1. MANUEL TORRES and LUZ LOPEZ DE BUENO vs.

MARGARITA LOPEZ
G.R. No. L-24569

FACTS:
 Tomas Rodriguez's health deteriorated due to organic weakness, age, and an
accident in 1921.
 On August 10, 1923, he appointed Vicente F. Lopez as his property administrator.
 Margarita Lopez, the cousin of the deceased petitioned for Rodriguez's guardianship
on the grounds:
(1) That the testator lacked mental capacity because at the time of senile
dementia and was under guardianship;
(2) that undue influence had been exercised by the persons benefited in
thedocument in conjunction with others who acted in their behalf; and
(3) that the signature of Tomas Rodriguez to the document was obtained
through fraud and deceit.
 Despite objections, a judge declared Rodriguez incapacitated and appointed Vicente
F. Lopez as his guardian.
 Rodriguez was hospitalized at the Philippine General Hospital, diagnosed with
senility, hernia, and bedsores.
 He expressed a desire to make a will, arranged by Santiago Lopez, but it remained
unexecuted due to the attorney's absence.
 Conflicting accounts emerged regarding the execution of Rodriguez's will, with Dr.
Elias Bonoan suggesting undue influence from Luz Lopez de Bueno (his niece),
while others provided a different version of events.
 Rodriguez passed away, potentially leading to estate disputes between factions
represented by Luz Lopez and Margarita Lopez.
 Medical experts had differing opinions on Rodriguez's mental state and capacity to
execute the will, as evidenced by conflicting findings from the Calderon and De Los
Angeles committees.
I. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY
 In the case of Butalid's will, the document was contested due to concerns about
Dominga Butalid's mental state at the time of execution. She was over 90 years old,
seriously ill, and unable to communicate. Despite this, the Chief Justice ultimately
declared the will valid after reviewing the evidence.
 Similarly, in Bugnao vs. Ubag, the court accepted the testimony of witnesses
affirming the testator's sound mind at the time of will execution. Justice Carson
articulated legal principles emphasizing that testamentary capacity is not absolute but
rather a matter of degree, with varying levels of mental capacity considered.
 In Nagtas vs. Paquio, despite the testator's physical ailments such as paralysis,
impaired hearing, and loss of speech, the court admitted the will to probate. Justice
Trent highlighted the universality of legal and medical authorities in recognizing
testamentary capacity as a continuum, not requiring perfect mental faculties.
 In Ames' Will, despite the testator's declaration of incompetency by a court and his
physical and mental decline due to age and illness, the court upheld the will,
emphasizing that mental incapacity must be established conclusively.
 In Wilson vs. Mitchell, although the testator suffered from extreme old age, paralysis,
blindness, and cognitive decline, the court deemed the will valid, stressing that
testamentary capacity is not negated solely by physical or mental weakness.
 These cases illustrate that testamentary capacity is a nuanced concept, requiring
understanding and memory sufficient to comprehend the act of making a will and its
 implications. While age, illness, and infirmity may affect mental faculties, they do not
automatically invalidate a will if the testator demonstrates sufficient understanding
and memory. Ultimately, the burden of proving mental incapacity lies with those
contesting the will, and the courts uphold testamentary rights unless incapacity is
established conclusively.
II. UNDUE INFLUENCE
 The trial judge found that there was evidence of undue influence exerted by
individuals benefiting from the will, along with others. This finding was a basis for the
judge's decision. Tomas Rodriguez voluntarily appointed Vicente F. Lopez as his
administrator, who later became his guardian. Rodriguez appeared to have
significant trust in Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter, Luz Lopez de Bueno, who
played roles in the preparation and execution of the will. The Lopez faction also
controlled access to Rodriguez through Doctor Domingo's orders. The trial judge
speculated about a preconceived plan to obtain Rodriguez's signature for the will, but
it seemed unlikely that reputable individuals involved in the process would engage in
such behavior, especially considering Rodriguez's apparent enmity toward certain
relatives.
 Law: Undue influence, as outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil
Code, refers to pressure or influence that compels a testator to act against their will
due to fear, desire for peace, or other emotions they cannot resist. However, the
court ultimately rejected the theory of undue influence, concluding that it was not
proven.
ISSUE:
WON Tomas Rodriguez has testamentary capacity to consider the will valid.
RULING:
Yes. Tomas Rodriguez has testamentary capacity to constitute a will. Though there was
conflict of medical opinions on the soundness of mind of the testator. Drs. Calderon,
Domingo,Herrera claimed that testator had full understanding of the acts he was performing
and that they were witnesses in the said signing of the will. Code of Civil procedure
prescribes a requisite that the testator be of “sound mind”, a sound mind is a disposing mind.
One of the grounds of disallowing a will is if the testator is insane or otherwise incapable of
the execution. With such the Court has adopted a definition of “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 .The presumption is
that every adult is sane. It is only when those seeking to overthrow the will have clearly
established the charge of mental incapacity that the courts will intervene to set aside a
testamentary document.
 2. De Jesus vs. Court of Appeals, 491 SCRA 325 (2006)
FACTS:
 Dispute over ownership and partition of land left by deceased grandparents.
 Respondents, legitimate children of Fermin de Jesus, seek partition of inherited land.
 Pastor de Jesus claims Fermin sold his share to him and his sister Consolacion
through a Deed of Sale.
 Respondents contest validity of Deed, alleging forgery of Fermin's signatures.
 Witnesses, including Fermin's children and handwriting expert, testify on signature
authenticity.
 Trial court nullifies Deed, citing signature discrepancies and testimonial
inconsistencies.
 Court of Appeals affirms decision, noting irregularities in Deed preparation.
CA stated that the rule that “a notarized document is admissible in evidence without
proof of its due execution and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents” is
not absolute and may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary”.

ISSUE:
Whether the Deed of Sale, which the petitioner claimed gave him ownership of the
disputed property, is valid or null and void due to evidence of forgery in the
signatures on the document.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's appeal and upheld the decision of the
lower courts.
The court decision rested on the testimonies of witnesses and the visual inspection of
signatures conducted by the lower courts. A handwriting expert testified that the signatures
on the Deed of Sale did not match Fermin's standard signatures. Additionally, the court
considered the inconsistent and unreliable testimonies of the petitioner and his witnesses, as
well as irregularities in document preparation. Consequently, the court concluded that the
Deed of Sale was voided due to the forged signatures and was not legally binding on
individuals who were not part of the agreement or informed about it.
3. JALLALUDIN ABDULRAHMAN GULAM, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES CATALINO and RICARDA SANTOS,
Respondents.
Facts:
The petitioner, Jallaludin Abdulrahman Gulam, entered into a Contract to Sell with the respondents,
Spouses Catalino and Ricarda Santos, for a parcel of land and a townhouse in Sampaloc, Manila. The
agreed price was P1,700,000.00. Gulam claimed to have paid the full price, amounting to
P2,050,000.00, but the respondents contested that only P1,100,000.00 had been paid.
Consequently, Gulam filed an action for Specific Performance to compel the execution of a final
deed of sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered the rescission of the contract, a
decision which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) with modifications on the damages
awarded.
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner had fully paid the stipulated price under the Contract to Sell,
entitling him to the execution of a final deed of sale.
2. Whether the presentation of alleged overpayment through checks and contested receipts
was credible.
Rulings:
1. Full Payment Issue: The court found that the petitioner failed to prove overpayment. The
contention centered on a receipt allegedly acknowledging a payment of P500,000.00, which
the trial court did not consider credible. It concurred with the respondents that the
petitioner had not paid the full purchase price, noting discrepancies in the payments claimed
by the petitioner and the lack of credible evidence to support such claims.
2. Credibility of Payment Evidence: The court gave no credence to the receipt dated March 9,
1994, alleged by the petitioner, ruling it as forgery. It highlighted the petitioner's failure to
establish his claim of overpayment through credible evidence. The testimonies and the
documentary evidence presented were not sufficient to overturn the findings of the lower
courts, which were not proven to be incorrect or done with grave abuse of discretion.
Court's Basis:
The court’s decision was anchored on the principle that factual findings of lower courts are binding
when they are in concurrence, especially in the absence of any showing that the findings are devoid
of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not
typically review the evidence considered in the proceedings below if the lower courts' findings are
consistent with each other unless there is a clear showing of oversight, misapprehension, or
misapplication of facts or law. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate
any reversible error in the factual findings and legal conclusions of the RTC and CA, especially
regarding the assessment of the credibility of evidence concerning the alleged full payment.
The court also underscored the application of Article 1191 of the Civil Code, which allows the
rescission of reciprocal obligations when one of the parties fails to comply with their commitments.
The introduction of a forged document (the contested receipt) was deemed a substantial breach of
the reciprocal obligations, justifying the rescission of the contract.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision, which upheld the
trial court’s ruling on rescission of the contract due to the petitioner's failure to prove full payment
and compliance with the contractual terms.
 5. Testate Estate of Tampoy vs. Alberastine
GR L- 14322
Facts:
 Petronilia Tampoy asked Bonigfacia Miñoza to read her will and
explain it’s content in the presence of 3 witnesses namely:
 Rosario K. Chan
 Mauricio de la Peña; and
 Simeon Omboy

 The will consists of two pages, with the last page duly signed by the
testatrix (also boar her thumbmark) and the three testimonial
witnesses who also signed the first page
 However, the testatrix failed to sign and bore her thumbmark on
the left margin of the first page.

TRIAL COURT
 Denied petition for probate because testatrix failed to bear his
thumbmark on the left margin of the first page.
 After the petition for probate was denied by the trial court due to
this defect, the petitioner appealed the ruling.

Issue:
 Can the will be considered valid despite the testatrix’s failure to sign
and bear her thumbmark on the left margin of the first page?

Ruling:
 The court ruled that the will was not executed in accordance with
the law and therefore cannot be admitted to probate.
 The requirement under Section 618 of Act 190, as amended, states
that the testator must sign the will and each and every page thereof
in the presence of the witnesses.
 Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the validity of the
will.
 The court emphasized that statutes prescribing the formalities for
executing wills are strictly construed, and all the requirements must
be observed.
 The court does not have the power to add or dispense with any of
the statutory requirements
 7. ALVARADO vs HON. GAVIOLA JR. 44 SCAD 731
FACTS:
• In 1977, Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will disinheriting an illegitimate son and
revoking a holographic will.
• The notarial will was read aloud by the lawyer (private respondent), witnessed by three
instrumental witnesses and a notary public.
• A codicil was later executed, making changes to the notarial will, with the same reading
process.
• Upon Alvarado's death, a petition for probate was filed, opposed by the illegitimate son on
various grounds.
• The probate order was issued when the opposition failed to substantiate its claims.
• An appeal was made, arguing that Alvarado was blind when the will and codicil were
executed, and Art. 808 was not complied with.
Art. 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.

 The petitioner argued that despite Brigido Alvarado not being completely blind when
he executed the will and codicil, he should be considered "blind" within the context of Art.
808. This argument was supported by a medical certificate from Dr. Salvador R. Salceda,
interpreted by Dr. Ruperto Roasa, stating that Alvarado could only visualize fingers at
three feet and could no longer read printed or handwritten materials as of December 14,
1977.

• The Court of Appeals found Alvarado was not blind at the time and that there was
substantial compliance with Art. 808, thus affirming the probate decision.
ISSUE:
WON Brigido Alvarado was blind for purpose of Art, 808 at the time his "Huling Habilin" and
its codicil were executed?
If so, was the double-reading requirement of said article complied with?
RULING:
Petition is DENIED, CA ruling is AFFIRMED.

The court held that although Brigido Alvarado was not totally blind, his poor vision rendered him incapable of
reading the final drafts of his will and codicil. Therefore, he falls within the scope of the term "blind" as used in Art.
808. While Art. 808 mandate the will to be read twice to the testator, it was only read once by the lawyer who
drafted the documents. However, the court deemed this as substantial compliance since the purpose of Art.
808—to inform the testator of the will's contents—was achieved. The court emphasized that the formal
imperfections should be disregarded when they do not affect the purpose of the law, which is to
protect the testator's will from fraud and trickery. Hence, the will and codicil were deemed validly executed and
entitled to probate.

DOCTRINES:
1. Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also, to those who, for one reason or
another, are “incapable of reading their wills”
2. The purpose of reading the will twice is to make known to the incapacitated testator
the contents of the document before signing and to give him an opportunity to object
if anything is contrary to his instructions.
3. 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.
4. Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation- Although there should be strict compliance with
the substantial requirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of the will,
the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose
and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the testator’s will.