Samaniego - Celada vs Abena G.R. No. 145545 | June 30, 2008

CASE DIGEST

Samaniego - Celada vs Abena 

G.R. No. 145545 | June 30, 2008 

Topic: Presumption of sound mind, failure to establish evidence to contrary; Error in the number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will; compulsory heirs under Art. 887, NCC 

Facts: 

Petitioner Paz Samaniego-Celada was the first cousin of decedent Margarita S. Mayores (Margarita) while respondent was the decedent’s lifelong companion since 1929. Sometime in 1987, Margarita died single and without any neither ascending nor descending heirs as her parents, grandparents and siblings predeceased her and were survived by her first cousins who included petitioner. 

Before her death, Margarita executed a Last Will and Testament where she bequeathed one-half of her undivided shares of a real property to respondent, Norma Pahingalo, and Florentino Abena in equal shares or one-third portion each; bequeathed also one-half of her undivided shares of a real property to respondent, Isabelo Abena, and Amanda Abena in equal shares or one-third portion each. Margarita also left all her personal properties to respondent whom she likewise designated as sole executor of her will. 

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for letters of administration of the estate of Margarita a month later respondent filed a petition for probate of the will of Margarita. On 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the last will and testament of Margarita probated and respondent as the executor of the will. Petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appealswhich was however affirmed in toto the RTC ruling. 

Issue: 

1. WON the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the will invalid for failure to comply with the formalities required by law. - NO 

2. WON said court erred in not declaring the will invalid because it was procured through undue influence and pressure, and – NO 

3. WON it erred in not declaring petitioner and her siblings as the legal heirs of Margarita, and in not issuing letters of administration to petitioner. – NO 

Held: 

1. With [regard] to the contention of the oppositors was not mentally capable of making a will at the time of the execution thereof, the same is without merit. The oppositors failed to establish, by preponderance of evidence, said allegation and contradict the presumption that the testator was of sound mind (See Article 800 of the Civil Code). In fact, witness for the oppositors, Dr. Ramon Lamberte, who, in some occasions, attended to the testator months before her death, testified that Margarita Mayores could engage in a normal conversation and he even stated that the illness of the testator does not warrant hospitalization. Not one of the oppositors witnesses has mentioned any instance 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 witnesses are pure aforethought. 

Anent the contestants submission that the will is fatally defective for the reason that its attestation clause states that the will is composed of three (3) pages while in truth and in fact, the will consists of two (2) pages only because the attestation is not a part of the notarial will, the same is not accurate. While it is true that the attestation clause is not a part of the will, the court, after examining the totality of the will, is of the considered opinion that error in the number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will. It must be noted that the subject instrument is consecutively lettered with pages A, B, and C which is a sufficient safeguard from the possibility of an omission of some of the pages. The error must have been brought about by the honest belief that the will is the whole instrument consisting of three (3) pages inclusive of the attestation clause and the acknowledgement. The position of the court is in consonance with the doctrine of liberal interpretation enunciated in Article 809 of the Civil Code which reads: 

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. 

2. Finally, the court finds that no pressure nor undue influence was exerted on the testator to execute the subject will. In fact, the picture reveals that the testator was in a good mood and smiling with the other witnesses while executing the subject will. 

In fine, the court finds that the testator was mentally capable of making the will at the time of its execution, that the notarial will presented to the court is the same notarial will that was executed and that all the formal requirements (See Article 805 of the Civil Code) in the execution of a will have been substantially complied with in the subject notarial will. 

3. Since, petitioner and her siblings are not compulsory heirs of the decedent under Article 887 of the Civil Code and as the decedent validly disposed of her properties in a will duly executed and probated, petitioner has no legal right to claim any part of the decedent’s estate. 

Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:  

(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants; 
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and descendants; 
(3) The widow or widower; 
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction; 
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.  

Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one another. 

In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. 

The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code.