Trinidad Neyra vs. Teodora Neyra et. al.

C.A. No. 4, March 21, 1946

Doctrine: Testamentary Capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the
testator is engaged at that time, to recollect the property being disposed of, and the persons who would naturally
be supposed to have claims upon him/her, and to comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distribute
his/her property.
Where the mind of the testator is in perfectly sound condition, neither old age, nor ill health, nor the fact someone
had to guide his/her hand in order that he/she may sign, is sufficient to invalidate the will.
Recit-Ready Summary:
Encarnacion and Trinidad Neyra are sisters who inherited various properties from their father, and their
relationship had been strained due to the many quarrels they had regarding their inheritance – so much so that
they had sued each other in two separate cases before the CFI. Meanwhile, Encarnacion executed a will in 1939
which totally excluded and made no mention of her sister Trinidad, instead she instituted a religious order of nuns
and other relatives as the beneficiaries of her last will and testament. Some years later, she and her sister were
reconciled and agreed to drop the charges against each other and finally agreed as to how they will share and
distribute their inheritance from their father – this was evidenced by a new will which Encarnacion duly executed
in the presence of Trinidad and other witnesses in her home in 1942. The very next day Encarnacion died and
subsequently, the beneficiaries of the first will opposed the probation of the 1942 will mainly alleging the
inadmissibility of said will because Encarnacion was no longer possessed testamentary capacity when it was
executed. They further allege that the procurement of Encarnacion’s thumbmark on the will was only made
possible by fraud, and that the sisters were unlikely to reconcile given their longstanding and deep-seeded rift.
The lower court ordered to have the 1942 will admitted for probation and the first will of 1939 rejected. The issue
is whether or not the latter will is valid and thus admissible for probation.
The Court ruled in the affirmative stating that the evidence shows that Encarnacion was in a perfectly
sound condition when she executed the latter will – even though she had been suffering from Addison’s disease
(adrenal gland disorder) for two years, she was bedridden, and even though she needed to be assisted in affixing
her thumbmark on the will. The various testimonies of the witnesses presented by Trinidad all point to the fact
that the will was executed with Encarnacion’s full understanding and consent, within the conformities and
formalities laid down by law, and with full testamentary capacity on the part of the testatrix. Her mental faculties
remained unimpaired even though she was already very ill. The Court further ruled that testimonies presented by
Teodora on the other hand were preposterous, contrary to common sense, and violated all sense of proportion.
More importantly, Teodora and her principal witnesses were all interested parties while the witnesses for the
petitioner Trinidad were all deemed to be trustworthy men with absolutely no interest in the final outcome of the
case. The Court did not find any reason or justification to disturb the findings of the lower court and this ruled to
allow the 1942 will to be probated.
Facts: *please bear with me, the facts were really long and circuitous…parang telenovela!
- Severo Neyra is the father of Encarnacion and Trinidad, and when he died he left his two daughters several
properties from his estate. The two sister had serious quarrels regarding their respective inheritances and this
caused two main lawsuits between the two – the first being where Trinidad assailed the annulment of the sale
Encarnacion made on a property in Manila, this was ruled in favor of the latter. The second case involved a
demand on the part of Trinidad from Encarnacion over the proceeds of the rent over the subject property in
 Manila; the case was awarded in favor of Trinidad but also accorded Encarnacion ½ of the rent proceeds. An
appeal of this case is pending with the CA.
Origins of the 1939 Will
- Because of this vicious feud, Encarnacion drafted a first will in 1939 which had no provision whatsoever in
favor of her sister Trinidad, and instead stipulated that a religious organization of nuns and several other
relatives (including the respondent oppositors Teodora Neyra, Pilar de Guzman, and Maria Jacobo Vda. de
Blanco) be the beneficiaries of her will. The religious congregation declined the bequest, and so one week
before her death Encarnacion summoned one Atty. Ricardo Sikat in order to assist her in preparing a new
will, but only a draft was prepared in the form of a codicil which still named the religious organization as a
beneficiary of the estate. The codicil was sent to the nuns for their reconsideration and acceptance, but the
they would again reject and decline it but this was not made known to Encarnacion before her death.
Origins of the 1942 Will
- Meanwhile Encarnacion became very ill with Addison’s disease (which caused her to sleep a lot and remain
bedridden) and on 1942 sent for her religious adviser and confessor Monsignor Fernandez and requested for a
mass to be said in her home. On November 1, 1942 mass was solemnized in her home in Manila by Fr.
Garcia, who after the mass, advised reconciliation between Encarnacion and her sister Trinidad. On the same
day, Trinidad went to Encarnacion’s house and the two greeted each other affectionately and reconciled –
during their lengthy talk it was decided that they would have the appeal pending before the CA dismissed and
that the two would renounce their mutual claims against one another. The two sisters also sent for Atty.
Alejandro Panis to prepare the necessary documents embodying their agreement, but Atty. Panis came only
on the next day.
- On November 2, 1942 Atty. Panis was instructed by Encarnacion to prepare the document regarding her and
Trinidad’s agreement the previous day and also, the drafting of a new will and testament where she intended
to include Trinidad a beneficiary of her estate. The next day November 3, the documents were ready for
signature and Atty. Panis read the will in a loud voice in front of Encarnacion and also in the presence of Fr.
Garcia, Dr. Abad, and Trinidad. After which Encarnacion stated that the will was in accordance with her
wishes and express instructions and asked for the ink pad in order for her to place her thumb mark at the end
of the will. Her nephew, Trinidad’s son, helped her in doing so by guiding her hand from the ink pad to the
documents. The next day, Encarnacion died suddenly of a heart attack, after battling Addison’s disease for
two years.
Testimony of Oppositors Teodora and Other Witnesses
- Teodora, together with other witnesses they presented, testified that when the thumbmark of Encarnacion was
affixed to the alleged revised will, she was sleeping on her bed in the sala of the house while the supposed
witnesses to the will were in the next room. They also averred that Encarnacion’s thumbmark was only
affixed on the morning of November 4, by Trinidad and another person, when the former was already dead.
Furthermore the testimonies of the oppositors insinuated that there could be no possible reconciliation
between the two because of the vicious feud that the two had over the course of several years. There main
contentions are that 1) at the time of the execution of the 1942 will, Encarnacion no longer had testamentary
capacity; 2) thumbmarks were procured through fraud by Trinidad, and that Encarnacion never intended such
document to be a will; 3) said 1942 will was not in conformity with formalities required by law; and 4) that
the 1939 will, which named oppositors as beneficiaries, was never revoked nor amended in anyway
whatsoever.
- The lower court ruled to admit the 1942 will into probate while rejecting the 1939 will.
Issue:
1. WON the 1942 will is valid and admitted to probation.
Held:
- THE 1942 WILL IS VALID, and this will be the basis for the probate proceedings of Encarnacion’s estate.
The conclusion of the trial court that the decedent Encarnacion was of sound mind and possessed
testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the subject will cannot be properly disturbed. The
fact that Encarnacion was suffering from the late stages of Addison’s disease does not by itself invalidate her
actions with regard to the execution of her last will and testament. The mental faculties of persons suffering
from Addison's disease, like the decedent in this case, remain unimpaired, partly due to the fact that, on
account of the sleep they enjoy, they necessarily receive the benefit of physical and mental rest. And that like
patients suffering from tuberculosis, insomnia or diabetes, they preserve their mental faculties until the
moments of their death.
- Presentacion Blanco, in the course of her cross-examination, admitted that in the morning and also at about 6
o'clock in the afternoon of November 3, 1942, Encarnacion talked to her and that they understood each
other clearly, thus showing that the testatrix was really of sound mind, at the time of the signing and
execution of the agreement and will in question. Where the mind of the testator is in perfectly sound
condition, the mere fact that someone had to assist her in signing/affixing her thumbmark on the will is not
sufficient to invalidate such execution.
- The Court further found that the oppositors, who were the beneficiaries of the previous and now defunct will,
were banking on the “common belief that hatred amongst relatives is the most violent” and that the two sisters
were never realistically going to ever resolve their differences. Furthermore, the oppositors as well as their
principal witnesses were all interested parties while on the other hand the witnesses for petitioner Trinidad
were all found to be trustworthy men who had absolutely no interest in the final outcome of this case. The
allegations of the oppositors were found by the Court to be “preposterous” and the testimonies “contrary to
common sense… [and] violates all sense of proportion”. They had testified brazen falsehoods and are
unworthy of belief, and as to the evidence they presented, the applicable rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibuss
(false in one thing, false in everything), applies.
- In the present case, the Court cannot find any reason or justification to alter the conclusions set forth decision
of the lower court and will not reverse any findings of fact by said court made upon conflicting testimony and
depending largely upon the credibility of witnesses.