RELEVANCE OF THE CASE
A will represents the deceased’s final act of will, being the legal document by which one may deviate from legal rules of inheritance. Like any other legal act, it must satisfy all conditions to be valid and produce the effects prescribed by law: capacity, consent, object, and cause. Consent must be free and unimpaired in order to truly express the author’s real will.
In this respect, after the public notary reads the will, the testator must declare that the document expresses their final will; then the will is signed by the testator, and the authentication act is executed by the public notary.
If the testator, because of infirmity, illness, or other causes, cannot sign the document, they will dictate the content of the will to the public notary, specifying it is their final act of will; the notary must write and issue the will, with the procedure carried out in the presence of two witnesses.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTUAL SITUATION
Actually, by the claim filed by the plaintiff, she asked the court to declare the absolute nullity of the will, arguing that at the time it was made the testator lacked discernment. Under the will whose nullity is requested, the deceased wished to leave their entire estate to the defendant.
The plaintiff showed that both she and the defendant are nephews (sister’s grandchildren) of the deceased. The plaintiff claimed that the will is absolutely null because the deceased had suffered multiple strokes, and over time their health deteriorated, so that at the time of making the document the testator no longer had discernment of their actions.
She argued that the illnesses the deceased suffered impaired their ability to understand the consequences of their actions, and that they could be influenced by undue persuasion and suggestion to leave everything to the defendant.
PRESENTATION AND SUPPORT OF THE CASE
PROCEEDINGS AT FIRST INSTANCE
The plaintiff told the court that the will was made as a result of the defendant’s fraudulent manipulations, who allegedly used unlawful means to induce the deceased to make a will in the defendant’s favour – something the deceased would not have done on their own initiative, knowing that the deceased’s condition prevented them from understanding the consequences of such a document.
Also, the plaintiff argued that throughout the testator’s life, especially while being cared for by the plaintiff, the deceased had always said that their entire estate should be inherited by both plaintiff and defendant, not exclusively by the defendant. She considered that this was the correct way to distribute the deceased’s wealth, equally between the two heirs.
In defense, the defendant argued that the deceased never suffered psychiatric conditions that would affect their discernment; the will was made before the public notary, in the presence of two witnesses, because the deceased had finger paralysis and could not sign. This position of the defendant was in contradiction with a statement in the will that said the testator was illiterate.
As evidence, medical history of the deceased was submitted, based on which two medical-legal psychiatric expert reports were ordered. The will in question was also submitted, together with the notarial archives; witnesses proposed by the parties were heard.
In the first psychiatric report, the committee stated they could not determine whether the testator had the mental capacity. Later, at the plaintiff’s request, the trial court ordered a second medical-legal expertise, which concluded that, based on medical history, the testator did not present objective psychiatric criteria to legally establish lack of mental capacity.
In testimonial evidence, witnesses put forward by both sides stated, in essence, that the deceased had schooling, and knew how to read and write.
DECISION OF THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT
The court carried out an analysis of the legal requirements that must be fulfilled for a legal act to produce effects, holding that, in this case, all those conditions are met. The court specified that, from the ensemble of evidence administered in the case, it does not result that the testator lacked discernment at the moment of making the act.
Considering that the contested will was authenticated by the public notary, who perceived the testator’s condition directly, the court held the document to have full probative force — unless falsified — both regarding its authenticity and the statements in the authentication record.
The court found that the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant used fraudulent machinations to induce the deceased to make the will in his favour; accordingly, it rejected the plaintiff’s action as unfounded.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL
In response to the first instance decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal, requesting the first-instance ruling be completely overturned, arguing that incorrectly the lower court interpreted succession law without reference to other relevant legal texts, rejected the action, and improperly excluded the plaintiff from inheritance.
She argued that bad faith of the defendant arises from the fact that he, taking advantage of the deceased’s deteriorating health (shown in medical records of both expertise reports), induced the deceased to make a will in his favour. She claimed that the medical conditions led to progressive cognitive deterioration.
Advanced age of the deceased, and that death occurred one month after the drafting and authentication of the will, in the plaintiff’s view, lead to the conclusion that the deceased did not have the mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of the legal act, having lost discernment — this being also her explanation for why the deceased declared in the will that they were illiterate, despite their schooling.
The plaintiff also argued that witnesses who were present for drafting the will knew that the illiteracy statement was not true. She gave as evidence that more than ten years ago she had tried to conclude a notarial act in favour of the deceased, but the notary had refused to do so, finding that the deceased, due to health, could not cooperate because they did not understand the content or consequences of the act.
The defendant, in his reply, requested dismissal of the appeal as unfounded, stating correctly that the first instance held that allegations of undue persuasion and influence were not proven.
By written notes submitted by the plaintiff, she argued that the court failed to pronounce on a request from the defendant to hear certain witnesses and that the will is void because it lacks the testator’s signature; that the legal procedure to complete absence of signature via presence of witnesses is not lawful because the statements in the will that the testator was illiterate are untrue.
Regarding those requests, the court, by ruling, found that the plaintiff had lost the right to assert arguments not previously presented in the appeal brief; that is, the argument that certain claims made in the written notes are “new grounds” for appeal, and since she did not respect legal deadlines, she was precluded from them.
SOLUTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT
The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal filed by the plaintiff as unfounded, adopting the reasoning developed by the first instance in its decision to reject the initial claim.