Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    Ortega Vs Valmonte

    Uploaded by

    Edu Riparip
    This case involves a will dispute between Josefina, the widow of Placido, and Leticia, Placido's sister. Placido executed a will leaving all his property to Josefina. Leticia argued 1) Placido lacked testamentary capacity due to his advanced age and 2) the will was procured through fraud. The court held that 1) Placido understood his property and beneficiaries so he had capacity and 2) there was no evidence of fraud, as the date discrepancies were adequately explained. The will leaving all property to Josefina was upheld.

    Copyright:

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

    Ortega Vs Valmonte

    Uploaded by

    Edu Riparip
    69 views1 page
    This case involves a will dispute between Josefina, the widow of Placido, and Leticia, Placido's sister. Placido executed a will leaving all his property to Josefina. Leticia argued 1) Placido lacked testamentary capacity due to his advanced age and 2) the will was procured through fraud. The court held that 1) Placido understood his property and beneficiaries so he had capacity and 2) there was no evidence of fraud, as the date discrepancies were adequately explained. The will leaving all property to Josefina was upheld.

    Original Description:

    Ortega vs Valmonte

    Original Title

    Ortega vs 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?

    This case involves a will dispute between Josefina, the widow of Placido, and Leticia, Placido's sister. Placido executed a will leaving all his property to Josefina. Leticia argued 1) Placido lacked testamentary capacity due to his advanced age and 2) the will was procured through fraud. The court held that 1) Placido understood his property and beneficiaries so he had capacity and 2) there was no evidence of fraud, as the date discrepancies were adequately explained. The will leaving all property to Josefina was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    69 views1 page

    Ortega Vs Valmonte

    Uploaded by

    Edu Riparip
    This case involves a will dispute between Josefina, the widow of Placido, and Leticia, Placido's sister. Placido executed a will leaving all his property to Josefina. Leticia argued 1) Placido lacked testamentary capacity due to his advanced age and 2) the will was procured through fraud. The court held that 1) Placido understood his property and beneficiaries so he had capacity and 2) there was no evidence of fraud, as the date discrepancies were adequately explained. The will leaving all property to Josefina was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ORTEGA VS VALMONTE

    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’s argument: At the time of the execution of the notarial will Placido was already 83 years
    old and was no longer of sound mind. 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.

    ISSUES:
    1. Whether Placido has testamentary capacity at the time he allegedly executed the will
    2. Whether the signature of Placido in the will was procured by fraud or trickery

    HELD:
    1. YES. 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.

    2. NO. 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. 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. 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. The variance in the dates of the will as
    to its supposed execution and attestation was satisfactorily and persuasively explained by the
    notary public and instrumental witnesses.

    You might also like