G.R. No. L-9089; January 5, 1915
In re the state of the deceased SOTERA BARRIENTOS. SAMUEL PERRY, petitioner, respondent-appellant, vs. VICENTE ELIO, petitioner, respondent-appellee.

FACTS:
Upon the death of Sotera Barrientos, two documents were presented to the Court of First Instance of Misamis, each purporting to be her last will and testament. The first, dated September 21, 1910, was filed by her surviving husband, Samuel Perry, naming him as the sole heir. The second, dated August 26, 1912, was filed by Vicente Elio, her son-in-law from a prior marriage, naming him as the sole heir and expressly revoking all prior wills. Perry opposed the probate of Elio’s document, and Elio opposed Perry’s. The trial court heard both petitions jointly. It found both wills to be authentic and duly executed but held that the 1910 will had been revoked by the 1912 will. Consequently, the court denied probate of Perry’s 1910 will and ordered the probate of Elio’s 1912 will. Perry appealed this order.

ISSUE:
Whether the document dated August 26, 1912, presented by Vicente Elio, was executed in accordance with law and should be admitted to probate as the last will and testament of Sotera Barrientos.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court and denied the probate of the 1912 document.

The Court found that the execution of the 1912 will was vitiated by the undue and controlling influence of Vicente Elio, the sole beneficiary. The evidence showed that Elio prepared the draft of the will based on his own notes, had it copied, selected the witnesses, and brought them to the testatrix’s house. Crucially, the document already contained a clause authorizing Santos Matayabas to sign for the testatrix due to her alleged debility before it was presented to her. The testimony revealed that it was Elio who suggested that the testatrix choose someone to sign for her, claimed to have privately heard her whisper “Santos,” and then announced this choice to the witnesses. The Court held that this pre-arranged designation, coupled with Elio’s direct and exclusive intervention as the beneficiary, demonstrated that Matayabas did not sign under the express direction or order of the testatrix as required by Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190). The will was therefore not a free and voluntary act of the testatrix but was subordinated to the will of Elio.

Since the 1912 will was invalid, it could not revoke the earlier 1910 will. The trial court’s finding that the 1910 will was authentic and duly executed was uncontested. Accordingly, the Supreme Court revoked the appealed order, denied probate of the 1912 document, and directed the lower court to proceed with the probate of the 1910 will presented by Samuel Perry.