[No. 19142.

March 5, 1923]
32. In the matter of the estate of Mariano Corrales Tan, deceased. F!"I!N! #!M#$N,
%etitioner and a%%ellee, &s. "IC'NT' C$((!'# T!N )*INTIN, o%%ositor and a%%ellant.
F!CT#+
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila admitting to probate a
document alleged to be the last will and testament of the deceased Mariano Corrales Tan.
Appellant Tan Quintin alleges that the testator acted under duress and under undue influence,
and that at the time of the execution of the will he was not of sound and disposing mind.
Dr. Tee an !ee, the attending ph"sician, and witness for the opposition, testified that the
deceased was suffering from diabetes and had been in a comatose condition for se#eral da"s
prior to his death. e died about eight or nine o$cloc% in the e#ening of December &', ()&(, and
the will is alleged to ha#e been executed in the forenoon of the same da".
Counsel for the appellant argues that coma implies complete unconsciousness, and that
the testator, therefore, could not at that time have been in possession of his mental
faculties and have executed a will.
There are, howe#er, #ar"ing degrees of coma and in its lighter forms the patient ma" be
aroused and ha#e lucid inter#als. *uch seems to ha#e been the case here. Doctor Tee an
!ee, who #isited the deceased in the e#ening of December &+th, sa"s he then seemed to be in
a state of coma and that in the forenoon of December &'th, when the doctor again #isited him,
he was in ,the same state of coma.,
Maximina -ng, the wife of the opponent, the onl" other witness for the opposition, states that on
December &'th the deceased could not tal% and did not recogni.e an"one. /ut all the witnesses
presented b" the petitioner, fi#e in number, testif" that the deceased was conscious, could hear
and understand what was said to him and was able to indicate his desires. Four of these
witnesses state that he could spea% distinctl"0 the fifth, 1elhagen, sa"s that the deceased onl"
mo#ed his head in answer to 2uestions.
I##*'+
3-4 the testator lac%ed the re2uired mental capacit" when he executed the will, the latter
therefore in#alid.
,'-+
4o. That the deceased was in an exceedingl" feeble condition at the time the will was executed
is e#ident, but if the witnesses presented in support of the petition told the truth there can be no
doubt that he was of sound mind and capable of ma%ing his will. And the Court sees no reason
to discredit an" of these witnesses0 the discrepancies found between their respecti#e #ersions
of what too% place at the execution of the document are comparati#el" unimportant and so far
from wea%ening their testimon" rather lend strength to it b" indicating the absence of an"
conspirac" among them.
As against their testimon" we ha#e onl" the testimon" of Maximina -ng and Dr. Tee an !ee.
The former is not a disinterested witness. As to the testimon" of the latter it is sufficient to sa"
that mere professional speculation cannot pre#ail o#er the positi#e statements of fi#e apparentl"
credible witnesses whose testimon" does not in itself seem unreasonable.