Javellana vs. Ledesma

The notary public's signing of the certificate of acknowledgment outside the presence of the testator and witnesses does not invalidate a codicil under the New Civil Code, because the act of acknowledgment (the testator and witnesses avowing to the notary) is separate from the notary's signing of the certificate.

Probate proceedings for the estate of the late Apolinaria Ledesma Vda. de Javellana, involving a will executed in 1950 and a codicil executed in 1952, both in the Visayan dialect. The oppositor, the testatrix's sister, challenged the validity of the execution and acknowledgment of these documents.

• Original Filing: Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo
• Lower Court Decision: July 23, 1953 — CFI admitted the will and codicil to probate.
• Appeal: Direct appeal to the SC because the value of the estate exceeded PHP 200,000.
• SC Action: Direct appeal via notice of appeal.

• The Will and Codicil: Apolinaria Ledesma executed a will (Exhibit D) on March 30, 1950, and a codicil (Exhibit E) on May 29, 1952, with Ramon Tabiana, Gloria Montinola de Tabiana, and Vicente Yap as instrumental witnesses.
• Initial Opposition Grounds: Oppositor Matea Ledesma initially charged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, but abandoned these at trial.
• Trial Issues: The opposition narrowed to whether the will was executed in the presence of all witnesses, whether the notary signed the codicil's acknowledgment without the testator and witnesses present, and whether this invalidated the codicil.
• Oppositor's Evidence on the Will: Oppositor's witnesses (the testatrix's cook and driver) testified that Vicente Yap brought the will to the house, insisted the testatrix sign it at the attorney's office, but she signed it alone with only Yap present because she was feeling ill.
• Instrumental Witnesses' Evidence: The three instrumental witnesses concordantly testified that the will was executed at the testatrix's house in the presence of everyone.
• The Acknowledgment Discrepancy: For the codicil, the instrumental witnesses testified that Notary Gimotea signed and sealed it at San Pablo Hospital right after execution. Notary Gimotea testified he brought it to his office and signed/sealed it there.
• Minor Discrepancies: Oppositor pointed out discrepancies in the instrumental witnesses' testimonies regarding the presence of Aurelio Montinola and who inserted the date, as well as the use of Spanish terms in the Visayan documents.

• The will and codicil were validly executed in compliance with the New Civil Code.
• The testimonies of the instrumental witnesses should be given more weight over the oppositor's biased and flawed witnesses.
• The notary's separate signing of the acknowledgment certificate does not invalidate the codicil because the New Civil Code does not require the testator, witnesses, and notary to sign in one single act.

• The CFI erred in rejecting the testimonies of the cook and driver proving the will was signed without all witnesses present.
• The notary's admission that he signed and sealed the codicil's acknowledgment in his office, away from the testator and witnesses, invalidates the codicil under the rule that testaments must be completed without interruption (uno eodem die ac tempore in eadem loco).
• Discrepancies in the instrumental witnesses' testimonies and the use of Spanish terms in the documents prove invalidity or lack of understanding by the testatrix.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the 1950 will was executed by the testatrix in the presence of all instrumental witnesses.
  • Whether the codicil is rendered invalid because the notary signed and affixed his seal to the acknowledgment certificate outside the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The will was validly executed in the presence of all witnesses. The SC found the oppositor's witnesses improbable and contradicted by the concordant testimony of the three instrumental witnesses. It was highly unlikely that the witnesses would force an infirm 80-year-old woman to leave her house when they could easily go to her. The oppositor's witnesses had fatal flaws: they recalled the word "testamento" four years later despite it meaning nothing to them, and the driver claimed to hear conversations from a detached, lower-level kitchen.
  • The codicil is not invalidated by the notary's separate signing of the acknowledgment certificate. Under the New Civil Code, the testator and witnesses must sign in each other's presence (Art. 805), but the acknowledgment merely requires them to avow to the notary the authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of their actions (Art. 806). The notary's subsequent signing and sealing of the certification is no part of the acknowledgment itself nor the testamentary act. The variance in the witnesses' recollection was attributed to the mind's tendency to substitute the habitual for the slightly different.

• Distinction between the act of acknowledgment and the notary's signing of the certificate — The acknowledgment consists of the testator and witnesses avowing to the notary the authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of their actions. The notary's subsequent signing and sealing of the certification is a separate, ministerial act that is no part of the acknowledgment itself nor of the testamentary act.
• Substitution of the habitual for the slightly different — The mind tends to substitute the usual and habitual for what differs slightly from it when recalling past events, explaining why witnesses might testify a notary signed in their presence when the notary actually signed later in his office.

• Article 806, Civil Code of the Philippines — Requires every will to be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and witnesses. Applied to rule that the law only requires the avowal of signatures and voluntariness before the notary; it does not require the notary to sign the certificate in the presence of the testator and witnesses.
• Article 805, Civil Code of the Philippines — Requires the testator and witnesses to sign in the presence of each other. Applied to affirm the valid execution of the will and codicil by the participants.
• Article 699, Code of 1889 — The old law required the signing of the testator, witnesses, and notary to be accomplished in one single act. Contrasted with the New Civil Code to show the legislative shift relaxing the unity of the notarial act.