G.R. No. L-4752
In the matter of the probation of the will of the late FELICITAS CABIGTING. FLORENTINO CORDERO, petitioner-appellee, vs. PEDRO CABIGTING, opponent-appellant.
November 17, 1909

FACTS:
Florentino Cordero, the husband of the deceased Felicitas Cabigting (70 years old), filed a petition for the probate of her will with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The will named Cordero as her sole and lawful heir and executor. The will also stated that due to her weakness, Felicitas Cabigting was unable to sign, so Teodoro Jurado signed the will at her request and in her presence. The will was published by Jurado in the testatrix’s name, declaring it as her will, in the presence of three witnesses (Teodoro Jurado, Esteban Domingo, and Jacobo Fajardo) who signed at her request and in her presence, and in the presence of each other.

Pedro Cabigting opposed the probate, alleging that the testatrix was not in full enjoyment of her mental faculties and that the will had not been drawn and signed in the manner provided by law. The trial court, after hearing evidence, admitted the will to probate. Pedro Cabigting’s motion for a new trial was denied, prompting him to appeal the decision. His appeal reiterated the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and non-compliance with legal formalities. The trial court also noted that Pedro Cabigting failed to establish his legal capacity and right as a party in interest.

ISSUE:
1. Did the testatrix, Felicitas Cabigting, possess the necessary testamentary capacity (sound mind) at the time of executing her will?
2. Was the will executed in accordance with the formalities required by law, particularly Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, considering that another person signed for the testatrix at her request?
3. Did Pedro Cabigting, as the opponent, establish his legal standing and interest in the probate proceedings?

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, admitting the will to probate.

1. Regarding testamentary capacity: The Court reiterated the principle that all persons are presumed to be of sound mind unless proven otherwise. Pedro Cabigting, the opponent, failed to present any evidence to demonstrate that the testatrix lacked sound mind when she executed her will. On the contrary, the presumption of her sound mind was corroborated by the certificate and testimony of the attending physician, the testimony of Attorney Emiliano Kerr, and the testimony of the witness Teodoro Jurado. Therefore, Felicitas Cabigting was legally qualified to execute her will.
2. Regarding formalities of execution: The Court found no reason to overturn the lower court’s finding that the will was executed in accordance with the formalities and requisites required by Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The act of Teodoro Jurado signing the will at the request of the testatrix and in her presence, along with the required attestation by the witnesses, was deemed compliant with the law.
3. Regarding Pedro Cabigting’s interest: The Court held that Pedro Cabigting failed to establish his legal capacity and right as a party in interest in the hereditary succession of Felicitas Cabigting. The argument that merely opposing a will presumes interest was deemed “absurd” and without legal basis.

Thus, the opposition to the will’s probate was deemed devoid of legal foundation.