3/7/2018 lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?

printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1

source: http://www.lawyerly.ph

[ GR No. L-1967, May 28, 1951 ]

IN MATTER OF PETITION OF ALFONSO R. LIM SO v. REPUBLIC
OPPOSITOR
DECISION
89 Phil. 63

JUGO, J.:

In the course of the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
Faustino Neri San Jose, Special Proceedings No. 6-A of the Court of First
Instance of Misamis Oriental, Matilde Menciano, in her behalf and in behalf of
the minors Carlo Magno Neri and Faustino Neri, Jr., filed a motion for
declaration of heirs, alleging that she is the widow of the deceased Faustino Neri
San Jose, to whom she was married according to the rites of the Roman Catholic
Church on September 28, 1944, before Rev. Father Isaias Edralin, S. J.; that
before the marriage the deceased and she lived together as husband and wife,
there having been no impediment to their marriage; that as a result of their
cohabitation before the marriage the child Carlo Magno Neri was born on
March 9, 1940 and was later baptized, said child having enjoyed the status of a
recognized natural child; that their second child Faustino Neri, Jr., was born on
April 24, 1945; and that Carlo Magno Neri was legitimized by the subsequent
matrimony of his parents and Faustino Neri, Jr., is a legitimate child born in
lawful wedlock.

Paz Neri San Jose, then executrix of the estate of the deceased Faustino Neri
San Jose, and Rodolfo Pelaez, designated universal heir in the will of the
deceased dated December 19, 1940, filed an amended answer with the
permission of the court, in which they denied the substantial allegations of the
above-mentioned motion for declaration of heirs and further alleged in
substance that the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose, from the year 1943, was
suffering from senile dementia caused by anemia which became worse from
September 9, 1944, when the Province of Misamis Oriental where the deceased
lived was bombarded by American planes; that the marriage between said
deceased and Matilde Menciano, if it was solemnized, was in violation of the
legal provisions and requisites, for he (the deceased) was deprived of his free
will due to his age, sickness, and bombardment, and Matilde Menciano, taking
advantage of the deceased's condition, by intrigue and threat of abandoning
him, forced Neri by means of deceit (dolo) and threat to marry her; and that the
deceased was sterile, unable to procreate, and was impotent and congenitally
sterile, the same as his brothers Anastasio, Filomeno, Pedro, and his sister
Conchita, who had had no children. The defendants also filed a counterclaim for
the sum of P286,000 in cash, and for jewels and certain properties, which, as
http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1 1/9
3/7/2018 lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1

alleged, were retained and illegally disposed of by Matilde Menciano.

The above allegations of the parties give rise to the following issues:

(1) Was the marriage between the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose
and Matilde Menciano valid?;

(2) Are the children Faustino Neri, Jr. and Carlo Magno Neri the
legitimate children of the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and
Matilde Menciano?; and

(3) Did Matilde Menciano have in her possession and illegally

disposed of the cash, jewels, and certain properties above mentioned?

The marriage between the deceased and Matilde Men-tiano is evidenced by

Exhibit 1-C, which is an application for a marriage license, dated September 28,
1944, signed by Faustino Neri San Jose, to marry Matilde Menciano; Exhibit 1-
B, also an application for a marriage license dated September 28, 1944, signed
by Matilde Menciano, to marry Faustino Neri San Jose; Exhibit 1-D, certificate
for immediate issuance of the marriage license applied for, signed by the Acting
Local Civil Registrar and Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde Menciano; and
Exhibit 1-A, the marriage contract signed by Faustino Neri San Jose and
Matilde Menciano as contracting parties, Rev. Isaias Edralin, as solemnizing
officer, and the witnesses L. 6. Castanos and Samson Pangan.

As all the above four exhibits are official and public documents, their validity
can be successfully assailed only by strong, clear, and convincing oral testimony.

In the case of Arroyo vs. Granada (18 Phil., 484), it was held:

"1. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF.

To justify the setting aside of an instrument solemnly executed and
voluntarily delivered, upon the ground that its execution was obtained
by false and fraudulent representations, the proof must be clear and
convincing." (Syllabus)

In the case of Sy Tiangco vs. Pablo and Apao (59 Phil., 119), this Court declared:

"1. PUBLIC DOCUMENT; EXECUTION; DENIAL OF ALLEGED

SIGNER; BURDEN OF PROOF. Plaintiff's attorneys vigorously
contend that when the plaintiff denied having signed the deed, it was
incumbent upon the defendants to call the witnesses thereto. The
execution of a document that has been ratified before a notary public
cannot be disproved by the mere denial of the alleged signer. No
http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1 2/9
3/7/2018 lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1

inference unfavorable to the defendants a-rises from their failure to

call the subscribing witnesses." (Syllabus)

Is the oral evidence presented by the defendants of sufficient force and weight
to overcome the above official documents?

The witnesses for the defendants testified in substance that the deceased
Faustino Neri was so weak and sick that he could not even talk coherently and
intelligibly. Their testimony is too sweeping, because they refer to a general
period of time. There must have been times when the deceased may have been
unable to attend to business or even to converse on account of his sickness, and
even Father Edralin did not solemnize the marriage on a certain date on
account of the weak condition of Faustino Neri and waited for about two days to
perform the ceremony when the old man, although somewhat weak, had a clear
mind. Father Edralin's testimony is strongly corroborated by the form of the
signatures of Faustino Neri in the above mentioned Exhibits 1-A, 1-C, and 1-D. A
mere glance at those signatures will convince anyone that they could not have
been written by a man who is almost unconscious and physically and
intellectually incapacitated, as the defendants' witnesses represent him to have
been. It should be noted that his signature is complicated, containing many
flourishes, such that it can not be signed by one who is not of sound mind and of
fair physical condition. He may have been sick at that time, but not to such a
degree as to render him unconscious of what he was doing. If the signatures of
the deceased in Exhibits 1-A, 1-C, and 1-D are compared with each other it will
be readily seen that they are practically uniform, which could not have been
accomplished by a man who is a nervous wreck. There is no sign of trembling of
the hands or fingers of the person who affixed those signatures, which usually
happens to a very sick man. In the case of Torres et al. vs. Lopez (48 Phil., 772),
this court made the following pronouncement:

"3.Id.; Id.; Tests of Capacity. Neither old age, physical infirmities,

feebleness of mind, weakness of the memory, the appointment of a
guardian, nor eccentricities are sufficient singly or jointly to show
testamentary incapacity. The nature and rationality of the will is of
some practical utility in determining capacity. Each case rests on its
own facts and must be decided by its own facts." (Syllabus, p. 773.)

*******

"11. Id.; Id.; Id.; Id.; Case at Bar. On January 3, 1924, when the
testator, Tomas Rodriguez, made his will, he was 76 years old,
physically decrepit, weak of intellect, suffering from a loss of memory,
had a guardian of his person and his property, and was eccentric, but
he still possessed that spark of reason and of life, that strength of
mind to form a fixed intention and to summon his enfeebled thoughts

http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1 3/9
3/7/2018 lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1

to enforce that intention, which the law terms 'testamentary capacity.'

Two of the subscribing witnesses testified clearly to the regular
manner in which the will was executed, and one did not. The
attending physicians and three other doctors who were present at the
execution of the will expressed opinions entirely favorable to the
capacity of the testator. Three other members of the medical
profession expressed opinions entirely unfavorable to the capacity of
the testator and certified that he was of unsound mind. Held, That
Tomas Rodriguez on January 3, 1924, possessed sufficient mentality
to make a will which would meet the legal test regarding testamentary
capacity; that the proponents of the will have carried successfully the
burden of proof and have shown him of sound mind on that date; and
that it was reversible error on the part of the trial court not to admit
his will to probate." (Syllabus, p. 774)

In Sancho vs. Abella (58 Phil., 728), this court said:

"1.WILLS; PROBATE; CAPACITY TO MAKE A WILL. 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.

"2. ID.; ID.; ID.;. 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 a 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 in a convent within the aforesaid
diocese." (Syllabi)

Although the above doctrine relates to testamentary capacity, there is no reason

why it should not be applied to the capacity to contract marriage, which
requires the same mental condition. Consequently, the court below did not err
in declaring valid the marriage of Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde
Menciano.

The next issue is whether Faustino Neri, Jr., and Carlo Magno Neri are
legitimate children of the deceased Faustino Neri and Matilde Menciano.

As above stated, the deceased Faustino Neri and Matilde Menciano were
married on September 28, 1944. Faustino Neri, Jr., was born on April 24, 1945;
that is, two hundred eight days, or more than one hundred eighty days, after the
marriage, but less than three hundred days after the death of Faustino Neri San
Jose which occurred on October 11, 1944. There is no question that before and
http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1 4/9
3/7/2018 lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1

after the marriage, the deceased and Matilde Menciano cohabitated.

Rule 123, section 68(c), reads as follows:

"SEC. 68. Conclusive presumptions. The following are instances of

conclusive presumptions:

" * * * * * * *"

"(c) The issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not
impotent, is indisputably presumed to be legitimate, if not born within
the one hundred and eighty days immediately succeeding the
marriage, or after the expiration of three hundred days following its
dissolution;

" * * * * * * *"

The above-quoted provision is so clear that it does not require interpretation or

construction, but only application.

The requirements for the conclusive presumption that Faustino Neri, Jr. is the
legitimate son of the legitimate marriage of the deceased Faustino Neri and
Matilde Menciano exist as above stated, with the possible exception of the
requisite as to potency.

Was the deceased Faustino Neri impotent during his cohabitation with Matilde
Menciano?

Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The

presumption is in favor of potency. The best evidence that the deceased was
potent is the statement of Dr. Antonio Garcia that in order to get a specimen of
the semen of the deceased Faustino Neri for examination as to its contents of
spermatozoa, Faustino, following the doctor's advice, used a rubber sac,
commonly called "condon", and a woman. The fact that the deceased was able to
produce the specimen by said means shows conclusively that he was potent.
Impotency is not synonimous with sterility. Impotency is the physical inability
to have sexual intercourse; it is different from sterility.

"(1) Impotence, in Medical Jurisprudence. Inability on the part of the

male organ of copulation to perform its proper function. Impotence
applies only to disorders affecting the function of the organ of
copulation, while sterility applies only to lack of fertility in the
reproductive elements of either sex. (Dennis, System of Surgery;
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawle's Third Revision, VoL II, p. 1514)

http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1 5/9
3/7/2018 lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1

"(2) Impotentia (L.) Impotence.

"Impotencia Coeundi, inability of the male to perform the sexual act.

"Impotentia Erigendi, inability to have an erection of the penis. (The

American Illustrated Medical Dictionary, by Dorland, 20th Edition, p.
721)

"i. Coeundi. Inability of the male to perform the sexual act. i. erigendi,
impotence due to the absence of the power of erection. (Stedman's
Practical Medical Dictionary, p. 551)

"(4) Impotence.

" '3. Law & Med. Incapacity for sexual intercourse.' (Webster's New
International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1251).

"(5) Impotency or Impotence. Want of power for copulation, not mere

sterility. The absence of complete power of copulation is an essential
element to constitute impotency. (31 C. J., p. 259).

"(6) Impotence. Inability to perform the sexual act may be due to

defective organs from abnormal or incomplete development, or to
deficient internal secretions, or to disorders of the nervous system
diminishing the libido. Impotence may or may not be accompanied by
sterility. (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 877),"

Consequently, the requisite of potency also existed. The necessary conclusion is

that the child Faustino Neri, Jr., is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate
son of the deceased Faustino Neri with Matilde Menciano in lawful wedlock.

The attorney for the plaintiffs correctly objected to the evidence regarding
sterility and any other evidence as to paternity. The objection should not have
been overruled

However, even considering the evidence as to sterility, it results that the

examinations of the semen by Drs. Garcia and Marfori in 1940, to determine the
existence of spermatozoa, do not establish that the deceased was sterile.
According to medical jurisprudence, a man may not have spermatozoa at a
certain time, but may have had it previously or may have it subsequently to the
examination. The examinations by Drs. Garcia and Marfori were made in 1940.
From that time Faustino Neri San Jose cohabited with Matilde Menciano until
his death on October 11, 1944.

Doctor Jose F. Marfori testified as follows:

http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1 6/9
3/7/2018 lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1

"Q. How many times did you examine his seminal

A. Only once.
fluid?
"Q. In other words, from the latter part of 1940 up
to his death, you examined only once his seminal A. Yes, sir.
fluid?
A. It would have been
Q. Is it not a fact that you cannot determine
better if there was an
sterility or his inability to procreate with one
examination of bis
examination?
seminal fluid every year."
"Q. But the truth is that today a man may lack
A. That is possible." (P.
spermatozoa in his seminal fluid, but much later it
28, t. s. n., Gaane)
may appear?

It should be noted that Doctor Marfori is a nephew-in-law of the deceased

Faustino Neri.

With regard to the supposed examination made by Doctor Garcia in Cebu on

December 9, 1940, Cristobal Lopez, nephew of Faustino, testified that during
said period, December, 1940, the deceased Neri never went out of Cagayan,
Oriental Misamis. eW cannot accord much weight to the testimony of Doctor
Garcia that he made the examination.

But even supposing that said doctors made such examinations, still the result is
inconclusive, for the reasons above set forth, and cannot in any way overthrow
the conclusive presumption established by Rule 123, section

Carlo Magno Neri was born on March 9, 1940, that is, before the marriage. Both
the deceased Faustino and Matilde Menciano were free to marry without any
legal impediment. However, the court below declared that Carlo Magno Neri
has not been acknowledged as a natural child and, consequently, cannot be
legitimized by the subsequent marriage of his parents. We cannot review this
finding because the plaintiffs did not appeal.

The defendants allege that Matilde Menciano is retaining or has illegally

disposed of P286,000, genuine Philippine currency, certain jewels, and
documents. The trial court, after a careful and exhaustive review of the
evidence, correctly reached the conclusion that such allegation has not been
substantiated. Let us make a short analysis of the defendants' evidence on this
point.

The principal witness for this claim was Rodolfo Pelaez, who testified that the
deceased Faustino in 1939 delivered to him the sum of P250,000 in small

http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1 7/9
3/7/2018 lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1

denominations to be exchanged in a bank in Manila for bills of larger

denominations as P500, etc. After having exchanged it with the help of
Representative Ozamis (dead on the date of the trial), he returned to the
province and delivered the sum to the deceased Neri. On cross-examination he
was not able to say whether the bills he took to Manila in October, 1939, were
treasury certificates or bank bills; that in July, 1944, he visited Cagayan and he
saw his uncle Faustino living with Matilde Menciano and Carlo Magno Neri in
the house of a Chinaman on Calle Del Mar; that he saw the sum of P250,000 in
a wooden aparador. But when he was asked whether he actually saw the money
in the aparador, he said he was so informed by his uncle. His testimony is
hearsay. Furthermore, there is no reason why his uncle should have accounted
to him for the money. Histestimony is contradicted by that of Paz Neri San
Jose,his mother, who stated that the deceased Faustino went to the house of the
Chinaman on Calle Del Mar only to fetch certain document which he had left
there; that the deceased was not living in said house; that he went there now
and then to play monte; that the deceased and herself were living in the house
of one Tamparong; that the deceased used to carry with him his money, jewels,
and documents, in a sack, wherever he went to play; that at the time of the air
raid by the Americans, the deceased went to the house on Calle Del Mar
carrying the said sack, but he returned to the house of Tamparong, leaving the
sack in the house on Calle Del Mar, but after the air raid he returned on the
latter house to fetch the sack. This testimony of Paz Neri, who was a witness for
the defendants and a co-defendant herself, contradicts in essential and
important features that of Rodolfo Pelaez.

The testimony of Paz Neri would show that the deceased Neri was distrustful of
relatives and friends when his funds were concerned. P250,000 in 1939 was
quite a fortune in itself and, consisting of cash, could have been easily disposed
of. In 1939 nobody believed for certain that there would be war. Why then
should the deceased have wanted to change the money for bigger
denominations when he could have deposited it in a nearby branch of the
Philippine National Bank where the deceased could have gone, for, as alleged by
the defendants, he even went to Cebu in 1940 for examination of his seminal
fluid?

It was testified to by Clotilde Galarrita de Labitad that Matilde Menciano

showed to her the sum of P284,000 in genuine Philippine currency and counted
the money in her presence. This is unbelievable. Could she not have counted it
without the presence of anybody and thus avoided the danger of theft or
robbery?

With regard to the jewels no satisfactory evidence was presented to prove that
Matilde Menciano misappropriated them. She received and had in her
possession a few jewels given to her by the deceased Faustino for the benefit of
the children.

http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1 8/9
3/7/2018 lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1

As to the revocation of the appointment of Paz Neri San Jose as executrix, the
trial court made a reasonable exercise of its discretion in setting it aside and
appointing Matilde Menciano administratrix, in view of the hostility between
them which would cause many incidental questions and delay in the
termination of the proceedings if Paz Neri had continued as such executrix. We
see no reason for interfering in this case with the discretion of the court.

The appellees contend that the court erred in not completely annulling the
institution of universal heir, without considering Rodolfo Pelaez as a legatee.
Inasmuch as the plaintiffs did not appeal, they are bound by the decision of the
trial court.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all its parts,
with costs against the appellants. It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor. and Bautista Angelo, JJ.,
concurr.

http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2f16?printable=1&user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09&tryFree=1 9/9