9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

G.R. No. 174489.  April 11, 2012.*

ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M.

BALTAZAR, ANTONIO L. MANGALINDAN,
ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACHECO,
VIRGILIO REGALA, JR., and RAFAEL
TITCO, petitioners, vs. LORENZO LAXA,
respondent.

Civil Law; Wills; Testamentary Succession; Due

execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains
to whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely
executed the will in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by law.—Due execution of the will or its
extrinsic validity pertains to whether the testator,
being of sound mind, freely executed the will in
accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.
These formalities are enshrined in Articles 805 and
806 of the New Civil Code, to wit: Art. 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
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

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 wit-

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

250

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Baltazar vs. Laxa

nessed 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. Art.
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.
Same; Same; Same; The state of being forgetful
does not necessarily make a person mentally unsound
so as to render him unfit to execute a Will.—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 Will. Forgetfulness is not equivalent to
being of unsound mind. Besides, Article 799 of the
New Civil Code states: 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

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

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.
Same; Same; Same; A purported will is not to be
denied legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise,
the very institution of testamentary succession will be
shaken to its foundation, for even if a will has been
duly executed in fact, whether it will be probated
would have to depend largely on the attitude of those
interested in the estate of the deceased.—It is worth
stressing that bare arguments, no matter how
forceful, if not based on concrete and substantial
evidence cannot suffice to move the Court to uphold
said allegations. Furthermore, “a purported will is
not [to be] denied legalization on dubious grounds.
Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary
succession will be shaken to its foundation, for even
if a will has been duly executed in fact, whether x x x
it will be probated would have to depend largely on
the attitude of those interested in [the estate of the
deceased].”
Same; Same; Same; The very existence of the
Will is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed
testatrix has willed that her estate be distributed in
the manner therein provided, and it is incumbent
upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be
given full effect independent of the attitude of the
parties affected thereby.—It

251

VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 251

Baltazar vs. Laxa

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

bears stressing that “[i]rrespective x  x  x of the

posture of any of the parties as regards the
authenticity and due execution of the will x  x  x in
question, it is the mandate of the law that it is the
evidence before the court and/or [evidence that]
ought to be before it that is controlling.” “The very
existence of [the Will] is in itself prima facie proof
that the supposed [testatrix] has willed that [her]
estate be distributed in the manner therein
provided, and it is incumbent upon the state that, if
legally tenable, such desire be given full effect
independent of the attitude of the parties affected
thereby.” This, coupled with Lorenzo’s established
relationship with Paciencia, the evidence and the
testimonies of disinterested witnesses, as opposed to
the total lack of evidence presented by petitioners
apart from their self-serving testimonies, constrain
us to tilt the balance in favor of the authenticity of
the Will and its allowance for probate.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the

decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
  Filemon Al. Manlutac for petitioners.
  Viray, Rongcal, Beltran, Yumul & Viray
Law Offices for respondent.

DEL CASTILLO,  J.:

It is incumbent upon those who oppose the
probate of a will to clearly establish that the
decedent was not of sound and disposing mind
at the time of the execution of said will.
Otherwise, the state is duty-bound to give full
effect to the wishes of the testator to distribute
his estate in the manner provided in his will so
long as it is legally tenable.1

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

Before us is a Petition for Review on

Certiorari2 of the June 15, 2006 Decision3 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV

_______________
1 Gonzales Vda. de Precilla v. Narciso, 150-B Phil. 437,
473; 46 SCRA 538, 565 (1972).
2 Rollo, pp. 9-31.

252

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Baltazar vs. Laxa

No. 80979 which reversed the September 30,

2003 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 52, Guagua, Pampanga in
Special Proceedings No. G-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 SET ASIDE and a new one entered
GRANTING the petition for the probate of the will of
PACIENCIA REGALA.
SO ORDERED.”5

Also assailed herein is the August 31, 2006

CA Resolution6 which denied the Motion for
Reconsideration thereto.
Petitioners call us to reverse the CA’s
assailed Decision and instead affirm the
Decision of the RTC which disallowed the
notarial will of Paciencia.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

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
house of retired Judge Ernestino G. Limpin
(Judge Limpin), was read to Paciencia twice.
After which, Paciencia expressed in the
presence of the instrumental witnesses that the
document is her last will and testament. She
thereafter affixed her signa-

_______________
3 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.
4 Records, pp. 220-246; penned by Judge Jonel S.
Mercado.
5  CA Rollo, p. 192.
6  Id., at p. 212.
7  Exhibit “G,” Folder of Exhibits, pp. 36-39.

253

VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 253

Baltazar vs. Laxa

ture at the end of the said document on page 38

and then on the left margin of pages 1, 2 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 Will’s due
execution by affixing their signatures below its
attestation clause10 and on the left margin of
pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof,11 in the presence of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

Paciencia and of one another and of Judge

Limpin who acted as notary public.
Childless and without any brothers or
sisters, Paciencia bequeathed all her properties
to respondent Lorenzo R. Laxa (Lorenzo) and
his wife Corazon F. Laxa and their children
Luna Lorella Laxa and Katherine Ross Laxa,
thus:

“x x x x
Fourth—In consideration of their valuable
services to me since then up to the present by the
spouses LORENZO LAXA and CORAZON F. LAXA,
I hereby BEQUEATH, CONVEY and GIVE all my
properties enumerated in parcels 1 to 5 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 x x x
[Sixth]—Should other properties of mine may be
discovered aside from the properties mentioned in
this last will and testament, I am also bequeathing
and giving the same to the spouses Lorenzo R. Laxa
and Corazon F. Laxa and their two 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

_______________
8  Exhibit “G-11,” id., at p. 38.
9  Exhibits “G-9,” “G-10,” and “G-11,” id., at pp. 36, 37 and 39.
10 Exhibit “G-6,” id., at p. 38.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

11 Exhibits “G-4,” “G-5,” and “G-7,” id., at pp. 36, 37 and 39.

254

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Baltazar vs. Laxa

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
as stated in my testament. x x x”12

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.13
Paciencia lived with Lorenzo’s family in
Sasmuan, Pampanga and it was she who raised
and cared for Lorenzo since his birth. Six days
after the execution of the Will or on September
19, 1981, Paciencia left for the United States of
America (USA). There, she resided with
Lorenzo and his family until her death on
January 4, 1996.
In the interim, the Will remained in the
custody of Judge Limpin.
More than four years after the death 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 as Special Proceedings No. G-
1186.
There being no opposition to the petition
after its due publication, the RTC issued an
Order on June 13, 200015 allowing Lorenzo to
present evidence on June 22, 2000. On said
date, Dra. Limpin testified that she was one of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

the instrumental witnesses in the execution of

the last will and testament of Paciencia on
September 13, 1981.16 The Will was executed in
her father’s (Judge Limpin) home office, in her
presence and of two other witnesses, Francisco
and Faustino.17 Dra. Limpin

_______________
12 English Translation of the Last Will and Testament
of Miss Paciencia Regala, Exhibits “H-1” and “H-2,” id., at
pp. 41-42.
13 TSN dated April 18, 2001, pp. 2-6.
14 Records, pp. 1-3.
15 Id., at pp. 13-14.
16 TSN dated June 22, 2000, p. 2.
17 Id., at p. 5.

255

VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 255

Baltazar vs. Laxa

positively identified the Will and her

signatures on all its four pages.18 She likewise
positively identified the signature of her father
appearing thereon.19 Questioned by the
prosecutor regarding Judge Limpin’s 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 court.21
The following day 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
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest;

hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath them
to Lorenzo.23
Barely a month after or on July 20, 2000,
Antonio, now joined by petitioners Sebastian
M. 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’s Will was null and void because
ownership of the properties had not been
transferred and/or titled to Paciencia before her
death pursuant to Article 1049, paragraph 3 of
the Civil Code.25 Petitioners also opposed the
issuance of Letters of Administration in

_______________
18 Id., at pp. 2-4.
19 Id., at p. 3.
20 Id., at p. 2.
21 Id., at p. 6.
22 Motion with Leave of Court to Admit Instant
Opposition to Petition of Lorenzo Laxa; records, pp. 17-18.
23 Id., at p. 17.
24 Id., at pp. 25-28.
25 Article  1049.  Acceptance may be express or tacit.
x x x x
Acts of mere preservation or provisional administration
do not imply an acceptance of the inheritance if, through
such acts, the title or capacity of an heir has not been
assumed.

256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Baltazar vs. Laxa

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

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 be
instead issued in favor of Antonio.27
Later still on September 26, 2000,
petitioners filed an Amended Opposition28
asking the RTC to deny the probate of
Paciencia’s Will on the following grounds: the
Will was not executed and attested to in
accordance with the requirements of the law;
that Paciencia was mentally incapable to make
a Will at the time of its execution; that she was
forced to execute the Will under duress or
influence of fear or threats; that the execution
of the Will had been procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence by Lorenzo or
by 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 not intend the document to
be her Will. Simultaneously, petitioners filed
an Opposition and Recommendation29
reiterating their opposition to the appointment
of Lorenzo as administrator of the properties
and requesting for the appointment 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 former is a citizen and resident of the
USA while the latter’s claim as a co-owner of
the properties subject of the Will has not yet
been established.
Meanwhile, proceedings on the petition for
the probate of the Will continued. Dra. Limpin
was recalled for cross-examination by the
petitioners. She testified as to the age of her
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

father at the time the latter notarized the Will

of Pacien-

_______________
26 Records, p. 26.
27 Id., at p. 27.
28 Id., at pp. 42-43.
29 Id., at pp. 44-45.
30 Id., at p. 52.

257

VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 257

Baltazar vs. Laxa

cia; 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) also took the witness
stand. Monico, son of Faustino, testified on his
father’s condition. According 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
allegation.32
For his part, Lorenzo testified that: from
1944 until his departure for the USA in April
1980, he lived in Sasmuan, Pampanga with his
family and his aunt, Paciencia; in 1981
Paciencia went to the USA and lived with him
and his family until her death in January 1996;
the 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 as an adopted son; Paciencia was a
spinster without children, and without brothers
and sisters; at the time of Paciencia’s death,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

she did not suffer from any mental disorder

and was of sound 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 Further, Lorenzo belied and
denied having used force, 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

_______________
31 TSN dated January 18, 2001, pp. 2-4.
32 Id., at pp. 5-6.
33 TSN dated April 18, 2001, pp. 1- 28.
34 Id., at pp. 9-15.
35 Id., at pp. 16-17.

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Baltazar vs. Laxa

shortly after her arrival in the USA but that he

saw a copy of the Will only after her death.36
As to Francisco, he could no longer be
presented in court as he already died on May
21, 2000.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

For petitioners, Rosie testified that her

mother and Paciencia were first cousins.37 She
claimed to have 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 same house.38 She served in the
said household from 1980 until Paciencia’s
departure for the USA on September 19,
1981.39On September 13, 1981, Rosie claimed
that she saw Faustino bring “something” for
Paciencia to sign at the latter’s house.40 Rosie
admitted, though, that she did not see what
that “something” was as same was placed
inside an envelope.41 However, she
remembered Paciencia instructing Faustino to
first look for money before she signs them.42 A
few days after or on September 16, 1981,
Paciencia went to the house of Antonio’s
mother and brought with her the said
envelope.43 Upon going home, however, the
envelope was no longer with Paciencia.44 Rosie
further testified that Paciencia was referred to
as “magulyan” or “forgetful” because she would
sometimes leave her wallet in the kitchen then
start looking for it moments later.45 On cross
examination, it was established that Rosie was
neither a doctor nor a psychiatrist,

_______________
36 Id., at pp. 24-25.
37 TSN dated November 27, 2002, p. 4.
38 Id., at p. 5.
39 TSN dated December 4, 2002, p. 8.
40 Id., at pp. 2-3.
41 Id., at p. 4.
42 Id.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

43 Id., at p. 7.
44 Id., at p. 8.
45 Id., at p. 9.

259

VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 259

Baltazar vs. Laxa

that her conclusion 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 mother’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.50 According to him,
Paciencia thought that the documents
pertained to a lease 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 properties upon her departure 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 properties?” Who
is Lorenzo? Is he the only [son] of God? I have
other relatives [who should] benefit from my
properties. Why should I die already?”53
Thereafter, Antonio advised Paciencia not to
sign the documents if she does not want to, to
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

which the latter purportedly replied, “I know

nothing about those, throw them away or it is
up to you. The more I will not sign them.”54
After which, Paciencia left the documents with
Antonio. Antonio kept the unsigned documents

_______________
46 Id., at p. 10.
47 Id., at p. 11.
48 TSN dated January 7, 2003, p. 3.
49 Id., at pp. 6-8.
50 Id., at p. 12.
51 Id., at p. 11.
52 Id., at p. 16.
53 Id., at p. 17.
54 Id.

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Baltazar vs. Laxa

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 court hereby (a) denies the

petition dated April 24, 2000; and (b) disallows the
notarized will dated September 13, 1981 of Paciencia
Regala.
SO ORDERED.”57

The trial court gave considerable weight to

the testimony of Rosie and concluded that at
the time Paciencia signed the Will, she was no

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

longer possessed of sufficient reason or

strength of mind to have testamentary
capacity.58
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC
Decision and granted the probate of the Will of
Paciencia. The appellate court did not agree
with the RTC’s conclusion that Paciencia was
of unsound mind when she executed the Will. It
ratiocinated that “the state of being ‘magulyan’
does not make a person mentally unsound so
[as] 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 sound
mind. Further, no concrete circumstances or
events were given to prove the allegation that
Paciencia was tricked or forced into signing the
Will.60

_______________
55 Id., at pp. 18-19.
56 Records, pp. 220-246.
57 Id., at p. 246.
58 Id., at pp. 245-246.
59 CA Rollo, p. 185.
60 Id., at p. 188.

261

VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 261

Baltazar vs. Laxa

Petitioners moved for reconsideration61 but

the motion was denied by the CA in its
Resolution62 dated August 31, 2006.
Hence, this petition.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

Issues

Petitioners come before this Court by 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’S UTTER FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH SECTION 11, RULE 76 OF THE RULES OF
COURT;
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN MAKING CONCLUSIONS
NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE
ON RECORD;
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT
PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THAT
PACIENCIA WAS NOT OF SOUND MIND AT THE
TIME 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.

_______________
61 Id., at pp. 193-199.
62 Id., at p. 212.
63 Rollo, p. 18.

262
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Baltazar vs. Laxa

Faithful compliance with the formalities

laid down by law is apparent from the
face of the Will.
Courts are tasked to determine nothing
more than the extrinsic validity of a Will in
probate proceedings.64 This is expressly
provided for in Rule 75, Section 1 of the Rules
of Court, which states:

Rule 75
Production of Will. Allowance of
Will Necessary.
“Section  1.  Allowance necessary. Conclusive as
to execution.—No will shall pass 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 will or its extrinsic

validity pertains to whether the testator, being
of sound mind, freely executed the will in
accordance with the formalities prescribed by
law.65 These formalities are enshrined in
Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code, to
wit:

“Art.  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.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

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.

_______________
64 Pastor, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 207 Phil. 758, 766; 122
SCRA 885, 897 (1983).
65 Id.

263

VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 263

Baltazar vs. Laxa

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.
Art.   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.”

Here, a careful examination of the face of

the Will shows faithful compliance with the
formalities laid down by law. The signatures of
the testatrix, Paciencia, her instrumental
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

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, even the petitioners acceded that the
signature of Paciencia in the Will may be
authentic although they question her state of
mind when she signed the same as well 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 effectively stripped
her of testamentary capacity. They likewise
claimed

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Baltazar vs. Laxa

in their Motion for Reconsideration66 filed with

the CA that Paciencia was not only “magulyan”
but was actually 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 Will.68
Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

unsound mind. Besides, Article 799 of the New

Civil Code states:

“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.”

In this case, apart from the testimony of

Rosie pertaining to Paciencia’s forgetfulness,
there is no substantial evidence, medical or
otherwise, that would show that Paciencia was
of unsound mind at the time of the execution of
the Will. On the other hand, we find more
worthy of credence Dra. Limpin’s testimony as
to the soundness of mind of Paciencia when the
latter went to Judge Limpin’s house and
voluntarily executed the Will. “The testimony
of subscribing witnesses to a Will concerning
the testator’s mental condition is entitled to
great weight where they are truthful and
intelligent.”69 More importantly, a testator is
presumed to be of sound mind at the time

_______________
66 CA Rollo, pp. 193-199.
67 Id., at pp. 194-195.
68 Torres and Lopez de Bueno v. Lopez, 48 Phil. 772, 810
(1926); Sancho v. Abella, 58 Phil.728, 732-733 (1933).
69 Id., at p. 811.

265

VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 265

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

Baltazar vs. Laxa

of the execution of the Will and the burden to

prove otherwise lies on the oppositor. Article
800 of the New Civil Code states:

“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.”

Here, there was no showing that Paciencia

was publicly known to be insane one month or
less before the making of the Will. Clearly,
thus, the burden to prove that Paciencia was of
unsound mind lies upon the shoulders of
petitioners. However and as earlier mentioned,
no substantial evidence was presented by them
to prove the same, thereby warranting the CA’s
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 character of the testamentary
act. As 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 customs
of her faith be observed upon her death. She was
well aware of how she acquired the properties from
her parents and the properties she is bequeathing to

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

LORENZO, to his wife CORAZON and to his two (2)

children. A third child was born after 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

_______________
70 CA Rollo, pp. 185-186.

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Baltazar vs. Laxa

trickery cannot be used as basis to

deny the probate of a will.
An essential element of the validity of the
Will 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 Will under duress or
influence of fear or threats; that the execution
of the Will had been procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence by Lorenzo or
by some other persons for his benefit; and that
assuming Paciencia’s signature to be genuine,
it was obtained through fraud or trickery.
These are grounded on the alleged conversation
between Paciencia and Antonio on September
16, 1981 wherein the former purportedly
repudiated the Will and left it unsigned.
We are not persuaded.
We take into consideration the unrebutted
fact that Paciencia loved and treated Lorenzo
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

as her own son and that love even extended to

Lorenzo’s wife and children. This kind of
relationship is not unusual. It is in fact not
unheard of in our culture for old maids or
spinsters to care for and raise their nephews
and nieces and treat them as their own
children. Such is a prevalent and accepted
cultural practice that has resulted in many
family discords between those favored by the
testamentary disposition of a testator and
those who stand to benefit in case of intestacy.
In this case, evidence shows the
acknowledged fact that Paciencia’s 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 abroad, 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 document as against
petitioners’ allegations of duress, influence of
fear or threats, undue and improper influence,
pressure,

267

VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 267

Baltazar vs. Laxa

fraud, and trickery which, aside from being

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 evidence cannot
suffice to move the Court to uphold said
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

allegations.71 Furthermore, “a purported will is

not [to be] denied legalization on dubious
grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of
testamentary succession will be shaken to its
foundation, for even if a will has been duly
executed in fact, whether x  x  x it will be
probated would have to depend largely on the
attitude of those interested in [the estate of the
deceased].”72
Court should be convinced by the
evidence presented before 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 Court 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 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

_______________
71 Gonzales Vda. de Precilla v. Narciso, supra note 1 at p. 445;
pp. 542-543.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 26/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

72 Id., at p. 474; pp. 565-566.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Baltazar vs. Laxa

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.”
(Emphasis supplied.)

They insist that all subscribing witnesses

and the notary public should have been
presented in court since all but one witness,
Francisco, are still living.
We cannot agree with petitioners.
We note that the inability of Faustino and
Judge Limpin to appear and testify before the
court was satisfactorily explained during the
probate proceedings. As testified to by his son,
Faustino had a heart 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 certificate. For her part, Dra. Limpin
testified that her father, 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
remember his daughter’s name so that Dra.
Limpin stated that given such condition, her
father could no longer testify. It is well to note
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 27/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

that at that point, despite ample opportunity,

petitioners neither interposed any objections to
the testimonies of said witnesses nor
challenged the same on cross examination. We
thus hold 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’s Will may be allowed on the basis of
Dra. Limpin’s testimony proving her sanity and
the due execution of the Will, as well as on the
proof of her handwriting. It is an established
rule that “[a] testament may not be disallowed
just because the attesting witnesses declare
against its due execution; neither does it have
to be necessar-
269

VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 269

Baltazar vs. Laxa

ily allowed just because all the attesting

witnesses declare in favor of its legalization;
what is decisive is that the court is convinced
by evidence before it, not necessarily from the
attesting witnesses, although they must testify,
that the will was or was not duly executed in
the manner required by law.”73
Moreover, it bears stressing that
“[i]rrespective x x x of the posture of any of the
parties as regards the authenticity and due
execution of the will x x x in question, it is the
mandate of the law that it is the evidence
before the court and/or [evidence that] ought to
be before it that is controlling.”74 “The very
existence of [the Will] is in itself prima facie
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 28/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

proof that the supposed [testatrix] has willed

that [her] estate be distributed in the manner
therein provided, and it is incumbent upon the
state that, if legally tenable, such desire be
given full effect independent of the attitude of
the parties affected thereby.”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 self-serving testimonies, constrain
us to tilt the balance in favor of the
authenticity of the Will and its allowance for
probate.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
Decision dated June 15, 2006 and the
Resolution dated August 31, 2006 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80979 are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De

Castro, Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ.,
concur. 

Petition denied, judgment and resolution

affirmed. 

_______________
73 Id., at p. 452; p. 548.
74 Id., at p. 453; p. 548.
75 Id., at p. 473; p. 565.

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Baltazar vs. Laxa

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 29/30
9/8/21, 2:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669

Notes.—The object of solemnities

surrounding the execution of wills is to close
the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of wills and testaments and to
guarantee their truth and authenticity. (Lee vs.
Tambago, 544 SCRA 393 [2008]).
The choice of his executor is a precious
prerogative of a testator, a necessary
concomitant of his right to dispose of his
property in the manner he wishes. (Republic vs.
Marcos II, 595 SCRA 43 [2009]).

——o0o—— 

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc40b8b276a60976f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 30/30