49. TEOTICO v.

DEL VAL beneficiaries of the will and from any influence of fear
G.R. No. L-18753 or threat; that she freely and spontaneously executed
Date: March 26, 1965 said will and that she had neither ascendants nor
Ponente: BAUTISTA ANGELO, J. descendants of any kind such that she could freely
Digest Author: Doms dispose of all her estate.
 Among the many legacies and devises made in the will
Topic in the Syllabus: was one of P20,000.00 to Rene A. Teotico, married to
Compulsory Succession the testatrix's niece named Josefina Mortera. To said
Relevant Law: spouses the testatrix left the usufruct of her interest
Article 992 of our Civil Code provides: "An illegitimate in the Calvo building, while the naked ownership
child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the thereof she left in equal parts to her grandchildren
legitimate children and relatives of his father or who are the legitimate children of said spouses.
mother; ... ."  The testatrix also instituted Josefina Mortera as her
Doctrine: sole and universal heir to all the remainder of her
Decedent: Maria Mortera y Balsalobre Vda. de properties not otherwise disposed of in the will.
Aguirre  On July 17, 1955, Vicente B. Teotico filed a petition for
Will: Yes the probate of the will before the Court of First
Instance of Manila which was set for hearing on
Parties: September 3, 1955 after the requisite publication and
service to all parties concerned.
Jose Morterta
 Ana del Val Chan, claiming to be an adopted child of
Vda. De Aguirre Francisca
( deceased) Morterta (brother) Francisca Mortera, a deceased sister of the testatrix,
(sister)
as well as an acknowledged natural child of Jose
Mortera, a deceased brother of the same testatrix,
filed on September 2, 1955 an opposition to the
Rene Josefina probate of the will.
Teotico
(husband
Mortera
(niece and Ana del val (adopted child of Francisca  Alleging the following grounds:
of sole and natural child of Jose) Filed an
Josefina) universal opposition to the probate of the will
heir) (1) said will was not executed as required by law;
(2) the testatrix was physically and mentally
incapable to execute the will at the time of its
FACTS: execution; and
(3) the will was executed under duress, threat or
influence of fear.
 Maria Mortera y Balsalobre Vda. de Aguirre died on
July 14, 1955 in the City of Manila leaving properties  Vicente B. Teotico, filed a motion to dismiss the
worth P600,000.00. She left a will written in Spanish opposition alleging that the oppositor had no legal
which she executed at her residence at No. 2 Legarda personality to intervene.
St., Quiapo, Manila.  PROBATE COURT: Admitted the will to probate but
 She affixed her signature at the bottom of the will and declaring the disposition made in favor of Dr. Rene
on the left margin of each and every page thereof in Teotico (physician who took care of the testatrix
the presence of Pilar Borja, Pilar C. Sanchez, and during her last illness) void with the statement that
Modesto Formilleza, who in turn affixed their the portion to be vacated by the annulment should
signatures below the attestation clause and on the pass to the testatrix's heirs by way of intestate
left margin of each and every page of the will in the succession.
presence of the testatrix and of each other. Said will  Petitioner Teotico, together with the universal heir
was acknowledged before Notary Public Niceforo S. Josefina Mortera, filed a motion for reconsideration
Agaton by the testatrix and her witnesses. of that part of the decision which declares the portion
 In said will the testatrix made the following of the estate to be vacated by the nullity of the legacy
preliminary statement: that she was possessed of the made to Dr. Rene Teotico as passing to the legal heirs,
full use of her mental faculties; that she was free from while the oppositor filed also a motion for
illegal pressure or influence of any kind from the
 reconsideration of the portion of the judgment which adopted daughter of Francisca Mortera, a
decrees the probate of the will. deceased sister of the testatrix, but such claim
 On his part, Dr. Rene Teotico requested leave to cannot give her any comfort for, even if it be true,
intervene and to file a motion for reconsideration the law does not give her any right to succeed to
with regard to that portion of the decision which the estate of the deceased sister of both Jose
nullified the legacy made in his favor. Mortera and Francisca Mortera. And this is so
 The motions for reconsideration above adverted to because being an illegitimate child she is
having been denied, both petitioner and oppositor prohibited by law from succeeding to the
appealed from the decision, the former from that legitimate relatives of her natural father.
portion which nullifies the legacy in favor of Dr. Rene  Thus, Article 992 of our Civil Code provides: "An
Teotico and declares the vacated portion as subject of illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
succession in favor of the legal heirs, and the latter intestato from the legitimate children and
from that portion which admits the will to probate. relatives of his father or mother; ... ."
 The oppositor cannot also derive comfort from
the fact that she is an adopted child of Francisca
ISSUES: Mortera because under our law the relationship
(1) W/N the oppositor Ana del Val Chan had the right established by adoption is limited solely to the
to intervene in this proceeding? NO adopter and the adopted and does not extend to
(2) W/N the will was validly executed? YES the relatives of the adopting parents or of the
(3) W/N the probate court could determine the adopted child except only as expressly provided
intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will? NO for by law.
 Hence, no relationship is created between the
RULING: adopted and the collaterals of the adopting
parents. As a consequence, the adopted is an heir
1. NO. The oppositor has no right to intervene of the adopter but not of the relatives of the
either as testamentary or as legal heir in this adopter.
probate proceeding contrary to the ruling of the
court a quo. 2. Will was validly executed.
 The claim that the will was not properly attested
 Under the terms of the will, oppositor has no right to is contradicted by the evidence of record. In this
to intervene because she has no interest in the respect it is fit that we state briefly the
estate either as heir, executor, or administrator, declarations of the instrumental witnesses.
nor does she have any claim to any property  Pilar Borja testified that the testatrix was in
affected by the will, because it nowhere appears perfect state of health at the time she executed
therein any provision designating her as heir, the will for she carried her conversation with her
legatee or devisee of any portion of the estate. intelligently; that the testatrix signed immediately
 She has also no interest in the will either as above the attestation clause and on each and
administratrix or executrix. Neither has she any every page thereof at the left-hand margin in the
claim against any portion of the estate because presence of the three instrumental witnesses and
she is not a co-owner thereof, and while she the notary public; that it was the testatrix herself
previously had an interest in the Calvo building who asked her and the other witnesses to act as
located in Escolta, she had already disposed of it such; and that the testatrix was the first one to
long before the execution of the will. sign and later she gave the will to the witnesses
 In the supposition that, the will is denied probate, who read and signed it.
would the oppositor acquire any interest in any  Pilar G. Sanchez also testified that she knew the
portion of the estate left by the testatrix? She testatrix since 1945; that it was the testatrix
would acquire such right only if she were a legal herself who asked her to be a witness to the will;
heir of the deceased, but she is not under our Civil that the testatrix was the first one to sign and she
Code. gave the will later to the witnesses to sign and
 It is true that oppositor claims to be an afterwards she gave it to the notary public; that
acknowledged natural child of Jose Mortera, a on the day of the execution of the will the testatrix
deceased brother of the deceased, and also an was in the best of health.
 Modesto Formilleza also testified that he was  Another reason why said pronouncement should
asked by the testatrix to be one of the witnesses be set aside is that the legatee was not given an
to the will; that he read and understood the opportunity to defend the validity of the legacy for
attestation clause before he signed the document, he was not allowed to intervene in this
and all the witnesses spoke either in Spanish or in proceeding. As a corollary, the other
Tagalog. He finally said that the instrumental pronouncements touching on the disposition of
witnesses and the testatrix signed the will at the the estate in favor of some relatives of the
same time and place and identified their deceased should also be set aside for the same
signatures. reason.
 This evidence which has not been successfully
refuted proves conclusively that the will was duly DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
executed because it was signed by the testatrix WHEREFORE, with the exception of that portion of
and her instrumental witnesses and the notary the decision which declares that the will in question
public in the manner provided for by law. has been duly executed and admitted the same to
 The mere claim that Josefina Mortera and her probate, the rest of the decision is hereby set aside.
husband Rene Teotico had the opportunity to This case is ordered remanded to the court a quo for
exert pressure on the testatrix simply because she
further proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs
lived in their house several years prior to the
execution of the will and that she was old and
suffering from hypertension in that she was
virtually isolated from her friends for several years
prior to her death is insufficient to disprove what
the instrumental witnesses had testified that the
testatrix freely and voluntarily and with full
consciousness of the solemnity of the occasion
executed the will under consideration.
 The exercise of improper pressure and undue
influence must be supported by substantial
evidence and must be of a kind that would
overpower and subjugate the mind of the
testatrix as to destroy her free agency and make
her express the will of another rather than her
own (Coso v. Deza, 42 0. G. 596).
 The burden is on the person challenging the will
that such influence was exerted at the time of its
execution, a matter which here was not done, for
the evidence presented not only is insufficient but
was disproved by the testimony of the
instrumental witnesses.

3. NO. Opposition to the intrinsic validity or legality