G.R. No. L-7179, June 30, 1955.
Testate Estate of the Late Apolinaria Ledesma. Felidad Javellana, petitioner-appellee, vs. Doña Matea Ledesma, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Iloilo admitted to probate the testament (Exhibit D) and codicil (Exhibit E) executed by the deceased Apolinaria Ledesma Vda. de Javellana on March 30, 1950, and May 29, 1952, respectively. The oppositor, Matea Ledesma, the testatrix’s sister, appealed, contesting the validity of the documents. The grounds initially included lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence but were later narrowed to three specific issues: (1) whether the 1950 testament was executed by the testatrix in the presence of the instrumental witnesses; (2) whether the notary public signed the acknowledgment clause and affixed the notarial seal without the presence of the testatrix and witnesses; and (3) if so, whether the codicil was thereby invalidated. The oppositor presented witnesses (Maria Paderogao and Vidal Allado, cook and driver of the deceased) who testified that the testatrix signed the 1950 will in her house in the presence of Vicente Yap alone, after refusing to go to the attorney’s office. The instrumental witnesses (Vicente Yap, Atty. Ramon Tabiana, and Gloria Montinola de Tabiana) uniformly testified that both the testament and codicil were executed with all parties present. For the codicil, executed under the new Civil Code requiring notarial acknowledgment, the instrumental witnesses stated the notary public signed and sealed the document at the San Pablo Hospital, while the notary public himself testified he did so later at his office.

ISSUE

1. Whether the 1950 testament was executed by the testatrix in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses.
2. Whether the notary public’s signing and sealing of the acknowledgment clause for the 1952 codicil outside the presence of the testatrix and witnesses invalidates the codicil.
3. Whether the codicil is rendered invalid and ineffective due to any alleged defect in its execution or acknowledgment.

RULING

1. The 1950 testament was validly executed with the testatrix and all three instrumental witnesses present. The trial court correctly rejected the oppositor’s witnesses’ testimony as improbable, contradicted by the consistent accounts of the instrumental witnesses, and flawed under cross-examination (e.g., inability to explain why they remembered the specific date, physical impossibility of hearing the conversation from the kitchen). The minor discrepancies in the instrumental witnesses’ testimonies were deemed immaterial.
2. No. The notary public’s act of signing and sealing the acknowledgment clause outside the presence of the testatrix and witnesses does not invalidate the codicil. Under Article 806 of the new Civil Code, the requirement is that the will “must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.” This acknowledgment—the avowal of the authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of the act—was completed at the San Pablo Hospital. The subsequent signing and sealing by the notary of his certification is not part of the acknowledgment itself nor the testamentary act. The new Civil Code does not require the acknowledgment to occur on the same occasion as the signing, nor does it mandate that the notarial signing and sealing be done in the presence of the testator and witnesses.
3. No. The codicil remains valid and effective. The Court affirmed the probate of both the testament and the codicil, holding that all legal requirements for their execution and acknowledgment were satisfied. The decision of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.