Lopez V.

Lopez
Parties:
Enrique Lopez- the decedent
Wendy Lopez- the wife of the decedent
Four Legitimate Children and compulsory heirs of the Enrique and Wendy-
Richard, Diana (the respondent), Marybeth and Victoria
Facts:
1. On August 10, 1996: Before Enrique’s death he made a last will and
testament and constituted Richard as his executor and administrator.
2. On September 27, 1999: Richard filed a petition for the probate of his
father's Last
Will and Testament before the RTC of Manila with prayer for the
issuance of letters testamentary in his favor.
3. However, Marybeth, the respondent, opposed the petition contending
that the purported last will and testament was not executed and
attested as required by law, and it was procured by undue and
improper pressure and influence on the part of Richard. Victoria (one
of the children of Enrique), just adopted the same opposition.
4. Richard presented the attesting witnesses, namely: Reynaldo Maneja;
Romulo Monteiro; Ana Maria Lourdes Manalo (Manalo); and the
notary public who notarized the will, Atty Perfecto Nolasco (Atty.
Nolasco).
5. The instrumental witnesses testified that after the late Enrique read and
signed that will on each and every page, they signed the same in the
latter’s presence and of another. Photographs to the said event was
presented.
6. Manalo testified that she was the one who prepared the drafts and
revisions from Enrique before and final copy of the will was made.
7. Atty. Nolasco testified that Enrique had been his client for 20 years. He
only followed the instructions of Enrique in writing the Last will and
Testament.
8. The only witness that the oppositors presented is Gregorio B. Paraon,
OIC of the Notarial Section of the Clerk of Court of RTC of Manila. His
testimony centered mainly to the findings that Atty. Nolasco was not a
notary public in City of Manila in 1996, but on the cross examination it
was discovered by Paraon that Atty. Nolasco was commissioned as such
for years 1994 to 1997.
9. RULING OF RTC: On August 26, 2005, the RTC disallowed the probate
of the will for failure to comply with Article 805 of the Civil Code which
 requires a statement in the attestation clause of the number of pages
upon which the will is written. It was held that while Article 809 of the
same codes requires mere substantial compliance of the form laid down
in Article 805 thereof, the rule only applies if the number of pages is
reflected somewhere else in the will with no evidence aliunde or extrinsic
evidence required. While the acknowledgment portion stated that the will
of 7 pages including the page on which ratification and acknowledgement
are written, RTC observed that it has 8 pages including the
acknowledgment portion.
10. RULING OF CA: The decision of RTC was upheld.
ISSUE: WON the probate proceeding should be disallowed in failing to comply
with the requirement under Article 805 of the New Civil Code.
HELD:
Yes, the probate proceeding should be disallowed in failing to comply
with the requirement under Article 805 of the New Civil Code.
1. The law is clear that the attestation must state the number of pages
used upon
which the will is written.
2. The purpose of the law is to safeguard against possible
interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and prevent
any increase or decrease in the pages.
3. While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the form of
the attestation clause, Richard likewise failed to in this respect. The
statement in the Acknowledgment portion of the subject last will and
testament that it “consists of 7 pages including thee page on which
ratification and acknowledge are written” cannot be deemed substantial
compliance. The will actually consists of 8 pages including its
acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained by mere
examination of the will itself but through presentation of evidence
aliunde.
4. Wherefore, the petition is DENIED.