8/18/2016

G.R.No.145545

SECONDDIVISION

PAZSAMANIEGOCELADA,
G.R.No.145545
Petitioner,

Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,Chairperson,
versus
CARPIOMORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO,JR.,and
BRION,JJ.

LUCIAD.ABENA,
Promulgated:
Respondent.

June30,2008
xx

DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewunderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureseeking
[1]
toreversetheDecision datedOctober13,2000oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.
[2]
41756,whichaffirmedtheDecision datedMarch2,1993oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),
Branch 66, Makati City. The RTC had declared the last will and testament of Margarita S.
MayoresprobatedanddesignatedrespondentLuciaD.Abenaastheexecutorofherwill.Italso
orderedtheissuanceofletterstestamentaryinfavorofrespondent.
Thefactsareasfollows:
PetitionerPazSamaniegoCeladawasthefirstcousinofdecedentMargaritaS.Mayores
(Margarita)whilerespondentwasthedecedentslifelongcompanionsince1929.
OnApril27,1987,Margaritadiedsingleandwithoutanyascendingnordescendingheirs
asherparents,grandparentsandsiblingspredeceasedher.Shewassurvivedbyherfirstcousins
CatalinaSamaniegoBombay,ManuelitaSamaniegoSajonia,FelizaSamaniego,andpetitioner.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/145545.htm

1/9

8/18/2016

G.R.No.145545

[3]
Beforeherdeath,MargaritaexecutedaLastWillandTestament onFebruary2,1987
where she bequeathed onehalf of her undivided share of a real property located at Singalong
Manila, consisting of 209.8 square meters, and covered byTransfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No.1343torespondent,NormaA.Pahingalo,andFlorentinoM.Abenainequalsharesorone
thirdportioneach.Shelikewisebequeathedonehalfofherundividedshareofarealproperty
locatedatSanAntonioVillage,Makati, consisting of 225 square meters, and covered by TCT
No.68920torespondent,IsabeloM.Abena,andAmandaM.Abenainequalsharesoronethird
portion each. Margarita also left all her personal properties to respondent whom she likewise
designatedassoleexecutorofherwill.
OnAugust11,1987,petitionerfiledapetitionforlettersofadministrationoftheestateof
MargaritabeforetheRTCofMakati.ThecasewasdocketedasSPProc.No.M1531.
On October 27, 1987, respondent filed a petition for probate of the will of Margarita
before the RTC of Makati. The case was docketed as SP Proc. No. M1607 and consolidated
withSPProc.No.M1531.
OnMarch2,1993,theRTCrenderedadecisiondeclaringthelastwillandtestamentof
Margarita probated and respondent as the executor of the will. The dispositive portion of the
decisionstates:
Inviewoftheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrendered:

1)declaringthewillasprobated

2) declaringLuciaAbenaastheexecutorofthewillwhowillserveassuchwithouta
bondasstatedinparagraphVIoftheprobatedwill

3)orderingtheissuanceofletterstestamentaryinfavorofLuciaAbena.

[4]

Soordered.

PetitionerappealedtheRTCdecisiontotheCourtofAppeals.ButtheCourtofAppeals,
inadecisiondatedOctober13,2000,affirmedintototheRTCruling.Thedispositiveportionof
theCourtofAppealsdecisionstates:
WHEREFORE,foregoingpremisesconsidered,theappealhavingnomeritinfactandin
law, is hereby ORDERED DISMISSED and the appealed Decision of the trial court
AFFIRMEDINTOTO,withcosttooppositorsappellants.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/145545.htm

2/9

8/18/2016

G.R.No.145545

[5]

SOORDERED.

Hence,theinstantpetitioncitingthefollowingissues:
I.

WHETHERORNOTTHECOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDAREVERSIBLEERRORIN
NOTINVALIDATINGTHEWILLSINCEITDIDNOTCONFORMTOTHEFORMALITIES
REQUIREDBYLAW

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED ERROR IN NOT

INVALIDATING THE WILL BECAUSE IT WAS PROCURED THROUGH UNDUE
INFLUENCEANDPRESSURE[]AND

III.

WHETHERORNOTTHECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINNOTDECLARING
PETITIONER,HERSIBLINGSANDCOUSINASTHELEGALHEIRSOFMARGARITAS.

[6]

MAYORESANDINNOTISSUINGLETTERSOFADMINISTRATIONTOHER.

Brieflystated,theissuesare(1)whethertheCourtofAppealserredinnotdeclaringthe
will invalid for failure to comply with the formalities required by law, (2) whether said court
erred in not declaring the will invalid because it was procured through undue influence and
pressure,and(3)whetheriterredinnotdeclaringpetitionerandhersiblingsasthelegalheirsof
Margarita,andinnotissuinglettersofadministrationtopetitioner.
[7]
Petitioner,inherMemorandum, arguesthatMargaritaswillfailedtocomplywiththe
[8]
formalitiesrequiredunderArticle805 oftheCivilCodebecausethewillwasnotsignedby
thetestatorinthepresenceoftheinstrumentalwitnessesandinthepresenceofoneanother.She
alsoarguesthatthesignaturesofthetestatoronpagesA,B,andCofthewillarenotthesameor
similar, indicating that they were not signed on the same day. She further argues that the will
wasprocuredthroughundueinfluenceandpressurebecauseatthetimeofexecutionofthewill,
Margarita was weak, sickly, jobless and entirely dependent upon respondent and her nephews
forsupport,andtheseallegedhandicapsallegedlyaffectedherfreedomandwillpowertodecide
onherown.Petitioner thus concludes that Margaritas total dependence on respondent and her
nephews compelled her to sign the will. Petitioner likewise argues that the Court of Appeals

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/145545.htm

3/9

8/18/2016

G.R.No.145545

shouldhavedeclaredherandhersiblingsasthelegalheirsofMargaritasincetheyareheronly
[9]
[10]
livingcollateralrelativesinaccordancewithArticles1009 and1010
oftheCivilCode.
[11]
Respondent, for her part, argues in her Memorandum
that the petition for review
raises questions of fact, not of law and as a rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
finalandconclusiveandcannotbereviewedonappealtotheSupremeCourt.She also points
outthatalthoughtheCourtofAppealsattheoutsetopinedtherewasnocompellingreasonto
reviewthepetition,theCourtofAppealsproceededtotackletheassignederrorsandrulethat
the will was validly executed, sustaining the findings of the trial court that the formalities
required by law were duly complied with. The Court of Appeals also concurred with the
findingsofthetrialcourtthatthetestator,Margarita,wasofsoundmindwhensheexecutedthe
will.
Aftercarefulconsiderationofthepartiescontentions,weruleinfavorofrespondent.
Wefindthattheissuesraisedbypetitionerconcernpurequestionsoffact,whichmaynot
be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The issues that petitioner is raising now i.e., whether or not the will was signed by the
testatorinthepresenceofthewitnessesandofoneanother,whetherornotthesignaturesofthe
witnesses on the pages of the will were signed on the same day, and whether or not undue
influencewasexerteduponthetestatorwhichcompelledhertosignthewill,areallquestionsof
fact.
ThisCourtdoesnotresolvequestionsoffactinapetitionforreviewunderRule45ofthe
[12]
1997RulesofCivilProcedure.Section1
ofRule45limitsthisCourtsreviewtoquestions
oflawonly.
WellsettledistherulethattheSupremeCourtisnotatrieroffacts.Whensupportedby
substantialevidence,thefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsareconclusiveandbindingon
thepartiesandarenotreviewablebythisCourt,unlessthecasefallsunderanyofthefollowing
recognizedexceptions:
(1)Whentheconclusionisafindinggroundedentirelyonspeculation,surmisesandconjectures
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/145545.htm

4/9

8/18/2016

G.R.No.145545

(2)Whentheinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken,absurdorimpossible
(3)Wherethereisagraveabuseofdiscretion
(4)Whenthejudgmentisbasedonamisapprehensionoffacts
(5)Whenthefindingsoffactareconflicting
(6)WhentheCourtofAppeals,inmakingitsfindings,wentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseandthe
sameiscontrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee
(7)Whenthefindingsarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt
(8)Whenthefindingsoffactareconclusionswithoutcitationofspecificevidenceonwhichthey
arebased
(9)Whenthefactssetforthinthepetitionaswellasinthepetitionersmainandreplybriefsare
notdisputedbytherespondentsand
(10)WhenthefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsarepremisedonthesupposedabsenceof

[13]

evidenceandcontradictedbytheevidenceonrecord.

Wefindthatthiscasedoesnotinvolveanyoftheabovementionedexceptions.
Nonetheless, a review of the findings of the RTC as upheld by the Court of Appeals,
revealthatpetitionersargumentslackbasis.TheRTCcorrectlyheld:
With[regard]tothecontentionoftheoppositors[PazSamaniegoCelada,etal.]thatthe
testator [Margarita Mayores] was not mentally capable of making a will at the time of the
executionthereof,thesameiswithoutmerit.Theoppositorsfailedtoestablish,bypreponderance
ofevidence,saidallegationandcontradictthepresumptionthatthetestatorwasofsoundmind
(See Article 800 of the Civil Code). In fact, witness for the oppositors, Dr. Ramon Lamberte,
who,insomeoccasions,attendedtothetestatormonthsbeforeherdeath,testifiedthatMargarita
Mayorescouldengageinanormalconversationandheevenstatedthattheillnessofthetestator
doesnotwarranthospitalization.Notoneoftheoppositorswitnesseshasmentionedanyinstance
that they observed act/s of the testator during her lifetime that could be construed as a
manifestation of mental incapacity. The testator may be admitted to be physically weak but it
does not necessarily follow that she was not of sound mind. [The] testimonies of contestant
witnessesarepureaforethought.

Anent the contestants submission that the will is fatally defective for the reason that its
attestationclausestatesthatthewilliscomposedofthree(3)pageswhileintruthandinfact,the
will consists of two (2) pages only because the attestation is not a part of the notarial will, the
sameisnotaccurate.Whileitistruethattheattestationclauseisnotapartofthewill,thecourt,
afterexaminingthetotalityofthewill,isoftheconsideredopinionthaterrorinthenumberof
pagesofthewillasstatedintheattestationclauseisnotmaterialtoinvalidatethesubjectwill.It
mustbenotedthatthesubjectinstrumentisconsecutivelyletteredwithpagesA,B,andCwhich
isasufficientsafeguardfromthepossibilityofanomissionofsomeofthepages.Theerrormust
havebeenbroughtaboutbythehonestbeliefthatthewillisthewholeinstrumentconsistingof
three(3)pagesinclusiveoftheattestationclauseandtheacknowledgement.Thepositionofthe
courtisinconsonancewiththedoctrineofliberalinterpretationenunciatedinArticle809ofthe
CivilCodewhichreads:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/145545.htm

5/9

8/18/2016

G.R.No.145545

In the absence of bad faith, forgery or fraud, or undue [and] improper

pressureandinfluence,defectsandimperfectionsintheformofattestationor
in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved
thatthewillwasinfactexecutedandattestedinsubstantialcompliancewith
alltherequirementsofArticle805.

Thecourtalsorejectsthecontentionoftheoppositorsthatthesignaturesofthetestator
wereaffixedondifferentoccasionsbasedontheirobservationthatthesignatureonthefirstpage
is allegedly different in size, texture and appearance as compared with the signatures in the
succeeding pages. After examination of the signatures, the court does not share the same
observationastheoppositors.Thepicture(ExhibitH3)showsthatthetestatorwasaffixingher
signature in the presence of the instrumental witnesses and the notary.There is no evidence to
showthatthefirstsignaturewasprocuredearlierthanFebruary2,1987.

Finally,thecourtfindsthatnopressurenorundueinfluencewasexertedonthetestatorto
execute the subject will. In fact, the picture reveals that the testator was in a good mood and
smilingwiththeotherwitnesseswhileexecutingthesubjectwill(SeeExhibitH).

In fine, the court finds that the testator was mentally capable of making the will at the
timeofitsexecution,thatthenotarialwillpresentedtothecourtisthesamenotarialwillthatwas
executedandthatalltheformalrequirements(SeeArticle805oftheCivilCode)intheexecution

[14]

of a will have been substantially complied with in the subject notarial will.
supplied.)

(Emphasis

Thus, we find no reason to disturb the abovementioned findings of the RTC. Since,
[15]
petitionerandhersiblingsarenotcompulsoryheirsofthedecedentunderArticle887
ofthe
Civil Code and as the decedent validly disposed of her properties in a will duly executed and
probated,petitionerhasnolegalrighttoclaimanypartofthedecedentsestate.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisiondatedOctober13,2000
oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.41756isAFFIRMED.
Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/145545.htm

6/9

8/18/2016

G.R.No.145545

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/145545.htm

7/9

8/18/2016

G.R.No.145545

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.4148.PennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.,withAssociateJusticesSalvadorJ.Valdez,Jr.andEliezerR.delos
Santosconcurring.
[2]
Id.at3440.PennedbyJudgeEribertoU.Rosario,Jr.
[3]
Id.at3133.
[4]
Id.at40.
[5]
Id.at47.
[6]
Id.at85.
[7]
Id.at82102.
[8]
Art.805.Everywill,otherthanaholographicwill,mustbesubscribedattheendthereofbythetestatorhimselforbythetestators
namewrittenbysomeotherpersoninhispresence,andbyhisexpressdirection,andattestedandsubscribedbythreeormore
crediblewitnessesinthepresenceofthetestatorandofoneanother.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as
aforesaid,eachandeverypagethereof,exceptthelast,ontheleftmargin,andallthepagesshallbenumberedcorrelativelyin
lettersplacedontheupperpartofeachpage.
Theattestationshallstatethenumberofpagesuseduponwhichthewilliswritten,andthefactthatthetestatorsignedthewill
and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the
instrumentalwitnesses,andthatthelatterwitnessedandsignedthewillandallthepagesthereofinthepresenceofthetestator
andofoneanother.
Iftheattestationclauseisinalanguagenotknowntothewitnesses,itshallbeinterpretedtothem.
[9]
Art.1009.Shouldtherebeneitherbrothersnorsistersnorchildrenofbrothersorsisters,theothercollateralrelativesshallsucceed
totheestate.
Thelattershallsucceedwithoutdistinctionoflinesorpreferenceamongthembyreasonofrelationshipbythewholeblood.
[10]
Art.1010.Therighttoinheritabintestatoshallnotextendbeyondthefifthdegreeofrelationshipinthecollateralline.
[11]
Rollo,pp.108111.
[12]
SECTION1.FilingofpetitionwithSupremeCourt.Apartydesiringtoappealbycertiorarifromajudgmentorfinalorderor
resolutionoftheCourtofAppeals,theSandiganbayan,theRegionalTrialCourtorothercourtswheneverauthorizedbylaw,
mayfilewiththeSupremeCourtaverifiedpetitionforreviewoncertiorari.Thepetitionshallraiseonlyquestionsoflawwhich
mustbedistinctlysetforth.
[13]
Ontimare,Jr.v.Elep,G.R.No.159224,January20,2006,479SCRA257,265.
[14]
Rollo,pp.3840.
[15]
Art.887.Thefollowingarecompulsoryheirs:
(1)Legitimatechildrenanddescendants,withrespecttotheirlegitimateparentsandascendants
(2)Indefaultoftheforegoing,legitimateparentsandascendants,withrespecttotheirlegitimatechildrenanddescendants
(3)Thewidoworwidower
(4)Acknowledgednaturalchildren,andnaturalchildrenbylegalfiction
(5)Otherillegitimatechildrenreferredtoinarticle287.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/145545.htm

8/9

8/18/2016

G.R.No.145545

CompulsoryheirsmentionedinNos.3,4and5arenotexcludedbythoseinNos.1and2neitherdotheyexcludeone
another.
Inallcasesofillegitimatechildren,theirfiliationmustbedulyproved.
Thefatherormotherofillegitimatechildrenofthethreeclassesmentioned,shallinheritfromtheminthemannerandtothe
extentestablishedbythisCode.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/145545.htm

9/9