Mitra vs. Sablan-Guevarra

A notarial will substantially complies with the formal requirements under Article 805 of the Civil Code notwithstanding the omission in the attestation clause of the number of pages comprising the will, provided such number is stated elsewhere in the will itself (such as in the Acknowledgment) without need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, and provided the will is proven to have been executed without bad faith, forgery, fraud, or undue influence pursuant to Article 809.

Remedios Legaspi y Reyes, single, died on December 22, 2004 in Caloocan City, leaving a notarial will dated September 27, 2004 written in Filipino ("Huling Habilin at Pagpapatunay"). The will instituted Margie Santos Mitra (claiming to be Legaspi's de facto adopted daughter), Orlando Castro, Perpetua Sablan Guevarra, and Remigio Legaspi Sablan as heirs, and named Mary Ann Castro as executor. The estate comprised real and personal properties valued at approximately ₱1,032,237.00. Perpetua L. Sablan-Guevarra and Remegio L. Sablan, claiming to be Legaspi's legal heirs, contested the will's validity on formal grounds and allegations of undue influence.

• The Petition for Probate: On June 26, 2006, Margie Santos Mitra filed a petition for probate of Legaspi's notarial will with prayer for issuance of letters testamentary before the RTC of Caloocan City.
• Opposition: Perpetua L. Sablan-Guevarra and Remegio L. Sablan opposed the petition, alleging: (1) the will was not executed according to legal formalities; (2) the last page containing the Acknowledgment was not signed by Legaspi and the instrumental witnesses; (3) the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages upon which the will was written; and (4) the will was executed under undue and improper pressure negating Legaspi's intent.
• RTC Proceedings: The probate court admitted the will, ruling that the last page was merely a continuation of the Acknowledgment which required no signatures, and that the number of pages stated in the Acknowledgment satisfied the requirement. The court found no evidence of undue influence.
• CA Proceedings: The CA reversed, finding that the instrumental witnesses failed to sign on the left margin of each and every page except the last, and that the attestation clause's failure to state the number of pages constituted a fatal defect. The CA relied on a photocopy of the will submitted by respondents wherein the witnesses' signatures on the left margins appeared missing.
• The Original Will: Examination of the original will (Exhibit "L") revealed that the instrumental witnesses had in fact signed on the left margin of every page except the last. The photocopy submitted to the CA had been altered or cut off on the left margin due to the binding of the folder, unintentionally excluding the signatures.

• Substantial Compliance: The will substantially complied with Article 805 as the number of pages was stated in the Acknowledgment portion, bringing the case within the coverage of Article 809.
• Actual Signatures: The original will clearly showed that instrumental witnesses signed on the left margin of every page except the last; the CA was misled by an altered photocopy submitted by respondents where these signatures were covered or cut off.
• Nature of the Last Page: The last page contained only the Acknowledgment, not testamentary dispositions; hence, it constituted no part of the will requiring signatures under Article 805, which refers to the logical end of the will where the last testamentary disposition appears.
• Procedural Relaxation: The motion for reconsideration was filed only one day late; rigid application of procedural rules would result in the automatic defeasance of Legaspi's testamentary intent, an unjust result not commensurate with the procedural lapse.

• Formal Defects: The will failed to comply strictly with Article 805 because the attestation clause omitted the number of pages, and the instrumental witnesses did not sign on the left margin of each page as shown in the photocopy submitted on appeal.
• No Alteration: Respondents denied altering the photocopy, explaining that the left portion was unintentionally excluded during photocopying because the folder was bound on the left margin and pages could not be detached.
• Strict Compliance Required: Citing Uy Coque and In re: Will of Andrada, respondents maintained that the failure to state the number of pages in the attestation clause is fatal to the will's validity.

• Marginal Signatures: Whether the CA erred in finding that the instrumental witnesses failed to sign on each and every page of the will on the left margin, except the last, as required under Article 805 of the Civil Code.
• Attestation Clause: Whether the CA erred in ruling that the failure to state the number of pages comprising the will in the attestation clause renders such will defective.

• Marginal Signatures: The CA's finding was erroneous. The original will established that the instrumental witnesses signed on every page on the left margin except the last. The CA relied on an altered photocopy where these signatures were obscured. Article 805 requires signatures on each page except the last to prevent the substitution of pages; this requirement was satisfied as evidenced by the original document.
• Logical End of Will: The last page of the will, containing only the Acknowledgment, did not require the testator's or witnesses' signatures. Article 805 requires subscription "at the end" of the will, referring to the logical end where the last testamentary disposition is found, not the physical end of the document containing merely procedural acknowledgments.
• Attestation Clause: The omission to state the number of pages in the attestation clause did not invalidate the will. Article 809 permits substantial compliance where defects in form do not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was executed without bad faith, forgery, or fraud. Following Taboada and Azuela, the number of pages stated in the Acknowledgment ("apat (4) na dahon") supplied the omission in the attestation clause without need of extrinsic evidence.
• Procedural Rules: The Court relaxed the strict application of procedural rules regarding the late filing of the motion for reconsideration. Technicalities should not defeat substantial justice and the testator's expressed will, particularly where the delay was minimal (one day) and the substantive merits warranted review.

• Substantial Compliance Rule (Article 809, Civil Code) — Defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein do not render a will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with Article 805, provided there is no bad faith, forgery, fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence. Omissions in the attestation clause that can be supplied by examination of the will itself (such as the number of pages stated in the Acknowledgment) do not invalidate the will; however, omissions requiring extrinsic evidence (aliunde) would invalidate the attestation clause and the will itself.
• Logical End vs. Physical End of Will — The requirement under Article 805 that the testator subscribe at the end of the will refers to the logical end thereof—the point where the last testamentary disposition ends—not necessarily the physical last page of the document. Pages containing only acknowledgments or procedural formalities subsequent to the last disposition do not require the testator's or witnesses' signatures on the margin.
• Relaxation of Procedural Rules — Where stringent application of procedural rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, and would result in a gross miscarriage of justice (such as the automatic defeasance of a valid will for a one-day delay in filing a motion for reconsideration), courts may relax the rules to prevent inequity.

• "In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805." — Articulating the substantial compliance rule that saved the will from invalidity due to formal defects.
• "What is imperative for the allowance of a will despite the existence of omissions is that such omissions must be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence. 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." — Distinguishing between curable formal defects (supplied by the will itself) and fatal defects (requiring extrinsic evidence).
• "When Article 805 of the Civil Code requires the testator to subscribe at the end of the will, it necessarily refers to the logical end thereof, which is where the last testamentary disposition ends." — Establishing that the Acknowledgment page, containing no testamentary dispositions, did not require signatures.

• Uy Coque vs. Naves Sioca, 43 Phil. 405 (1922) — Distinguished; held that failure to declare the number of pages in the attestation clause was fatal, but decided prior to the effectivity of the Civil Code and its Article 809 substantial compliance rule.
• In re: Will of Andrada, 42 Phil. 180 (1921) — Distinguished; similarly held pre-Civil Code that failure to state number of pages in attestation clause was fatal.
• Singson vs. Florentino, 92 Phil. 161 (1952) — Followed; adopted a liberal approach allowing probate where the number of pages was mentioned in the body of the will rather than the attestation clause, to prevent defeat of the testator's will by technicalities.
• Taboada vs. Hon. Rosal, 203 Phil. 572 (1982) — Followed; allowed probate where the number of pages was stated in the Acknowledgment rather than the attestation clause.
• Azuela vs. CA, 521 Phil. 263 (2006) — Followed; substantial compliance exists if the number of pages is stated elsewhere in the will.
• Caneda et al. v. CA, 294 Phil. 801 (1993) — Cited for the rule that omissions supplied by the will itself are permissible, but those requiring extrinsic evidence invalidate the will.
• Republic vs. CA, 172 Phil. 741 (1978) — Cited for the principle that procedural rules may be relaxed to prevent gross miscarriage of justice.

• Article 805, Civil Code — Governs the formal requirements for execution and attestation of notarial wills, including subscription by the testator at the end thereof, attestation by three or more credible witnesses, signing by the testator and witnesses on each page except the last on the left margin, and the requirement that the attestation clause state the number of pages used.
• Article 809, Civil Code — Provides the substantial compliance rule for defects in the form of attestation or language used therein, provided the will was executed without bad faith, forgery, fraud, or undue influence.
• Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs petitions for review on certiorari raising only questions of law; relaxed in this case due to conflicting findings of fact between the RTC and CA.

Carpio (Acting C.J.), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ.