Lopez vs. Lopez

A will is invalid if its attestation clause totally omits the number of pages used, and a discrepancy between the stated number of pages in the acknowledgment and the actual number of pages cannot be remedied by substantial compliance under Art. 809 if it requires extrinsic evidence to explain.

The case involves the probate of the Last Will and Testament of Enrique S. Lopez, executed on August 10, 1996. The validity of the will is contested based on formal defects in the attestation clause, specifically the omission of the total number of pages and a discrepancy in the page count stated in the acknowledgment portion versus the actual document.

• Original Filing: RTC of Manila, Branch 42, SP. Proc. No. 99-95225 (Petition for Probate)
• Lower Court Decision: August 26, 2005 — RTC disallowed the probate of the will for failure to comply with Art. 805 of the Civil Code.
• Appeal: Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 87064). CA dismissed the appeal on March 30, 2009, noting the wrong mode of appeal but affirming the RTC on the merits. Motion for reconsideration denied on October 22, 2009.
• SC Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CA's decision and resolution.

• Death and Heirs: Enrique S. Lopez died on June 21, 1999, leaving his wife Wendy and four legitimate children: petitioner Richard, and respondents Diana, Marybeth, and Victoria.
• Execution of the Will: Before his death, Enrique executed a Last Will and Testament on August 10, 1996, constituting Richard as his executor and administrator.
• Probate Petition: On September 27, 1999, Richard filed a petition for probate before the RTC of Manila.
• Opposition: Marybeth and Victoria opposed the petition, arguing the will was not executed and attested as required by law and was procured through undue influence by Richard.
• Petitioner's Evidence: Attesting witnesses and the notary public (Atty. Nolasco) testified that Enrique read and signed every page, and the witnesses signed in the testator's presence and in each other's presence. Atty. Nolasco translated the English will to Filipino for Enrique, who was of sound mind.
• Oppositors' Evidence: A lone witness from the RTC Notarial Section initially testified that Atty. Nolasco was not a notary public for Manila in 1996, but clarified on cross-examination that Nolasco was commissioned from 1994 to 1997.
• The Fatal Defect: The attestation clause totally omitted the number of pages used upon which the will was written. Furthermore, the acknowledgment portion stated the will "consists of 7 pages including the page on which the ratification and acknowledgment are written," but the will actually consisted of 8 pages including the acknowledgment portion.

• The will substantially complied with the formal requirements of Art. 805 of the Civil Code under the substantial compliance doctrine of Art. 809.
• The number of pages was reflected elsewhere in the will (specifically in the acknowledgment portion stating 7 pages), which should suffice without needing extrinsic evidence.
• The CA erred in affirming the RTC's disallowance and in ruling that the wrong mode of appeal was used.

• The will failed to comply with Art. 805 because the attestation clause totally omitted the number of pages.
• The acknowledgment's mention of 7 pages versus the actual 8 pages creates a discrepancy that necessitates extrinsic evidence to explain, which is prohibited.
• The appeal from the RTC to the CA was incorrectly pursued via notice of appeal instead of record on appeal for special proceedings.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the petitioner pursued the wrong mode of appeal from the RTC to the CA in a special proceeding.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the omission of the number of pages in the attestation clause and the discrepancy in the page count in the acknowledgment portion render the will invalid, precluding substantial compliance under Art. 809 of the Civil Code.

• Procedural: The SC affirmed that Richard pursued the wrong mode of appeal. Under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, appeals in special proceedings must be made by record on appeal, not by notice of appeal.
• Substantive: The SC ruled the will is invalid. Art. 805 mandates that the attestation state the number of pages to safeguard against interpolation or omission of pages. While Art. 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the form of the attestation clause, this rule is limited to defects that can be supplied by examining the will itself (e.g., page numbering, presence of signatures). The total omission of the page count in the attestation clause, and the unexplained discrepancy between the 7 pages stated in the acknowledgment and the 8 actual pages, cannot be resolved by merely examining the will; they require evidence aliunde. Therefore, substantial compliance does not apply.

• Substantial Compliance Doctrine (Art. 809, Civil Code) — Defects and imperfections in the form of the attestation or the language used shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with Art. 805 requirements, provided there is no bad faith, forgery, fraud, or undue influence.
• Limitation applied: The doctrine is strictly limited to disregarding defects that can be supplied by an examination of the will itself (e.g., whether pages are consecutively numbered, whether signatures appear on every page, whether there are three subscribing witnesses).
• Exceptions to substantial compliance: The total number of pages and whether all persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other must substantially appear in the attestation clause. These act as the primary check against perjury in probate proceedings and cannot be supplied by extrinsic evidence if omitted or discrepant.

• Article 805, Civil Code — Requires that the attestation clause state the number of pages used upon which the will is written, the fact that the testator signed the will and every page, and that the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all pages in the presence of the testator and one another. Applied: The subject will's attestation clause totally omitted the number of pages, violating this mandatory provision.
• Article 809, Civil Code — Sanctions mere substantial compliance with Art. 805 formal requirements if there is no bad faith, forgery, fraud, or undue influence. Applied: The SC held this provision does not save the will because the defect (omission of page count and discrepancy) cannot be determined from the will itself without extrinsic evidence.
• Section 2(a), Rule 41, Rules of Court — Provides that appeals in special proceedings shall be made by record on appeal. Applied: The SC affirmed the CA's observation that Richard used the wrong mode of appeal (notice of appeal instead of record on appeal) from the RTC decision.