Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena

An error in the attestation clause regarding the total number of pages of a will does not invalidate the instrument if the pages are correlatively lettered and the evidence shows substantial compliance with the formal requirements of Article 805 of the Civil Code, provided there is no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or undue influence.

Margarita S. Mayores died single and without any ascending or descending heirs, survived only by collateral relatives, including her first cousin, the petitioner. Before her death, Margarita executed a will bequeathing her real and personal properties to several individuals, including her lifelong companion, the respondent, whom she also designated as executor. The petitioner sought letters of administration for the estate, while the respondent sought the probate of the will, leading to a consolidated legal battle over the will's validity.

• Margarita S. Mayores executed a Last Will and Testament on February 2, 1987, where she distributed her undivided shares in properties in Manila and Makati and designated respondent Lucia D. Abena as the sole executor.
• The decedent died on April 27, 1987, without any compulsory heirs (parents, grandparents, or children) and was survived only by collateral relatives, including the petitioner.
• The will's attestation clause stated that the will consisted of three pages, but the document actually comprised two pages of testamentary dispositions and a third page containing the acknowledgment and attestation, with pages lettered A, B, and C.
• Petitioner challenged the probate, claiming the will was not signed in the presence of witnesses, that the signatures were inconsistent, and that the decedent was mentally incapable and under undue influence.
• Evidence presented at the trial court included a photograph showing the testator smiling while signing the will in the presence of witnesses and a notary.
• A medical witness for the petitioner, Dr. Ramon Lamberte, testified that the decedent could engage in normal conversation and that her illness did not warrant hospitalization for mental incapacity.

• The will is void for failure to comply with Article 805 of the Civil Code because the testator allegedly did not sign the will in the presence of the instrumental witnesses and vice versa.
• The discrepancy in the number of pages stated in the attestation clause (three pages) versus the actual document (two pages plus attestation) is a fatal defect that invalidates the will.
• The signatures of the testator on the different pages of the will are inconsistent in size and appearance, suggesting they were not signed on the same day.
• The will was procured through undue influence and pressure because the decedent was physically weak, sickly, and entirely dependent on the respondent for support.
• The petitioner and her siblings are the legal heirs of the decedent under Articles 1009 and 1010 of the Civil Code as her only living collateral relatives.

• The petition should be denied because it raises questions of fact, such as the presence of witnesses and the existence of undue influence, which are not reviewable under a Rule 45 petition.
• The findings of fact by the Court of Appeals and the RTC are final and conclusive, specifically that the formalities of the law were complied with and the testator was of sound mind.
• The will was validly executed and the minor error in the page count in the attestation clause does not affect the integrity of the document.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the signing of the will and the existence of undue influence are questions of fact that are barred from review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the discrepancy between the number of pages stated in the attestation clause and the actual number of pages of the will renders the will void.
  • Whether the testator possessed the required testamentary capacity and was free from undue influence at the time of the execution of the will.

• Procedural:
  • The Court ruled that the issues of whether the will was signed in the presence of witnesses, whether signatures were made on the same day, and whether undue influence was exerted are pure questions of fact. Under Section 1, Rule 45, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to questions of law, and since none of the recognized exceptions to this rule were present, the factual findings of the lower courts are conclusive and binding.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that the error in the number of pages stated in the attestation clause was not material and did not invalidate the will because the pages were consecutively lettered A, B, and C, which served as a sufficient safeguard against the omission of any page.
  • The Court applied the "doctrine of liberal interpretation" under Article 809 of the Civil Code, finding that the will was executed in substantial compliance with Article 805 in the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud.
  • The Court affirmed that the testator was of sound mind, noting that physical weakness does not necessarily imply mental incapacity and that the petitioner failed to overcome the legal presumption of sound mind under Article 800.
  • The Court found no evidence of undue influence, relying on the trial court's observation of photographic evidence showing the testator in a good mood and smiling during the execution of the will.

• Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation (Article 809 of the Civil Code) — This doctrine provides that defects or imperfections in the form of attestation or the language used shall not render a will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with Article 805. In this case, the Court used this doctrine to overlook the clerical error regarding the number of pages in the attestation clause.
• Presumption of Sound Mind (Article 800 of the Civil Code) — The law presumes that every testator is of sound mind unless the contrary is proved. The Court applied this by ruling that the petitioner failed to establish mental incapacity by a preponderance of evidence.
• Question of Law vs. Question of Fact (Rule 45) — This principle dictates that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and will only review questions of law in a petition for review on certiorari. The Court invoked this to decline a re-evaluation of the witnesses' testimonies and the physical appearance of the signatures.

• "The testator may be admitted to be physically weak but it does not necessarily follow that she was not of sound mind."
• "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."

• Ontimare, Jr. v. Elep — Referenced to reiterate the well-settled rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and that findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive unless specific exceptions apply.

• Article 800, Civil Code — Establishes the legal presumption that the testator is of sound mind.
• Article 805, Civil Code — Details the formal requirements for notarial wills, including subscription by the testator and attestation by witnesses.
• Article 809, Civil Code — Provides for the rule of substantial compliance regarding the form of the attestation clause.
• Article 887, Civil Code — Lists compulsory heirs; used to determine that the petitioner (a cousin) is not a compulsory heir.
• Article 1009 and 1010, Civil Code — Pertains to the rights of collateral relatives in legal or intestate succession.
• Rule 45, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Limits the scope of review of the Supreme Court to questions of law.