Case Summary (G.R. No. 204793)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Alleged execution of will: November 18, 1987. Decedent’s death: April 4, 1997. Catalino filed intestate estate petition (Spec. Proc. No. 97‑4244) on August 11, 1997; Natividad filed petition for probate (Spec. Proc. No. 97‑4243). Cases consolidated and tried at RTC Branch 115, Pasay City. RTC denied probate and appointed Catalino special administrator (orders and decision culminating in May 31, 2004 decision). Court of Appeals reversed and allowed probate (June 25, 2012 decision; reconsideration denied December 4, 2012). Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court affirmed the CA and denied the petition.
Applicable Law and Legal Framework
Constitutional basis: 1987 Constitution (decision date post‑1990). Controlling statutory and doctrinal law: Civil Code provisions on wills (Arts. 805, 806, 809, 820, 821, 839); Rules of Court provisions on probate and proofs (Rule 75 Sec. 1; Rule 76 Sec. 11; Rule 76 Sec. 9; Rule 132 Sec. 20 as cited). Governing standards include the distinction between extrinsic (due execution) and intrinsic validity (substance of dispositions), and the doctrine of substantial compliance under Article 809.
Relevant Factual Findings at Trial
Proponent evidence: the three lawyer‑witnesses and the notary testified they prepared, witnessed and notarized the Tagalog will at Quasha Law Office; they described asking the testatrix probing questions to determine mental capacity, observed her sign each page (pages numbered), and identified supporting identity documents (residence certificate, passport). A deposition of Atty. Lallana confirmed drafting the will, that Consuelo reviewed and affirmed the contents, and that the will was executed with all witnesses present and the notary administering oath and notarization. Oppositor evidence: members of the Tanchanco family (including Ronaldo and Catalino) and Consuelo’s security aide Layug testified that Consuelo was frail, often wheelchair‑bound and dependent on companions; some said she would not likely travel alone to Makati or execute a will in Tagalog, and they alleged prior statements by Consuelo that she had no will and intended equal division between her daughters. The will was produced after Consuelo’s death and was alleged to favor Natividad.
Trial Court’s Reasons for Disallowance
The RTC found the will “dubious” and denied probate. Key factual bases for that conclusion included: (1) all attesting witnesses and the notary were associates of a law firm representing Natividad; (2) absence of relatives among witnesses; (3) testimony (e.g., Layug) that Consuelo never went to the Makati office; (4) perceived improbability that a frail 81‑year‑old would travel to Makati alone; (5) inconsistency in the attestation/acknowledgment (residence shown as Makati despite long residence in Pasay); and (6) the will’s allegedly one‑sided disposition favoring Natividad. The RTC also gave weight to family testimony asserting Consuelo’s repeated declarations that she had no will.
Court of Appeals’ Rationale for Allowing Probate
The CA reversed. It emphasized the rule favoring testacy over intestacy and focused on extrinsic validity: whether the will was executed in compliance with the formalities and whether the testatrix had testamentary capacity. The CA credited the positive and consistent testimony of the three lawyer‑witnesses and the notary (some of whom were examined by deposition), found no convincing evidence of forgery or duress, and held that the lawyers were not disqualified as witnesses. Concerning the attestation clause’s failure to state the number of pages, the CA applied the substantial‑compliance principle (Article 809) and found the omission was cured by the acknowledgment portion and by the internal indicia (correlative numbering and signatures on each page). The CA also stressed that intrinsic questions of fairness of dispositions are beyond the probate court’s limited inquiry.
Issues Presented on Supreme Court Review
Petitioners framed the issues as: whether the will was fabricated (physical incapacity, forgery, or simulation); whether the will conformed to Article 805 formalities (particularly the attestation clause and numbering); whether attendant circumstances (witnesses being counsel for beneficiary, language of document, timing of its production) evidenced bad faith, fraud or undue influence that would render Article 809 inapplicable; whether the CA improperly disregarded the RTC’s factual findings; and whether appointment of Natividad as executrix was improper given allegations of unfitness and dissipation.
Supreme Court’s Standard of Review and Observations
The Supreme Court recognized the case as one of conflicting factual findings between RTC and CA, thereby invoking the exception to the general Rule 45 restriction on review of pure facts. It reiterated the legal standard for probate proceedings: the probate court’s task is limited to determining extrinsic validity—whether the testator, of sound mind, freely executed the will according to statutory formalities (Arts. 805 and 806) — not to probe intrinsic validity or the fairness of distributions. The Court applied the established doctrine that defects in attestation may be excused under Article 809 if omissions can be cured by examining the will itself (intrinsic evidence) and if there is absence of bad faith, forgery, fraud, or undue pressure.
Analysis of Formalities, Substantial Compliance, and Signature/Forger y Claims
On formalities, the Court found that the will, while the attestation clause did not explicitly state the number of pages, contained intrinsic indicia that cured the omission: correlative page numbering, signatures of testatrix and witnesses on each page, uniform typewriting style, absence of erasures, and an acknowledgment clause that unequivocally stated the will comprised five pages. The Court relied on prior authorities holding that where the number of pages is ascertainable from the document itself, substantial compliance suffices; by contrast, defects that require proof aliunde cannot be cured. On forgery, the Court found petitioners produced no convincing, corroborated evidence of forgery; comparisons of signatures in residence certificates and the will did no
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 204793)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Supreme Court Second Division, G.R. No. 204793, decision penned June 08, 2020; reported at 873 Phil. 371; 118 O.G. No. 11, 2519 (March 14, 2022).
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assails:
- June 25, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 89593 allowing the probate of the will.
- December 4, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying motion for reconsideration.
- Trial court judgment appealed: May 31, 2004 Decision of Branch 115, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City (Special Proceedings Nos. 97-4243 and 97-4244), which denied probate of the alleged will and converted proceedings into intestate settlement.
- Relief sought in Supreme Court: reversal of CA ruling and reinstatement of RTC decision disallowing probate; appointment and other reliefs sought by petitioners (the Tanchancos).
Parties and Principal Actors
- Testatrix/Decedent: Consuelo Santiago Garcia (Consuelo), deceased on April 4, 1997 at age 91.
- Petitioners/Oppositors at probate: Catalino Tanchanco and Ronaldo Tanchanco (grandchildren of Consuelo; children of Remedios, who predeceased Consuelo in 1985) — collectively referred to as the Tanchancos.
- Respondent/Petitioner for probate: Natividad Garcia Santos (Natividad), daughter of Consuelo; named executrix in the alleged will.
- Other relevant persons and witnesses:
- Attesting witnesses to the alleged will: Atty. Kenny H. Tantuico, Atty. Ma. Isabel C. Lallana, Atty. Aberico T. Paras — all associates of Quasha Law Office.
- Notary public who notarized the will: Atty. Nunilo O. Marapao, Jr.
- Security aide/attendant and other family members giving testimony: Emilio Layug, Jr., Alberto G. Santos (Natividad’s son), and others including family members who testified for petitioners.
Antecedent Facts and Estate Context
- Marital and family background:
- Consuelo was married to Anastacio Garcia (died August 14, 1985).
- Two daughters: Remedios (predeceased 1985) — mother of the Tanchancos — and Natividad (surviving daughter).
- Estate facts:
- Consuelo left an estate of several personal and real properties at death.
- Dispute arose over possession, management and alleged dissipation of properties by Natividad and her son Alberto, leading Catalino to file for appointment as special administrator and accounting.
- Competing proceedings:
- August 11, 1997: Catalino filed petition to settle intestate estate (Spec. Proc. Case No. 97-4244).
- Natividad filed petition for probate of the Last Will and Testament of Consuelo (Spec. Proc. Case No. 97-4243). The two special proceedings were later consolidated before Branch 115 of the RTC.
The Alleged Will: Form, Language, and Executional Circumstances
- Title and form:
- The alleged will is entitled "Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya ni Consuelo Santiago Garcia."
- The will was written in Tagalog at the request of Consuelo, though she was conversant in English; the will also contained English equivalents for technical terms.
- Date and place:
- The will was alleged to have been executed in 1987 (petitioners alleged a specific date of November 18, 1987 in their pleadings).
- Execution occasion reportedly took place in the conference room of Quasha Law Office in Makati City.
- Instrumentalities and attestations:
- Attesting witnesses signed and subscribed every page at the left margin and the pages were numbered correlatively.
- Notarial acknowledgment by Atty. Marapao expressly stated the will consisted of five (5) pages, including the attestation and notarial pages.
- The attestation clause itself did not explicitly state the number of pages, but the acknowledgment portion did.
- Testator’s condition and identification at execution:
- Testifying attorneys (Marapao, Paras, Tantuico, Lallana) uniformly described Consuelo as alert, of sound mind, able to understand the will and to answer probing questions; she produced her residence certificate and passport as identification and, in some testimony, arrived unaided to the law office lobby.
Trial Court Proceedings: Evidence Offered and Key Testimony
- Testifying witnesses for probate (Natividad):
- Atty. Nunilo O. Marapao, Jr.: notarized the will; remembered it as his first time notarizing a Tagalog will; assisted in drafting it; present during signing; identified Consuelo’s signature.
- Atty. Aberico T. Paras and Atty. Kenny H. Tantuico: attesting witnesses; affirmed their signatures and Consuelo’s; recounted asking questions to testastery’s soundness and voluntariness.
- Atty. Ma. Isabel C. Lallana: drafted the will; friend of the family; deposition taken (she was not residing in the Philippines at trial); described private meetings with Consuelo and the witnesses’ practice of questioning Consuelo to determine capacity and voluntariness.
- Testifying witnesses for oppositors (the Tanchancos):
- Ronaldo and Catalino: recounted close relationships with Consuelo at times; challenged the will’s authenticity and the circumstances of execution; alleged Consuelo was frail, had mobility limitations from a prior accident, was forgetful, and had stated she had no will; questioned the language change to Tagalog and alleged forgery of signature based on expected “crooked” signature at advanced age.
- Emilio Layug, Jr. (security aide): denied accompanying Consuelo to Quasha Law Office; described Consuelo’s need for assistance, wheelchair use and dependence on companions from 1987.
- Other family testimony and documentary exhibits: passports, residence certificates, photographs, Deed of Absolute Sale, and other records were introduced and discussed in cross-examinations.
RTC Findings and Rationale for Disallowing Probate (May 31, 2004 Decision)
- RTC conclusions:
- The purported will was “replete with aberrations” and dubious when considered as a whole.
- Suspicion noted because two attesting witnesses and the notary were all associates of a Makati law firm representing Natividad in the litigation.
- Unusual circumstances: an 81-year-old frail woman allegedly traveled alone to Makati without bodyguard or alalay; no relatives witnessed the will; will surfaced only after testatrix’s death despite alleged execution years earlier.
- The attestation clause’s acknowledgment of Makati residence was inconsistent with testatrix’s long residence in Pasay City, making the provenance of the will suspect.
- The will apparently favored Natividad disproportionately and named her executrix, which the RTC regarded as questionable.
- RTC disposition:
- Denied probate and found the will dubious such that it should not be allowed probate.
Court of Appeals Decision and Reasoning (June 25, 2012)
- CA holdings:
- Applied principle that the law favors testacy over intestacy and that the probate court’s inquiry is limited to extrinsic validity (due execution and testamentary capacity), not intrinsic validity of provisions.
- Found compliance with Rule 76 Section 11 in producing and examining the subscribing witnesses and notary: depositions and testimonies of Atty. Tantuico, Atty. Paras, Atty. Marapao and the deposition of Atty. Lallana were presented.
- Credited the positive testimonies of the lawyer-witnesses that the will was duly executed,