Azuela Vs CA

FELIX AZUELA VS.
COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO substituted by

ERNESTO G. CASTILLO
GR. NO. 122880 April 12, 2006
FACTS:
Felix Azuela filed a petition for probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo. Felix is the
son of the cousin of Eugenia. The will consists of two pages and written in Filipino language.
Quirino Agrava, Lamberto Leano, and Juanito Estrada were the three named witnesses in the will
who affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of the will, but not at the bottom
of the attestation clause. The probate petition stated only two heirs, legatees and devisees of the
decedent, namely: Felix Azuela and Irene Lynn Igsolo, who was alleged to have resided abroad.
The petition was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo, who represented herself as the
attorney-in-fact of the 12 legitimate heirs of Eugenia. Geralda claimed that the will is a forgery
and argued that the will was not executed and attested to in accordance with law. She claimed that
the Eugenia’s signature did not appear on the second page of the will, and the will was not properly
acknowledged.
After due trial the Regional Trial Court admitted the will to probate. Ernesto Castillo
(substituted Geralda) appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the trial court’s decision
and ordered the dismissal of the petition for probate. CA noted that the attestation clause failed to
state the number of pages used in the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of probate.
Felix argued that the requirement under Article 805 of the Civil Code that the number of
pages used in a notrial will be stated in the attestation clause is merely directory, rather than
mandatory, and thus susceptible to the substantial compliance rule.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the requirement of the law of placing the pages used in the attestation
clause is merely directory and susceptible to substantial compliance rule
2. Whether or not the signatures of the witnesses in the left-hand margin of the second
and last page of the will conform substantially to the law and may be deemed as their
signatures to the attestation clause.
3. Whether or not the will of Eugenia was properly acknowledged by the notary public,
Petronio Y. Bautista , who wrote “nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo”
RULING:
1. No. The Supreme Court stated three cases. In Manuel Singsong v. Emilia Florentino,
et al, it was held the will is valid although the attestation in the subject will did not state
the number of pages used in the will, however, the same was found in the last part of the
body of the will. In Apolonio Tabaoada v. Hon. Avelino Rosal et al, the will was held valid
because the notarial acknowledgement in the will states the number of pages used. In the
case of re Will of Andrada concerned a will the attestation clause of which failed to state
the number of sheets or pages used, it was denied probate for it cannot be denied that the
requirement affords additional security that the will may be tampered with; and as the
Legislature has seen fit to prescribe this requirement, it must be considered material.
However in the present case, the number of pages used in the will is not stated in
any part of the will. The will does not even contain notrial acknowledgment wherein the
number of pages of the will should be stated.
With regards to the substantial compliance rule the Supreme Court stated that in
the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence,
defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall
not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in
substantial compliance with all the requirements of article 805. At the present case it is
apparent that it lacks the requirement of stating in the attestation clause the pages used in
the will.
2. No. The Supreme Court held that that Article 805 particularly segregates the
requirement of the signing of the witnesses on the left margin and the attestation and
subscription by the witnesses. The respective intents behind these two classes of signature
are distinct. The signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify, among others,
that the witnesses are aware that the page they are signing forms part of the will. On the
other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause establish that the witnesses are referring
to the statements contained in the attestation clause itself.
The attestation clause is separate and apart from the disposition of the will. An
unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested will. Thus, the will cannot be considered
as validly attested.
3. No. The requirement of under Article 806 states that every will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The non-observance
of Article 806 is fatal flaw equivalent to non-compliance with Article 805.
In the present case, although there was the statement of the notary pubic stating,
“nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo” does no contemplates an
acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going
before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an
extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that the executor
of a document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed.
Hence, there was no proper acknowledgment.
Ponente: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA

Azuela Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Azuela Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Azuela Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FELIX AZUELA VS.

COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO substituted by

Ponente: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA

You might also like