Case Digest: Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena, G.R. No. 145545, June 30, 2008

 Art. 809, 887  | Succession, Compulsory Heirs

Provision:

Art. 809. 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.

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.

Ponente:
Quisumbing J.,

Petitioner:  Paz Samaniego-Celada

Respondent: Lucia D. Abena

Recit Version:

Margarita S. Mayores left a will designating Lucia D. Abena as the executor and beneficiary of her personal properties, as well as dividing her real property shares among other individuals. The RTC upheld the validity of the will and appointed Lucia Abena as the executor, but Paz Samaniego-Celada contested the will, claiming it was influenced by undue pressure and that she and her siblings should be declared as Margarita's legal heirs.

The court finds that no pressure nor undue influence was exerted on the testator to execute the subject will. The court also finds that the testator was mentally capable of making the will at the time of its execution. 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

Facts:

Respondent Lucia D. Abena was the Margarita S. Mayores's lifelong companion since 1929. 🌈

In 1987, Margarita died single and without any surviving immediate family member. 

She was survived by her first cousins Catalina Samaniego-Bombay, Manuelita Samaniego Sajonia, Feliza Samaniego, and petitioner Paz Samaniego-Celada.

Margarita executed a Last Will and Testament she bequeathed:

1. One-half of her undivided share of a real property to Lucia D. Abena, Norma A. Pahingalo, and Florentino M. Abena in equal shares or one-third portion each;
2. One-half of her undivided share of a real property located to Lucia D. Abena, Isabelo M. Abena, and Amanda M. Abena in equal shares or one-third portion each. 
3. All her personal properties to Lucia D. Abena whom she likewise designated as sole executor of her will.

Paz Samaniego-Celada filed a petition for administration of the estate of Margarita.

Lucia D. Abena also filed a petition for probate of the will of Margarita.

RTC-Makati: Declared the will as probated and Lucia Abena as the executor of the will.

CA: Affirmed the ruling.

 

Issues:

(1) WoN the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the will invalid for failure to comply with the formalities required by under Article 805. NO

(2) WoN said court erred in not declaring the will invalid because it was procured through undue influence and pressure. 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

Argument: 

Paz Samaniego-Celada claims that Margarita’s total dependence on respondent and her nephews compelled her to sign the will. She likewise argues that the Court should have declared her and her siblings as the legal heirs of Margarita since they are her only living collateral relatives in accordance with Articles 1009 and 1010 of the Civil Code.

Held:

1. On Failure to Comply with the Formalities

With regard to the contention of the oppositors that the testator 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 . 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 oppositor’s 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."

The court also rejects the contention of the oppositors that the signatures of the testator were affixed on different occasions based on their observation that the signature on the first page 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 observation as the oppositors. The picture (Exhibit "H-3") shows that the testator was affixing her signature in the presence of the instrumental witnesses and the notary. There is no evidence to show that the first signature was procured earlier than February 2, 1987.

2. On Alleged Undue Influence and Pressure

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 (See Exhibit "H").

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

3. On Declaration of Heirship

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.