8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

1/30

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-32213 November 26, 1973

AGAPITA N. CRUZ, petitioner,vs.ON. !U"GE GUILLERMO P. #ILLASOR, Pre$%&%'( !)&(e o* +r' I, Co)r/ o*0%r$/ I'$/'e o* Ceb), '& MANUEL +. LUGA, respondents.

Paul G. Gorrez for petitioner.

Mario D. Ortiz for respondent Manuel B. Lugay.

ESGUERRA,J.:

Petition to revie on certiorari the !ud"#ent of the $ourt First Instance of $ebualloin" the probate of the last ill a testa#ent of the late Valente %. $ru&.Petitioner'appellant ("apita N. $ru&, the survivin" spouse of the said deceaseopposed the alloance of the ill )*+hibit *-, alle"in" the ill as e+ecutedthrou"h fraud, deceit, #isrepresentation and undue inuence/ that the saidinstru#ent as e+ecute ithout the testator havin" been full0 infor#ed of the

content thereof, particularl0 as to hat properties he as disposin" and that thesupposed last ill and testa#ent as not e+ecuted in accordance ith la.Notithstandin" her ob!ection, the $ourt alloed the probate of the said last illand testa#ent 1ence this appeal b0 certiorari hich as "iven due course.

The onl0 2uestion presented for deter#ination, on hich the decision of the casehin"es, is hether the supposed last ill and testa#ent of Valente %. $ru& )*+hibit*- as e+ecuted in accordance ith la, particularl0 (rticles 345 and 346 of thene $ivil $ode, the 7rst re2uirin" at least three credible itnesses to attest andsubscribe to the ill, and the second re2uirin" the testator and the itnesses toac8noled"e the ill before a notar0 public.

Of the three instru#ental itnesses thereto, na#el0 Deo"racias T. 9a#aloas 9r., Dr.Francisco Pa:ares and (tt0. (n"el 1. Teves, 9r., one of the#, the last na#ed, is at thesa#e ti#e the Notar0 Public before ho# the ill as supposed to have beenac8noled"ed. Reduced to si#pler ter#s, the 2uestion as attested and subscribedb0 at least three credible itnesses in the presence of the testator and of eachother, considerin" that the three attestin" itnesses #ust appear before the notar0public to ac8noled"e the sa#e. (s the third itness is the notar0 public hi#self,petitioner ar"ues that the result is that onl0 to itnesses appeared before the

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

2/30

notar0 public to ac8noled"e the ill. On the other hand, private respondent'appellee, Manuel ;. 6>/ $astro v. $astro,C44 Phil. >B, >E=-/ to on as "enuine, to assent, to ad#it/ and before #eans infront or precedin" in space or ahead of. )The Ne Aebster *nc0clopedic Dictionar0of the *n"lish / Fun8 Aa"nalls Ne Standard Dictionar0 of the*n"lish 5>/ Aebster@s Ne International Dictionar0 >d. p. >E5.-$onse2uentl0, if the third itness ere the notar0 public hi#self, he ould have toavo assent, or ad#it his havin" si"ned the ill in front of hi#self. This cannot bedone because he cannot split his personalit0 into to so that one ill appear beforethe other to ac8noled"e his participation in the #a8in" of the ill. To per#it sucha situation to obtain ould be sanctionin" a sheer absurdit0.

Further#ore, the function of a notar0 public is, a#on" others, to "uard a"ainst an0

ille"al or i##oral arran"e#ent ;alinon v. De / Sa0er v. $o+, E Ill. C4-.There are others holdin" that his si"nin" #erel0 as notar0 in a ill nonetheless#a8es hi# a itness thereon )Fer"uson v. Fer"uson, E= S. *. >d. E6/ In Re Dou"las

Aill, N. H. S. >d. 6EC/ Ra"sdal v. 1ill, >6B S. A. >d. BCC, T0son tterbac8, C>> So.EB6/ In Re ;a0bee@s *state C64 N. B44/ A. Merill v. ;oal, C> (. =>C/SeealsoTrenith v. S#allood, C5 So. C44-. ;ut these authorities do not serve thepurpose of the la in this !urisdiction or are not decisive of the issue herein becausethe notaries public and itnesses referred to aforecited cases #erel0 acted asinstru#ental, subscribin" attestin" itnesses, and not as acknowledgingitnesses.1e the notar0 public acted not onl0 as attestin" itness but also ac8noled"in"itness, a situation not envisa"ed b0 (rticle 345 of the $ivil $ode hich reads?

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

3/30

(RT. 346. *ver0 ill #ust be acknowledged before a notary public bythe testator and the witnesses. The notar0 public shall not be re2uiredto retain a cop0 of the ill or 7le another ith the oJce of the $ler8 of$ourt. K*#phasis suppliedL

To allo the notar0 public to act as third itness, or one the attestin" andac8noled"in" itnesses, ould have the eect of havin" onl0 to attestin"itnesses to the ill hich ould be in contravention of the provisions of (rticle 345be re2uirin" at least three credible itnesses to act as such and of (rticle 346 hichre2uires that the testator and the re2uired nu#ber of itnesses #ust appear beforethe notar0 public to ac8noled"e the ill. The result ould be, as has been said,that onl0 to itnesses appeared before the notar0 public for or that purpose. Inthe circu#stances, the la ould not be dul0 in observed.

FOR (

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

4/30

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-7179 June 30, 1955

Testate Estate of te Late !"o#$na%$a Le&es'a. (EL)C)*!* J!+ELL!N!, petitioner-appellee,vs.

*O! M!TE! LE*ESM!,oppositor-appellant.

Fulgencio Vega and Felix D. Bacabac for appellant.Benjamin H. Tirot for appellee.

REES, J..L., J./

By order of July !, "#$!, the Court of %irst &nstance of &loilo ad'itted to probate the docu'entsin the (isayan dialect, 'ar)ed E*hibits + and E, as the testa'ent and codicil duly e*ecuted bythe deceased +a. Apolinaria edes'a (da. de Javellana, on March !, "#$, and May #,"#$, respectively, ith Ra'on /abiana, 0loria Montinola de /abiana and (icente 1ap asitnesses. /he contestant, +a. Matea edes'a, sister and nearest survivin2 relative of said

deceased, appealed fro' the decision, insistin2 that the said e*hibits ere not e*ecuted inconfor'ity ith la. /he appeal as 'ade directly to this Court because the value of theproperties involved e*ceeded to hundred thousand pesos.

3ri2inally the opposition to the probate also char2ed that the testatri* lac)ed testa'entarycapacity and that the dispositions ere procured throu2h undue influence. /hese 2rounds ereabandoned at the hearin2 in the court belo, here the issue as concentrated into threespecific 4uestions5 6"7 hether the testa'ent of "#$ as e*ecuted by the testatri* in thepresence of the instru'ental itnesses8 67 hether the ac)noled2'ent clause as si2nedand the notarial seal affi*ed by the notary ithout the presence of the testatri* and theitnesses8 and 6!7 if so, hether the codicil as thereby rendered invalid and ineffective. /hese4uestions are the sa'e ones presented to us for resolution.

/he contestant ar2ues that the Court belo erred in refusin2 credence to her itnesses MariaPadero2ao and (idal Allado, coo) and driver, respectively, of the deceased Apolinaria edes'a.Both testified that on March !, "#$, they sa and heard (icente 1ap 6one of the itnesses tothe ill7 infor' the deceased that he had brou2ht the 9testa'ento9 and ur2e her to 2o toattorney /abiana:s office to si2n it8 that +a. Apolinaria 'anifested that she could not 2o, becauseshe as not feelin2 ell8 and that upon 1ap:s insistence that the ill had to be si2ned in theattorney:s office and not elsehere, the deceased too) the paper and si2ned it in the presence

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

5/30

of 1ap alone, and returned it ith the state'ent that no one ould 4uestion it because theproperty involved as e*clusively hers.

3ur e*a'ination of the testi'ony on record discloses no 2rounds for reversin2 the trial Court:sre;ection of the i'probable story of the itnesses. &t is s4uarely contradicted by the concordanttesti'ony of the instru'ental itnesses, (icente 1ap, Atty. Ra'on /abiana, and his ife 0loria

Montinola, ho asserted under oath that the testa'ent as e*ecuted by testatri* and itnessesin the presence of each other, at the house of the decedent on 0eneral 7. No, the instru'ental itnesses 6hohappen to be the sa'e ones ho attested the ill of "#$7 asserted that after the codicil hadbeen si2ned by the testatri* and the itnesses at the =an Pablo

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

6/30

in recallin2 past events, to substitute the usual and habitual for hat differs sli2htly fro' it 6&&Moore on %acts, p. >>8 /he Ellen Mc0overn, %ed. >>, >7.

At any rate, as observed by the Court belo, hether or not the notary si2ned the certification ofac)noled2'ent in the presence of the testatri* and the itnesses, does not affect the validityof the codicil. nli)e the Code of ">># 6Art. ##7, the ne Civil Code does not re4uire that the

si2nin2 of the testator, itnesses and notary should be acco'plished in one sin2le act. Aco'parison of Articles >$ and > of the ne Civil Code reveals that hile testator anditnesses si2n in the presence of each other, all that is thereafter re4uired is that 9every ill'ust be ac)noled2ed before a notary public by the testator and the itnesses9 6Art. >78 i.e.,that the latter should avo to the certifyin2 officer the authenticity of their si2natures and thevoluntariness of their actions in e*ecutin2 the testa'entary disposition. /his as done in thecase before us. /he subse4uent si2nin2 and sealin2 by the notary of his certification that thetesta'ent as duly ac)noled2ed by the participants therein is no part of the ac)noled2'entitself nor of the testa'entary act.

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

7/30

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

T1IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 12396 Ar%4 25, 23

URSULINA GANUELAS, METO"IO GANUELAS '& ANTONIOGANUELAS,petitioners,vs.

ON. RO+ERT T. CAE", !)&(e o* /e Re(%o'4 Tr%4 Co)r/ o* S' 0er''&o,L U'%o' 8+r' 29, LEOCA"IA G. 0LORES, 0ELICITACION G. AGTARAP,CORAZON G. SIPALA '& ESTATE O0 ROMANA GANUELAS "E LA ROSA,rere$e'/e& b: GREGORIO "ELA ROSA, A&m%'%$/r/or,respondents.

CARPIO MORALES,J.;

The present petition for revie under Rule E5 of the Rules of $ourt assails, on a2uestion of la, the Februar0 >>, CBB6 decision C of the Re"ional Trial $ourt of SanFernando, B, in $ivil $ase No. BE=, an action for declaration ofnullit0 of a deed of donation.

The facts, as culled fro# the records of the case, are as follos?

On (pril CC, CB53, $elestina Ganuelas Vda. de Valin )$elestina- e+ecuted a Deed ofDonation of Real Propert0 > coverin" seven parcels of land in favor of her niecersulina Ganuelas )rsulina-, one of herein petitioners.

The pertinent provision of the deed of donation reads, 2uoted erbati!?

+++ +++ +++

That, for and in consideration of the love and aection hich the DONOR has

for the DON**, and of the faithful services the latter has rendered in the pastto the for#er, the said DONOR does b0 these presents transfer and conve0,b0 a0 of DON(TION, unto the DON** the propert0 above, described, tobeco#e eective upon the death of the DONOR/ but in the event that theDON** should die before the DONOR, the present donation shall be dee#edrescinded and of no further force and eect.

+++ +++ +++.

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

8/30

On 9une C4, CB6=, $elestina e+ecuted a docu#ent deno#inated as Revocation ofDonationEpurportin" to set aside the deed of donation. More than a #onth later oron (u"ust C3, CB6=, $elestina died ithout issue and an0 survivin" ascendants andsiblin"s.

(fter $elestina@s death, rsulina had been sharin" the produce of the donatedproperties ith private respondents , or tent0'four 0ears after the e+ecution of the Deed of Donation, rsulinasecured the correspondin" ta+ declarations, in her na#e, over the donatedproperties, to it? Ta+ Declarations Nos. C3C43, C3C4B, C3CC4, C3CCC, C3CC>,C3CC and C3CCE, and since then, she refused to "ive private respondents an0share in the produce of the properties despite repeated de#ands.

Private respondents ere thus pro#pted to 7le on Ma0 >6, CB36 ith the RT$ of SanFernando, and for her to return orpa0 the value of their shares.

The defendants'herein petitioners alle"ed in their (nser6

that the donation in favorof rsulina as inter iosas conte#plated under (rticle =>B of the $ivil$ode,=hence, the deed did not have to co#pl0 ith the re2uire#ents for thee+ecution of a valid ill/ the Revocation of Donation is null and void as the "round#entioned therein is not a#on" those provided b0 la to be the basis thereof/ andat an0 rate, the revocation could onl0 be le"all0 enforced upon 7lin" of theappropriate co#plaint in court ithin the prescriptive period provided b0 la, hichperiod had, at the ti#e the co#plaint as 7led, alread0 lapsed.

;0 Decision of Februar0 >>, CBB6, the trial court, holdin" that the provision in theDeed of Donation that in the event that the DON** should predecease the DONOR,the donation shall be dee#ed rescinded and of no further force and eect is an

e+plicit indication that the deed is a donation #ortis causa,3

found for the plaintis'herein private respondents, thus?

A1*R*FOR* the $ourt renders !ud"#ent declarin" null and void the Deed ofDonation of Real Propert0 e+ecuted b0 $elestina Ganuelas, and orders thepartition of the estate of $elestina a#on" the intestate heirs.

SO ORD*R*D.B

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

9/30

The trial court also held that the absence of a reservation clause in the deed i#pliedthat $elestina retained co#plete do#inion over her properties, thus supportin" theconclusion that the donation is !ortis causa,C4and that hile the deed contained anattestation clause and an ac8noled"#ent shoin" the intent of the donor to eecta post#orte# disposition, the ac8noled"#ent as defective as onl0 the donor anddonee appear to have ac8noled"ed the deed before the notar0 public, thereb0

renderin" the entire docu#ent void.CC

On herein petitioners@ ar"u#ent that the Revocation of Donation as void as the"round #entioned therein is not one of those alloed b0 la to be a basis forrevocation, the trial court held that the le"al "rounds for such revocation asprovided under the $ivil $ode arise onl0 in cases of donations inter ios, but not indonations!ortis causahich are revocable at ill durin" the lifeti#e of the donor.The trial court held, in an0 event, that "iven the nullit0 of the disposition !ortiscausain vie of a failure to co#pl0 ith the for#alities re2uired therefor, the Deedof Revocation as a superuit0.C

1ence, the instant petition for revie, petitioners contendin" that the trial courterred?

I. . . . A1*N IT D*$

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

10/30

The issue is thus hether the donation is inter iosor !ortis causa.

$rucial in the resolution of the issue is the deter#ination of hether the donorintended to transfer the onership over the properties upon the e+ecution of thedeed.>>

Donation inter iosdiers fro# donation !ortis causain that in the for#er, the actis i##ediatel0 operative even if the actual e+ecution #a0 be deferred until thedeath of the donor, hile in the latter, nothin" is conve0ed to or ac2uired b0 thedonee until the death of the donor'testator.>The folloin" rulin" of this $ourtin"le#andro . Geraldez is illu#inatin"?>E

If the donation is #ade in conte#plation of the donor@s death, #eanin" thatthe full or na8ed onership of the donated properties ill pass to the doneeonl0 because of the donor@s death, then it is at that ti#e that the donationta8es eect, and it is a donation !ortis causahich should be e#bodied in alast ill and testa#ent.

;ut if the donation ta8es eect durin" the donor@s lifeti#e or independentl0of the donor@s death, #eanin" that the full or na8ed onership )nuda

proprietas- of the donated properties passes to the donee durin" the donor@slifeti#e, not b0 reason of his death but because of the deed of donation, thenthe donation is inter ios.

The distinction beteen a transfer inter iosand !ortis causais i#portant as thevalidit0 or revocation of the donation depends upon its nature. If the donationis inter ios, it #ust be e+ecuted and accepted ith the for#alities prescribed b0(rticles =E3>5and =EB>6of the $ivil $ode, e+cept hen it is onerous in hich casethe rules on contracts ill appl0. If it is !ortis causa, the donation #ust be in the

for# of a ill, ith all the for#alities for the validit0 of ills, otherise it is void andcannot transfer onership.>=

The distin"uishin" characteristics of a donation !ortis causaare the folloin"?

C. It conve0s no title or onership to the transferee before the death of thetransferor/ or, hat a#ounts to the sa#e thin", that the transferor shouldretain the onership )full or na8ed- and control of the propert0 hile alive/

>. That before his death, the transfer should be revocable b0 the transferor atill, ad nutu!/ but revocabilit0 #a0 be provided for indirectl0 b0 #eans of areserved poer in the donor to dispose of the properties conve0ed/

. That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive thetransferee.>3

In the donation sub!ect of the present case, there is nothin" therein hich indicatesthat an0 ri"ht, title or interest in the donated properties as to be transferred torsulina prior to the death of $elestina.

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

11/30

The phrase to beco#e eective upon the death of the DONOR ad#its of no otherinterpretation but that $elestina intended to transfer the onership of theproperties to rsulina on her death, not durin" her lifeti#e.>B

More i#portantl0, the provision in the deed statin" that if the donee should diebefore the donor, the donation shall be dee#ed rescinded and of no further forceand eect shos that the donation is a post#orte# disposition.

(s stated in a lon" line of cases, one of the decisive characteristics of adonation !ortis causais that the transfer should be considered void if the donorshould survive the donee.4

More. The deed contains an attestation clause e+pressl0 con7r#in" the donationas !ortis causa?

SIGN*D b0 the above'na#ed donor, $elestina Ganuelas, at the foot of thisdeed of donation !ortis causa, consistin" of to )>- pa"es and on the left

#ar"in of each and ever0 pa"e thereof in the !oint presence of all of us hoat her re2uest and in her presence and that of each other have in li8e #annersubscribed our na#es as itnesses.C)*#phasis supplied-

To classif0 the donation as inter vivos si#pl0 because it is founded onconsiderations of love and aection is erroneous. That the donation as pro#ptedb0 the aection of the donor for the donee and the services rendered b0 the latter isof no particular si"ni7cance in deter#inin" hether the deed constitutes atransfer inter iosor not, because a le"ac0 #a0 have an identical #otivation.>Inother ords, love and aection #a0 also underline transfers !ortis causa.

In Maglasang . $eirs of %abatingan,Ethe deeds of donation contained provisions

al#ost identical to those found in the deed sub!ect of the present case?

That for and in consideration of the love and aection of the DONOR for theDON**, + + +. the DONOR does hereb0, b0 these presents, transfer, conve0,b0 a0 of donation, unto the DON** the above'described propert0, to"etherith the buildin"s and all i#prove#ents e+istin" thereon, to beco!ee&ectie upon the death of the DO'O(/ PROVID*D, 1OA*V*R, that in theeent that the DO')) should die before the DO'O(* the present donationshall be dee!ed auto!atically rescinded and of no further force and e&ect.)*#phasis supplied-

In that case, this $ourt held that the donations ere !ortis causa, for the above'

2uoted provision conclusivel0 establishes the donor@s intention to transfer theonership and possession of the donated propert0 to the donee onl0 after thefor#er@s death.

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

12/30

(s the sub!ect deed then is in the nature of a #ortis causa disposition, thefor#alities of a ill under (rticle =>3 of the $ivil $ode should have been co#pliedith, failin" hich the donation is void and produces no eect.5

(s noted b0 the trial court, the attestin" itnesses failed to ac8noled"e the deedbefore the notar0 public, thus violatin" (rticle 346 of the $ivil $ode hich provides?

(rt. 346. *ver0 ill #ust be ac8noled"ed before a notar0 public b0 thetestator and the witnesses. The notar0 public shall not be re2uired to retain acop0 of the ill, or 7le another ith the oJce of the $ler8 of $ourt. )*#phasissupplied-

The trial court did not thus co##it an0 reversible error in declarin" the Deed ofDonation to be !ortis causa.

A1*R*FOR*, the petition is hereb0 D*NI*D for lac8 of #erit.

SO ORD*R*D.

Re)b4% o* /e P%4%%'e$S)reme Co)r/

M'%4

TIR" "I#ISION

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

13/30

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

14/30

$4e.K>L The RT$ found that the e+ecution of a $ontract to Sell in favor of Do&en

$orporation, after Vicente had donated the lots to Manuel, as an e2uivocal act that

revo8ed the donation. The $ourt of (ppeals )%"- aJr#ed the RT$s decision.KL The

$( held that since the donation in favor of Manuel as a donation !ortis causa,

co#pliance ith the for#alities for the validit0 of ills should have been

observed. Te CA *o)'& // /e &ee& o* &o'/%o' &%& 'o/ o'/%' '

//e$//%o' 4)$e '& >$ /ere*ore vo%&.

Te Pe/%/%o' *or Rev%e> o' Certiorari

Manuel clai#s that the $( should have applied the rule on substantial

co#pliance in the construction of a ill to Vicentes donation !ortis causa. 1e

insists that the strict construction of a ill as not arranted in the absence of an0

indication of bad faith, fraud, or substitution in the e+ecution of the Deed of

Donation Mortis %ausa. 1e ar"ues that the $( i"nored the (c8noled"#ent portion

of the deed of donation, hich contains the Qi#port and purpose of the attestation

clause re2uired in the e+ecution of ills. The (c8noled"#ent reads?

;*FOR* M*, Notar0 Public, this =thda0 of Septe#ber CB35 atTalisa0, $ebu, personall0 appeared VI$*NT* S. *chave& ith Res. $ert.No. C63664BE issued on (pril C4, CB35 at KsicL Talisa0, $ebu 8non to#e to be the sa#e person ho e+ecuted the fore"oin" instru#ent of

Deed of Donartion Mortis $ausa before the Notar0 Public and in thepresence of the fore"oin" three )- itnesses ho si"ned thisinstru#ent before and in the presence of each other and of the Notar0Public and all of the# ac8noled"e to #e that the sa#e is theirvoluntar0 act and deed. K*#phasis in the ori"inal.L

TE COURT=S RULING

The $( correctl0 declared that a donation !ortis causa#ust co#pl0 ith the

for#alities prescribed b0 la for the validit0 of ills, KEL Qotherise, the donation is

void and ould produce no eect. K5L (rticles 345 and 346 of the $ivil $ode should

have been applied.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn5

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

15/30

(s the $( correctl0 found, the purported attestation clause e#bodied in the

(c8noled"#ent portion does not contain the nu#ber of pa"es on hich the deed

as ritten. The e+ception to this rule in Singson . -lorentinoK6Land aboada .

$on. (osal*K=L cannot be applied to the present case, as the facts of this case are

not si#ilar ith those ofSingsonand aboada. In those cases, the $ourt found that

althou"h the attestation clause failed to state the nu#ber of pa"es upon hich the

ill as ritten, the nu#ber of pa"es as stated in one portion of the ill. This is

not the factual situation in the present case.

*ven "rantin" that the (c8noled"#ent e#bodies hat the attestation

clause re2uires, e are not prepared to hold that an attestation clause and an

ac8noled"#ent can be #er"ed in one state#ent.

That the re2uire#ents of attestation and ac8noled"#ent are e#bodied in to

separate provisions of the $ivil $ode )(rticles 345 and 346, respectivel0- indicates

that the la conte#plates to distinct acts that serve dierent purposes. (n

ac8noled"#ent is #ade b0 one e+ecutin" a deed, declarin" before a co#petent

oJcer or court that the deed or act is his on. On the other hand, the attestation of

a ill refers to the act of the instru#ental itnesses the#selves ho certif0 to the

e+ecution of the instru#ent before the# and to the #anner of its e+ecution. K3L

(lthou"h the itnesses in the present case ac8noled"ed the e+ecution of

the Deed of Donation Mortis %ausa before the notar0 public, this is not the avoal

the la re2uires fro# the instru#ental itnesses to the e+ecution of a decedents

ill. (n attestation #ust state all the details the third para"raph of (rticle 345

re2uires. In the absence of the re2uired avoal b0 the itnesses the#selves, no

attestation clause can be dee#ed e#bodied in the (c8noled"e#ent of the Deed

of Donation Mortis %ausa.

Findin" no reversible error co##itted b0 the $(, the $ourthereb0 "ENIESManuels petition for revie on certiorari.

SO OR"ERE".

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/192916.htm#_ftn8

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

16/30

0IRST "I#ISION

MANUEL L. LEE, (.$. No. 5>3C

Com4%''/,Present?

PNO, %.+., %hairperson, S(NDOV(

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

17/30

The ill as purportedl0 e+ecuted and ac8noled"ed before respondent on

9une 4, CB65.KCL$o#plainant, hoever, pointed out that the residence

certi7cate K>Lof the testator noted in the ac8noled"#ent of the ill as dated

9anuar0 5, CB6>.KLFurther#ore, the si"nature of the testator as not the sa#e as

his si"nature as donor in a deed of donationKEL)containin" his purported "enuine

si"nature-. $o#plainant averred that the si"natures of his deceased father in the

ill and in the deed of donation ere Qin an0 a0 )sic- entirel0 and dia#etricall0

opposed fro# )sic- one another in all an"leKsL.K5L

$o#plainant also 2uestioned the absence of notation of the residence

certi7cates of the purported itnesses No0na0 and Gra!o. 1e alle"ed that their

si"natures had li8eise been for"ed and #erel0 copied fro# their respective voters

aJdavits.

$o#plainant further asserted that no cop0 of such purported ill as on 7le

in the archives division of the Records Mana"e#ent and (rchives OJce of the

National $o##ission for $ulture and the (rts )N$$(-. In this connection, the

certi7cation of the chief of the archives division dated Septe#ber CB, CBBB stated?Doc. CE, Pa"e No. E, ;oo8 No. C, Series of CB65 refers to an (FFID(VITe+ecuted b0 ;(RTO44C clai#ed that the co#plaint

a"ainst hi# contained false alle"ations? )C- that co#plainant as a son of the

decedent Vicente - that the ill in 2uestion as fa8e and spurious. 1e

alle"ed that co#plainant as Qnot a le"iti#ate son of Vicente

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

18/30

aJdavitK=Lof Gloria Nebato, co##on'la ife of Vicente 44C, the $ourt referred the case to the

Inte"rated ;ar of the Philippines )I;P- for investi"ation, report and reco##endation.

KC4L

In his report, the investi"atin" co##issioner found respondent "uilt0 of

violation of pertinent provisions of the old Notarial L

of the $ode of Professional Responsibilit0

)$PR-.KCLThus, the investi"atin" co##issioner of the I;P $o##ission on ;ar

Discipline reco##ended the suspension of respondent for a period of three #onths.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn13

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

19/30

The I;P ;oard of Governors, in its Resolution No. VII'>446'>35 dated Ma0

>6, >446, resolved?KTLo (DOPT and (PPROV*, as it is hereb0 (DOPT*D and

(PPROV*D, >%/ mo&%?/%o', the Report and Reco##endation ofthe Investi"atin" $o##issioner of the above'entitled case, herein#ade part of this Resolution as (nne+ Q(/ and, 7ndin" thereco##endation full0 supported b0 the evidence on record and theapplicable las and rules, and considerin" Respondents failure toco#pl0 ith the las in the dischar"e of his function as a notar0public, (tt0. Re"ino ;. Ta#ba"o is hereb0 suspended fro# the practiceof la for one 0ear and Respondents notarial co##ission is Revo@e&'& "%$)4%?e& fro#reappoint#ent as Notar0 Public for to )>-0ears.KCEL

Ae aJr# ith #odi7cation.

( ill is an act hereb0 a person is per#itted, ith the for#alities prescribed

b0 la, to control to a certain de"ree the disposition of his estate, to ta8e eect

after his death.KC5L( ill #a0 either be notarial or holo"raphic.

The la provides for certain for#alities that #ust be folloed in the

e+ecution of ills. The ob!ect of sole#nities surroundin" the e+ecution of ills is to

close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of ills and testa#ents

and to "uarantee their truth and authenticit0.KC6L

( notarial ill, as the contested ill in this case, is re2uired b0 la to be

subscribed at the end thereof b0 the testator hi#self. In addition, it should be

attested and subscribed b0 three or #ore credible itnesses in the presence of the

testator and of one another.KC=L

The ill in 2uestion as attested b0 onl0 to itnesses, No0na0 and Gra!o.

On this circu#stance alone, the ill #ust be considered void. KC3LThis is in

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn18

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

20/30

consonance ith the rule that acts e+ecuted a"ainst the provisions of #andator0 or

prohibitor0 las shall be void, e+cept hen the la itself authori&es their validit0.

The $ivil $ode li8eise re2uires that a ill #ust be ac8noled"ed before a

notar0 public b0 the testator and the itnesses.KCBLThe i#portance of this

re2uire#ent is hi"hli"hted b0 the fact that it as se"re"ated fro# the other

re2uire#ents under (rticle 345 and e#bodied in a distinct and separate provision.

K>4L

(n ac8noled"#ent is the act of one ho has e+ecuted a deed in "oin"

before so#e co#petent oJcer or court and declarin" it to be his act or deed. It

involves an e+tra step underta8en hereb0 the si"nator0 actuall0 declares to the

notar0 public that the sa#e is his or her on free act and deed.K>CLThe

ac8noled"#ent in a notarial ill has a to'fold purpose? )C- to safe"uard the

testators ishes lon" after his de#ise and )>- to assure that his estate is

ad#inistered in the #anner that he intends it to be done.

( cursor0 e+a#ination of the ac8noled"#ent of the ill in 2uestion shos

that this particular re2uire#ent as neither strictl0 nor substantiall0 co#plied ith.

For one, there as the conspicuous absence of a notation of the residence

certi7cates of the notarial itnesses No0na0 and Gra!o in the ac8noled"#ent.

Si#ilarl0, the notation of the testators old residence certi7cate in the sa#e

ac8noled"#ent as a clear breach of the la. These o#issions b0 respondent

invalidated the ill.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn21

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

21/30

(s the ac8noled"in" oJcer of the contested ill, respondent as re2uired

to faithfull0 observe the for#alities of a ill and those of notari&ation. (s e held

in Santiago . (afanan?K>>L

The Notarial L

(notar0 public, especiall0 a la0er,K>ELis bound to strictl0 observe these ele#entar0

re2uire#ents.

The Notarial 5C. Re2uire#ent as to notation of pa0#ent of KcedulaLresidence ta+. *ver0 contract, deed, or other docu#entac8noled"ed before a notar0 public shall have certi7ed thereon thatthe parties thereto have presented their proper KcedulaL residencecerti7cate or are e+e#pt fro# the KcedulaL residence ta+, and thereshall be entered b0 the notar0 public as a part of such certi7cate thenu#ber, place of issue, and date of each KcedulaL residence certi7cateas aforesaid.K>5L

The i#portance of such act as further reiterated b0 Section 6 of the

Residence Ta+ (ct

K>6L

hich stated?Ahen a person liable to the ta+es prescribed in this (ct ac8noled"esan0 docu#ent before a notar0 public +++ it shall be the dut0 of suchperson +++ ith ho# such transaction is had or business done, tore2uire the e+hibition of the residence certi7cate shoin" pa0#ent ofthe residence ta+es b0 such person +++.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn26

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

22/30

In the issuance of a residence certi7cate, the la see8s to establish the true

and correct identit0 of the person to ho# it is issued, as ell as the pa0#ent of

residence ta+es for the current 0ear. ;0 havin" alloed decedent to e+hibit an

e+pired residence certi7cate, respondent failed to co#pl0 ith the re2uire#ents of

both the old Notarial . person e+ecutin", searin" to, or ac8noled"in" the instru#ent/. itnesses, if an0, to the si"nature/E. date of e+ecution, oath, or ac8noled"#ent of the instru#ent/5. fees collected b0 hi# for his services as notar0/6. "ive each entr0 a consecutive nu#ber/ and=. if the instru#ent is a contract, a brief description of the

substance of the instru#ent.K>=L

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn27

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

23/30

In an eort to prove that he had co#plied ith the above#entioned rule,

respondent contended that he had crossed out a prior entr0 and entered instead the

ill of the decedent. (s proof, he presented a photocop0 of his notarial re"ister. To

reinforce his clai#, he presented a photocop0 of a certi7cation K>3Lstatin" that the

archives division had no cop0 of the aJdavit of ;artolo#e Ra#ire&.

( photocop0 is a #ere secondar0 evidence. It is not ad#issible unless it is

shon that the ori"inal is unavailable. The proponent #ust 7rst prove the e+istence

and cause of the unavailabilit0 of the ori"inal,K>BLotherise, the evidence presented

ill not be ad#itted. Thus, the photocop0 of respondents notarial re"ister as not

ad#issible as evidence of the entr0 of the e+ecution of the ill because it failed to

co#pl0 ith the re2uire#ents for the ad#issibilit0 of secondar0 evidence.

In the sa#e vein, respondents atte#pt to controvert the certi7cation dated

Septe#ber >C, CBBBK4L#ust fail. Not onl0 did he present a #ere photocop0 of the

certi7cation dated March C5, >444/KCLits contents did not s2uarel0 prove the fact of

entr0 of the contested ill in his notarial re"ister.

Notaries public #ust observe ith ut#ost careK>Land ut#ost 7delit0 the

basic re2uire#ents in the perfor#ance of their duties, otherise, the con7dence of

the public in the inte"rit0 of notari&ed deeds ill be under#ined. KL

Defects in the observance of the sole#nities prescribed b0 la render the

entire ill invalid. This carelessness cannot be ta8en li"htl0 in vie of the

i#portance and delicate nature of a ill, considerin" that the testator and the

itnesses, as in this case, are no lon"er alive to identif0 the instru#ent and to

con7r# its contents.KEL(ccordin"l0, respondent #ust be held accountable for his

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn34

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

24/30

acts. The validit0 of the ill as seriousl0 co#pro#ised as a conse2uence of his

breach of dut0.K5L

In this connection, Section >EB of the old Notarial

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

25/30

#a8e hi#self an e+a#ple for others to e#ulate.KE>L;ein" a la0er, he is supposed

to be a #odel in the co##unit0 in so far as respect for the la is concerned.KEL

The practice of la is a privile"e burdened ith conditions.KEEL( breach of

these conditions !usti7es disciplinar0 action a"ainst the errin" la0er. ( disciplinar0

sanction is i#posed on a la0er upon a 7ndin" or ac8noled"#ent that he has

en"a"ed in professional #isconduct.KE5LThese sanctions #eted out to errant la0ers

include disbar#ent, suspension and repri#and.

Disbar#ent is the #ost severe for# of disciplinar0 sanction. KE6L Ae have held

in a nu#ber of cases that the poer to disbar #ust be e+ercised ith "reat

cautionKE=L and should not be decreed if an0 punish#ent less severe such as

repri#and, suspension, or 7ne ill acco#plish the end desired. KE3LThe rule then is

that disbar#ent is #eted out onl0 in clear cases of #isconduct that seriousl0 aect

the standin" and character of the la0er as an oJcer of the court.KEBL

Respondent, as notar0 public, evidentl0 failed in the perfor#ance of the

ele#entar0 duties of his oJce. $ontrar0 to his clai#s that he Qe+ercised his duties

as Notar0 Public ith due care and ith due re"ard to the provision of e+istin" la

and had co#plied ith the ele#entar0 for#alities in the perfor#ance of his duties

+++, e 7nd that he acted ver0 irresponsibl0 in notari&in" the ill in 2uestion. Such

rec8lessness arrants the less severe punish#ent of suspension fro# the practice

of la. It is, as ell, a suJcient basis for the revocation of his co##ission

K54L

and

his perpetual dis2uali7cation to be co##issioned as a notar0 public. K5CL

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn51

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

26/30

ERE0ORE, respondent (tt0. Re"ino ;. Ta#ba"o is hereb0 found "uilt0 of

professional #isconduct. 1e violated )C- the - Rule C3 of the

Rules of $ourt/ )- $anon C and Rule C.4C of the $ode of Professional Responsibilit0/

)E- (rt. 346 of the $ivil $ode and )5- the provisions of the old Notarial 466C. The petition alle"ed thefolloin"? petitioner as na#ed as e+ecutri+ in the decedent@s ill and she asle"all0 2uali7ed to act as such/ the decedent as

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

27/30

a citi&en of the Philippines at the ti#e of her death/ at the ti#e of the e+ecution ofthe ill, the testatri+ as =B 0ears old, of sound and disposin" #ind, not actin"under duress, fraud or undue inuence and as capacitated to dispose of her estateb0 ill.

Respondent opposed her elder sister@s petition on the folloin" "rounds? the ill

as not e+ecuted and attested as re2uired b0 la/ its attestation clause andac8noled"#ent did not co#pl0 ith the re2uire#ents of the la/ the si"nature ofthe testatri+ as procured b0 fraud and petitioner and her children procured the illthrou"h undue and i#proper pressure and inuence.

In an order dated Nove#ber B, CBBE, the trial court appointed petitioner as specialad#inistratri+ of the decedent@s estate. Respondent opposed petitioner@sappoint#ent but subse2uentl0 ithdre her opposition. Petitioner too8 her oath aste#porar0 special ad#inistratri+ and letters of specialad#inistration ere issued to her.

On 9anuar0 C=, >444, after petitioner presented her evidence, respondent 7led a

de#urrer thereto alle"in" that petitioner@s evidence failed to establish that thedecedent@s ill co#plied ith (rticles 34E and 345 of the $ivil $ode.

In a resolution dated 9ul0 6, >44C, the trial court denied the probate of the ill rulin"that (rticle 346 of the $ivil $ode as not co#plied ith because the ill asac8noled"ed b0 the testatri+ and the itnesses at the testatri+@s, residence atNo. E4 Uanlaon Street, ue&on $it0 before (tt0. Macario O. Directo ho as aco##issioned notar0 public for and in $aloocan $it0. The dispositive portion of theresolution read?

A1*R*FOR*, in vie of the fore"oin", the $ourt 7nds, and so declares that itcannot ad#it the last ill and testa#ent of the late Felisa Ta#io de;uenaventura to probate for the reasons herein above discussed and also inaccordance ith (rticle 3B Kof the $ivil $odeL hich provides that if thefor#alities re2uired b0 la have not been co#plied ith, the ill shall bedisalloed. In vie thereof, the $ourt shall henceforth proceed ith intestatesuccession in re"ard to the estate of the deceased Felisa Ta#io de;uenaventura in accordance ith (rticle B64 of the K$ivil $odeL, to it? (rt.B64.

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

28/30

notarial ill.

Did the ill ac8noled"ed b0 the testatri+ and the instru#ental itnesses beforea notar0 public actin" outside the place of his co##ission satisf0 the re2uire#entunder (rticle 346 of the $ivil $ode It did not. (rticle 346 of the $ivil $ode provides?

(RT. 346. *ver0 ill #ust be ac8noled"ed before a notar0 public b0 thetestator and the itnesses. The notar0 public shall not be re2uired to retain acop0 of the ill, or 7le another ith the oJce of the $ler8 of $ourt.

One of the for#alities re2uired b0 la in connection ith the e+ecution of a notarialill is that it #ust be ac8noled"ed before a notar0 public b0 the testator and theitnesses.K6L This for#al re2uire#ent is one of the indispensable re2uisites for thevalidit0 of a ill.K=L In other ords, a notarial ill that is not ac8noled"ed before anotar0 public b0 the testator and the instru#ental itnesses is void and cannot beaccepted for probate.

(n ac8noled"#ent is the act of one ho has e+ecuted a deed in "oin" before

so#e co#petent oJcer and declarin" it to be his act or deed.K3L In the case of anotarial ill, that co#petent oJcer is the notar0 public.

The ac8noled"#ent of a notarial ill coerces the testator and the instru#entalitnesses to declare before an oJcer of the la, the notar0 public, that the0e+ecuted and subscribed to the ill as their on free act or deed.KBL Suchdeclaration is under oath and under pain of per!ur0, thus pavin" the a0 for thecri#inal prosecution of persons ho participate in the e+ecution of spurious ills, orthose e+ecuted ithout the free consent of the testator.KC4L It also provides afurther de"ree of assurance that the testator is of a certain #indset in #a8in" thetesta#entar0 dispositions to the persons instituted as heirs or desi"nated asdevisees or le"atees in the ill.KCCL

(c8noled"#ent can onl0 be #ade before a co#petent oJcer, that is, a la0erdul0 co##issioned as a notar0 public.

In this connection, the relevant provisions of the Notarial =. -or! of co!!ission for notary public. The appoint#ent of anotar0 public shall be in ritin", si"ned b0 the !ud"e, and substantiall0 in thefolloin" for#?

GOV*RNM*NT OF T1*R*P;

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

29/30

9ud"e of the $ourt of First Instanceof said Province

+++ +++ +++S*$TION >E4. Territorial !urisdiction. ' The !urisdiction of a notar0 public in aprovince shall be co'e+tensive ith the province. The !urisdiction of a notar0

public in the $it0 of Manila shall be coe+tensive ith said cit0. No 'o/r:$44 o$$e$$ )/or%/: /o &o

': 'o/r%4 / be:o'& /e 4%m%/$ o* %$ )r%$&%/%o'. )e#phases supplied-

( notar0 public@s co##ission is the "rant of authorit0 in his favor to perfor#notarial acts.KCL It is issued ithin and for a particular territorial !urisdiction andthe notar0 public@s authorit0 is co'e+tensive ith it. In other ords, a notar0 publicis authori&ed to perfor# notarial acts, includin" the ta8in" of ac8noled"#ents,ithin that territorial !urisdiction onl0. Outside the place of his co!!ission* he isbereft of power to perfor! any notarial act/ he is not a notary public. (n0 notarialact outside the li#its of his !urisdiction has no force and eect. (s this $ourtcate"oricall0 pronounced in Tecson v. Tecson?KCEL

(n ac8noled"#ent ta8en outside the territorial li#its of the oJcer@s!urisdiction is void as if the person ta8in" it are holl0 ithout oJcialcharacter. )e#phasis supplied-

Since (tt0. Directo as not a co##issioned notar0 public for and in ue&on $it0, helac8ed the authorit0 to ta8e the ac8noled"#ent of the testatri+ and theinstru#ental itnesses. In the sa#e vein, the testatri+ and her itnesses could nothave validl0 ac8noled"ed the ill before hi#. Thus, Felisa Ta#io de;uenaventura@s last ill and testa#ent as, in eect, not ac8noled"edas re2uired b0 la.

Moreover, (rticle 5 of the $ivil $ode provides?

(RT. 5. (cts e+ecuted a"ainst the provisions of #andator0 or prohibitor0 lasshall be void, e+cept hen the la itself authori&es their validit0.

The violation of a #andator0 or a prohibitor0 statute renders the act ille"al and voidunless the la itself declares its continuin" validit0. 1ere, #andator0 and prohibitor0statutes ere trans"ressed in the e+ecution of the alle"ed ac8noled"#ent. Theco#pulsor0 lan"ua"e of (rticle 346 of the $ivil $ode as not co#plied ith and theinterdiction of (rticle >E4 of the Notarial

8/11/2019 6 Cases (Under Art 804-806)

30/30

ERE0ORE, the petition is hereb0 "ENIE".

$osts a"ainst petitioner.