Case #45

G.R. L-6303 June 30, 1954

In the matter of the last will and testament of Jose Vano, deceased. Teodoro Vano,
petitioner-appellant, vs. Paz Vano Vda. De Garces, et. Al. oppositors-appellees.
Facts
-28 January 1950- Jose Vano died in the City of Cebu. He was 78 years old and he died
of pulmonary tuberculosis or PTB. He left his properties valued at P95,913.05.
-11 February 1950- Teodoro Ceblero Vano petitioned the CFI of Cebu to have the last
will and testament of Jose Vano be probated. Said will contains that Jose Vano
acknowledges Teodoro Vano as his son and is leaving all his properties to him. This
was done on 11 December 1949 at the presence of 3 witnesses, namely, Pedro C.
Ceniza, O. Rama, M.D. and Atty. Nazario R. Paquiao. Teodoro was also appointed
administrator of the estate and since this is still pending, he will be designated as
special administrator.
-24 March 1950- Paz Vano Vda. De Garces et. Al. filed opposition alleging that the will
was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on part of Teodoro
Ceblero who is not an acknowledged natural child of Jose because, according to them,
Jose was already mentally incapable to make a will on 11 December 1949 and Joses
signature was forged by Teodoro. They also alleged that English is not the usual and
proper language of Jose and if ever he will prepare a will, it will in Spanish, that Jose
told them that he will not execute a will because he wants to leave all his estate in favor
of his relatives and Dolores Garces de Falcon, a niece of Jose is a competent person to
act as Administratix of the estate of the deceased
-29 August 1950- Ireneo Vano, one of the persons included in the opposition filed
motion stating that he was named as one of the oppositors without his knowledge and
consent, he does not oppose nor intends to oppose the probate of the will in question
and that his name be removed in the opposition. This was granted by the Court.
-CFI ruled in favor of Paz Vano Vda. De Garces et. Al. Thus this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the signature and will of Jose was forged and procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence by Teodoro?

Held
No. An opponent to a probate of a will may be permitted to present only what was
alleged. For example, if the opposition alleged mental incapacity, then they can only
present evidence regarding mental incapacity.
According also to Rule 77 Section 12, the probate court can allow the will if it is proven
that the testator was of sound and disposing mind and not acting under duress, menace
and undue influence or fraud during the time he prepared the will. Section 9 of Rule 77
also stated that the will may be disallowed in the following cases:
a. If the testator was mentally incapable of making a will
b. If it was executed under duress or influence of fear or threats
c. If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of
the beneficiary and
d. If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud and trick.
Section 10 of Rule 77 provides that anyone appearing to contest the will must file in
writing stating his grounds for opposing its allowance and serve copy on petitioner and
other residents of the province interest in the estate.
It can be concluded that Jose Vano was of sound and disposing mind when he made
his will, as stated by the witnesses Dr. Rama, Atty. Pacquiao and businessman Pedro
Ceniza. Their disinterested testimonies cannot be taken lightly. There is also no doubt
that Jose will leave his property to his son Teodoro. Even though they do not have
blood relations, Jose treated and acknowledged Teodoro as his son. He sent him to
school and even Teodoro had a family of his own already, Jose continued to live with
him. He also left the complete management of his business to Teodoro and assigned
Teodoro as the administrator of his estate. In one of the letters of Jose to Teodoro
which was presented as evidence, he addressed Teodoro as his dear son and put in the
complimentary clause your loving Dad. Having said this, it is not improbable that Paz
Vano Vda de Garces, sister of Jose is assailing the will because she could not
understand why his brother will leave his wealth to his natural son and not to her. It can
also be noted that Paz and Joses relationship was restrained when in 1949 Paz
brought a civil action against him. Paz did not also visit Jose when he was already ailing
and bed-ridden.
As to Jose Vanos signature, both testimonies of the expert witnesses of the oppositors
and the petitioner were plausible, however, the oppositors did not give due
consideration to the age, infirmity, and state of health of Jose when they pointed out the
slight difference in the standard and accepted signatures and the signature of the
deceased in his will. Aside from that, the oppositors and their counsels took 1 months
before they questioned the genuineness of the signature. They also included initially

Ireneo Vano among the oppositors who motioned that he be removed from the
opposition and testified for Teodoro.
Ruling
SC reversed CFI of Cebus decision and allowed the will of Jose Vano be probated.