PECSON v.
CORONEL Furthermore, although the institution of the
beneficiary here would not seem the most usual
FACTS: and customary, still this would not be null per se:
1. The CFI probated the last will and testament of “In the absence of any statutory restriction
the deceased Dolores Coronel which states the every person possesses absolute dominion
ff: over his property, and may bestow it upon
whomsoever he pleases without regard to
“That having no forced heirs, I will all my natural or legal claim upon his bounty. If the
properties, both movable and immovable, testator possesses the requisite capacity to
to my nephew, Lorenzo Pecson, who is make a will, and the disposition of his
married to my niece Angela Coronel, in property is not affected by fraud or undue
consideration of the good services which influence, the will is not rendered invalid by
he has rendered, and is rendering to me the fact that it is unnatural, unreasonable, or
with good will and disinterestedness and unjust. Nothing can prevent the testator
to my full satisfaction.” from making a will as eccentric, as
injudicious, or as unjust as caprice, frivolity,
2. The petitioner of the probate of the will is or revenge can dictate.”
Lorenzo Pecson, and the opponents are the
blood relatives of the deceased. ADDITIONAL KAY WA KO KASABOT INCASE LANG
MANGUTANA TORNEY.
3. The probate of the will is impugned on the ff. Appellants argue that:
grounds:
a) That the proof does not show that the a) It was improbable and exceptional that
document above contains the last will of Dolores Coronel should dispose of her
Dolores Coronel, and estate, as set forth in the document, her
b) That the attestation clause is not in true will being that the same be distributed
accordance with the provisions of the Code among her blood relatives
of Civil Procedure, as amended.
b) If such will was not expressed in fact, it was
ISSUE: due to extraneous illegal influence.
WON the decedent can exclude her blood
relatives in the disposition of her estate. The Court decided to examine the first
point. The opponents contend that it was not, nor
RULING: could it be, the will of the testatrix, because it is
YES. It is true that ties of relationship in the not natural nor usual that she should completely
Philippines are very strong but we understand that exclude her blood relatives from her vast estate in
cases of preterition of relatives from the order to will the same to one who is only a relative
inheritance are not rare. by affinity, there appearing no sufficient motive
for such exclusion, inasmuch as until the death of
The liberty to dispose of one’s estate by will when Dolores Coronel, she maintained very cordial
there are no forced heirs is rendered sacred by the relations with the aforesaid relatives who helped
Civil Code in force in the Philippines. her in the management and direction of her lands.
However, from the testimony of Atty. Francisco
The SC held that nothing is strange in the (legal counsel of the deceased) Dolores revealed
preterition made by Dolores Coronel of her blood to him her suspicion against some of her
relatives, nor in the designation of Lorenzo Pecson nephews as having been accomplices in a
as her sole beneficiary. robbery of which she had been a victim.
As to preference given to Lorenzo Pecson, it
is not purely arbitrary, nor a caprice or a whim of
the moment. The proof adduced by this appellee,
although contradicted, shows by preponderance
of evidence that besides the services which the
opponents admit had been rendered by him to
Dolores Coronel since the year 1914, he had also
rendered services prior to that time and was the
administrator and manager of the affairs of said
Dolores in the last years of her life. And that this
was not a whim of the moment is shown by the
fact that six years before the execution of the will
in question, said Lorenzo Pecson was named and
appointed by Dolores Coronel as her sole heir in
another document.
It is also argued that the will of the testatrix
was to will her estate to her blood relatives, for
such was the promise made to Maria Coronel,
whom Rosario Coronel tens to corroborate. We do
not find such a promise to have been sufficiently
proven, and much less to have been seriously made
and coupled with a positive intention on the part of
Dolores Coronel to fulfill the same. In the absence
of sufficient proof of fraud, or undue influence, we
cannot take such a promise into account, for even
if such a promise was in fact made, Dolores Coronel
could retract or forget it afterwards and dispose of
her estate as she pleased. Wills themselves, which
contain more than mere promises, are essentially
revocable
