19-SPLP-TANCHANCO V SANTOS

CATALINO TANCHANCO v.
NATIVIDAD SANTOS
(In the Matter of the Petition for the Probate of the Will of Consuelo Santiago Garcia)
G.R. No. 204793. June 8, 2020
Consuelo died. Her daughter, (respondent) and her grandson, (petitioner) brought suit for the court to determine
which among them will be designated as special administrator of her estate. Respondent alleges that Consuelo left a
will, and for this, she presented lawyers as witnesses to the due execution of the will. Respondent sought for testacy.
On the other hand, Petitioner insists that there was no will, that Consuelo was too weak and unstable to write one.
Petitioner sought for intestacy.
RTC appointed petitioner as special administrator. CA reversed RTC’s decision and appointed respondent in place of
petitioner. The SC affirmed the findings of the CA. It ruled that the will faithfully complied with the formalities required
by law, and that respondents failed to substantiate allegations of incapacity and forgery.
SC also based its decision from the fundamental rule in Succession: testacy > intestacy.
Facts
Subject decedent is Consuelo Santiago Garcia, she had 2 daughters: Natividad (respondent) and Remedios.
Remedios predeceased Consuelo, leaving behind her children, Catalino (petitioner) and Ronaldo (collectively, the
Tanchancos).
Consuelo, died on August 14, 1985, at 91 y.o. Thus, Catalino, as grandson, and son of Remedios, filed a petition
before the RTC Pasay to settle the intestate estate of Consuelo. Catalino prayed for his appointment as the special
administrator of Consuelo's intestate estate, and issuance of letters of administration in his favor. He also sought
action against Natividad, for her to produce Consuelo's alleged will to determine its validity and for Natividad to desist
from disposing the properties of Consuelo's estate.
Natividad filed a Motion to Dismiss (MtD) on the ground that she already filed a petition for the probate of the Last
Will and Testament of Consuelo before Branch 15 of RTC Pasay. So, Natividad asked that the purported will of
Consuelo be allowed and proved, and that letters testamentary be issued in her favor.
 The Tanchancos filed an Opposition to Natividad’s petition, pointing out non-compliance of Art. 805, NCC.
The will's attestation clause did not state the number of pages and that the will was written in Tagalog, and
not the English language usually used by Consuelo in most of her legal documents. Moreover, they alleged
that Consuelo's signature was forged. They thus prayed for the disallowance of probate and for the
proceedings to be converted into an intestate one.
 In turn, Natividad contended that there was substantial compliance with Article 805 of the Civil Code.
Although the attestation clause did not state the number of pages comprising the will, the same was clearly
indicated in the acknowledgment portion.
Thus, the two cases were consolidated before Branch 115 of the RTC of Pasay City. RTC Trial ensued.
For Natividad Santos:

Atty. Marapao, Atty. Paras, Atty. Tantuico, and Atty. Llana of Quasha Law Office, testified that they identified
Consuelo's signature as they were present when she signed the will. They described Consuelo as very alert and
sane, and not suffering from any ailment at the time. The will was written in Tagalog at the request of Consuelo
although she was conversant in English. They affirmed Consuelo's signature in the will as he saw her sign the will.
They all confirmed that they propounded questions to Consuelo to determine the soundness of her mind.
Meanwhile, Natividad confirmed that she was in-charge of Consuelo's businesses during the latter's confinement in
the hospital. Alberto, Natividad's son, testified Consuelo, in 1987 or the same year the purported will was executed,
travelled to the United States. The purported will was found in the belongings of Consuelo.
For the Tanchancos:

Ronaldo Tanchanco insisted that Consuelo passed away without a will. He alleged that Consuelo told him that there
was no need to draft a will since the properties would just be divided between her two daughters. Contrary to the
Attorneys in Quasha Law Office, Ronaldo stated that Consuelo was forgetful with directions and that she needed her
security guard or driver and alalay to move around.
Catalino Tanchanco stated that he was Consuelo’s favorite. He maintained that Consuelo told him that she did not
execute a will since the inheritance will be divided between her two children. Catalino questioned the signature of
Consuelo in the will as it appeared to be "perfect" when it should be crooked since she was already 80 at the time. He
added that Consuelo's documents were all in English and that she never engaged the services of Quasha Law Office
before.
RTC: Appointed Catalino as the special administrator and set the bond at P1 Million.
 Found the purported will replete with aberrations.
o It noted that two attesting witnesses to the will and the notary public were all associates of a
Makati-based law firm which is the counsel of Natividad in the instant case.
o Nobody among Consuelo's relatives witnessed the execution of the alleged will. Except for
Natividad and her lawyers, no one knew that Consuelo ever executed a will during her lifetime.
 RTC gave credence to Ronaldo's testimony that Consuelo declared that she had no will and that her
properties would be equally divided between her two children.
 The RTC deemed it irregular when the purported will was suddenly produced only after Consuelo's death
and not years earlier especially since it was allegedly executed 10 years before her death.
 Moreover, the will unconscionably favored Natividad as she was named as the executrix of the will and most
of the properties were disposed in her favor. The trial court ruled that, taken as a whole, the will is dubious
and should not be allowed probate.
CA: Reversed the RTC Decision.

 Article 960 of the Civil Code preferred testacy over intestacy.
 The positive testimonies of the witnesses established the due execution and authenticity of the will
especially when the Tanchancos could not present proof that the said witnesses are not credible or
competent.
 It added that the witnesses are all lawyers who are not disqualified from being witnesses under the law
except in cases relating to privileged communication arising from attorney-client relationship.
 It noted that in the probate of the will, the authority of the court is limited to ascertaining the extrinsic validity
of the will in that the testator, of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by law. It found nothing extraordinary in Natividad's act of submitting the will for probate 10 years
from its execution and after Consuelo's death especially since there is no law which obliges a testator to file
a petition for probate of his or her will during his or her lifetime.
 The contested will did not compellingly show that forgery was committed. It ruled that the Tanchancos failed
to establish that Consuelo's signature was forged, considering that they only advanced their self-serving
allegation of fraud.
 Tanchancos failed to prove that Consuelo was of unsound mind when she executed the contested will.
Likewise, they only presented self-serving allegations without presenting an expert witness that an 81-year-
old woman does not have the legal testamentary capacity to distribute her properties to her heirs upon her
death.
 There was substantial compliance with Art. 805, NCC., The appellate court noted that while the attestation
clause did not state the number of pages comprising the will, still, it is verifiable by examining the will itself,
as the pages were duly numbered and signed by Consuelo and the instrumental witnesses.
 Thus, Petitioner-appellant [Respondent] Natividad Garcia Santos is hereby appointed executor of the
estate pursuant to the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya of the decedent.
Thus, this petition by the Tanchancos.
ISSUE: W/N the will should be allowed probate.

RULING: YES. CA DECISION AFFIRMED.
It is settled that "the law favors testacy over intestacy" and hence, "the probate of the will cannot be dispensed with.
Article 838 of the Civil Code provides that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and
allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, unless the will is probated, the right of a person to dispose of
his property may be rendered nugatory." In a similar way, "testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the
decedent take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose."
1. The will faithfully complied with the formalities required by law.
An examination of Consuelo's will shows that it complied with the formalities required by the law, except that the
attestation clause failed to indicate the total number of pages upon which the will was written. To address this
concern, Natividad enumerated the following attributes of the attestation clause and the will itself, which the Court
affirms.
In the instant case, the attestation clause indisputably omitted to mention the number of pages comprising the will.
Nevertheless, the acknowledgment portion of the will supplied the omission by stating that the will has five pages, to
wit: "Ang HULING HABILING ito ay binubuo ng lima (5) na dahon, kasama ang dahong kinaroroonan ng
Pagpapatunay at Pagpapatotoong ito. " Undoubtedly, such substantially complied with Article 809 of the Civil Code.
Mere reading and observation of the will, without resorting to other extrinsic evidence, yields the conclusion that there
are actually five pages even if the said information was not provided in the attestation clause.
The lawyers are NOT disqualified from being witnesses to a will.

Article 820 of the Civil Code provides that, "[a]ny person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more, and
not blind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and write, may be a witness to the execution of a will mentioned in Article
805 of this Code."
Here, the attesting witnesses to the will in question are all lawyers equipped with the aforementioned qualifications. In
addition, they are not disqualified from being witnesses under Article 821 of the Civil Code, even if they all worked at
the same law firm at the time.
The lawyer-witnesses unanimously confirmed that the will was duly executed by Consuelo who was of sound mind
and body at the time of signing. The Tanchancos failed to dispute the competency and credibility of these witnesses;
thus, the Court is disposed to give credence to their testimonies that Consuelo executed the will in accordance with
the formalities of the law and with full mental faculties and willingness to do so.
Forgery of Will and Consuelo’s testamentary incapacity was not substantiated.

About the claim of forgery, the same remains unsubstantiated because the Tanchancos merely surmised that there
were discrepancies in Consuelo's signatures in the Residence Certificates and in the will, and insisted that the said
signatures should not be "perfectly written" and instead should be "crooked" due to Consuelo's age.
In addition, The Tanchancos failed to portray that Consuelo did not have the testamentary capacity to execute the will
or that she was suffering from a condition which could have definitively prevented her from doing so.
Considering the foregoing, the will of Consuelo should be allowed probate as it complied with the formalities required
by the law. The Tanchancos failed to prove that the same was executed through force or under duress, or that the
signature of the testator was procured through fraud as provided under Article 839 138 of the Civil Code and Rule 76,
Section 9 139 of the Rules of Court.

19-SPLP-TANCHANCO V SANTOS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19-SPLP-TANCHANCO V SANTOS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

19-SPLP-TANCHANCO V SANTOS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CATALINO TANCHANCO v.

For Natividad Santos:

For the Tanchancos:

CA: Reversed the RTC Decision.

Thus, this petition by the Tanchancos.

ISSUE: W/N the will should be allowed probate.

1. The will faithfully complied with the formalities required by law.

The lawyers are NOT disqualified from being witnesses to a will.

Forgery of Will and Consuelo’s testamentary incapacity was not substantiated.

You might also like