Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 255 views

    ORTEGA v. VALMONTE

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Deric Espiritu
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Placido's will, which left his entire estate to his wife Josefina. The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving fraud, and there was no credible evidence presented that Placido was deceived or lacked testamentary capacity when executing the will. While the will contained varying dates, conflicting dates do not invalidate a will under Philippine law. As Placido was able to accurately identify his property and intended beneficiary, he possessed sound mind under the Civil Code requirements. Omission of relatives alone does not constitute fraud.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ORTEGA v. VALMONTE

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Deric Espiritu
    255 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Placido's will, which left his entire estate to his wife Josefina. The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving fraud, and there was no credible evidence presented that Placido was deceived or lacked testamentary capacity when executing the will. While the will contained varying dates, conflicting dates do not invalidate a will under Philippine law. As Placido was able to accurately identify his property and intended beneficiary, he possessed sound mind under the Civil Code requirements. Omission of relatives alone does not constitute fraud.

    Original Description:

    34. ORTEGA v. VALMONTE

    Original Title

    34. ORTEGA v. VALMONTE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Placido's will, which left his entire estate to his wife Josefina. The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving fraud, and there was no credible evidence presented that Placido was deceived or lacked testamentary capacity when executing the will. While the will contained varying dates, conflicting dates do not invalidate a will under Philippine law. As Placido was able to accurately identify his property and intended beneficiary, he possessed sound mind under the Civil Code requirements. Omission of relatives alone does not constitute fraud.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    255 views2 pages

    ORTEGA v. VALMONTE

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Deric Espiritu
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Placido's will, which left his entire estate to his wife Josefina. The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving fraud, and there was no credible evidence presented that Placido was deceived or lacked testamentary capacity when executing the will. While the will contained varying dates, conflicting dates do not invalidate a will under Philippine law. As Placido was able to accurately identify his property and intended beneficiary, he possessed sound mind under the Civil Code requirements. Omission of relatives alone does not constitute fraud.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CIVIL LAW REVIEW I – ATTY.

    LEGARDA

    ORTEGA v. VALMONTE AUTHOR: Espiritu, Ralph Deric.


    [G.R. No. 157451; Dec. 16, 2005] NOTES:
    TOPIC: Characteristics
    PONENTE: PANGANIBAN, J.
    CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
    The party challenging the will bears the burden of proving the existence of fraud at the time of
    its execution. The burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will only upon a
    showing of credible evidence of fraud
    FACTS:

     Two years after the arrival of Placido from the United States and at the age of 80 he
    wed Josefina who was then 28 years old.

     But in a little more than two years of wedded bliss, Placido died.

     Placido executed a notarial last will and testament written in English and consisting of
    2 pages, and dated 15 June 1983¸but acknowledged only on 9 August 1983.

     The allowance to probate of this will was opposed by Leticia, Placido’s sister.

     According to the notary public who notarized the testator’s will, after the testator
    instructed him on the terms and dispositions he wanted on the will, the notary public
    told them to come back on 15 August 1983 to give him time to prepare.

     The testator and his witnesses returned on the appointed date but the notary public was
    out of town so they were instructed by his wife to come back on 9 August 1983.

     The formal execution was actually on 9 August 1983. He reasoned he no longer


    changed the typewritten date of 15 June 1983 because he did not like the document to
    appear dirty.

     Petitioner argues that:

    o At the time of the execution of the notarial will Placido was already 83 years
    old and was no longer of sound mind.

    o Josefina conspired with the notary public and the 3 attesting witnesses in
    deceiving Placido to sign it. Deception is allegedly reflected in the varying
    dates of the execution and the attestation of the will.

    ISSUE(S): WON Placido has testamentary capacity at the time he allegedly executed the will.
    CIVIL LAW REVIEW I – ATTY. LEGARDA

    HELD:

    1. YES, According to Article 799, the three things that the testator must have the ability to
    know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the nature of the estate to be disposed
    of, (2) the proper objects of the testator's bounty, and (3) the character of the testamentary act

    Despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify accurately the kinds of property he
    owned, the extent of his shares in them and even their location. As regards the proper objects
    of his bounty, it was sufficient that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. The omission of
    some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There being no showing of fraud
    in its execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.

    Fraud is a trick, secret devise, false statement, or pretense, by which the subject of it is
    cheated. It may be of such character that the testator is misled or deceived as to the nature or
    contents of the document which he executes, or it may relate to some extrinsic fact, in
    consequence of the deception regarding which the testator is led to make a certain will which,
    but for fraud, he would not have made.

    Omission of some relatives does not affect the due execution of a will. Moreover, the conflict
    between the dates appearing on the will does not invalidate the document, “because the law
    does not even require that a notarial will be executed and acknowledged on the same occasion.
    RATIO:

    Fraud must be of such character that the testator is misled or deceived as to the nature or
    contents of the document which he executes, or it may relate to some extrinsic fact, in
    consequence of the deception regarding which the testator is led to make a certain will which,
    but for fraud, he would not have made.
    DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

    You might also like