GR 122880; (April, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122880 ; April 12, 2006
FELIX AZUELA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO substituted by ERNESTO G. CASTILLO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Felix Azuela filed a petition for the probate of the notarial will of the late Eugenia E. Igsolo. The will, written in Pilipino and consisting of two pages, primarily instituted Azuela as the sole heir. The will was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo, representing herself as the attorney-in-fact of the decedent’s legitimate heirs. The oppositor argued the will was forged and fatally defective in its execution. The Regional Trial Court admitted the will to probate, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring the will void.
The will contained critical formal defects. Its attestation clause failed to state the number of pages comprising the will, leaving a blank space. Furthermore, the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margins of the pages but did not sign the attestation clause itself. Finally, the notarial seal featured a “jurat,” stating the testator and witnesses subscribed and swore to the document before the notary, rather than the required “acknowledgment” wherein they acknowledge the document as their voluntary act and deed.
ISSUE
Whether or not the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo should be admitted to probate despite defects in its attestation clause and notarial acknowledgment.
RULING
No, the will is void and cannot be probated. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing strict compliance with the mandatory formalities for notarial wills under Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code. The Court identified three fatal defects. First, the attestation clause did not state the number of pages, a requisite intended to prevent fraud by insertion or omission. Second, the instrumental witnesses did not sign the attestation clause, violating the rule that they must attest and subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. Third, and most significantly, the notarial act was a jurat, not an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is indispensable for a notarial will as it confirms the testator and witnesses declared the instrument as their own free act before a competent officer, adding a further layer of solemnity and authentication. A jurat merely verifies the signing occurred before the officer but does not encompass this essential declaration. Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. The Court rejected arguments for liberal construction, noting that while the law favors testacy, the prescribed formalities are mandatory to safeguard against fraud and ensure the testator’s true intent. The will’s multiple incurable defects rendered it invalid.