31.

\epubhc of tlJe l3biltppines

$>upreme QCourt
:ffianila

SECOND DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE G.R. No. 246997

PETITION FOR THE PROBATE
OF THE LAST WILL AND Members:
TESTAMENT OF CECILIA
ESGUERRA COSICO, PERLAS-BERNABE, J., Chairperson,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
LOPEZ, M.,
THELMA ESGUERRA GUIA, ROSARIO, and
Petitioner, LOPEZ, J., * JJ.

-versus- Promulgated:

MAY O5 2021 ~
JOSE M. COSICO, JR., MANUEL
M. COSICO, MINERVA M.
COSICO, and ELEANOR M.
COSICO-CHAVEZ,
Respondents.

X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

The Case

This petition for review on certiorari 1 seeks to reverse the following

dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104111 , entitled In
the Matter of the Petition ,/l>r the Prohate of the Last Will and Testament of
Cecilia Esguerra Cosico - Thelma Esguerra Guia v. Jose lvl. Cosico, Jr.,
Manuel M Cosico, Minerva Jvf. Cosico, ond Eleanor /v[ Cosico-Chavez:

* Des ignated as additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 20.: I.
1
Rollo, pp. 3-24.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 246997

1. Decision2 dated December 7, 2018, reversing the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Br.32, San Pablo City which admitted
to probate Cecilia Esguerra Cosico' s last wi ll and testament; and

2. Resolution3 dated May 8, 2019, denying reconsideration.

Antecedents

Cecilia Esguerra Cosico (Cecilia) was born in 1932 to Jose Cosico, Sr.
and Corazon Esguerra (Corazon). She was born with a physical disability and
was known in the locality as a "lumpo. " Corazon passed away when Cecilia
was just one (1) year old and the latter was left in the care and custody of her
maternal aunt, Mercedes Esguerra Guia (Mercedes). Mercedes raised Cecilia
in their home in Schetilig Avenue, San Pablo City, together with Mercedes' s
legally adopted daughter, petitioner Thelma Esguerra Guia (Thelma). Because
of her physical condition, Cecilia spent most of her days in her bedroom. She
never attended school nor learned to read or write. 4

In 1996, when she was sixty-four (64) years old, Cecilia decided to
execute her last will and testament. Through Thelma's balae Liberato B.
Benedictos (Liberato), Cecilia asked Atty. Danton Q. Bueser, then a notary
public (now a retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals), for assistance
in preparing the last wi 11. 5 For the purpose of this case though, we shall refer
to him as Atty. Bueser.

On September 8, 1996, Atty. Bueser and Liberato went to Cecilia's

house. Atty. Bueser and Cecilia talked inside the latter' s bedroom while
Liberato stayed outside by the door. Liberato heard Cecilia call Mercedes
whom she directed to collect documents from the steel cabinet. Mercedes
complied and handed over the documents to Atty. Bueser. 6

On September 10, 1996, Atty. Bueser and Liberato returned to Cecilia's

house with the finished copy of her last will and testament denominated
Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya which consisted of four (4) pages, viz.:

HULING J-IABILJN AT PAGPAPASIYA

ALAMIN NG LAHAT NA:

AKO, CECILIA COSICO ESGUERRA, may sapat na gulang, dalaga,

mamamayang Pilipino at kasalukuyang naninirahan sa No. 16 Schetilig
Avenue, Lunsod ng San Pablo, samantalang malinaw, tumpak at wasto
ang aking pag-iis ip. diwa at alaala, na sa akin naman ay walang pumilit,
tumakot, nagudyok o humikayat. ay kusang--loob kong isinagawa al

2
Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. P11nzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and
Rafael Antonio M. Santos. co ncurring· id at 25----19.
3
Id. at 50-5 1.
~ Id. at 27.
s Id.
,, Id.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 246997

ngayon ay ipinahahayag ang kasulatang ito, bilang aking H ULING

HABILIN o TESTAMENTO at PAGPAPASIYA, sa wikang Tagalog na
katutubong wika at aking kinagisnan. at lubos na nauunawaan:

I. Na aking ninanais na kung sakali 't pumikit ang aking mga mata na
ang aking bangkay ay paglamayan at il ibing nang naaayon sa
kaugalian ng Simbahang Katoliko, Apostoliko Romano;

II. Na ang mga ari-ariang aking maiiwan ay ang mga sumusunod:

I) lsang lagay na lupang niyugan tumatayo sa nayon ng Sta.

Isabel, Lunsod ng San Pablo, may tanim na 234 puno ng
niyog nabunga, may sukat na 11 ,990 metros cuadrados,
ang kabalantay sa Ilaya, Enrique Bauti sta; sa Silangan,
Simplicia Capina; sa ibaba, Leoncio Cornista at sa
Kanluran, Basi lia Tan. Tax Dec. No. 94- 054-515, valor
amillarado P21 ,700.
2) Tsang lagay na lupang niyugan tumatayo sa nayon ng Sta.
Isabel, Lunsod ng San Pablo, may tanim na 105 puno ng
niyog nabunga. may sukat na 6,223 metros cuadrados,
ang kabalantay sa Haya, Epifania Capina; sa Si langan,
Vicente Angeles; sa ibaba, Brigida Escriba at Lauro
Cabrera; at sa Kanl uran Cornelio Esguerra. Tax Dec. No .
94-054-850, valor ami llarado PI0,460.00.
3) Isang lagay na lupang niyugan tumatayo sa nayon ng Sta.
Isabel, Lunsod ng San Pablo, may tanim na 130 ptmo ng
niyog nabunga at may sukat na 13,685 metros cuadrados,
ang kabalantay sa Ilaya, C ristina Rivera; sa Si langan,
Hermogenes Coll ado; sa lbaba, Gregorio Capi strano at
Artemio Dichoso; at sa Kanluran. Felipe Capina. Tax Dec.
No. 94-054-85 1, valor ami ll arado P23 ,000.00.
4) Tsang lagay na lupang ni yugan tumatayo sa nayon ng Sta.
Isabel, Lunsod ng San Pablo, may tanim na 11 J puno ng
njyog nabunga, may sukat na 3,780 metros cuadrados,
ang kabalantay sa Haya, Cornelio Esguerra; sa Silangan,
Andres Cornista; sa Tbaba, Cornelio Esguerra at sa
Kanluran, Cornelio Esguerra at Agripina Cornista . Tax
Dec. No. 94-054-849, valo r amil larado P6,360.00.
5) Isang lagay na lupang niyugan tumatayo sa nayon ng Sta.
Isabel, Lunsod ng San Pablo, may tanim na 224 puno ng
niyog na nabunga, may sukat na 12, 136 metros
cuadrados, ang kabalantay sa Ilaya. Pedro Capina; sa
Silangan, Cornelio Esguerra; sa lbaba, A ntonio Capina at
sa Kanluran, Melecio Brinas. Tax Dec. No. 94-058-255,
valo r amillarado P20,000.00.
6) lsang lagay na lupang niyugan tumatayo sa nayon ng
Concepcion, Lunsod ng San Pablo, may tanim na 27 puno
ng niyog na nabunga, may sukat na 897 metros cuadrados,
ang kabalantay sa Ilaya, Sil vestre Guia, sa Silangan,
Leoncio Capina; sa lhaba, Crispin Bakod at Cornelio
Esguerra; at sa Kanluran, Leoncio Capina at Cornelio
Esguerra. Tax Dec. No. 94-041-1552. valor ami llarado
Pl,470
7) Ang aking ika-limang bahagi ng lupang tubigan at
araruhin na tumatayo sa nayon ng Dayap, M uni cipio ng
Calauan, Laguna, na may Tax Dec. 680 at 681, at sa nayon
ng Santo!, Calauan, L1guna na may Tax D~c. No. 683 at
Deci sio n 4 G.R. No. 246997

352 1.

Ill. Na kung sakali at bawian ako ng Poong Maykapal ng aking hiram

na buhay, ay nais kong ipamana, ibigay, at ipatungkol ang aking
mga ari-ariang binabanggit sa unahan nito at bayarang lahat ang
aking pagkakautang sakalit may maiiwan akong pagkakautang,
sampo ng magagastos sa aking paglilibing ay bayarang lahat sa
kuartang kinikita ng aking kabuhayang maiiwan, nang katulad ng
sumusunod:

1) Saaking tiyahingna si M ERCEDES ESGUERRAGU IA,

na siyang nagaruga, naglingkod sapul pa sa aking
pagkabata at nagbantay sa aking pagkakasakit.

IV. Na kung sakali at mauna akong bawian ng buhay kaysa aking

tiyahin, ay aking ipinahahayag at s iyang ninanasa, na dapat na
igalang nang lahat, na ang aking tiyahing si MERCEDES
ESGUERRA GUlA ang siyang tangi magpapatuloy na gumamit at
makinabang sa aking mga ari-ariang natatala sa unahan nito;

V. Upang ang Huling Habiling ito ay mapagtigay sa Hukuman, at

matupad ang nilalaman, ay aking hinihirang at itinatalaga si
MERCEDES ESGUERRA GUIA bilang siyang tanging tagaganap
at tagapangasiwa nitong aking Huling Habilin o Testamento; at
kung sa anupamang kapansanan ay hindi s iya makatupad, ay aking
hinihirang bilang kahalili niya, ang kanyang anak na si THELMA
GUIA ESTIVA;

VI. Na aking pinagtitibay na ang tagapangasiwa at tagaganap na akin g

dito'y hi nirang, at ang kanyang kahalili, ay hindi na kailangan
magbigay pang anurnang lagak o piyansa;

VI L Na aking binabawi at pinawawalang-saysay ang lahat at anumang

kasulatan, Testamento, hayag at di hayag, na akin nang naisagawa,
nilagdaan o ipinahayag nang nauna rito.

SA KATUNAYAN NG LAHAT, ako ay lumagda sa ibaba nito, ngayon

araw ng _ _, buwan ng _ _ ______ taong 1996 dito sa Lunsod ng
San Pablo, Republika ng Pilipinas.

CECILIA ESGUERRA COSICO

PAGPAPATUNAY NG MGA SAKS!

KAMI, na mga nangagsilagda sa ibaba nito bilang saksi, ay

nagpapatunay na ang naunang kasulatan ay siyang pinagtibay ni Bb.
CECILIA ESGUERRA COSICO bilang kanyang Huling Habilin o
Testamento, nalalaman naman naming yaon ay kanyang isinagawa
samantalang malinaw ang kanyang isipan at diwa, at alam niya ang
kanyang ginagawa; at yaon ay nilagdaan niya sa aming harapan sa
gawing ibaba at sa kaliwang gi lid ng bawat daho n; at kami naman, sa
kanyang kahilingan, ay nangagsilagda rin sa ibaba nito at gayon din sa
kaliwang gilid ng bavvat daho n sa harapan niya at ng bawat isa sa amin,
at sa harapan ng Notaryo Publiko, nga;'ong ika-_ araw ng buwan ng
taong 1996 dito sa Lun~:od ng San Pablo.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 246997

LIBERATO B. BENEDICTOS (sgd.)

naninirahan sa Villa Subd., Schetil ig Ave., San Pablo C ity

RICARDO C. PANDINO (sgd.)

Brgy. Sta. Isabel, San Pablo City

REYNALDO M. GIGANTE (sgd.)

Brgy. Sta. Isabel, San Pablo City

REPUBLIKA NG PILIPlNAS }
LALAWIGAN NG LAGUNA}
BAYAN NG SAN PABLO }

SA HARAPAN KO. ngayong ika-10 araw ng buwan ng Setyembre

taong 1996, dito sa Lunsod ng San Pablo, ay dumulog si CECILIA
ESGUERRA COSICO may katibayan ng paninirahan Big. A 6536790
gawad noong ika-1 3 ng A ug. 1996 dito sa Lunsod ng San Pablo. Kilala
ko na siya ang nagsagawa na naunang HULING HABILIN o
TESTAMENTO, na kanyang isinagawa at nilagdaan sa harapan ng
kanyang tatlong saksi na sina LIBERATO B. BENEDICTOS may K.P.
Big. A 3257377 gawad sa Lunsod ng San Pablo noong Enero 12. 1996;
GIGANTE M. REYNALDO may K. P. B ig. A 325758 1 gawad sa Lunsod
ng San Pablo noong Jan. 3. 1996; RICARDO C. PANDINO may K. P.
Big. A 6540602 gawad sa Lunsod ng San Pablo noong Sept.. 3, 1996. Na
la.hat si la ay nagsilagda ng kani lang mga pangalan sa ibaba na
pagpapatunay na ito at sa bawat dahon sa hara.pan ni Bb. CECILlA
ESGUERRA COS ICO at ng bawat isa sa kanila at sa hara.pan ko at
pinatunayan nila na ya.on ay kanilang nilagdaan at isinagawa nang
malaya at kusa sa kanilang kalooban.

Ang HULING HABILIN ito ay binubuo ng a.pat (4) na dahon.

kasama ang dahong kinaroroonan ng pagpapatunay at pagpapatotoong
ito. SAKSI ang a.king lagda at panatak pangnotaryo.

DANTON Q. BUESE R (sgd.)

NOATARAY PUBLIC
UNTIL D EC. 1996
PTR No. 420620 1
San Pablo C ity

Doc. No. 177

Page No. 37
Book No. 33
Series of 1996

Reynaldo 1\11. Gigante (Reynaldo) and Ricardo C. Pandino (Ricardo)

were also present at Cecilia's house that night up,Jn her request. Reynaldo was
the son of Cecilia's helper, ·li\·hile Ricardo was a neighbor who regularly went
to the house to buy coconuts from Mercedes.7

7
/d.atJI.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 246997

In the presence of Liberato, Reynaldo, and Ricardo who served as

notarial witnesses to Cecilia's Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya, Atty. Bueser
read the contents of the document to Cecilia and carefully explained to her its
effects and consequences. He then asked her if she fully understood its
contents and whether it was done according to her wishes. Cecilia confirmed. 8

After Atty. Bueser read and explained the contents of the Huling
Habilin at Pagpapasiya, Cecilia affixed her thumbmark to the will on top of
her printed name and on the lower left portion of the first and second pages of
the document - all in the presence of Atty. Bueser and her notarial witnesses.
Subsequently, in the presence of Liberato, Reynaldo, and Ricardo, both
Cecilia and Atty. Bueser signed on the left margin of the first two pages of the
Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya and at the end of the attestation clause. 9

After all the preparations, Atty. Bueser handed over the signed copy of
the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya to Cecilia. 10

On March 22, 2006, Cecilia died at the age of seventy-four (74).

Following her death, Mercedes obtained a copy of the Huling Habilin at
Pagpapasiya, had it photocopied and gave her spouse Gomerciendo Guia and
Thelma a copy each. 11

12
On May 9, 2009, Mercedes died.

On July 6, 2010, Thelma filed a Petition for probate of Cecilia's will

and for her appointment as administrator of the latter's estate before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Br. 32, San Pablo City. 13

On September 23, 2010, Cecilia's half siblings from the same father,
respondents Jose. M. Cosico, Jr., Manuel M. Cosico, Minerva M. Cosico, and
Eleanor M. Cosico-Chavez (respondents) opposed the petition. 14 They
essentially alleged that the formalities for the execution of a valid will under
Articles 805 to 809 of the Civil Code were not complied with. More, Cecilia
was not mentally capacitated at the time she purportedly executed her wi ll; if
at all, she signed it under duress and improper pressure from the beneficiary;
the alleged thumbprint of Cecilia was procured through fraud; and Cecilia did
not intend the document denominated Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya to be
her last will and testament. 15

On October 28, 20 I 0, Batubalani Realty and Development Corporation

(Batubalani) moved for leave to intervene, claiming it had interest in Cecilia's

8
Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11
Id. at 32.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14
Id. at 53.
15
Id. at 32.
Decis ion 7 G.R. No. 246997

properties. During their lifetime, Cecilia and Mercedes supposedly entered

into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with it on August 5, 1998. Under this
Agreement, Batubalani developed a subdivision project covering 35,000
square meters of land owned by Cecilia and Mercedes. Batubalani then sold
the developed lots. The proceeds were shared by the company, Cecilia, and
Mercedes. In connection with the Agreement, Cecilia and Mercedes registered
the parcels ofland in their names under one title, Original Certificate of Title
No. 0-861. 16

Through Order dated November 26, 20 I 0, the trial court granted the
motion to intervene. It also noted the stipulations entered into by the parties
at the pre-trial, thus: 17 a.) Cecilia died on March 22, 2006; b.) She died without
compulsory heirs; and c.) Mercedes had already passed away. 18

Meantime, by Order dated August 8, 2011, the trial court appointed

Atty. Gerardo Iligan (Atty. Iligan) as Special Administrator of Cecilia's estate.
Pursuant to his powers and duties as special administrator, Atty. lligan secured
and received copies of all deeds of conditional sale and expenses incurred
relating to Cecilia's properties under the JVA. He also rendered accounting of
those lots yet unsold. As it turned out, the 35,000-square meter parcel of land
subject of the JVA was subdivided into 200 smaller lots covered by several
transfer certificates in the names of Cecilia and Mercedes. Of the 200 smaller
lots, 167 were put up for sale, 60 of wh ich had already been sold, while the
rest were roads and open spaces. Consequently, Atty. Iligan prepared a
Segregation Agreement with Thelma where they agreed to assign 53 parcels
of land to Mercedes and the 54 unsold lots to Cecilia. Thereafter, they jointly
moved for its approval. 19

The Regional Trial Court's Decision

By Decision dated June 30, 2014, 20 the trial court granted the Special
Administrator's Motion for Segregation and admitted Cecilia's Huling
Habilin at Pagpapasiya to probate, viz.:

As it is, the Segregation Agreement was executed between the

Special Administrator and the petitioner who is the named substitute
executor and heir to the estate of Cecilia pursuant to the (sic) Cecilia·s
Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya. The petitioner is also the only heir of
Mercedes who is part ow11cr of the lot covered by Original Certificate of
Title No. 0-86 1, which was subdivided into several lots sold to third parties
pursuant to the Joint Venture Agreement entered into between the intervenor
Batubalani Realty Development Corporation, on the one hand, and Cecilia
and Mercedes, on the other. [n short, then, petitioner Thelma Esguerra Guia
Esteva is bound to be the on ly owner, not only of the share of Mercedes in
the iot covered by OCT No. 0-86L but also of the share of Cecil ia in the
san1e lot, inc luding a ll other properties of Cecilia mentioned in the latter's

16
Id. at 32-33.
17
Id. at 33-34.
1s Id.
19
Id. at 34-37.
0
~ Penned by Presiding Judge Agripino Ci. Morga: ed. at 52- 128.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 246997

Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya.

This Court thus grants the Special Administrator's Motion for

Segregation. The Segregation Agreement is hereby approved. After all ,
with the probate of Ceci lia' s Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya, the petitioner
shall remain the sole executor and heir to the estate of Cecilia pursuant to
the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya, as well as the sole heir to Mercedes.
(Emphasis supplied)
xxxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the last will and testament of

Cecili a Esguerra Cosico. contained in her Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya
executed on September I 0, 1996 is hereby ADMITTED to probate.

Letters testamentary and/or administration are hereby issued m

favor of Thelma Esguerra Guia Estiva without posing any bond. In
accordance with the Huling I-Iabilin at Pagpapasiya of Cec ilia Esguerra
Cosico, Thelma Esguerra Guia Estiva shall be the executor of, and the sole
heir, to the estate of Ceci Iia Esguerra Cosico.

Within three (3) months after her appointment as executor or

administrator, Thelma Esgue1Ta Guia Estiva is directed to submit a true
inventory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of Cecilia
Esguerra Cosico. She may secure the services of a tax appraiser in the
appraisement of the estate.

Thelma Esguerra Guia Estiva is also directed to pay Atty. Gerardo

B. Ilagan his compensation as Special Administrator, and all proper
expenses of administration incurred by him, chargeable against the estate,
pursuant to Section 7, Rule 85 of the Rules of Cou11.

Let a notice be issued to any and all persons who have money claims
against Cecilia Esguerra Cosico and her estate to file their claim before the
Office of the Clerk of Court of thi s Court. This notice shal l be published for
three (3) consecutive weeks successively in a newspaper of general
publication in the Province of Laguna and in San Pablo C ity, and shall be
posted for the same period in four public places in the province and in two
public places in the City of San Pablo where Cecilia Esguerra Cosico last
resided. Such money cl aims against the estate of Cecilia Esguerra Cosico
shall be fi led with the Office of the Clerk of Court within a period of not
more than twelve (12) months nor less than s ix (6) months after the date of
the first publication of the notice.

SO ORDERED. 21

The trial court essentially ru led that Cecilia freely and voluntarily
executed the will, during which time, she was of sound mind.22 The Huling
Habilin at Pagpapasiya was executed in accordance with the formal and
essential requisites of law. 23 The court had the power to act on the Special
Administrator's Motion to Approve the Segregation Agreement. It further
noted that while respondents were biood relatives of Cecilia, it was not

21Id.
12
Id. at 68-81.
n Id. ilt 68-118.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 246997

unnatural for her to have bequeathed all her properties to Mercedes since it
was Mercedes who took care of her throughout her lifetime and provided her
comfort up to her last breath. 24

While she was considered a lumpo, Cecilia knew fully well the nature
of her properties to be disposed of, the proper subjects of her bounty, and the
character of her testamentary act. To be sure, her Huling Habilin at
Pagpapasiya was not prepared all in one day, but was actually a product of a
prior conference and discussion with Atty. Bueser two (2) nights before the
signing and final execution thereof; the respective testimonies of Reynaldo
and Liberato corroborated each other on Cecilia's sound mental condition; and
at any rate, respondents failed to rebut the presumption that every person is of
sound mind, as they had in fact waived their right to adduce evidence to
support their opposition; finally, nowhere was it shown that Mercedes or
Thelma pressured or duly influenced Cecilia into executing her Huling
Habilin at Pagpapasiya. 25

The Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya complied with the formal and

essential requirements of the Civil Code: (1) Cecilia was of sound mind when
she had it prepared and executed; (2) it was written in Filipino, a language
known to Cecilia; (3) Cecilia subscribed to it by affixing her thumbmark
thereto; ( 4) it was attested and subscribed by three (3) credible witnesses in
the presence of Cecilia and of one another. 26

The trial court did not give merit to respondents' argument that the
Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya was supposedly fatally defective for not
having been read twice: once, by one of the subscribing witnesses; and again
by the notary public before whom it was acknowledged in view of Cecilia's
illiteracy. It considered the following reasons to have rendered the
requirement superfluous: (1) Cecilia herself discussed and dictated the terms
by which she wanted to dispose of her properties with Atty. Bueser two (2)
days before subscribing to the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya; (2) on the day
she affixed her thumbmark to the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya, its contents
were read and carefully explained to Cecilia by Atty. Bueser; and (3) when
Atty. Bueser asked Cecilia if she understood the contents of her Huling
Habilin at Pagpapasiya, she readily affixed her thumbmark thereto,
signifying that its tenns and contents were consistent with her wishes. 27

Finally, the cou1i explained that its approval of the Segregation

Agreement was inevitable following the admission to probate of the Huling
Habilin at Pagpapasiya wherein Thelma stood to inherit all the properties of
Mercedes, including those which Cecilia herself prev iously acquired as sole
heir of Mercedes. :2s

24 Id. at 125-1 26 .
25 Id. at 64-65.
~6 Id.
27
Id. at 66.
ZR Id. at 125.
 Decision 10 G.R. No. 246997

On appeal, respondents faulted the trial court for admitting in probate

Cecilia's will. They insisted that Cecilia's Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya did
not comply with all the legal requirements under Articles 80629 and 808 30 of
the Civil Code. For one, L iberato and Reynaldo failed to declare or avow that
their act of signing Cecilia's Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya was voluntary.
For another, the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya was read to Cecilia only once
by Atty. Bueser and lacked the second reading requirement by one of her
notarial witnesses. Finally, the Special Administrator had no authority to enter
into such a Segregation Agreement with Thelma. 31

The Court of Appeals' Decision

By Decision32 dated December 7, 2018, the CoUii of Appeals reversed.

It ruled that Cecilia's Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya was void since it
violated A1iicle 808 of the Civil Code, thus:

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant appeal is

GRANTED. The assai led Deci sion of the Regional Trial Com1 of San
Pablo City, Branch 32, in Special Proceeding No. SP-I 827(10) is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Judgment is rendered DISMISSING the
petition for probate filed by the petitioner-appellee Thelma Esguerra Guia;
and, DENYING the Motion to Approve Segregation Agreement.

SO ORDERED.

On one hand, it noted that the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya had

substantially complied with Article 806. While respondents insisted that the
notarial witnesses fai led to make a declaration before the notary public that
their acts of affix ing their respective signatures were voluntary, this was easily
refuted by the acknowledgment portion of the will, viz.:

SA HARAPAN KO x x x ay dumulog si CECILIA ESGUERRA COSICO

x x x Kilala ko na siya ang nagsagawa na naunang HULING HABILIN o
TESTAMENTO, na kanyang isinagawa at nilagdaan sa harapan ng kanyang
tatlong saksi na sina LIBERATO B. BEN EDICTOS x x x; GIGANTE M.
REYNALDO xxx; RICARDO C. PANDINO x x x. Na lahat sila ay
nagsilagda ng kanilang mga pangalan sa ibaba na pagpapatunay na ito
at sa bawat dahon sa harapan ni Bb. CECILIA ESGUERRA COSICO
at ng bawat isa sa kanila at sa harapan ko at pinatunayan nila na yaon
ay kanilang nilagdaan at isinagawa nang malaya at kusa sa kanilang
kalooban. (Emphasis supplied)

At any rate, there was no evidence showing that the notarial witnesses
29
Article 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary publ ic by the testator and the witnesses.
The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file an other with the office of the
Clerk of Court (n).
30
Article 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be rc::acl to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing
witnesses, and again. by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged. (n)
31
/d. at 67.
12
: Penned by Associate Justice IVlariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios
and Rafael Antonio M. Santos., concurring; id. at 25-49.

{I
Decision 11 G.R. No. 246997

were forced or coerced into signing the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya. 33

The Court of Appeals nevertheless ruled that as for Article 808, the
same was not observed during the execution of the Huling Habif in at
Pagpapasiya. While it is strictly a requirement for blind testators,
jurisprudence has, by analogy, applied the requirement of reading the will
twice: once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary
public before whom the will was acknowledged to those who, for one reason
or another, are "incapable of reading their wills." 34

It emphasized the rationale behind Article 808 - to make the provisions

in the will known to the testator and to allow him or her to object if they are
not in accordance to his or her wishes. Having been read twice by different
disinterested persons would ensure that the contents of the will are properly
communicated and understood by the testator. 35

Here, it was undisputed that Cecilia never learned how to read and
write, hence she was an illiterate; and it was only the notary public, Atty.
Bueser, who read the will to the testator Cecilia. Thus, the will should not have
been admitted to probate for violation of Article 808. 36

It became wholly immaterial that Cecilia had full possession of her

reasoning faculties; and clear knowledge of the nature of her estate, the proper
objects of her bounty, and the character of her testamentary act. For the breach
of Article 808 had actually exposed Cecilia's will to the possibility of fraud.
In other words, even if Cecilia had fulfilled the aforesaid requirements, there
is no guarantee that the will which was "read" to her was the same document
which she and the notarial witnesses signed. 37

Finally, the Court of Appeals ruled that Thelma could not invoke In re:
Alvarado v. Gaviola, Jr. 38 for the purpose of claiming substantial compliance
with Article 808. ln Alvarado, the Court held that there was substantial
compliance with Article 808 because the notary public and the notarial
witnesses had their own copy of the will and read the same silently while the
lawyer read it out loud. In contrast, none of the notarial witnesses here were
given copy of the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya. As such, they could not
have confirmed the contents of the document read and explained by Atty.
Bueser to Cecilia. 39

With the disallowance of the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya to probate,

the Segregation Agreement becomes devoid of basis. As such, Cecilia's
properties should be passed on to her heirs by intestate succession under

33
Id. at 70.
34 Id. at 70. citing 297 Phil. 384, 390 ( 1993) and 14 3 Phil. 290, 304 ( 1970).
35 Id. at 7 1.
36 Id. at 7 1-73.
37
Id. at 73-74.
38
297 Phil. 384,3 88 ( 1993).
39 I d.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 246997

Article 96040 in relation to Articles 100341 and 100742 of the Civil Code.

The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration on May 8, 20 19. 43

Present Petition

Thelma now asks the Court to exercise its discretionary appellate

jurisdiction to review and reverse the assailed issuances of the Court of
Appeals.44

She faults the Court of Appeals for ruling that A1iicle 808 was not
substantially complied with insofar as the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya is
concerned and that Alvarado was inapplicable here; for di sallowing probate
of the will; and for denying the motion to approve the Segregation Agreement.
Thelma asse1is that there was more than substantial compliance with A1iicle
808, as correctly ruled by the trial court in its Decision dated June 30, 2014.45
There is substantial compliance so long as the spirit of the law was served,
even though the letter of the law was not. Formal imperfections may be
overlooked when they do not affect the rationale behind the requirement. 46

She argues anew that although Cecilia was a lumpo and did not have
any formal education, she had full possession of her facu lties when she
executed her last will. She too had clear knowledge of the nature of her estate
to be disposed of, the proper objects of her bounty, and the character of her
testamentary act. She requested Liberato to look for a lawyer to help her
prepare her last will and testament two (2) days before its execution. Liberato
spoke to Atty. Bueser who agreed to assist Cecilia prepare and execute her last
will and testament. Atty. Bueser and Ceci lia conferred and discussed the
latter's wishes, which the former reduced in writing, observing the fonnalities
of a will. Finall y, on September 10, 1996, in the presence of the notarial
witnesses, Atty. Bueser read and explained the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya
to Cecilia, who then, affixed her thumbmark thereto. The notarial witnesses
likewise each affixed their respective signatures to the document. 47

It was not only the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya that established

Cecilia's wishes, but the testimonies of the notarial witnesses as well. They
proved that Cecilia had desired for her properties to be bequeathed to her aunt

40
Article 960. Legal or intestate succession takes place:
( I) lfa person dies without a wi ll, or with a vo id will. or one which has s ubsequently lost its va lidity:
XX X
41 Artic le 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children. or a s urviving spouse, the
collateral re lati ves s ha ll s ucceed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance wi th the fo ll ow ing
articles. (946a)
42 Artic le 1007. In case brothers and sisters of th e half blood, some 0 11 the father's and some 0 11 the mother's

side, are the only survivors, a ll sha ll inherit in equal s hares w ithout d istinctio n as to the origin of the
property. (950)
~ Rollo.pp. 50-52.
44
Id. at 3-24; Petition for Review on Cerliorari.
45
Id. at 14.
46 !d. at 17.
47
Id. at 16- 17.

f
Decision 13 G.R. No . 246997

Mercedes who took care of her throughout her lifetime and even provided
comfo1i up to her last breath. 48

In sum, the denial of the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya simply because

none of the notarial witnesses read the contents thereof out loud nor silently
read their own copies like in Alvarado - would frustrate Cecilia' s wishes and
intentions. 49 Consequently, the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya should be
admitted to probate and the Segregation Agreement, approved.so

In their Com.ment, 51 respondents maintain that the Court of Appeals

correctly ruled that At1icle 808 was not complied with. For one, both Liberato
and Reynaldo admitted that they did not read the Huling Habilin at
Pagpapasiya, but merely relied on the explanation of Atty. Bueser - who
himself did not testify. 52 For another, Alvarado is not on all fours with the
present case, hence, the doctrine of substantial compliance is inapplicable
here.s3

Threshold Issues

Was the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya executed in compliance with

Article 808 of the Civil Code?

Should the Segregation Agreement be approved?

Ruling

We grant the petition.

Article 808 of the Civil Code requires that the contents of a last will and
testament be read to the testator twice, once by one of the subscribing
witnesses, and again, by the notary, v;z.:

Article 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him
twice; once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary
public before whom the will is acknowledged. (n)

While the law imposes the requirement only when the testator is blind,
the Cou11 has expanded its coverage to those who are illiterate. Alvarado
elucidates: 54

The following pronouncement in Garcia vs. Vasquez/5 5Jprovides an

insight into the scope of the term "blindness'· as used in Art. 808, to wit:

48
Id. at 19.
49 Id.
50
Id. at 20-22.
51
Id. at 137-1 53; Respo ndents' Comment to the Petition fo r Certiorari, dated Aug ust 2 8, 20 19.
52
Id. at 148-1 5 1.
53
Id. at 15 1-1 53.
54
297 Phil. 384,3 89 ( 1993).
55 143 Phil. 290, 304 ( 1970).

r
Decision 14 G.R. No . 246997

The rationale behind the requirement of reading the

will to the testato r if he is b lind or incapable of reading the
will himself (as when he is illiterate), is to make the
provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able
to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes ...

C lear from the forego ing is that Art. 808 applies not only to blind
testators but also to those who, for one reason or another, are
"incapable of reading the(ir) will(s)." xxx

Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado,

the will shall be read twice; once, by one of the instrumental w itnesses and,
again, by the notary public before whom the will was acknowledged. The
purpose is to make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the
document before signing and to give him an opportunity to object if
anything is contrary to his instructions.

Here, Cecilia was not blind but a lumpo. The Court of Appeals
nevertheless applied Article 808 of the Civil Code considering that Cecilia
received no formal education and is incapable of reading or writing, hence,
illiterate. Pursuant to Alvarado, therefore, one of the subscribing witnesses
should have read Cecilia the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya aside from Atty.
Bueser.

We disagree.

Though Alvarado seemingly extended the application of Article 808 to

cover not just the blind but also illiterates, the same case also recognized an
exception to the rule - substantial compliance. We find this exception
applicable here.

In Alvarado, the testator was a 79-year old man who executed a notarial
will, a subsequent holographic will, and later on, a codicil where he modified
cetiain dispositions in the notarial will. As it was however, he was suffering
from glaucoma, an eye condition which limited his functional vision
"counting fingers at three (3) feet," preventing him from actually seeing for
himself the contents of his own will. The Court thus ruled that such condition
fell under the scope of Article 808, requiring the wi ll to be read twice to the
testator: once by the notary public, and another, by one of the notarial
witnesses. Though this two-pronged requirement was not fulfilled, the Court
neve1i heless allowed the will probate on ground of substantial compliance,
thus:

This Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial

compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been
satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the
execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of
fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible
as to destroy the testamentary privilege.

In the case at bar, private' respondent read the testator's will and
codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses,
Decision 15 G .R. No. 246997

a nd the notary public. Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed,
upon being asked, that the contents read corresponded w ith his instructio ns .
Only then did the signing and acknowledgement take place. There is no
evide nce, and petitioner does no t so allege, that the contents of the w ill a nd
codicil we re not sufficiently made known and communicated to the testa tor.
On the contrary, with respect to the "Huling Habilin," the day of the
execution was not the first time that Brigida had affi rmed the truth and
a uthenticity of the contents of the draft. The uncontradicted testimony of
Atty. Rino is that Brigida A lvarado already acknowledged tha t the will was
drafted in accordance w ith his expressed wishes even prior to 5 November
1977 w hen Atty. Rino went to the testator's residence precisely for the
purpose of securing his conformity to the draft.

Moreover, it was not only Atty. Rino who read the documents o n 5
November a nd 29 December 1977. The notary public and the three
instrumental w itnesses likewise read the w ill and codicil , a lbeit silently.
Afterwards, Atty. Nonia de la Pena (the nota ry public) and Dr. C rescente 0.
Evidente ( one of the tlu·ee instrumenta l witnesses and the testator's
physician) asked the testator whether the conte nts of the d ocument were of
his own free wi ll. Brigido answe red in the affirmative. With four persons
following the reading word for word with their own copies, it can be safely
concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that what was read to
him (those which he affirmed were in accordance with his instructions),
were the terms actually appearing on the typewritten documents. T his
is especially true when we consider the fact that the three instrumental
w itnesses were persons known to the testator, one being his physician (Dr.
Evidente) and another (P otenciano C . Ranieses) being known to him since
c hildhood.

T he spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not.
Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial
requirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of the will,
the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not
affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, mav only defeat
the testator's will.

As a final word to convince petitioner of the propriety of the trial

court's P robate Order and its affirmance by the Court of Appeals, we quote
the fo llowing pronouncement in Abangan v. Abangan,[56 ] to w it:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the

execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith
and fraud, to avoid the substitution of wills and
testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity.
Therefore the laws on the subject should be interpreted
in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on
the othe r hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that
it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the
exercise of the right to make a will. So when an
interpretation already given assures such ends, any other
interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but
demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless
and frustrative of the testator's will, must be
disrega rded.

56 40 Ph iI. 4 76 , 4 79 ( i 919).
Decision 16 G.R. No. 246997

Brigido A lvarado had expressed his last wishes in clear and

unmistakable terms in his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached thereto.
We are unwilling to cast these aside for the mere reason that a legal
requirement intended for his protection was not followed strictly when such
compliance had been rendered unnecessary by the fact that the purpose of
the law, i.e., to make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the
draft of his will, had already been accomplished. To reiterate, substantial
compliance suffices where the purpose has been served. (Emphases and
underscoring supplied; Citations omitted)

Indeed, the purpose of a will is to grant the wishes of a person upon

his/her death, especially with respect to the disposition of his/her worldly
possessions. 57 Both law and jurisprudence are consistent in allowing a degree
of flexibility with the requirements in the execution of wills, especially as to
the formal aspect. 58

Here, we find that upholding respondents' position and the Court of

Appeals' ruling would only frustrate Cecilia's will. A review of the document
itself, the testimonies of the witnesses, and the record shows that like in
Abangan, as cited in Alvarado, the intention of the testator had been
established and protected from fraud or trickery.

Notably, Atty. Bueser read and explained the contents of the Huling
Habilin at Pagpapasiya to Cecilia. Meanwhile, Liberato and Reynaldo
listened and understood the explanation of Atty. Bueser. It is also undisputed
that Cecilia made no denial or correction to what she had heard. As such, we
are convinced that the underlying protection of Article 808 had been fulfilled
here.

At any rate, the Court refuses to entertain such a possibility of fraud

because Atty. Bueser, aside from having observed all other formalities, handed
copies of the Huling Habili.n at Pagpapasiya to the notarial witnesses for their
signatures. This gave them the opportunity to read a short four ( 4)-page
document which they all flipped through from pages one (1) through four ( 4)
to affix their respective signatures, essentially negating any possibility of
fraud, trickery, or misrepresentation.

More, the notarial w itnesses heard Atty. Bueser read and explain to
Cecilia her Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya which gave both Cecilia and
themselves the opportunity to object to any provision in the will that may not
have been according to her wishes. As it was, no objections were made. To be
sure, Reynaldo knew and understood Cecil ia's testamentary act and
disposition of her properties. He testified:

57
Article 783, Civil Code - A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formal ities prescribed by
law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of th is estate. to take effect after his death. (667a)
58 Alvarado, citing Ahangan 40 Phil. 4 76, 479 ( 1 9 I9); Article 809, Civil Code - In the absence of bad fa ith,

forge ry, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the fo rm of
attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will in va lid if it is proved that the wil l was in
fact executed and attested in substantiai compliance \Nith all the requirements of article 805. (n)
Decision 17 G.R. No. 246997

Q Mr. Witnesss, you said Atty. Danton Bueser explained the

Huling Habilin at Pagpapsiya to Cecilia Esguerra Cosico and
you were present, if you can recall what is the most important
content which was explained to her by Atty. Danton Bueser to
the testator Cecilia Esguerra Cosico?
A Atty. Boeser explained that the properties owned by Cecilia
Esguerra Cosico, if she will be leaving shall be given to the one
taking care of her, sir.

Q Who is that person who is taking care of Ceci lia Esguerra Cosico?
A Mercedes Guia, sir.

Q What was the answer of Cecil ia Esguerra Cosico after it was

explained that a ll the properties sha ll be bequeathed or given to .. .
based on the documents shall be given to Mercedes Guia?
A She agreed, sir. (Emphases and underscoring supplied) 59

Verily, Cecilia's Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya and Reynaldo 's

testimony are consistent on the most material point in the will - that her
properties shall be inherited by her aunt, Mercedes.

In sum, A11icle 808 is meant to protect the testator from all kinds of
fraud and trickery but is never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to
destroy testamentary privilege. Here, the danger that A11icle 808 is designed
to prevent is undoubtedly nonexistent. As such, the trial court correctly ruled
that the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya had substantially complied with its
spirit for the purpose of admitting it to probate.

As for the Segregation Agreement, we agree with the Court of Appeals

that its approval has no basis, albeit on a different ground. For the trial cou11,
acting as a probate court has limited jurisdiction, relating only to matters
involv ing the probate of the w ill, i.e. the proceedings in determining the
validity of a will. Aranas v. Mercado 60 is instructive:

The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership

of properties for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the
inventory to be submitted by the administrator, but its determination
shall only be provisional unless the interested pa11ies are all heirs of the
decedent, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or the pa11ies
consent to the assumption of j urisdiction by the probate court and the rights
of third parties are not impaired. Its jurisdiction extends to matters
incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such
as the determination of the status of each heir and whether property included
in the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased
spouse.

xxxx

The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either
as a probate court or an intestate court, relates only to matters having
to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of

59
TSN dated February 25, 2011 , Testimony of Reynaldo Mercado G igante, pp. 25-3 1.
60
724 Phil. 174, 176(2014), c iting Agtarap v. Agtarap, 666 Ph il. 452, 486(201 1).
Decision 18 G.R. No. 246997

deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of questions

of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The patent rationale for
this rule is that such court merely exercises special and limited jurisdiction.
As held in several cases, a pwbate court or one in charge of estate
proceedings, whether testate or intestate. cannot adjudicate or determine
title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are claimed
to belong to outside parties, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from
the deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate. All
that the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine
whether or not they should be included in the inventory of properties
to be administered by the administrator. If there is no dispute. there poses
no problem, but if there is, 1hen the parties, the administrator, and the
opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action before a court
exerc isi ng general jurisdiction for a final determination of the conflicting
claims of title.

To stress, the petition filed below is for probate. The question is limited
to determining the validity of a will for its allowance - not the distribution of
the estate yet. Thus, we cannot concur in the trial court's reasoning that the
issue on the approval of the Segregation Agreement was mooted by Thelma's
eventual inheritance of Cecilia's entire estate. For the properties under
Ceci lia' s ownership would still be subject to accounting, collation, and even
payment of loans or setting off liabilities.

So must it be.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision61 dated

December 7, 2018 and Resolution62 dated May 8, 2019 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Decision63 dated June 30, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court
Branch 32, San Pablo City, Laguna 1s REJNSTATED with
MODIFICATION.

T he last will and testament of Cecilia Esguen-a Cosico, contained in her

Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya executed on September 10, 1996 is
ADMITTED to probate.

Let letters testamentary and/or administration be ISSUED in favor of

Thelma Esguen-a Guia without posting any bond. In accordance with the
Huling Habilin at Pagpapas(va of Cecilia Esguen-a Cosico, Thelma Esguerra
Guia shall be the executor of, and the sole heir, to the estate of Cecilia
Esguerra Cosico.

Within three (3) months after her appointment as executor or

administrator, Thelma Esguerra Guia is DIRECTED to SUBlVIIT a true
inventory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of Cecilia Esguerra
Cosico. She may secure the services of a tax appraiser for this purpose.

61
Penned by Associate Justice Maritior ~•- r·ur:zainn ~:a:;td lo, with Assodatc Justices Ma nue l M . Barri os
and Rafael Anton io M. Santos. con;;urring: Id a\ ~:5-49
62
id. nt 50-52.
63
Penned by Presiding Judge Agripino G . Mo rga: .t.!. ;\, '.~:?.-1 28.
Decision 19 G.R. No. 246997

Thelma Esguerra Guia is also DIRECTED to PAY Atty. Gerardo B.

Iligan his compensation as Special Administrator, and all proper expenses of
administration incurred by him, chargeable against the estate, pursuant to
Section 7, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court.

The Motion to Approve Segregation Agreement is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
 Decision 20 G.R. No. 246997

WE CONCUR:

ESTELA M~~-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson. Second Division

RICAR

JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusion in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was ass igned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

ESTELA M.~R~RNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13 , Article VIll of the Constitution and the Division

Cha irpe rson 's Attestation, 1 certify that the conclus ions in the above Decis ion
had been reached in consultation befo re the case was ass igned to the write r of
the opinion of the Court's Division.