Cruz vs. Villasor

A notary public before whom a will is acknowledged cannot be counted as one of the three instrumental witnesses required by law, as the act of acknowledgment requires the witness to avow the due execution of the instrument before another person; a notary cannot split his personality to acknowledge his own signature before himself.

Valente Z. Cruz executed a last will and testament which was later presented for probate by the designated executor, Manuel B. Lugay. The widow of the deceased, Agapita N. Cruz, opposed the probate on several grounds, including fraud and the failure of the instrument to comply with the formal requirements of a notarial will under the Civil Code. The central dispute arose because the notary public who notarized the will also signed the document as one of the three required instrumental witnesses.

• The petition for probate was filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I.
• The Court of First Instance rendered a judgment allowing the probate of the last will and testament.
• Petitioner Agapita N. Cruz appealed the trial court's decision directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

• Valente Z. Cruz executed a document purported to be his last will and testament (Exhibit "E").
• The will was signed by three instrumental witnesses: Deogracias T. Jamaoas, Jr., Dr. Francisco Pañares, and Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr.
• Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr., who was one of the three witnesses, also acted as the Notary Public before whom the testator and the witnesses acknowledged the will.
• Agapita N. Cruz, the surviving spouse, contested the will, alleging it was executed through fraud and undue influence and that it did not comply with the legal formalities required for a notarial will.
• The trial court admitted the will to probate, finding that there was substantial compliance with the law despite the notary public acting as a witness.

• The will is void because it was not executed in accordance with Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code.
• Since the notary public cannot acknowledge the document before himself, he cannot be counted as the third instrumental witness.
• The result of the notary acting as a witness is that only two witnesses appeared before the notary public to acknowledge the will, which is less than the three witnesses required by law.
• The will was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and undue influence, and the testator was not fully informed of the properties he was disposing of.

• There was substantial compliance with the legal requirement of having at least three attesting witnesses even if the notary public acted as one of them.
• Technical reasons should not be used to defeat a will when a witness signs as a notary public rather than merely as an attesting witness.
• American jurisprudence supports the validity of a will where a notary public also acts as a witness to the execution of the document.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a last will and testament is validly executed when one of the three instrumental witnesses is also the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged under Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the will is void and set aside the probate. The Court reasoned that Article 806 requires the testator and the witnesses to acknowledge the will "before" a notary public, which implies the presence of a third party; a notary cannot acknowledge his own signature before himself as he cannot split his personality. Furthermore, the notary's function is to guard against illegal or immoral arrangements and minimize fraud, a purpose that would be thwarted if the notary were an interested party as a witness. By acting as both a witness and the notary, the number of witnesses who could validly acknowledge the will before a public officer was reduced to two, which directly contravenes the requirement of Article 805 for at least three credible witnesses.

• Acknowledgment — This is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer and declaring it to be his act or deed. In this case, the Court emphasized that "to acknowledge before" means to avow or admit in front of another, making it impossible for a notary to acknowledge his own act to himself.
• Formalities of Notarial Wills — The principle that the requirements of Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code are mandatory. The Court applied this by holding that the three witnesses and the notary must be distinct personalities to ensure the integrity of the testamentary act.
• Role of the Notary Public — The principle that a notary public must be a disinterested party to the transaction he notarizes to prevent fraud. The Court used this to explain why a notary cannot be an instrumental witness, as he would be placed in an inconsistent position by having to verify the validity of his own participation as a witness.

• "The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will."
• "To permit such a situation to obtain would be sanctioning a sheer absurdity."
• "The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements... That function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the attesting or instrumental witnesses."

• Javellana v. Ledesma — Referenced to define the legal meaning of the term "to acknowledge before."
• Castro v. Castro — Cited to support the definition of acknowledgment as an act of avowing or owning a document as genuine.
• Balinon v. De Leon — Cited to establish that the primary function of a notary public is to prevent illegal or immoral arrangements.
• Mahilum v. Court of Appeals — Referenced regarding American precedents where notaries acted as witnesses, but distinguished by the Court because those cases did not involve the specific acknowledgment requirements of the Philippine Civil Code.

• Civil Code Article 805 — This article requires that every will, other than a holographic one, must be subscribed and attested by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
• Civil Code Article 806 — This article mandates that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.
• Report of the Code Commission — Cited to explain that the purpose of the acknowledgment requirement is to minimize fraud.