Catalina Bugnao vs. Francisco Ubag, Et Al

CATALINA BUGNAO vs. FRANCISCO UBAG, ET AL.
Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction which the
testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the property to be disposed of and the person 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.
FACTS:
The CFI of Negros Oriental admitted to probate a document purporting to be the last will and
testament of Domingo Ubag. The instrument was submitted his widow, Catalina Bugnao, the
sole beneficiary. However, the probate was contested by the appellants, who are brothers and
sisters of Domingo, and who 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.
Appellants contend that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the execution of the will in the
manner and form prescribed in Sec. 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and at the time the will
was executed, Domingo was not of sound mind and memory, and was physically and mentally
incapable of making a will.
The instrument purports to be the last will and testament of Domingo, signed by him 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. They 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 last will and testament,
and that in his presence and in the presence of each other, they as well as the third subscribing
witness.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the will is valid.
HELD:
YES. The Court ruled the following which shows that will is valid and that Domingo has
testamentary capacity during the time he made his will:
1. As to the testimony of the defendant’s witnesses
The facts revealed that one of the witnesses stated that the deceased sat up in bed and signed
his name to the will, and that after its execution food was given him by his wife; while the
other testified that he was assisted into a sitting position, and was given something to eat
before he signed his name.
The Court ruled that a slight lapse of memory on the part of one or the other witness, as to
the precise details of an unimportant incident, to which his attention may not have been
particularly directed, is not sufficient to raise a doubt as to the statements of these witnesses.
The apparent contradictions fell short of raising a doubt. In fact, the testimony as a whole
gives such clear, explicit, and detailed account of all that occurred.
2. As to the signature of the deceased
Even though the brother of Domingo, Macario denied the authenticity of the former’s
signature, he admitted that they never visited Domingo when he was dying nor attended his
funeral.
In the course of the proceedings, a genuine signature of the deceased was introduced in
evidence, and upon a comparison of this signature with the signature attached to the
instrument in question, the trial judge opined that it did not find that any material differences
exists between the same. But, two facts must be acknowledge:
 The testator was seriously ill

 The testator was unable to see, and was a person who was not in the habit of signing his
name every day
These facts should sufficiently explain whatever difference may exist between the two
signatures, but the court finds that the principal strokes in the two signatures are identical.
3. As to the fact that Domingo’s testamentary capacity
The Court ruled that the fact that the testator was mentally capable of making the will is fully
established by the testimony of the subscribing witnesses. Even though their testimony
discloses the fact that he was at that time extremely ill, in an advanced stage of tuberculosis
complicated with severe intermittent attacks of asthma; and that during the paroxysms of
asthma to which he was subject he could not speak, it was proved that Domingo had 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. Such
is considered as strong evidence of his testamentary capacity.
Indeed, the Court was convinced that Domingo has the testamentary capacity during the time
he made his will. Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nature of the
transaction which the testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the property to be disposed
of and the person 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.
Even though the counsel for appellant suggests the fact that the will leaves all the property to
the widow, and none for the brothers or sisters, indicates a lack of testamentary capacity and
undue influence; and because it was improbable that a man would make an unnatural and
unreasonable will, the Court thinks that it does not tend to disclose either an unsound mind or
the presence of undue influence on the part of his wife, or in any wise corroborates
contestants' allegation that the will never was executed.

Catalina Bugnao vs. Francisco Ubag, Et Al

Uploaded by

Catalina Bugnao vs. Francisco Ubag, Et Al

Uploaded by

CATALINA BUGNAO vs. FRANCISCO UBAG, ET AL.

Whether or not the will is valid.

2. As to the signature of the deceased

 The testator was seriously ill

3. As to the fact that Domingo’s testamentary capacity

You might also like