G.R. No. 1888: September 2, 1905
PETRONILA VALERA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SEVERINO PURUGGANAN, defendant-appellee.

FACTS: Cosme Purugganan, husband of appellant Petronila Valera, died leaving a will executed on July 30, 1902, appointing his wife as his sole heir. The will was signed by the testator and three witnesses in each other’s presence, complying with the formalities of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure then in force. The notary public before whom the will was executed was the brother of the appellant. The court below refused to probate the will, applying Article 754 of the Civil Code which voids dispositions in favor of the notary or his relatives within the fourth degree who took part in the execution.

ISSUE
Whether the will is valid and should be admitted to probate despite the notary public being a brother of the sole heir.

RULING
Yes. The judgment of the lower court is reversed. Article 754 of the Civil Code was repealed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 618, a notary’s intervention is not required for a will’s validity; it is sufficient that the testator and three credible witnesses sign in the prescribed manner. Here, the three witnesses were credible, and the notary was not one of them. Even if the notary had been a witness, the will itself would not be void under Section 622; only any legacy to the notary or his specified relatives would be void. There was no evidence of undue influence. The will was executed in accordance with the law and should be probated. The case is remanded to the lower court with instructions to allow the probate.