Santos vs.

Manarang (1914)
The Jealous Brother
1 PHIL 689 | G.R. No. L-8235 | 19 March 1914
Prepared by: Richard Troy A. Colmenares, 9 July 2014
Professor: Atty. Elijo Herrera-Bellones
University of San Agustin, College of Law
AY 2015-2016

NATURE OF THE CASE

Appeal

FACTS
Parties
Plaintiff-Appellant

Defendant-Appellee

ISIDRO SANTOS

LEANDRA MANARANG

Decedent

Don Lucas de Ocampo (+); The Testator

Relationship to Decedent
1. P
a.

Timeline
1894

1903

2 DEC

5 DEC

7 DEC

12 DEC

10 FEB

Events
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

When Juana received Sacraments from Fr. Alba

Execution of will; Allegedly, The Testatrix was over 80
Alleged Death of The Testatrix
Actual Death of The Testatrix as per evidence
Court Decision
Dispositive Portion

Upon these grounds we hold that judgment must be for the defendant, declaring the will executed
by Doa Juana Espinosa on the 5th of December, 1894, to be valid and efficacious, without
special imposition of costs.

The Estate
The Story
Don Lucas de Ocampo died on November 18, 1906, possessed of certain real and personal property
which, by his last will and testament dated July 26, 1906, he left to his three children. The fourth clause of
this will reads as follows:
I also declare that I have contracted the debts detailed below, and it is my desire that they may be
religiously paid by my wife and executors in the form and at the time agreed upon with my
creditors.
Among the debts, two in favor of the plaintiff, Isidro Santos. In his petition, asking that the committee be
reconvened to consider his claims, plaintiff states that his failure to present the said claims to the
committee was due to his belief that it was unnecessary to do so because of the fact that the testator, in
his will, expressly recognized them and directed that they should be paid.
He alleges that the committee on claims should have been reconvened to pass upon his claim against the
estate. It is clear that this committee has nothing to do with legacies. It is true that a debt may be left as a
legacy, either to the debtor, or to a third person. But this case can only arise when the debt is an asset of
the estate.
Contention

Reason

1. Incapacity of The Testatrix

age >80 years old

so ill that she could not speak
three days before Event B, she received the
sacraments from Fr. Alba (Event A)
two days after Event B, she died
she stooped
gave contradictory orders as a result of senile
debility

2. Incapacity of The Notary Public

did not understand the Visayan dialect

3. Incapacity of the Three Witnesses

not having perfect knowledge of the Spanish

language

4. Incapacity of The Interpreter

he was in fact the amanuensis1 (assistant) of The

Notary Public, and the services he rendered is not
as interpreter
he wrote the will

1 amanuensis (manywenss) - a literary or artistic assistant, in particular one who takes dictation or
copies manuscripts.

This violates Art. 681(8), [Old] Civil Code

5. Substantial and formal defect of the will

absence of two physicians

absence of Interpreter to translate the will

ISSUE(s)
2

1. Could an octogenarian in the pathological condition peculiar to that age possess sufficient mental
faculties to permit her to dispose of her property causa mortis?

HELD
1. No. The only fact proven by oral evidence and The Expert Witness was that The Testatrix stooped while
she was walking. All the other contentions have been rejected as follows:

Ruling on Contention
1. The Testatrix was not incapacitated.

Court Findings
all that was proved was that she stooped while
walking
that she died on a date different from that alleged
(Event D)
"The Code might have adopted either one of two
systems [with respect to the mental capacity of the
testator] - that of establishing as a general rule the
presumption of soundness of the mental faculties
until the contrary be proven, or that of presuming
mental weakness in the absence of proof that the
act was performed while the mental faculties were
in their normal condition. Under the first
presumption a will made should be declared valid
in all cases, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary. Under the second it would have to be
considered as void upon the presumption that it
was executed by a person demented, unless the
contrary is shown. The Code has adopted the first
system as being the most rational, by accepting
the principle that mental soundness is always to
be presumed with respect to a person who has not
been previously incapacitated until the contrary is
demonstrated and proven by the proper person
and the correctness of this choice is beyond
doubt; in the meantime the intervention of the
notary and the witnesses constitutes a true
guaranty of the capacity of the testator, by reason
of their knowledge of the matter.

2 octogenarian (ktjnern) - a person who is from 80 to 89 years old

2. The Notary Public was not Incapacitated.

This is not a ground for annulment of a public

instrument, either in
Spanish notaries
Filipino notaries

3. Three Witnesses were not Incapacitated.

This is not a ground for annulment, nor does it

make them incompetent
This was not proven
They knew the dialect of the Testatrix and
understood Spanish which is in accordance with
Article 681 (5) of the [Old] Civil Code

4. The Interpreter was not Incapacitated.

The prohibition is not applicable to the the

Interpreter.
His services were only availed of for the
execution, drafting and legalization of the will

5. No substantial and formal defect in the will.

The presence of two physicians is only needed

when the testatrix is demented. In this case, she
was not. All that was proven was she stooped
while walking.
The presence of interpreters was unnecessary.
This is only a requisite for the execution of a will in
a foreign language. Neither Castillian nor Visayan
are foreign languages.