Azuela v CA and Castillo

FACTS:
 The petition filed by petitioner Felix Azuela before the RTC
sought to admit to probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo, which
was notarized on June 10, 1981. The petition was opposed by Geralda
Castillo, who represented herself as the attorney-in-fact of "the 12
legitimate heirs" of the decedent. Castillo argued that the will was not
executed and attested to in accordance with law. She pointed out that
decedent’s signature did not appear on the second page of the will,
and the will was not properly acknowledged. After due trial, the RTC
admitted the will to probate.
The decision of the RTC was appealed to the Court of Appeals by
Ernesto Castillo, who had substituted his deceased mother-in-law,
Geralda Castillo. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and
ordered the dismissal of the petition for probate. The Court of Appeals
noted that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages
used in the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of
probate.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the
petition for probate

HELD:
No. The Court held the 1) failure of the attestation clause to state
the number of pages on which the will was written remains a fatal flaw.
The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the number of
pages on which the will is written is to safeguard against possible
interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent
any increase or decrease in the pages.
In the present case, there is no statement in the attestation
clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the number of pages which
comprise the will.
Another defect of the will is that 2) the attestation clause was not
signed by the witnesses. The Court held that the subject will cannot be
considered to have been validly attested to by the instrumental
witnesses, as they failed to sign the attestation clause.
There is another fatal defect to the will. 3) The requirement
under Article 806 that "every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses" has also not been
complied with. 
In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public, Petronio Y.
Bautista, wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong Hunyo 10 1981
dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila." By no manner of contemplation can those
words be construed as an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the
act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent
officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an
extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the
notary that the executor of a document has attested to the notary that
the same is his/her own free act and deed.
It might be possible to construe the averment as a jurat, even
though it does not hew to the usual language thereof. A jurat is that
part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before him/her, the
document was subscribed and sworn to by the executor. Ordinarily, the
language of the jurat should avow that the document was subscribed
and sworn before the notary public, while in this case, the notary
public averred that he himself "signed and notarized" the document.
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.
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.