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.
Pursuant to Article 800 of the New Civil Code, every person is
presumed to be 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.
Courts are tasked to
determine nothing more than the extrinsic validity of a Will in probate
proceedings.
xxx 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. xxx (BALTAZAR vs. LAXA, G.R. No.174489, April 11, 2012)
No comments:
Post a Comment