Case Summary (G.R. No. 204793)
Key Dates
Execution of Will: November 18, 1987
Filing of Probate & Intestate Petitions: August 11, 1997 (RTC Branch 113 & 115, Pasay City)
RTC Decision Denying Probate: May 31, 2004
CA Decision Allowing Probate: June 25, 2012
SC Decision: June 8, 2020
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution (as case decided post-1990)
Civil Code: Art. 805 (formal requirements for non-holographic wills), Art. 806 (notarial acknowledgment), Art. 809 (substantial compliance rule), Art. 820–821 (witness qualifications), Art. 839 (grounds for disallowance)
Rules of Court: Rule 45 (certiorari), Rule 75 & 76 (probate proceedings), Rule 132, Sec. 20 (proof of authenticity)
Procedural History
Two special proceedings were consolidated in RTC Branch 115, Pasay City: one for probate (No. 97-4243) filed by Natividad to admit the Last Will and Testament (“Huling Habilin”) of Consuelo, and one for intestate settlement (No. 97-4244) filed by Catalino. The RTC denied probate, prompting appeal by Natividad. The Court of Appeals reversed, admitting the will and appointing Natividad executor without bond. The Tanchancos petitioned this Court under Rule 45.
Antecedents and Contentions
Consuelo executed a Tagalog will at Quasha Law Office in Makati, witnessed by three attorneys and notarized by Atty. Marapao. The Tanchancos challenged its validity, alleging:
- Non-compliance with Art. 805 formalities (missing page count in attestation clause)
- Decedent’s physical incapacity and reliance on caregivers made a Makati trip impossible
- Signature forgery (smooth vs. “crooked” hand)
- Undue influence by Natividad
- Dispositive provisions favoring Natividad at the expense of equal division
RTC’s Findings
The trial court found the will “dubious,” emphasizing:
- All attesting witnesses were colleagues of Natividad’s counsel
- Decedent’s health precluded unaccompanied travel to Makati
- Residence certificate issued in Makati contradicted known Pasay City domicile
- Will surfaced only years after execution and heavily favored Natividad
It concluded forgery or simulation, disallowing probate.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA applied the presumption favoring testacy (Art. 960, Civil Code) and Rule 132, Sec. 20 proof standards. It found:
- Three credible witnesses and the notary testified to due execution and testatrix’s sound mind
- Substantial compliance with Art. 805 despite attestation clause defect, cured by acknowledgment portion and intrinsic evidence (Art. 809)
- No proven forgery or incapacity; decedent traveled abroad before and after will execution
- Non-relatives may validly witness a will under Art. 820–821
It reversed the RTC and ordered probate with Natividad as executor without bond.
Supreme Court Analysis and Ruling
The Court affirmed the CA, reviewing extrinsic validity only. Key points:
- Formal requirements met: correlated page numbering, proper signatures, clear acknowledgment of five pages
- Substantial compliance doctrine: omission of page count in attestation clause remedied by
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 204793)
Facts
- Consuelo Santiago Garcia (testatrix) died on April 4, 1997 at age 91, leaving personal and real properties.
- She was predeceased by daughter Remedios (1985), who left children including petitioners Catalino and Ronaldo Tanchanco. Only surviving child was Natividad Garcia Santos.
- Catalino filed on August 11, 1997 a petition to settle the intestate estate (Spec. Proc. No. 97-4244), alleging misappropriation of properties by Natividad and her son Alberto.
- Natividad filed on the same day a petition to probate Consuelo’s Last Will and Testament—titled “Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya ni Consuelo Santiago Garcia”—docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 97-4243, seeking letters testamentary in her favor as named executrix.
- The two cases were consolidated before RTC Branch 115, Pasay City.
- The contested will was typewritten in Tagalog at Quasha Law Office in Makati City, witnessed by Atty. Tantuico, Atty. Paras, Atty. Lallana, and notarized by Atty. Marapao.
- Petitioners alleged multiple defects:
• Attestation clause omitted the number of pages.
• Will drafted in Tagalog instead of English, inconsistent with testatrix’s practice.
• Physical incapacity of an 81-year-old Consuelo to travel alone to Makati.
• Forged signature and undue influence by Natividad.
Procedural History
- RTC Branch 115 (May 31, 2004) denied probate, finding the will “dubious,” fabricated by Natividad’s law firm associates; appointed Catalino as special administrator (bond ₱1,000,000).
- CA, in CA-G.R. CV No. 89593, reversed (June 25, 2012) and allowed probate; appointed Natividad executrix without bond; denied motion for reconsideration (Dec. 4, 2012).
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Whether the contested will of Consuelo Santiago Garcia should be allowed probate despite alleged formal defects, incapacity, forgery, undue influence, and non-compliance with Article 805 of the Civil Code.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
- Found the will replete with anomalies and fabrication:
• Attesting witnesses and notary were Natividad’s counsel associates.
• Unlikely that frail Con