IN RE WILL OF THE LATE MATEA ABELLA. MONS. SANTIAGO SANCHO, APPLICANT AND APPELLEE, VS. MARCIANA ABELLA, OPPONENT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal taken by the opponent Marciana Abella from the
judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, the
dispositive part of which reads as follows :

“Wherefore,
this court is of the opinion, and so holds, that the opposition filed
by Marciana Abella is without merit and, therefore, it is hereby
denied. The application filed herein is granted and the document,
Exhibit A, is hereby ordered and decreed probated as the last will and
testament of the late Matea Abella. So ordered.”

In support of her appeal, the appellant assigns the following alleged errors in the decision of the court a quo, to wit:

“1.
The lower court erred in holding that Matea Abella was in the full
enjoyment of her mental faculties and executed the document, Exhibit A,
as a true expression of her last will.

“2. The lower court
erred in holding that the requirements of the law have been complied
with in the execution of the will, Exhibit A.

“3. The
lower court erred in holding that when the late Matea Abella affixed
her alleged signatures to the will, Exhibit A, she did not act under
the illegal and undue influence of certain legatees.

“4. The lower court erred in decreeing the probate of the will, Exhibit A.”

The following facts have been proven by a preponderance of evidence presented during the trial, to wit:

The testatrix, Matea Abella, resident of the municipality of Sinait,
Ilocos Sur, had been informed that Dr. Antonio Querol of San Fernando,
La Union, was a good physician. On April 13, 1932, she left her home
situated in the said municipality of Sinait, accompanied by her niece,
Filomena Inay, to consult the said physician in his clinic in San
Fernando, La Union, stopping at the convent of the parish church of the
said municipality, in charge of Father Cordero with whom she was
acquainted he having been the parish priest of Sinait. During her stay
in the said convent, she went to Dr. Antonio Querol’s clinic twice
within the period of one week accompanied by her aforesaid niece,
Filomena Inay, to consult the said physician who, after submitting her
to a general medical examination, found that she was suffering from
dyspepsia and cancer of the stomach.

On or about April 26,
1932, Matea Abella ordered a sexton of the convent to call Attorney
Teodoro R. Reinoso to whom she expressed her desire to make a will, in
the presence of Father Cordero’s sister, Father Zoilo Aguda, Macario
Calug and the fiscal of the convent. Inasmuch as the aforesaid attorney
had to attend to other business, he could not finish his interview with
the testatrix on the first day and had to continue it the following
day, also in the presence of Father Cordero, his sister, Filomena Inay
and some children who were then at the convent. Inasmuch as he did not
finish the interview on the second day, the said attorney returned
again on the afternoon of the 28th and continued it in the presence of
the same persons who entered and left the sala. At the end of
the interview, Matea Abella ordered her niece, Filomena Inay, to bring
her some papers which were in her trunk, which she delivered to the
said attorney. After the will had been drafted in Ilocano, the dialect
of the testatrix, Macario Calug read it to her and she approved it.
When the will had been copied clean, it was again read to the testatrix
and she expressed her approval thereof, but inasmuch as it was rather
late at night, she did not care to sign the same suggesting that it be
postponed to the following day, April 29, 1932, which was done. At
about 7:30 o’clock on the morning of April 29, 1932, the signing of the
will took place in the corridor of the convent. The testatrix Matea
Abella was the first to sign it on a table in the presence of each and
every one of the instrumental witnesses thereto and of other persons,
including Father Cordero. After the testatrix, each of the instrumental
witnesses signed in the presence of the testatrix and of each and every
one of the other witnesses. After the will had been signed, Attorney
Teodoro R. Reinoso delivered the original and the copies thereof to the
testatrix, retaining one for his file. On July 3, 1932, Matea Abella
died of senile debility in the municipality of Sinait at the age of 88
years.

The opponent herein attempted to prove that the
testatrix was deaf and that her eyesight was defective; that when one
moved away from her and again approached her she was unable to
recognize him; that it was necessary to shout into her ear to call her
for meals; that she used to urinate on her clothes without being aware
of it; that she had a very poor memory inasmuch as she used to try to
collect from her debtors in spite of the fact that they had already
paid their debts; that once, although she had sold a parcel of land for
P60 she said she had sold it for P160; that she was unable to go
downstairs without assistance; that when she was called at mealtime she
used to answer: “Why, I have already eaten”; that she could not
remember her properties nor the names of her tenants; that she could no
longer read; that she often repeated to her tenants the same questions
regarding their crops; that she had been suffering from these
disabilities for more than two months previous to her death; that the
deceased complained of headache and of stomachache; that she already
began to be dotty five years before, and particularly a few days
previous to her death; that in her will she bequeathed properties which
she had already donated to other persons.

We are face to
face with two divergent theories regarding the mental state of the
testatrix Matea Abella at the time of the execution of her will,
Exhibit A. The opponent claims that, inasmuch as the testatrix was 88
years of age when she made her will, she was already suffering from
senile debility and therefore her mental faculties were not functioning
normally anymore and that she was not fully aware of her acts. As an
indication of her senile debility, she attempted to prove that the
testatrix had very poor eyesight and sense of hearing; that she
urinated without being aware of it; that she had a very poor memory in
connection with her properties and interests; that she could not go
downstairs without assistance, and that she could not recall her recent
acts.

On the other hand, as to the mental sanity of the
testatrix at the time of the execution of her will, we have the
undisputed fact of her having left her home in Sinait, Ilocos Sur, on
April 13, 1932, in order to go to San Fernando, La Union, to consult
Dr. Antonio Querol-of whose ability she had heard so much—regarding her
headaches and stomach trouble, stopping at the convent of the parish
church; the fact of her having walked twice to the aforesaid doctor’s
clinic, accompanied by her niece, Filomena Inay; the fact that she had
personally furnished the aforesaid doctor with all the necessary data
regarding the history of her illness; the fact of her having brought
with her in her trunk the deeds to her properties; the fact of her
having called for Attorney Teodoro R. Reinoso; the fact of her having
personally furnished said attorney with all the data she wished to
embody in her will relative to her properties and the persons in whose
favor she wished to bequeath them; the fact of her not wishing to sign
her will on the night of April 28,1932, but the following day, in order
to be able to see it better, and the fact of her having affixed her
signature, in her own handwriting, to the original as well as to the
copies of her will which consisted of nine pages. All these data show
that the testatrix was not so physically weak, nor so blind, nor so
deaf, nor so lacking in intelligence that she could not, with full
understanding thereof, dispose of her properties and make a will.
Neither senile debility, nor blindness, nor deafness, nor poor memory,
is by itself sufficient to incapacitate a person for making his will
(Avelino vs. De la Cruz, 21 Phil., 521; Bagtas vs. Paguio, 22 Phil., 227; Jocson vs. Jocson, 46 Phil., 701; Amata and Almojuela vs. Tablizo, 48 Phil., 485; Torres and Lopez de Bueno vs.
Lopez, 48 Phil., 772; 28 R. C. L., p. 94, par. 44). The mere fact that
in her will Matea Abella disposed of properties, which she had already
donated to other persons at a prior date, is not an indication of
mental insanity. At most it constitutes forgetfulness or a change of
mind, due to ignorance of the irrevocability of certain donations.

It is insinuated that the testatrix has been unduly influenced in the
execution of her will. There is nothing in the records establishing
such claim either directly or indirectly. The fact of her having
stopped at the convent of the parish church of San Fernando, La Union,
is not unusual in the Philippines where, due to lack of hotels, the
town convents are usually given preference by strangers because they
are given better accommodations and allowed more freedom. In the
present case, the testatrix Matea Abella was a stranger in San
Fernando, La Union. Inasmuch as Father Cordero, the parish priest of
the said town, was well known to her having served in the church of
Sinait, Ilocos Sur, in the same capacity, she did not have any
difficulty in obtaining accommodations in his convent. The fact that
Matea Abella stopped at a convent and enjoyed the hospitality of a
priest who gave her accommodations therein, nor the fact that the will
was executed in the convent in question in the presence of the parish
priest and witnessed by another priest, could certainly not be
considered as an influence which placed her under the obligation to
bequeath part of her property to the bishop of said diocese.

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so
hold: (1) That neither senile debility, nor deafness, nor blindness,
nor poor memory, is by itself sufficient to establish the presumption
that the person suffering therefrom is not in the full enjoyment of his
mental faculties, when there is sufficient evidence of his mental
sanity at the time of the execution of the will; and (2) that neither
the fact of her being given accommodations in a convent, nor the
presence of the parish priest, nor a priest acting as a witness,
constitutes undue influence sufficient to justify the annulment of a
legacy in favor of the bishop of a diocese made in her will by a
testatrix 88 years of age, suffering from defective eyesight and
hearing, while she is stopping at a convent within the aforestated
diocese.

Wherefore, not finding any error in the judgment appealed from, it is hereby affirmed in toto, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Malcolm, Abad Santos, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.