Azuela vs. Court of Appeals

A notarial will is fatally defective if its attestation clause omits the number of pages, lacks the signatures of the instrumental witnesses at the bottom of the attestation clause, or substitutes a jurat for the required acknowledgment. Any one of these defects independently warrants the denial of probate.

Eugenia E. Igsolo died on 16 December 1982 at the age of 80. Her cousin's son, Felix Azuela, sought the probate of her notarial will executed on 10 June 1981, which bequeathed her properties exclusively to him. The decedent was the widow of Bonifacio Igsolo, who died in 1965, and the mother of Asuncion E. Igsolo, who predeceased the decedent by three months. Opposing the probate was Geralda Aida Castillo, representing the decedent's 12 legitimate heirs (grandchildren residing abroad), who alleged the will was a forgery and improperly executed.

• The Will and Its Dispositions: The notarial will, written in Pilipino and consisting of two pages, purportedly executed by Eugenia E. Igsolo on 10 June 1981, bequeathed all her properties to petitioner Felix Azuela, her cousin's son, without conditions. It named Vart Pague as executor.
• Defects in the Attestation Clause: The attestation clause contained a blank space where the number of pages should have been written, leaving the requisite uncomplied with. Furthermore, the three instrumental witnesses—Quirino Agrava, Lamberto Leaño, and Juanito Estrera—affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages but did not sign at the bottom of the attestation clause.
• Defect in the Notarial Certificate: Instead of an acknowledgment, the notary public, Petronio Y. Bautista, wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila" (I signed and notarized this June 10, 1981 here in the City of Manila). This statement constitutes, at best, a jurat.
• Other Defects: The decedent failed to sign the left margin of either page, signing only at the "logical end" of the first page. Additionally, the pages were numbered using Arabic numerals rather than correlatively in letters as required by Article 805.

• Substantial Compliance: Petitioner argued that the requirement under Article 805 that the number of pages be stated in the attestation clause is merely directory, not mandatory, and thus susceptible to the substantial compliance rule under Article 809.
• Liberalization of Formalities: Petitioner invoked the report of the Civil Code Commission, asserting that the modern tendency in the execution of wills favors liberalization to give the testator more freedom in expressing last wishes.

• Forgery and Bad Faith: Respondent countered that the will was a forgery, fabricated to serve as a defense in pending forcible entry and usurpation cases filed by the oppositor against the petitioner.
• Non-compliance with Statutory Formalities: Respondent argued that the will was not executed and attested in accordance with law, specifically pointing out that the decedent's signature did not appear on the second page and that the will was not properly acknowledged before a notary public.

• Attestation Clause - Page Count: Whether the failure to state the number of pages in the attestation clause is a fatal defect that precludes probate despite the substantial compliance rule under Article 809.
• Attestation Clause - Signatures: Whether the signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left-hand margin of the page containing the attestation clause satisfy the requirement that the attestation clause be signed by the witnesses.
• Acknowledgment Requirement: Whether a notarial will containing a mere jurat, instead of an acknowledgment before a notary public, validly complies with Article 806 of the Civil Code.

• Attestation Clause - Page Count: The omission of the number of pages in the attestation clause is a fatal defect. Under the substantial compliance rule in Article 809, defects that can be supplied by examining the will itself without extrinsic evidence are excusable; however, the total number of pages must appear in the attestation clause as it is the only check against perjury and interpolation. Unlike in Singson and Taboada, where the page count appeared elsewhere in the will, the subject will states the number of pages nowhere.
• Attestation Clause - Signatures: The attestation clause was not validly signed. The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left-hand margin serve a distinct purpose—authenticating the page as part of the will—and cannot substitute for signatures at the bottom of the attestation clause. An unsigned attestation clause is not an act of the witnesses and results in an unattested will, as the attestation clause contains the witnesses' own averments.
• Acknowledgment Requirement: A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if subscribed and sworn to before a notary public. An acknowledgment requires the testator and witnesses to declare the will as their free act or deed, providing a safeguard against spurious wills and allowing for perjury prosecutions. A jurat merely certifies that the document was subscribed and sworn to before the notary, which does not satisfy the express mandate of Article 806.

• Substantial Compliance Rule (Article 809) — Defects and imperfections in the form of the 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, provided there is no bad faith, forgery, fraud, or undue pressure. However, omissions that can be supplied by an examination of the will itself (e.g., presence of signatures, consecutive numbering) are excusable, while omissions that require extrinsic evidence to prove (e.g., the total number of pages, the fact that witnesses signed in each other's presence) invalidate the will.
• Distinct Purposes of Signatures in a Will — The signatures of the witnesses on the left-hand margin of every page signify that the witnesses are aware the page forms part of the will. The signatures at the bottom of the attestation clause establish that the witnesses are referring to and adopting the statements contained in the clause itself. Margin signatures cannot validate an unsigned attestation clause.
• Acknowledgment vs. Jurat in Notarial Wills — An acknowledgment is the act of declaring before a competent officer that the deed is one's free act or deed. A jurat is the certification by a notary that the document was subscribed and sworn to before them. A jurat does not satisfy the requirement of Article 806 that a will be acknowledged.

• "A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial will with all three defects is just aching for judicial rejection."
• "A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and sworn to before a notary public."
• "The transcendent legislative intent, even as expressed in the cited comments of the Code Commission, is for the fruition of the testator’s incontestable desires, and not for the indulgent admission of wills to probate."

• Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil. 405 (1922) — Followed. Established that the failure to state the number of pages in the attestation clause is fatal because it prevents the safeguard against interpolation or omission of pages.
• In re Will of Andrada, 42 Phil. 180 (1921) — Followed. Held that the omission of the number of pages in the attestation clause is a fatal defect, as the requirement affords security against tampering.
• Singson v. Florentino, 92 Phil. 161 (1952) — Distinguished. Probate was allowed despite the missing page count in the attestation clause because the last part of the body of the will itself stated the number of pages.
• Taboada v. Hon. Rosal, 118 SCRA 195 (1982) — Distinguished. Probate was allowed because the notarial acknowledgment itself stated the number of pages used in the will.
• Caneda v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 781 (1993) — Followed. Established the rule that omissions in the attestation clause that can be supplied by examining the will itself are not fatal, while those requiring extrinsic evidence invalidate the will.
• Cagro v. Cagro, 92 Phil. 1032 (1953) — Followed. Held that an attestation clause not signed by the witnesses at the bottom is fatally defective, as margin signatures serve a different legal purpose.

• Article 805, Civil Code — Prescribes the formal requisites for the execution of notarial wills, including the requirement that the attestation state the number of pages used, the fact that the testator signed the will and every page, and that the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all pages in the presence of the testator and one another. Applied to invalidate the will due to the missing page count and the lack of witness signatures on the attestation clause.
• Article 806, Civil Code — Requires that every will be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. Applied to invalidate the will because the notary public executed a mere jurat rather than an acknowledgment.
• Article 809, Civil Code — Provides the substantial compliance rule for defects in the form of the attestation. Interpreted to excuse only those defects that can be supplied by examining the will itself, not those requiring extrinsic evidence.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales