Guerrero vs. Bihis

A notarial will acknowledged before a notary public acting outside his territorial jurisdiction is void for failing to comply with the mandatory requirement of Article 806 of the Civil Code.

Siblings Bella A. Guerrero (petitioner) and Resurreccion A. Bihis (respondent) became embroiled a dispute over the estate of their deceased mother, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, specifically contesting the validity of the mother's last will and testament.

• Original Filing: RTC of Quezon City, Branch 95, Sp. Proc. No. Q-94-20661 (Petition for probate of will)
• Lower Court Decision: July 6, 2001 — RTC denied probate, ruling the will was not acknowledged in compliance with Art. 806 because the notary public was commissioned for Caloocan City but acted in Quezon City; ordered intestate succession.
• Appeal: CA-G.R. CV No. 76707 — CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC resolution.
• SC Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 directly to the SC.

• Death and Probate Filing: Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura died on February 19, 1994. On May 24, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for probate of the decedent's last will and testament, alleging she was named executrix and the testatrix was of sound mind.
• Opposition: Respondent opposed the probate, claiming the will was not executed/attested as required by law, the attestation clause and acknowledgment were defective, and the testatrix's signature was procured through fraud and undue influence.
• Special Administration: On November 9, 1994, the RTC appointed petitioner as special administratrix.
• Demurrer to Evidence: After petitioner presented her evidence, respondent filed a demurrer arguing the evidence failed to establish compliance with Arts. 804 and 805 of the Civil Code.
• RTC Denial of Probate: The RTC denied the probate, specifically finding that Art. 806 was not complied with because the will was acknowledged at the testatrix's residence in Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo, who was a commissioned notary public only for Caloocan City.
• The Defective Acknowledgment: Petitioner admitted the will was acknowledged in Quezon City before a notary public commissioned for Caloocan City, but argued this did not affect the will's validity.

• The fact that the notary public was acting outside his territorial jurisdiction did not affect the validity of the notarial will.

• The will was not executed and attested as required by law.
• The attestation clause and acknowledgment did not comply with legal requirements.
• The testatrix's signature was procured through fraud and undue influence.
• (In demurrer) Petitioner's evidence failed to establish compliance with Arts. 804 and 805 of the Civil Code.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether a notarial will "acknowledged" before a notary public acting outside the place of his commission satisfies the requirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: No. The will did not satisfy Art. 806.
• Art. 806 mandates that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and witnesses. This is an indispensable requisite for validity; without it, the notarial will is void.
• An acknowledgment must be made before a competent officer—a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public.
• Under Sec. 240 of the Notarial Law, a notary public's jurisdiction is co-extensive with the province or city of his commission. He possesses no authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.
• Outside the place of his commission, a notary public is bereft of power and is effectively not a notary public. Any notarial act outside those limits has no force and effect.
• Because Atty. Directo was commissioned for Caloocan City, not Quezon City, he lacked the authority to take the acknowledgment. The testatrix and witnesses could not have validly acknowledged the will before him.
• Under Art. 5 of the Civil Code, acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws are void. The mandatory language of Art. 806 was not complied with, and the prohibitory interdiction of Sec. 240 of the Notarial Law was breached, rendering the acknowledgment completely void.

• Territorial Jurisdiction of Notaries Public — A notary public's authority to perform notarial acts is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of his commission. Outside that jurisdiction, he possesses no official character, and any notarial act he performs is void.
• Mandatory Formalities for Notarial Wills — Acknowledgment before a notary public by the testator and witnesses is an indispensable requisite for the validity of a notarial will. Failure to comply renders the will void and not entitled to probate.

• Article 806, Civil Code — Requires every will to be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and witnesses. Applied as a mandatory requisite; non-compliance voids the will.
• Section 240, Notarial Law — Limits the jurisdiction of a notary public to his province/city and prohibits notarial acts beyond those limits. Applied as a prohibitory law; acting outside it voids the notarial act.
• Article 5, Civil Code — Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws are void. Applied to render the acknowledgment void due to violations of Art. 806 and Sec. 240.
• Article 839, Civil Code — Disallows a will if formalities required by law are not complied with. Applied by the RTC and affirmed by the SC to deny probate.
• Article 960, Civil Code — Provides that legal or intestate succession takes place if a person dies with a void will. Applied to shift the settlement of the estate to intestate succession.