Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Coso vs. Fernandez Deza

    Uploaded by

    CarlaVerceles
    The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision to invalidate a will on the grounds of undue influence. The will left part of the estate to the testator's illegitimate son and reimbursed the woman he had an affair with for caring for him while ill. While the woman had some influence over the testator, the Court found no evidence it destroyed his free will or was exerted for improper purposes at the time of making the will. Mere affection, even illegitimate affection, is not considered undue influence if no fraud or imposition occurred.

    Copyright:

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

    Coso vs. Fernandez Deza

    Uploaded by

    CarlaVerceles
    74 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision to invalidate a will on the grounds of undue influence. The will left part of the estate to the testator's illegitimate son and reimbursed the woman he had an affair with for caring for him while ill. While the woman had some influence over the testator, the Court found no evidence it destroyed his free will or was exerted for improper purposes at the time of making the will. Mere affection, even illegitimate affection, is not considered undue influence if no fraud or imposition occurred.

    Original Description:

    SCRA Wills and Succession

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision to invalidate a will on the grounds of undue influence. The will left part of the estate to the testator's illegitimate son and reimbursed the woman he had an affair with for caring for him while ill. While the woman had some influence over the testator, the Court found no evidence it destroyed his free will or was exerted for improper purposes at the time of making the will. Mere affection, even illegitimate affection, is not considered undue influence if no fraud or imposition occurred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    74 views3 pages

    Coso vs. Fernandez Deza

    Uploaded by

    CarlaVerceles
    The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision to invalidate a will on the grounds of undue influence. The will left part of the estate to the testator's illegitimate son and reimbursed the woman he had an affair with for caring for him while ill. While the woman had some influence over the testator, the Court found no evidence it destroyed his free will or was exerted for improper purposes at the time of making the will. Mere affection, even illegitimate affection, is not considered undue influence if no fraud or imposition occurred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    596 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

    Coso vs. Fernandez Deza

    Fourth. That upon payment of his lawful fees, the register of


    deeds note said right of retention on the back of the transfer
    certificate No. 526 issued in favor of Lizarraga Hermanos, or of any
    other certificate standing in lieu thereof, concerning the said
    building, which note will remain in force until the payment of the
    aforesaid improvements is made as above ordered. Without pro-
    nouncement as to costs in this instance, so ordered.

    Araullo, C. J., Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, and


    Johns, J J., concur.

    Judgments modified.

    ——————————

    [No. 16763. December 22, 1921]


    PASCUAL COSO, petitioner and appellant, vs. FERMINA FERNANDEZ DEZA
    ET AL., objectors and appellees.

    WILLS; UNDUE INFLUENCE.—In the absence of fraud or imposition, mere affection,


    even if illegitimate, is not undue influence and does not invalidate a will.

    APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of


    Manila. Concepcion, J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Eduardo Gutierrez Repide and Felix Sodas for appellant.
    Jose Varela Calderon and Benito Jimenez Zoboli for appellees.

    OSTRAND, J.:
    This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
    Manila setting aside a will on the ground of undue influence alleged
    to have been exerted over the mind of a testator by one Rosario
    Lopez. The will gives the tercio de libre disposicion to an
    illegitimate son had by the testator with said. Rosario Lopez, and
    also provides for the payment to her of nineteen hundred Spanish
    duros by way of reimbursement for expenses incurred by her in
    taking care of the testator in Barcelona during the years

    597
    VOL. 42, DECEMBER 22, 1921 597
    Coso vs. Fernandez Deza

    1909 to 1916, when he is alleged to have suffered from a severe


    illness.
    The evidence shows that the testator, a married man and resident
    of the Philippine Islands, became acquainted with Rosario Lopez in
    Spain in 1898 and that he had illicit relations with her for many
    years thereafter. After his return to the Philippines she followed him,
    arriving in Manila in February, 1918, and remained in close commu-
    nication with him until his death in February, 1919. There is no
    doubt that she exercised some influence over him and the only
    question for our determination is whether this influence was of such
    a character as to vitiate the will.
    The English and American rule in regard to undue influence is
    thus stated in 40 Cyc, 1144-1149.

    "Mere general or reasonable influence over a testator is not sufficient to


    invalidate a will; to have that effect the influence must be  'undue.' The rule
    as to what constitutes 'undue influence' has been variously stated, but the
    substance of the different statements is that, to be sufficient to avoid a will,
    the influence exerted must be of a kind that so overpowers and subjugates
    the mind of the testator as to destroy his free agency and make him express
    the will of another, rather than his own.
    "* * * such influence must be actually exerted on the mind of the
    testator in regard to the execution of the will in question, either at the time
    of the execution of the will, or so near thereto as to be still operative, with
    the object of procuring a will in favor of particular parties, and it must result
    in the making of testamentary dispositions which the testator would not
    otherwise have made *  * *
    "* * * and while the same amount of influence may become
    'undue' when exercised by one occupying an improper and adulterous
    relation to testator, the mere fact that some influence is exercised by a
    person sustaining that relation does not invalidate a will, unless it is further
    shown that the influence destroys the testator's free agency."

    598

    598 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED


    Coso vs. Fernandez Deza

    The burden is upon the parties challenging the will to show that
    undue influence, in the sense above expressed, existed at the time of
    its execution and we do not think that this burden has been carried in
    the present case. While it is shown that the testator entertained
    strong affections for Rosario Lopez, it does not appear that her
    influence so overpowered and subjugated his mind as to "destroy his
    free agency and make him express the will of another rather than his
    own." He was an intelligent man, a lawyer by profession, appears to
    have known his own mind, and may well have been actuated only by
    a legitimate sense of duty in making provisions for the welfare of his
    illegitimate son and by a proper feeling of gratitude in repaying
    Rosario Lopez for the sacrifices she had made for him. Mere
    affection, even if illegitimate, is not undue influence and does not
    invalidate a will. No imposition or fraud has been shown in the
    present case.

    "Influence gained by kindness and affection will not be regarded as


    'undue,' if no imposition or fraud be practiced, even though it induces the
    testator to make an unequal and unjust disposition of his property in favor of
    those who have contributed to his comfort and ministered to his wants, if
    such disposition is voluntarily made." (Mackall vs. Mackal, 135 U. S., 167.)

    It may be further observed that under the Civil Law the right of a
    person with legal heirs to dispose of his property by will is limited to
    only a portion of his estate, and that under the law in force in these
    Islands before the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
    only outside influences affecting the validity of a will were duress,
    deceit, and fraud. The present doctrine of undue influence originated
    in a legal system where the right of the testator to dispose of his
    property by will was nearly unlimited. Manifestly, greater
    safeguards in. regard to execution of wills may be warranted when
    the right to so dispose of property is unlimited than when it is
    restricted to the extent it is in this

    © Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

    You might also like