BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

MATIAS, JUDEL ARSENIO

2A

G.R. No. 4445 SEPTEMBER 18, 19O9

CATALINA BUGNAO v. FRANCISCO UBAG, ET AL.

CARSON, J.

FACTS:

Domingo Ubag left a last will and testament and was admitted to probate in which his
brothers and sisters contested led by Francisco Ubag. The challenged will stated that Catalina
Ubag, the testator’s wife, was designated as his sole beneficiary, leaving nothing to his
siblings who are entitled to share in the distribution of his estate since he left no heirs.

Catalina Bugnao, appellee, submitted that the said document was signed by the testator in the
presence of three subscribing and attesting witnesses, and appears upon its face to have been
duly executed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Two of the
subscribing witnesses, Victor J. Bingtoy and Catalino Mariño, testified in support of the will,
the latter being the justice of the peace of the municipality wherein it was executed; and their
testimony was corroborated in all important details by the testimony of the proponent herself,
who was present when the will was made. The subscribing witnesses gave full and detailed
accounts of the execution of the will and swore that the testator, at the time of its execution,
was of sound mind and memory, and in their presence attached his signature thereto as his lat
will and testament, and that in his presence and in the presence of each other, they as well as
the third subscribing witness.

The appellants alleged that Ubag, being physically and mentally incapable due to his
sickness, was not of sound mind and memory when he signed the said document. Thus, it was
not executed in conformity with the manner and form prescribed under Section 618 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The witnesses’ credibility was also questioned as they both had
different manifestations as to the signing of the will. One of which said that the testator sat up
in bed, then signed his name, and then was fed by his wife; while the other stating that he was
assisted into a sitting position, was given something to eat before he signed his name. To
corroborate the incapacity of the testator, they were able to present four witnesses who
allegedly saw the execution of the will. Two of them were not present at the time the will was
executed and the remaining were the appellant himself and his close relative.

In addition to the witnesses presented, a genuine authentic signature of the deceased was
admitted as evidence for comparison with the signature attached to the will. However, no
expert witness was called to confirm the veracity of the said signatures.
ISSUE:

Whether the effect of old age, infirmity or disease establishes the lack of testamentary
capacity of the testator in executing his last will and testament, thus, rendering the said
instrument invalid.

RULING:

The Court ruled in the negative. It was found that the testator was mentally capable of
making the will as established by the testimony of the subscribing witnesses who swore
positively that, at the time of its execution, he was of sound mind and memory. It is true that
their testimony discloses the fact that he was at the time extremely ill, in an advanced stage of
tuberculosis complicated with severe intermittent attacks of asthma; that he was too sick to
rise unaided from his bed; that he needed assistance even to rise himself to a sitting position;
and that during the paroxysms of asthma to which he was subject he could not speak; but all
this evidence of physical weakness in no wise establishes his mental incapacity or a lack of
testamentary capacity, and indeed the evidence of the subscribing witnesses as to the aid
furnished them by the testator in preparing the will, and his clear recollection of the
boundaries and physical description of the various parcels of land set out therein, taken
together with the fact that he was able to give to the person who wrote the will clear and
explicit instructions as to his desires touching the disposition of his property, is strong
evidence of his testamentary capacity.

The Court is in the opinion that the evidence of record establishes in a strikingly conclusive
manner the execution of the instrument propounded as the last will and testament of the
deceased; that it was made in strict conformity with the requisites prescribed by law; and that,
at the time of its execution, the deceased was of sound mind and memory, and executed the
instrument of his own free will and accord.

The order probating the will should be land is hereby affirmed, with the cost of this instance
against the appellants.