9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

WHEREFORE, respondent, Judge Medel Arnaldo B.

Belen, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
36, Calamba City, is found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming
of a judge and is REPRIMANDED therefor. He is further
warned that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and

Brion, JJ., concur.

Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen reprimanded for conduct

unbecoming a judge, with warning against repetition of
similar act.

Note.—Patience is an essential part of dispensing

justice and courtesy is a mark of culture and good breeding.
(Negros Grace Pharmacy, Inc. vs. Hilario, 416 SCRA 324
[2003])

——o0o——

G.R. No. 145545. June 30, 2008.*

PAZ SAMANIEGO-CELADA, petitioner, vs. LUCIA D.

ABENA, respondent.

Wills and Succession; 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.—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

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

570

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena

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.”
Same; 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.—We find no reason to disturb the
abovementioned findings of the RTC. 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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Francisco L. Rosario, Jr. for petitioner.
   Nazario B. Regino for respondent.

571

VOL. 556, JUNE 30, 2008 571

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena

QUISUMBING, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to reverse the Decision1
dated October 13, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 41756, which affirmed the Decision2 dated March 2,
1993 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Makati
City. The RTC had declared the last will and testament of
Margarita S. Mayores probated and designated respondent
Lucia D. Abena as the executor of her will. It also ordered
the issuance of letters testamentary in favor of respondent.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioner Paz Samaniego-Celada was the first cousin of
decedent Margarita S. Mayores (Margarita) while
respondent was the decedent’s lifelong companion since
1929.
On April 27, 1987, Margarita died single and without
any ascending nor descending heirs as her parents,
grandparents and siblings predeceased her. She was
survived by her first cousins Catalina Samaniego-Bombay,
Manuelita Samaniego Sajonia, Feliza Samaniego, and
petitioner.
Before her death, Margarita executed a Last Will and
Testament3 on February 2, 1987 where she bequeathed
one-half of her undivided share of a real property located at
Singalong Manila, consisting of 209.8 square meters, and
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1343 to
respondent, Norma A. Pahingalo, and Florentino M. Abena
in equal shares or one-third portion each. She likewise
bequeathed one-half of her undivided share of a real
property located at San Antonio Village, Makati, consisting
of 225 square meters, and covered by TCT No. 68920 to
respondent, Isabelo M.

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 41-48. Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., with
Associate Justices Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Eliezer R. delos Santos
concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 34-40. Penned by Judge Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr.
3 Id., at pp. 31-33.

572

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

Abena, and Amanda M. 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.
On August 11, 1987, petitioner filed a petition for letters
of administration of the estate of Margarita before the RTC
of Makati. The case was docketed as SP Proc. No. M-1531.
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. M-1607 and
consolidated with SP Proc. No. M-1531.
On March 2, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision
declaring the last will and testament of Margarita probated
and respondent as the executor of the will. The dispositive
portion of the decision states:

In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

1) declaring the will as probated;
2) declaring Lucia Abena as the executor of the will who will
serve as such without a bond as stated in paragraph VI of the
probated will;
3) ordering the issuance of letters testamentary in favor of
Lucia Abena.
So ordered.”4

Petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the Court of

Appeals. But the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated
October 13, 2000, affirmed in toto the RTC ruling. The
dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision states:

“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the appeal

having no merit in fact and in law, is hereby ORDERED
DISMISSED and the appealed Decision of the trial court
AFFIRMED IN TOTO, with cost to oppositors-appellants.

_______________

4 Id., at p. 40.

573

VOL. 556, JUNE 30, 2008 573

Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena

SO ORDERED.”5

Hence, the instant petition citing the following issues:

I.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED

A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT INVALIDATING THE WILL
SINCE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE FORMALITIES
REQUIRED BY LAW;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
ERROR IN NOT INVALIDATING THE WILL BECAUSE IT WAS
PROCURED THROUGH UNDUE INFLUENCE AND
PRESSURE[;] AND
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT DECLARING PETITIONER, HER SIBLINGS
AND COUSIN AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF MARGARITA S.
MAYORES AND IN NOT ISSUING LETTERS OF
ADMINISTRATION TO HER.6

Briefly stated, the issues are (1) whether the Court of

Appeals erred in not declaring the 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) whether it erred in not declaring petitioner and her
siblings as the legal heirs of Margarita, and in not issuing
letters of administration to petitioner.
Petitioner, in her Memorandum,7 argues that
Margarita’s will failed to comply with the formalities
required under Arti-

_______________

5 Id., at p. 47.
6 Id., at p. 85.
7 Id., at pp. 82-102.

574

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena

cle 8058 of the Civil Code because the will was not signed
by the testator in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses and in the presence of one another. She also
argues that the signatures of the testator on pages A, B,
and C of the will are not the same or similar, indicating
that they were not signed on the same day. She further
argues that the will was procured through undue influence
and pressure because at the time of execution of the will,
Margarita was weak, sickly, jobless and entirely dependent
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

upon respondent and her nephews for support, and these

alleged handicaps allegedly affected her freedom and
willpower to decide on her own. Petitioner thus concludes
that Margarita’s total dependence on respondent and her
nephews compelled her to sign the will. Petitioner likewise
argues that the Court of Appeals should have declared her
and her siblings as the legal heirs of Margarita

_______________

8  Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be

subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator’s
name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express
direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses
in the presence of the testator and of one another.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the
instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and
every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages
shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each
page.
The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the
will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every
page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his
express direction, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that
the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the
presence of the testator and of one another.
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it
shall be interpreted to them.

575

VOL. 556, JUNE 30, 2008 575

Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena

since they are her only living collateral relatives in

accordance with Articles 10099 and 101010 of the Civil
Code.
Respondent, for her part, argues in her Memorandum11
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 final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal
to the Supreme Court. She also points out that although
the Court of Appeals at the outset opined there was no
compelling reason to review the petition, the Court of
Appeals proceeded to tackle the assigned errors and rule
that 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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

with the findings of the trial court that the testator,

Margarita, was of sound mind when she executed the will.
After careful consideration of the parties’ contentions,
we rule in favor of respondent.
We find that the issues raised by petitioner concern pure
questions of fact, which may not 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 testator in the presence of
the witnesses and of one another, whether or not the
signatures of the witnesses on the pages of the will were
signed on the same day, and whether or not undue
influence was exerted

_______________

9 Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children
of brothers or sisters, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the
estate.
The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference
among them by reason of relationship by the whole blood.
10 Art. 1010. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend beyond
the fifth degree of relationship in the collateral line.
11 Rollo, pp. 108-111.

576

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena

upon the testator which compelled her to sign the will, are
all questions of fact.
This Court does not resolve questions of fact in a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. Section 112 of Rule 45 limits this Court’s review
to questions of law only.
Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a
trier of facts. When supported by substantial evidence, the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and
binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this
Court, unless the case falls under any of the following
recognized exceptions:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on

speculation, surmises and conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd
or impossible;

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;

(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts;
(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went
beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation
of specific evidence on which they are based;

_______________

12 SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.—A party desiring to

appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever
authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review
on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth.

577

VOL. 556, JUNE 30, 2008 577

Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena

(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondents; and
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
the evidence on record.13

We find that this case does not involve any of the

abovementioned exceptions.
Nonetheless, a review of the findings of the RTC as
upheld by the Court of Appeals, reveal that petitioner’s
arguments lack basis. The RTC correctly held:

“With [regard] to the contention of the oppositors [Paz

Samaniego-Celada, et al.] that the testator [Margarita Mayores]
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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

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

_______________

13 Ontimare, Jr. v. Elep, G.R. No. 159224, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 257,
265.

578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena

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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

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.
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 (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 (See Article 805 of
the Civil

579

VOL. 556, JUNE 30, 2008 579

Samaniego-Celada vs. Abena

Code) in the execution of a will have been substantially complied

with in the subject notarial will.”14 (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, we find no reason to disturb the abovementioned

findings of the RTC. Since, petitioner and her siblings are
not compulsory heirs of the decedent under Article 88715 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.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision dated October 13, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 41756 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ.,

concur.

Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.

_______________

14 Rollo, pp. 38-40.

15 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;

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 556

(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.

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661924408be7b59b82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11