FIRST DIVISION
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,
- versus -
LORENZO LAXA,
D E C I S I O N
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]
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[2] of the
June 15, 2006 Decision[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 80979
which reversed the September 30, 2003 Decision[4] 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
Resolution[6] 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.
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 signature at the end of the said document on
page 3[8] 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
clause[10] and on the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 thereof,[11] in the
presence of 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 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 petition[14] 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, 2000[15] allowing Lorenzo to
present evidence on June 22, 2000. On
said date, Dra. Limpin testified that she was one of 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 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 opposition[22] to Lorenzo’s petition. Antonio averred that the properties subject
of Paciencia’s Will belong to Nicomeda Regala Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-interest;
hence, Paciencia had no right to bequeath them to Lorenzo.[23]
Barely a month after or on July 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 Opposition[24] 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
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 Opposition[28] 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 Recommendation[29]
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 Order[30] 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 father at
the time the latter notarized the Will of Paciencia; the living arrangements of
Paciencia at the time of the execution of the Will; and the lack of photographs
when the event took place. [31]
Aside from Dra. Limpin, Lorenzo and Monico Mercado (Monico) 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, 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 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.
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.[39]
On 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, 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 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
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 Decision[56]
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
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]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration[61] but the motion was
denied by the CA in its Resolution[62] dated August 31, 2006.
Hence, this petition.
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 EXECUTED[63]
The
pivotal issue is whether the authenticity and due execution of the notarial
Will was sufficiently established to warrant its allowance for probate.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
Faithful compliance with the formalities
laid 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.
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.
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 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 in their Motion for
Reconsideration[66] 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 necessarily 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 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.