.
The will was invalid because of forgery, lack of testamentary capacity, and undue influence.
The will wrongfully included properties no longer owned by the decedent.
RTC: Denied the motion, ruling that jurisdiction was validly acquired through publication.
CA: Dismissed the petition.
Whether petitioners were denied their day in court due to extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
RTC Acquired Jurisdiction:
In probate cases, publication of notice makes all interested persons parties to the proceedings. Petitioners were parties to the probate proceedings as the case was published, making it a proceeding in rem.
As interested persons, they were bound by the published notice and could have availed of legal remedies.
Petitioners had remedies under Rules 37 and 38 (motion for new trial, reconsideration, relief from judgment) but failed to timely avail of them.
Extrinsic Fraud Not Proven:
Extrinsic fraud was not proven, as publication served as notice to all interested parties.
Extrinsic fraud must show that the prevailing party’s actions prevented the petitioner from presenting their case.
Petitioners alleged fraud due to non-inclusion in the probate petition, but:
Personal notice was not required, as they were not compulsory/testate heirs.
Publication of notice cured any defect.
They were not prevented from participating in the proceeding
Leriou vs. Longa (GR No. 203923, Oct. 8, 2018)
Respondents Yohanna Frenesi S. Longa and Victoria Ponciana S. Longa, represented by their mother Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz, filed a special proceeding for the intestate estate of Enrique T. Longa.
Enrique Longa died intestate, leaving behind petitioners Eleptherios and Stephen (his legitimate children) and respondents Yohanna and Victoria (his illegitimate children).
Iona Leriou Regala, a greek national, is already divorced from Enrique and has already remarried.
Eleptherios and Stephen are non-residents of the Philippines.
RTC: Appointed Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz as the administratrix of Enrique’s estate and Letters of Administration were issued.
Petitioners filed a motion seeking to remove Sta. Cruz and appoint Eleptherios Longa or his nominee as administrator, alleging they were denied due process as they were not properly notified.
They, as legitimate children, had a preferential right to administer the estate under Rule 78, Section 6.
RTC: Denied the motion, ruling that Sta. Cruz had substantially complied with court orders and was in contact with petitioners. Eleptherios, a non-resident, was ineligible to serve as administrator under Rule 78, Section 1(b).
CA: Affirmed the RTC's rulings.
Alleged Lack of Notice:
Petitioners claim they were not personally notified of the Petition for Letters of Administration.
However, under Rule 76, Sections 3 & 4, notice through publication in a newspaper of general circulation is sufficient.
The publication serves as notice to the whole world, making personal notice a matter of procedural convenience, not a jurisdictional requirement.
Petitioners' Non-Residency:
Petitioners reside in the United States, making them ineligible to be appointed as administrators under Rule 78, Section 1.
Their nominee, Juan Manuel Elizalde, has no clear interest in the estate.
The court preferred respondent-administratrix as she represents the interests of the decedent’s children.
Codoy vs. Calugay (GR No. 123486, August 12, 1999)
Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo, and Eufemia Patigas filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde SeΓ±o Vda. de Ramonal.
The will, written in Visayan, contained bequests of land, jewelry, and burial instructions.
Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal opposed the petition, alleging forgery and illegibility.
They claimed the presence of a “third hand” in writing the will and argued that the repetition of dates after every disposition was suspicious.
Respondents presented six witnesses and documentary evidence.
Petitioners filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that respondents failed to prove the will’s authenticity.
RTC: Demurrer to evidence was granted. The petition for probate was denied due to insufficiency of evidence.
CA: Ruled in favor of the respondents, allowing the probate of the will.
Cited Azaola vs. Singson (109 Phil. 102) to emphasize that presenting three witnesses under Article 811 of the Civil Code is permissive, not mandatory.
Whether Article 811 of the Civil Code required the mandatory presentation of three witnesses in contested holographic wills.
Article 811 of the Civil Code is Mandatory:
The word "shall" in the statute denotes an imperative obligation.
The law aims to uphold the intent of the deceased and prevent fraudulent actions.
The purpose of legal formalities in will execution—to prevent fraud and ensure authenticity.
There is a need for strict compliance with legal requirements in contested cases.
Insufficient Evidence:
Some witnesses testified to familiarity with the testator’s handwriting.
However, they did not directly witness the testator writing or signing the will.
The testimonies were largely based on preprepared documents and indirect observations.
Doubts About the Will’s Custody and Discovery:
The will was not found among the personal belongings of the deceased.
Ms. Binanay had possession of the will as early as 1985, years before the testator’s death in 1990.
She did not inform the legally adopted children about the existence of the will.
Handwriting Analysis and Authenticity Issues:
The will showed signs of retracing, uneven strokes, and illegible signatures.
The deceased’s former lawyer could not definitively confirm the authenticity of the handwriting.
A visual comparison suggested inconsistencies between the will and other known documents of the testator.
Torres vs. Lopez (GR No. L-24569, February 26, 1926)
In February 1924, Tomas Rodriguez died in Manila, Philippines, leaving a considerable estate.
In 1924, Rodriguez allegedly executed a will in the hospital, naming Vicente F. Lopez and Luz Lopez de Bueno as universal heirs.
Manuel Torres, an executor named in Rodriguez’s alleged will, petitioned for its probate.
Margarita Lopez, cousin of Rodriguez, opposed the probate, claiming:
Rodriguez lacked mental capacity due to senile dementia and was under guardianship.
Undue influence was exercised by the beneficiaries and their associates.
Rodriguez’s signature on the will was obtained through fraud and deceit.
In October 1923, Margarita Lopez petitioned to appoint a guardian for Rodriguez, citing his old age and poor health. The court declared Rodriguez incapacitated and appointed Vicente F. Lopez as his guardian.
Whether Rodriguez was mentally fit to create a valid will.
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and admitted the will to probate.
Tomas Rodriguez, despite his physical and mental infirmities, possessed the requisite testamentary capacity when he executed the will. The Court found no evidence of undue influence or fraud.
Testamentary Capacity:
The legal standard for testamentary capacity requires that the testator understands the nature of the act, the property being disposed of, and the natural objects of their bounty.
Rodriguez, despite his senility, memory loss, and physical frailties, met this standard.
The will was short and easy to understand, even for someone in distress.
Rodriguez had two meetings with his lawyer, understood the contents of the will, and had it read to him.
He recollected his property, his income, and the beneficiaries he wished to include.
He was consistent in his intent to give his estate to specific individuals.
The proponents of the will successfully demonstrated Rodriguez’s soundness of mind at the time of execution. The presumption of sanity prevailed over the allegations of incapacity.
Undue Influence:
The Court found no evidence of undue influence.
The beneficiaries acted within their rights, and the execution of the will was carried out in a legitimate manner.