GR L 20357; (November, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20357 November 25, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE WILL OF GREGORIO GATCHALIAN, deceased. PEDRO REYES GARCIA, petitioner-appellant, vs. FELIPE GATCHALIAN, AURORA G. CAMINS, ANGELES G. COSCA, FEDERICO G. TUBOG, VIRGINIA G. TALANAY and ANGELES G. TALANAY, oppositors-appellees.
FACTS
On March 15, 1967, Gregorio Gatchalian, a widower with no forced heirs, died in Pasig, Rizal. On April 2, 1967, petitioner-appellant Pedro Reyes Garcia filed a petition for the probate of Gatchalian’s alleged will (Exhibit “C”), wherein Garcia was instituted as the sole heir. The oppositors-appellees, who are relatives of the deceased, opposed the petition on grounds including fraud, lack of testamentary intent, and the testator’s physical and mental incapacity at the time of execution. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Rizal found the document to be the authentic last will of the deceased. However, it disallowed the will because the instrumental witnesses did not acknowledge it before a notary public, a requirement under Article 806 of the New Civil Code. An examination of the document confirmed that only the testator, not the attesting witnesses, had acknowledged it before the notary public.
ISSUE
Whether the will of Gregorio Gatchalian is valid despite the attesting witnesses’ failure to acknowledge it before a notary public as required by Article 806 of the New Civil Code.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying the allowance of the will. The Court held that compliance with Article 806 of the New Civil Code, which mandates that “Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses,” is indispensable for the validity of a will. Citing its prior ruling in In re: Testate Estate of Alberto (G.R. No. L-11948, April 29, 1959), the Court emphasized that this requirement is mandatory. Since the document in question was acknowledged before a notary public only by the testator and not by the instrumental witnesses, it suffered from a fatal defect and could not be probated. The decision was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.