Heirs of Montinola-Sanson vs. Court of Appeals

A contested holographic will must be allowed to probate where at least three witnesses who know the handwriting of the testator explicitly declare the will and signature to be in the testator's handwriting, supplemented where necessary by expert testimony, and due execution with full testamentary capacity is otherwise established by the evidence.

Herminia Montinola died single, parentless and childless at age 70, leaving as closest surviving relative her sister Matilde Montinola-Sanson. Atty. Eduardo F. Hernandez was designated executor in a purported holographic will and later sought its allowance before the probate court. One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose of the estate by will in favor of any person having capacity to succeed, with undisposed portions passing by intestacy.

Herminia Montinola, 70 years old, single, parentless and childless, died on March 29, 1981. On April 22, 1981, Atty. Eduardo F. Hernandez, named executor in a document dated January 28, 1980 purporting to be her holographic will, petitioned the Court of First Instance of Manila for its probate. The document devised several of her real properties to specified persons. A week later Hernandez sought appointment as special administrator, and with the conformity of all relatives and heirs except the oppositor, he was so appointed on May 5, 1981.

On June 29, 1981, Matilde Montinola-Sanson, the only surviving sister of the deceased but not named in the will, opposed probate. According to petitioner, the will was not entirely written, dated and signed by the testatrix and was falsely dated or antedated; the testatrix lacked full mental faculties for testamentary disposition; undue influence was exerted by the named beneficiaries; and the will failed to institute a residual heir. Petitioner, for her part, emphasized her exclusion despite an intimate sisterly relationship and the disposition of only eleven real properties, which she took as indicia of unsoundness of mind.

At the hearing on the merits, which lasted about four years, the proponent presented three close relatives of the testatrix and two expert witnesses who declared the contested will and signature to be in the handwriting of the testatrix. Asuncion Gemperle, niece and constant companion of the testatrix, testified on the circumstances of execution and stated that two boxes of jewelry worth P850,000.00 had been reserved for petitioner, whose son Francis was instituted as an heir in the will. Petitioner relied on alleged inconsistencies in Gemperle's testimony to claim antedating to conceal execution in June 1980 when the testatrix was allegedly seriously ill with terminal lung cancer, and adduced evidence of grave illness and undue influence.

The probate court found the evidence for the petition conclusive and overwhelming and admitted the will to probate as wholly written, dated and signed freely by Herminia Montinola with full testamentary capacity, directing issuance of letters testamentary to Hernandez upon finality. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto. Petitioner, who died on November 3, 1986 and was substituted by her heirs, sought new trial on the basis of allegedly newly located unnamed witnesses on illness and undue influence, supported only by the affidavit of her son Gregorio Montinola Sanson.

• New Trial – Not Cumulative: Petitioner maintained that the appellate court erred in denying the motion for new trial, insisting that the new evidence sought to be presented on grave illness and undue influence was not merely corroborative or cumulative.
• Reconsideration: Petitioner argued that denial of reconsideration of the order denying new trial was erroneous, submitting the affidavit of Patricia Delgado in support.
• Due Execution: Petitioner argued that the holographic will was not wholly written, dated and signed by Herminia Montinola as required by law.
• Antedating: Petitioner maintained that the will was fraudulently antedated to conceal its actual date of execution and shield it from dispute as to testamentary capacity at the time of actual execution, allegedly in June 1980 during terminal lung cancer.
• Undue Influence and Capacity: Petitioner argued that the testatrix was subjected to undue pressure and improper importunings by those standing to benefit, evidenced by exclusion of petitioner as only surviving sister despite an intimate relationship and by failure to dispose of the entire estate.
• Probate: Petitioner contended that allowance of the holographic will to probate was therefore erroneous.

• Pro-Forma Motion for New Trial: Respondent countered that the motion for new trial was pro-forma because it was not in accordance with Sec. 1, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court.

• New Trial – Newly Discovered Evidence: Whether the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence should have been granted or was properly denied as non-compliant and merely cumulative.
• Reconsideration and Finality: Whether the motion for reconsideration was properly denied and whether the appellate decision had become final and executory for being appealed out of time.
• Due Execution of Holographic Will: Whether the holographic will was wholly written, dated and signed by Herminia Montinola in accordance with law.
• Antedating: Whether the will was fraudulently antedated to conceal its actual execution date during alleged serious illness.
• Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence: Whether the testatrix possessed full testamentary capacity and was free from undue pressure and improper importunings, notwithstanding exclusion of a non-compulsory heir and partial disposition of the estate.

• New Trial – Newly Discovered Evidence: No. The motion failed substantial compliance with Rule 53 and the proffered evidence was merely corroborative or cumulative, not newly discovered with diligence.
• Reconsideration and Finality: No. The pro-forma motion for new trial did not toll the appeal period, so the August 29, 1986 decision became final September 25, 1986 and the October 30, 1986 reconsideration was out of time and unreviewable.
• Due Execution of Holographic Will: Yes. Due execution was established by three relatives and two experts attesting the handwriting and signature, satisfying Art. 811 and Sec. 11, Rule 76.
• Antedating: No. Antedating was not proved by competent evidence, reliance being placed only on supposed inconsistencies in Gemperle's testimony.
• Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence: Yes. Capacity was established and undue influence was not proved by substantial evidence; exclusion of a non-compulsory heir and disposition of only eleven properties do not invalidate the will.

• New Trial – Newly Discovered Evidence: The lone affidavit of Gregorio Montinola Sanson, a witness already presented, was insufficient where the alleged new witnesses were unnamed with no certainty of appearance, belief alone that they would testify under subpoena being stated, and allegations of undue influence being mere conclusions rather than facts. Affidavits must state facts to avoid waste of court time if the evidence proves immaterial. Efforts to locate witnesses were exerted only after the appellate decision despite a four-year trial and witnesses admittedly known to petitioner, so diligence was lacking and the evidence could have been discovered and presented below.
• Reconsideration and Finality: Because the September 24, 1986 motion was filed on the fifteenth and last day to appeal and was pro-forma, interruption of the appeal period was not effected under Valdez vs. Jugo and related cases. The decision thus became final the following day, September 25, making the October 30, 1986 reconsideration out of time. With finality, findings on due execution and testamentary capacity became conclusive under Art. 838, placing review beyond the Court, a conclusion reinforced by the admitted resort to a new law firm to do everything legally possible to meet the deadline, indicating delay.
• Due Execution of Holographic Will: The testimonies of three close relatives plus two expert witnesses declaring the will and signature to be in the testatrix's handwriting more than satisfied Art. 811 in conjunction with Sec. 11, Rule 76 for contested holographic wills. Factual findings of the probate court and Court of Appeals on formal compliance, when supported by evidence, are conclusive, as in Alsua-Betts vs. CA. Examination of the record disclosed no error, with handwriting characteristics of spontaneity, freedom, speed, good line quality and natural variation cited as authentic proof of capacity and freedom from improper pressure.
• Antedating: No competent proof showed actual execution in June 1980 during alleged terminal illness. Petitioner's case rested only on supposed inconsistencies in Asuncion Gemperle's testimony which, upon careful examination, did not prove antedating.
• Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence: Exclusion of petitioner, who was not a compulsory heir, was within the testatrix's right under Art. 842, following Pecson vs. Coronel on liberty of disposition absent forced heirs; Gemperle testified two jewelry boxes worth P850,000.00 were reserved for petitioner and petitioner's son Francis was instituted heir. Under the cited Civil Code rule, a will remains valid though it contains no institution of heir or does not comprise the entire estate, the remainder passing to legal heirs in intestate succession, so disposition of only eleven real properties neither invalidates the will nor indicates unsoundness. Omission of blood relatives other than compulsory heirs does not establish undue influence, diversity of apportionment being the usual reason for testation, and mere opportunity or possibility of influence is insufficient without substantial evidence of actual exercise, per Ozaeta vs. Cuartero, Teotico vs. Del Val, and Icasiano vs. Icasiano.

• Probate of contested holographic will — In probate of a holographic will, at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator must explicitly declare the will and signature to be in the testator's handwriting; if contested, at least three such witnesses are required, and in their absence or if deemed necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. Applied here, three relatives and two experts satisfied Art. 811 of the Civil Code and Sec. 11, Rule 76, Revised Rules of Court.
• New trial on newly discovered evidence in the Court of Appeals — Before a Court of Appeals judgment becomes executory, a motion for new trial may be filed on newly discovered evidence undiscoverable prior to trial below with diligence and of such character as would probably change the result, accompanied by affidavits showing grounds and the evidence. The affidavits must state facts, not mere conclusions or opinions, and cumulative or corroborative evidence is generally not ground for new trial. Applied here, the unnamed witnesses, conclusory affidavit, lack of diligence, and cumulative character warranted denial.
• Pro-forma motion does not toll appeal period — A pro-forma motion for new trial does not interrupt the running of the period for appeal, so that a decision becomes final and executory upon lapse of the period. Applied here, filing on the last day without tolling rendered the August 29, 1986 decision final on September 25, 1986 and the later reconsideration out of time.
• Liberty of disposition absent compulsory heirs — One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all the estate or any part in favor of any person having capacity to succeed, per Art. 842. Applied here, exclusion of the only surviving sister, not a compulsory heir, with provision for jewelry and institution of her son, did not show incapacity, following Pecson vs. Coronel.
• Validity despite incomplete disposition — A will shall be valid even though it should not contain an institution of an heir, or such institution should not comprise the entire estate, and even though the instituted person should not accept or should be incapacitated, with lawful testamentary dispositions complied with and the remainder passing to legal heirs. Applied here, disposition of only eleven real properties did not invalidate the will or indicate unsound mind.
• Undue influence – proof required — Undue influence or improper pressure cannot be sustained on mere conjecture, suspicion, opportunity, or possibility, nor inferred from omission of non-compulsory heirs or more favorable apportionment; substantial evidence of actual exercise is required, diversity of apportionment being the usual reason for making a testament. Applied here, no such substantial evidence was presented.

• "WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment declaring the holographic will marked in evidence as Exhibit "H" as one wholly written, dated, and signed freely by the late Herminia Montinola in accordance with law while in possession of full testamentary capacity, and allowing and admitting the same to probate." — States the probate court's dispositive allowance affirmed in toto, defining the factual and legal conclusion sustained on review.
• "A will shall be valid even though it should not contain an institution of an heir, or such institution should not comprise the entire estate, and even though the person so instituted should not accept the inheritance or should be incapacitated to succeed." — States the controlling rule rejecting invalidity based on failure to dispose of the entire estate, with the remainder passing by intestacy.
• "The fact that some heirs are more favored than others is proof of neither fraud or undue influence." — States the rule rejecting inference of fraud or undue influence from unequal apportionment, applied to sustain the testatrix's dispositions.
• "The exercise of improper pressure and undue influence must be supported by substantial evidence that it was actually exercised." — States the evidentiary standard for undue influence, applied to reject petitioner's conjecture-based challenge.

• Pecson vs. Coronel, 45 Phil. 216 — Followed as authority that liberty to dispose by will absent forced heirs is sacred and that preterition of non-compulsory relatives despite strong family ties does not show incapacity.
• Icasiano vs. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 427 — Followed for the propositions that omission of non-compulsory blood relatives does not establish undue influence and that diversity of apportionment is the usual reason for testation.
• Ozaeta vs. Cuartero, 99 Phil. 1041 — Followed for the rule that undue influence cannot rest on mere conjecture, opportunity, or possibility.
• Teotico vs. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406 — Followed with Ozaeta to require substantial evidence of actual exercise of improper pressure.
• Alsua-Betts vs. CA, 92 SCRA 332 — Followed for the rule that factual findings of probate and appellate courts on due execution, when supported by evidence, are conclusive on the Supreme Court.
• Valdez vs. Jugo, 74 Phil. 49; "Y" Shipping Corp. vs. Erispe, 20 SCRA 1; Lonaria vs. De Guzman, 21 SCRA 349 — Followed for the rule that a pro-forma motion does not interrupt the appeal period.

• Art. 811, Civil Code — Requires attesting witnesses who know the testator's handwriting to declare the holographic will and signature to be in the testator's handwriting, at least three if contested; applied to hold the three relatives and two experts more than satisfied probate requirements.
• Sec. 11, Rule 76, Revised Rules of Court — Governs allowance of contested holographic wills on testimony of at least three witnesses knowing the handwriting, with resort to expert testimony if necessary; applied together with Art. 811 to sustain due execution.
• Art. 842, Civil Code — Allows one without compulsory heirs to dispose of the estate or part thereof to any capacitated person; applied to uphold exclusion of the sister as non-compulsory heir.
• Art. 838, Civil Code — Cited for conclusiveness of findings on due execution and testamentary capacity once the judgment became final and executory.
• Sec. 1, Rule 53, Rules of Court — Allows Court of Appeals new trial before finality only on newly discovered evidence undiscoverable with diligence and probably outcome-changing, with supporting affidavits; applied to deny the motion for non-compliance and cumulative character.
• Sec. 13, Rule 76, Rules of Court — Prescribes issuance of certificate of probate upon finality; ordered applied through issuance of letters testamentary to executor Hernandez and the certificate upon finality.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz and Grino-Aquino, JJ., concur.