Javellana vs. Ledesma

The acknowledgment of a will before a notary public under Article 806 of the New Civil Code does not require the notary to sign and seal the certification in the presence of the testator and the instrumental witnesses, nor does it require that the acknowledgment be completed in a single, uninterrupted act.

Apolinaria Ledesma Vda. de Javellana executed a testament in 1950 and a codicil in 1952. Upon her death, Felicidad Javellana petitioned for the probate of these documents. Matea Ledesma, the sister and nearest relative of the deceased, opposed the probate, initially alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, but later narrowed her opposition to the formal execution of the documents under the law.

• The Court of First Instance of Iloilo issued an order on July 23, 1953, admitting the testament (Exhibit D) and the codicil (Exhibit E) to probate.
• The oppositor, Matea Ledesma, appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court because the value of the estate exceeded two hundred thousand pesos.

• On March 30, 1950, Apolinaria Ledesma executed a testament in the Visayan dialect in the presence of witnesses Ramon Tabiana, Gloria Montinola de Tabiana, and Vicente Yap.
• On May 29, 1952, the testatrix executed a codicil, also in the Visayan dialect, with the same three instrumental witnesses.
• The oppositor presented a cook and a driver as witnesses who claimed that the 1950 testament was signed by the testatrix alone in her house, asserting she was too ill to go to the lawyer's office and that the witnesses were not present.
• Regarding the 1952 codicil, the instrumental witnesses testified that it was signed and acknowledged at San Pablo Hospital, and that the notary public, Atty. Gimotea, signed and sealed it there.
• However, the notary public himself testified that while the acknowledgment happened at the hospital, he actually took the codicil to his office to sign and seal the certificate of acknowledgment.
• The oppositor further argued that the use of Spanish legal terms in the Visayan documents indicated the testatrix did not understand the contents.

• The petitioner argued that both the 1950 testament and the 1952 codicil were executed with all the formalities required by the law in effect at the time of their execution.
• The petitioner maintained that the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses signed the documents in the presence of each other, as testified by the witnesses themselves.
• The petitioner contended that the acknowledgment of the codicil before the notary public was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the New Civil Code.

• The respondent argued that the 1950 testament was void because the testatrix signed it in the absence of the instrumental witnesses.
• The respondent claimed the 1952 codicil was invalid because the notary public did not sign the acknowledgment clause in the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses, which she argued was a violation of the required legal formalities.
• The respondent asserted that the testatrix could not have understood the will because it contained Spanish legal terms like "legado" and "plena propiedad" which were not part of her native dialect.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the 1950 testament was executed by the testatrix in the presence of the instrumental witnesses.
  • Whether the 1952 codicil was rendered invalid because the notary public signed and sealed the acknowledgment certificate in his office, outside the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that the 1950 testament was validly executed, finding the testimony of the instrumental witnesses more credible than the "improbable story" of the domestic staff, noting that it is common for witnesses to remember the general act of signing rather than minute details years later.
  • The Court ruled that the 1952 codicil was valid, holding that Article 806 of the New Civil Code does not require the notary to sign the certificate of acknowledgment in the presence of the testator and witnesses.
  • The Court reasoned that "acknowledgment" means the parties avow to the officer the authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of their actions; the notary's subsequent act of signing the certificate is merely a certification of that prior act and not part of the testamentary execution itself.
  • The Court clarified that unlike the Civil Code of 1889, the New Civil Code does not require the notary's signature to be part of a single, uninterrupted transaction (uno eodem die ac tempore in eadem loco) involving the testator and witnesses.

• Acknowledgment under Article 806 — This principle establishes that while a will must be acknowledged before a notary, the notary's act of signing and sealing the certificate is a separate administrative task that does not need to occur in the presence of the testator or witnesses, nor on the same occasion.
• Test of Presence — In the context of executing a will, the Court emphasizes the credibility of instrumental witnesses over casual observers, especially when the latter's testimony contains physical impossibilities or logical inconsistencies.
• Uno eodem die ac tempore in eadem loco — A Roman maxim meaning "on the same day and at the same time in the same place." The Court ruled this maxim applies to the signatures of the testator and the witnesses under Article 805, but does not extend to the notary's certification under Article 806 of the New Civil Code.

• "The subsequent signing and sealing by the notary of his certification that the testament was duly acknowledged by the participants therein is no part of the acknowledgment itself nor of the testamentary act."
• "Unlike the Code of 1889 (Art. 699), the new Civil Code does not require that the signing of the testator, witnesses and notary should be accomplished in one single act."
• "It is noteworthy that Article 806 of the new Civil Code does not contain words requiring that the testator and the witnesses should acknowledge the testament on the same day or occasion that it was executed."

• Andalis vs. Pulgueras, 59 Phil. 643 — Referenced to discuss the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption, though the Court distinguished this case to show that the notary's signature is not subject to the same "uninterrupted" requirement as the testator's and witnesses' signatures.

• Article 805, Civil Code — Applied to the requirement that the testator and the instrumental witnesses must sign the will in the presence of one another.
• Article 806, Civil Code — Applied to the requirement that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public, forming the basis for the ruling that the notary's signature need not be contemporaneous with the acknowledgment.
• Article 699, Civil Code of 1889 — Cited as a point of comparison to show that the strict "single act" requirement for the notary in the old law was not carried over to the New Civil Code.