Bugnao v Ubag

8/20/2019 Bugnao v Ubag

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bugnao-v-ubag 1/7

G.R. No. 4445 September 18, 1909

CATALINA BUGNAO, proponent-appellee,

vs.

FRANCISCO UBAG, ET AL., contestants-appellants.

Rodriguez and Del Rosario for appellants.

Fernando Salas for appellee.

CARSON, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros, admitting to

probate a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Domingo bag, deceased.

The instrument was propounded b! his widow, Catalina "ugnao, the sole bene#ciar! thereunder,

and probate was contested b! the appellants, who are brothers and sisters of the deceased, andwho would be entitled to share in the distribution of his estate, if probate were denied, as it

appears that the deceased left no heirs in the direct ascending or descending line.

$ppellants contend that the evidence of record is not su%cient to establish the e&ecution of the

alleged will in the manner and form prescribed in section '() of the Code of Civil *rocedure+ and

that at the time when it is alleged that the will was e&ecuted, bag was not of sound mind and

memor!, and was ph!sicall! and mentall! incapable of maing a will.

The instrument propounded for probate purports to be the last will and testament of Domingo

bag, signed b! him in the presence of three subscribing and attesting witnesses, and appears

upon its face to have been dul! e&ecuted in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil

*rocedure touching the maing of wills.

Two of the subscribing witnesses, ictor . "ingto! and Catalino /ari0o, testi#ed in support of the

will, the latter being the 1ustice of the peace of the municipalit! wherein it was e&ecuted+ and

their testimon! was corroborated in all important details b! the testimon! of the proponent

herself, who was present when the will was made. It does not appear from the record wh! the

third subscribing witness was not called+ but since counsel for the contestants maes no

comment upon his absence, we thin it ma! safel! be inferred that there was some good and

su%cient reason therefore. In passing, however, it ma! be well to observe that, when because of

death, sicness, absence, or for an! other reason, it is not practicable to call to the witness stand

all the subscribing witnesses to a will o2ered for probate, the reason for the absence of an! of

(



these witnesses should be made to appear of record, and this especiall! in cases such as the one

at bar, wherein there is a contests.

The subscribing witnesses gave full and detailed accounts of the e&ecution of the will and swore

that the testator, at the time of its e&ecution, was of sound mind and memor!, and in their

presence attached his signature thereto as his last will and testament, and that in his presence

and in the presence of each other, the! as well as the third subscribing witness. Despite the

searching and e&haustive cross-e&amination to which the! were sub1ected, counsel for

appellants could point to no 3aw in their testimon! save an alleged contradiction as to a single

incident which occurred at or about the time when the will was e&ecuted a contradiction,

however, which we thin is more apparent than real. One of the witnesses stated that the

deceased sat up in bed and signed his name to the will, and that after its e&ecution food was

given him b! his wife+ while the other testi#ed that he was assisted into a sitting position, and

was given something to eat before he signed his name. 4e thin the evidence discloses that his

wife aided the sic man to sit up in bed at the time when he signed his name to the instrument,

and that he was given nourishment while he was in that position, but it is not 5uite clear whether

this was immediatel! before or after, or both before and after he attached his signature to the

will. To sa! that the sic man sat up or raised himself up in bed is not necessaril! in con3ict with

the fact that he received assistance in doing so+ and it is not at all improbable or impossible that

nourishment might have been given to him both before and after signing the will, and that one

witness might remember the former occasion and the other witness might recall the latter,

although neither witness could recall both. "ut, however this ma! have been, we do not thin

that a slight lapse of memor! on the part of one or the other witness, as to the precise details of

an unimportant incident, to which his attention ma! not have been particularl! directed, is

su%cient to raise a doubt as to the veracit! of these witnesses, or as to the truth and accurac! of

their recollection of the fact of the e&ecution of the instrument. Of course, a number of

contradictions in the testimon! of alleged subscribing witnesses to a will as to the circumstances

under which it was e&ecuted, or even a single contradiction as to a particular incident, where the

incident was of such a nature that the intention of an! person who was present must have been

directed to it, and where the contradictor! statements in regard to it are so clear and e&plicit as

to negative the possibilit! or probabilit! of mistae, might well be su%cient to 1ustif! the

conclusion that the witnesses could not possibl! have been present, together, at the time when it

is alleged the will was e&ecuted+ but the apparent contradictions in the testimon! of the

witnesses in the case at bar fall far short of raising a doubt a to their veracit!, and on the other

hand their testimon! as a whole gives such clear, e&plicit, and detailed account of all that

occurred, and is so convincing and altogether satisfactor! that we have no doubt that the trial

6



1udge who heard them testif! properl! accepted their testimon! as worth! of entire con#dence

and belief.

The contestants put upon the stand four witnesses for the purpose of proving that at the time

and on the occasion when the subscribing witnesses testi#ed that the will was e&ecuted, these

witnesses were not in the house with the testator, and that the alleged testator was at that time

in such ph!sical and mental condition that it was impossible for him to have made a will. Two of

these witnesses, upon cross-e&amination, admitted that the! were not in the house at or

between the hours of four and si& in the afternoon of the da! on which the will is alleged to have

been made, this being the time at which the witnesses in support of the will testi#ed that it was

e&ecuted. Of the other witnesses, one is a contestant of the will, /acario bag, a brother of the

testator, and the other, Canuto 7ino!, his close relative. These witnesses swore that the! were in

the house of the deceased, where he was l!ing ill, at or about the time when it is alleged that the

will was e&ecuted, and that at that time the alleged subscribing witnesses were not in the house,

and the alleged testator was so sic that he was unable to spea, to understand, or to mae

himself understood, and that he was wholl! incapacitated to mae a will. "ut the testimon! of

/acario bag is in our opinion wholl! unworth! of credence. In addition to his manifest interest

in the result of the investigation, it clearl! discloses a #&ed and settled purpose to overthrow the

will at all costs, and to that end an utter disregard of the truth, and readiness to swear to an!

fact which he imagined would aid in securing his ob1ect. $n admittedl! genuine and authentic

signature of the deceased was introduced in evidence for comparison with the signature

attached to the will, but this witness in his an&iet! to den! the genuineness of the signature of

his brother to the will, promptl! and positivel! swore that the admittedl! genuine signature was

not his brother8s signature, and onl! corrected his erroneous statement in response to a

somewhat suggestive 5uestion b! his attorne! which evidentl! gave him to understand that his

former answer was liel! to pre1udice his own cause. On cross-e&amination, he was forced to

admit that because his brother and his brother8s wife 9in those favor the will was made: were

$glipa!anos, he and his other brothers and sisters had not visited them for man! months prior to

the one particular occasion as to which testi#ed+ and he admitted further, that, although he lived

near at hand, at no time thereafter did he or an! of the other members of his famil! visit their

d!ing brother, and that the! did not even attend the funeral. If the testimon! of this witness

could be accepted as true, it would be a remarable coincidence indeed, that the subscribing

witnesses to the alleged will should have falsel! pretended to have 1oined in its e&ecution on the

ver! da!, and at the precise hour, when this interested witness happened to pa! his onl! visit to

his brother during his last illness, so that the testimon! of this witness would furnish conclusive

evidence in support of the allegations of the contestants that the alleged will was not e&ecuted

;



at the time and place or in the manner and form alleged b! the subscribing witnesses. 4e do not

thin that the testimon! of this witness nor an! of the other witnesses for the contestants is

su%cient to raise even a doubt as to the truth of the testimon! of the subscribing witnesses as to

the fact of the e&ecution of the will, or as to the manner and from in which it was e&ecuted.

In the course of the proceedings, an admittedl! genuine signature of the deceased was

introduced in evidence, and upon a comparison of this signature with the signature attached to

the instrument in 5uestion, we are wholl! of the opinion of the trial 1udge, who held in this

connection as follows<

No e&pert evidence has been adduced with regard to these two signatures, and the

presiding 1udge of this court does not claim to possess an! special e&pert nowledge in the

matter of signatures+ nevertheless, the court has compared these two signatures, and

does not #nd that an! material di2erences e&ists between the same. It is true that the

signature which appears in the document o2ered for authentication discloses that at thetime of writing the subscriber was more deliberate in his movements, but two facts must

be acnowledge< First, that the testator was seriousl! ill, and the other fact, that for some

reason which is not stated the testator was unable to see, and was a person who was not

in the habit of signing his name ever! da!.

These facts should su%cientl! e&plain whatever di2erence ma! e&ist between the two

signatures, but the court #nds that the principal stroes in the two signatures are identical.

That the testator was mentall! capable of maing the will is in our opinion full! established b!

the testimon! of the subscribing witnesses who swore positivel! that, at the time of its

e&ecution, he was of sound mind and memor!. It is true that their testimon! discloses the fact

that he was at that time e&tremel! ill, in an advanced stage of tuberculosis complicated with

severe intermittent attacs of asthma+ that he was too sic to rise unaided from his bed+ that he

needed assistance even to rise himself to a sitting position+ and that during the paro&!sms of

asthma to which he was sub1ect he could not spea+ but all this evidence of ph!sical weaness in

no wise establishes his mental incapacit! or a lac of testamentar! capacit!, and indeed the

evidence of the subscribing witnesses as to the aid furnished them b! the testator in preparing

the will, and his clear recollection of the boundaries and ph!sical description of the various

parcels of land set out therein, taen together with the fact that he was able to give to the

person who wrote the will clear and e&plicit instructions as to his desires touching the disposition

of his propert!, is strong evidence of his testamentar! capacit!.

=



Counsel for appellant suggests that the fact that the alleged will leaves all the propert! of the

testator to his widow, and wholl! fails to mae an! provision for his brothers or sisters, indicates

a lac of testamentar! capacit! and undue in3uence+ and because of the inherent improbabilit!

that a man would mae so unnatural and unreasonable a will, the! contend that this fact

indirectl! corroborates their contention that the deceased never did in fact e&ecute the will. "ut

when it is considered that the deceased at the time of his death had no heirs in the ascending or

descending line+ that a bitter famil! 5uarrel had long separated him from his brothers and

sisters, who declined to have an! relations with the testator because he and his wife were

adherents of the $glipa!ano Church+ and that this 5uarrel was so bitter that none of his brothers

or sisters, although some of them lived in the vicinit!, were present at the time of his death or

attended his funeral+ we thin the fact that the deceased desired to leave and did leave all of his

propert! to his widow and made no provision for his brothers and sisters, who themselves were

grown men and women, b! no means tends to disclose either an unsound mind or the presence

of undue in3uence on the part of his wife, or in an! wise corroborates contestants8 allegation that

the will never was e&ecuted.

It has been said that >the di%cult! of stating standards or tests b! which to determine the

degree of mental capacit! of a particular person has been ever!where recogni?ed, and grows out

of the inherent impossibilit! of measuring mental capacit!, or its impairment b! disease or other

causes> 9@reene vs. @reene, (=A III., 6'=, 6B':+ and that >it is probable that no court has ever

attempted to la! down an! de#nite rule in respect to the e&act amount of mental capacit!

re5uisite for the maing of a valid will, without appreciating the di%cult! of the undertaing>

9Trish vs. Newell, '6 III., (', 6;:.

"etween the highest degree of soundness of mind and memor! which un5uestionabl! carries

with it full testamentar! capacit!, and that degree of mental aberration generall! nown as

insanit! or idioc!, there are numberless degrees of mental capacit! or incapacit!, and while on

one hand it has been held that >mere weaness of mind, or partial imbecilit! from the disease of

bod!, or from age, will not render a person incapable of maing a will, a wea or feeble minded

person ma! mae a valid will, provided he has understanding memor! su%cient to enable him to

now what he is about, and how or to whom he is disposing of his propert!> 9Eodge vs.Eodge, 6oust. 9Del.:, =():+ that, >To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not necessar! that the

mind should be unbroen or unimpaired, unshattered b! disease or otherwise>

97loan vs. /a&well, ; N. . G5., A';:+ that >it has not been understood that a testator must

possess these 5ualities 9of sound and disposing mind and memor!: in the highest degree. . . .

Few indeed would be the wills con#rmed, if this is correct. *ain, sicness, debilit! of bod!, from

age or in#rmit!, would, according to its violence or duration, in a greater or less degree, brea in

A



upon, weaen, or derange the mind, but the derangement must be such as deprives him of the

rational faculties common to man> 9Den. vs. ancleve, A N. . E.,'):+ and, that >7ound mind does

not mean a perfectl! balanced mind. The 5uestion of soundness is one of degree>

9"oughton vs. Hnight, E. .,; *. J D., '=+ =6 E. . *., 6A:+ on the other hand, it has been held that

>testamentar! incapacit! does not necessaril! re5uire that a person shall actuall! be insane or of

an unsound mind. 4eaness of intellect, whether it arises from e&treme old age from disease, or

great bodil! in#rmities or su2ering, or from all these combined, ma! render the testator

incapable of maing a valid will, providing such weaness reall! dis5uali#es her from nowing or

appreciating the nature, e2ects, or conse5uences of the act she is engaged in> 9/anatt vs. 7cott,

(' Iowa, 6;+ ') $m. 7t. ep., 6;, ;6:.

"ut for the purposes of this decision it is not necessar! for us to attempt to la! down a de#nition

of testamentar! capacit! which will cover all possible cases which ma! present themselves,

because, as will be seen from what has alread! been said, the testator was, at the time of

maing the instrument under consideration, endowed with all the elements of mental capacit!

set out in the following de#nition of testamentar! capacit! which has been fre5uentl! announced

in courts of last resort in Gngland and the nited 7tates+ and while is some cases testamentar!

capacit! has been held to e&ist in the absence of proof of some of these elements, there can be

no 5uestion that, in the absence of proof of ver! e&ceptional circumstances, proof of the

e&istence of all these elements in su%cient to establish the e&istence of testamentar! capacit!.

Testamentar! capacit! is the capacit! to comprehend the nature of the transaction which

the testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the propert! to be disposed of and theperson who would naturall! be supposed to have claims upon the testator, and to

comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distribute his propert! among the

ob1ects of his bount!.

9Cf. large arra! of cases cited in support of this de#nition in the Gnc!clopedia of Eaw, vol. 6;, p.

B(, second edition.:

In our opinion, the evidence of record establishes in a striingl! conclusive manner the e&ecution

of the instrument propounded as the last will and testament of the deceased+ that it was made in

strict conformit! with the re5uisites prescribed b! law+ and that, at the time of its e&ecution, the

deceased was of sound mind and memor!, and e&ecuted the instrument of his own free will and

accord.

'



The order probating the will should be land is hereb! a%rmed, with the cost of this instance

against the appellants.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.

B

Bugnao v Ubag

Documents

Transcript of Bugnao v Ubag