IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF THE WILL OF

CONSUELO SANTIAGO GARCIA v.  NATIVIDAD GARCIA SANTOS

G.R. No. 204793
8 June 2020
 
 
Facts:
Consuelo was married to Anastacio Garcia (Anastacio) who passed away on August 14, 1985.
They had two daughters, Remedios Garcia Tanchanco (Remedios) and Natividad Garcia
Santos (Natividad). Remedios predeceased Consuelo in 1985 and left behind her children,
which included Catalino Tanchanco (Catalino) and Ronaldo Tanchanco (Ronaldo, collectively
Tanchancos).
 
 
On April 4, 1997, Consuelo, at 91 years old, passed away leaving behind an estate consisting
of several personal and real properties. Catalino filed a petition before the RTC of Pasay City
to settle the intestate estate of Consuelo.
 
Catalino alleged that the legal heirs of Consuelo are: Catalino, Ricardo, Ronaldo and Carmela,
all surnamed Tanchanco (children of Remedios), and Melissa and Gerard Tanchanco (issues
of Rodolfo Tanchanco, Remedios' son who predeceased her and Consuelo), and Natividad,
the remaining living daughter of Consuelo. Catalino additionally alleged that Consuelo's
properties are in the possession of Natividad and her son, Alberto G. Santos (Alberto), who
have been dissipating and misappropriating the said properties.
 
Natividad filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that she already filed a petition" for the probate of
the Last Will and Testament of Consuelo before Branch 115 of the RTC of Pasay City. The
Tanchancos filed an Opposition to Natividad's petition for probate alleging that the will's
attestation clause did not state the number of pages and that the will was written in Tagalog,
and not the English language usually used by Consuelo in most of her legal documents. They
also pointed out that Consuelo could not have gone to Makati where the purported will was
notarized considering her failing health and the distance of her residence in Pasay City.
Moreover, they alleged that Consuelo's signature was forged. Thus, they prayed for the
disallowance of probate and for the proceedings to be converted into an intestate one.
 
However, Natividad contended that there was substantial compliance with Article 805 of the
Civil Code. Although the attestation clause did not state the number of pages comprising the
will, the same was clearly indicated in the acknowledgment portion. Furthermore, the
Tanchancos' allegations were not supported by proof.14 Conversely, the Tanchancos
rebutted that the number of pages should be found in the body of the will and not just in the
acknowledgment portion.
Eventually, the two cases (Spec. Proc. Case Nos. 97-4243 and 97 4244) were consolidated
before Branch 115 of the RTC of Pasay City. 16 Hearings commenced.
 
Atty. Marapao testified that he specifically remembered the will in question because it was his
first time to notarize a will written in Tagalog. He was familiar with the other witnesses and
their signatures because they were his colleagues at Quasha Ancheta Peña and Nolasco
(Quasha Law Office) and because he was present during the signing of the will. He also
identified Consuelo's signature as he was present when she signed the will.
 
Atty. Marapao averred that he assisted Atty. Lallana in drafting the will. He described
Consuelo as very alert and sane, and not suffering from any ailment at the time. The will was
written in Tagalog at the request of Consuelo although she was conversant in English. Emilio
Layug, Jr. (Layug), then security aide of Consuelo, denied accompanying Consuelo to Quasha
Law Office in Makati City.60 He averred that he would only accompany her on special
occasions and whenever she decided to bring him along with her. Consuelo could not leave
the house without her companions, Nonita Legazpi and Anita Lozada, 62 and she could no
longer walk alone and needed to use a wheelchair as she was weak.
 
The RTC of Pasay City found the purported will replete with aberrations. The CA reversed and
set aside the Ruling of the RTC.

Issue: Whether the will should be allowed for probate.

 
Ruling:
Yes. The Tanchancos argue that the will was a total fabrication given that Consuelo was
incapable of executing a will at the alleged date and place of execution. Consuelo resided in
Pasay City and not in Makati City, and her old age and prior accident limited her mobility and
disabled her in that she needed assistance most of the time.
 
Moreover, Consuelo's bodyguard who was always with her since 1987 averred that she never
went to Quasha Law Office. They question Atty. Lallana's assertion that Consuelo was
accompanied at the lobby of Quasha Law Office by a maid at the time the will was executed
since the said companion was never identified or presented as a witness. They additionally
claim that Consuelo's signatures in the will were forged as the signatures therein were
suspiciously neat and inconsistent with a "crooked" signature attributable to imperfections
and tremors which are usually experienced by an 80-year-old. The Tanchancos insist that the
ruling of the trial court should be given weight since it was in the best position to evaluate the
evidence and the witnesses presented before it by both parties.
 
Natividad counters that the CA's ruling had legal and factual basis and that the will was
executed in accordance with the required formalities and solemnities, viz..
 a.     The last will and testament was written in Tagalog, a language
known to and understood by decedent. Decedent was born and
raised in the province of Bulacan where the dialect is Tagalog. More
importantly, there was no evidence presented to show that
Decedent could not understand Tagalog at the time of the execution
of the will;
b.     The last will and testament was subscribed at the end thereof by
Decedent;
c.     The last will and testament was attested and subscribed by three (3)
lawyers of Quasha Law Office in the presence of Decedent and of
one another;
d.     Each and every page of [the] last will and testament was signed by
Decedent and three (3) lawyers on the left margin;
e.     All pages of the last will and testament of Decedent were numbered
correlatively on the upper part of each page;
f.      The last will and testament of Decedent contains an attestation
clause;
g.     And finally, the last will and testament of Decedent was
acknowledged before a notary public."
 
Natividad avers that the testimonies of the Tanchancos' witnesses who discounted the
possibility of Consuelo travelling to Makati City could not outweigh the positive testimonies
of the attesting witnesses to the execution of the will. She points out that Consuelo even
travelled abroad before and after the will was executed. Additionally, the lawyer-witnesses
have no personal interest in the execution of the will.
 
Undoubtedly, the RTC and the CA had conflicting findings which would merit the Court's
review of the factual and legal circumstances surrounding the case and serve as an exception
to the rule that the Court can only rule on questions of law in petitions for review on
certiorari.
 
We are inclined to affirm the findings and ruling of the CA as these were based on a careful
consideration of the evidence and supported by prevailing law and jurisprudence. The Court
concurs with the CA in holding that the trial court erred in lending credence to the allegations
of the Tanchancos which are bereft of substantiation that Consuelo's signature was forged or
that undue duress was employed in the execution of the will in question.
 
It is settled that “the law favors testacy over intestacy” and hence, "the probate of the will
cannot be dispensed with. Article 838 of the Civil Code provides that no will shall pass either
real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of
Court. Thus, unless the will is probated, the right of a person to dispose of his property may
be rendered nugatory." In a similar way, “testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate
of the decedent take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose." The will
faithfully complied with the formalities required by law.
 
The main issue which the court must determine in a probate proceeding is the due execution
or the extrinsic validity of the will as provided by Section 1, Rule 75 of the Rules of Court. The
probate court cannot inquire into the intrinsic validity of the will or the disposition of the
estate by the testator. Thus, due execution is “whether the testator, being of sound mind,
freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law” as mandated by
Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code.
 
An examination of Consuelo's will shows that it complied with the formalities required by the
law except that the attestation clause failed to indicate the total number of pages upon which
the will was written. To address this concern, Natividad enumerated the following attributes
of the attestation clause and the will itself, which the Court affirms:
1.     The pages are completely and correlatively numbered using
the same typewriting font on all the pages of the will;
2.     All indications point to the fact that the will was typewritten
using the same typewriter;
3.     There are no erasures or alterations in the will;
4.     The notarial acknowledgment states unequivocally or with
clarity that the will consists of five (5) pages including the
attestation clause (i.e. the "pagpapatunay') and the notarial
acknowledgment itself (i.e. the “pagpapatotoong ito");
5.     All of the pages of the entire will were properly signed on the
appropriate portions by the testator and the instrumental
witnesses;
6.     All of the signatures of the testator and the instrumental
witnesses on all the pages of the will are genuine if only for
the fact that they are identical/similar throughout;
7.     The oppositors have not adduced, and in fact waived the
presentation of, any kind of evidence to impugn the
authenticity of any of the signatures appearing in the will;
8.     The oppositors have not adduced, and in fact waived the
presentation of, any kind of evidence tending to show that
the will was allegedly executed by undue influence or any
fraudulent or improper/unlawful means.
 
It may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that omissions which can be supplied
by an examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will
not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will
being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence
aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will
itself..
 
In the instant case, the attestation clause indisputably omitted to mention the number of
pages comprising the will. Nevertheless, the acknowledgment portion of the will supplied the
omission by stating that the will has five pages, to wit: “Ang HULING HABILING ito ay binubuo
ng lima (5) na dahon, kasama ang dahong kinaroroonan ng Pagpapatunay at
Pagpapatotoong ito."
 
Undoubtedly, such substantially complied with Article 809 of the Civil Code. Mere reading and
observation of the will, without resorting to other extrinsic evidence, yields the conclusion
that there are actually five pages even if the said information was not provided in the
attestation clause.
 
In any case, the CA declared that there was substantial compliance with the directives of
Article 805 of the Civil Code.
 
Article 820 of the Civil Code provides that, “any person of sound mind and of the age of
eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and write, may be a
witness to the execution on of a will mentioned in Article 805 of this Code.” Here, the attesting
witnesses to the will in question are all lawyers equipped with the aforementioned
qualifications. In addition, they
are not disqualified from being witnesses under Article 821 of the Civil Code, even if they all
worked at the same law firm at the time. As pointed out by Natividad, these lawyers would
not risk their professional licenses by knowingly signing a document which they knew was
forged or executed under duress; moreover, they did not have anything to gain from the
estate when they signed as witnesses.
 
All the same, petitioners did not present controverting proof to discredit them or to show that
they were disqualified from being witnesses to Consuelo's will at the time of its execution.
The lawyer-witnesses unanimously confirmed that the will was duly executed by Consuelo
who was of sound mind and body at the time of signing. The Tanchancos failed to dispute the
competency and credibility of these witnesses; thus, the Court is disposed to give credence to
their testimonies that
 
Consuelo executed the will in accordance with the formalities of the law and with full mental
faculties and willingness to do so. Bare allegations without corroborating proof that Consuelo
was under duress in executing the will cannot be considered As similarly found by the CA, the
Tanchancos did not adduce evidence to corroborate their allegation that Consuelo declared
that she would not execute a last will and testament, other than their self-interested
statements. In addition, they failed to portray that Consuelo did not have the testamentary
capacity to execute the will or that she was suffering from a condition which could have
definitively prevented her from doing so
 
The Tanchancos did not explain how Consuelo could have been forced into executing the will,
as they merely focused on her alleged physical inability to go to the Quasha Law Office in
Makati City. They did not present witnesses who could prove that she was forced into making
the will, or that she signed it against her own wishes and volition.
 
Considering the foregoing, the will of Consuelo should be allowed probate as it complied with
the formalities required by the law. The Tanchancos failed to prove that the same was
executed through force or under duress, or that the signature of the testator was procured
through fraud as provided under Article 839 of the Civil Code and Rule 76, Section 9 of the
Rules of Court.
 
We agree with the CA that the court should respect the prerogative of the testator to name an
executrix (in this case, Natividad) in her will absent any circumstance which would render the
executrix as incompetent, or if she fails to give the bond requirement or refuses to execute
the provisions of the will.