FELIX AZUELA VS. COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO substituted

byERNESTO G. CASTILLOGR. NO. 122880 April 12, 2006

FACTS: Felix Azuela filed a petition for probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo. Felix is
the son of the cousin of Eugenia. The will consists of two pages and written in Filipino language.
Quirino Agrava, Lamberto Leano, and Juanito Estrada were the three named witnesses in the will
who affixed their signatures on the left-hand margin of both pages of the will, but not at the
bottom of the attestation clause. The probate petition stated only two heirs, legatees and devisees
of the decedent, namely: Felix Azuela and Irene Lynn Igsolo, who was alleged to have resided
abroad. The petition was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo, who represented herself as the
attorney-in-fact of the 12 legitimate heirs of Eugenia. Geralda claimed that the will is a forgery
and argued that the will was not executed and attested to in accordance with law. She claimed
that the Eugenia’s signature did not appear on the second page of the will, and the will was not
properly acknowledged. After due trial the Regional Trial Court admitted the will to probate.
Ernesto Castillo
(substituted Geralda) appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the trial court’s
decision
and ordered the dismissal of the petition for probate. CA noted that the attestation clause failed
tostate the number of pages used in the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of
probate.Felix argued that the requirement under Article 805 of the Civil Code that the number
of pages used in a notrial will be stated in the attestation clause is merely directory, rather thanm
andatory, and thus susceptible to the substantial compliance rule.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the requirement of the law of placing the pages used in the attestation clause is
merely directory and susceptible to substantial compliance rule
2. Whether or not the signatures of the witnesses in the left-hand margin of the second and last
page of the will conform substantially to the law and may be deemed as theirsignatures to the
attestation clause.
3. Whether or not the will of Eugenia was properly acknowledged by the notary public,
Petronio Y. Bautista , who wrote “nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo”

RULING:

1.  No. The Supreme Court stated three cases. In Manuel Singsong v. Emilia Florentino,et al, it
was held the will is valid although the attestation in the subject will did not state the number of
pages used in the will, however, the same was found in the last part of the body of the will. In
Apolonio Tabaoada v. Hon. Avelino Rosal et al, the will was held valid because the notarial
acknowledgement in the will states the number of pages used. In the case of re Will of Andrada
concerned a will the attestation clause of which failed to state the number of sheets or pages
used, it was denied probate for it cannot be denied that the requirement affords additional
security that the will may be tampered with; and as the Legislature has seen fit to prescribe this
requirement, it must be considered material. However in the present case, the number of pages
used in the will is not stated inany part of the will. The will does not even contain notarial
acknowledgment wherein thenumber of pages of the will should be stated. With regards to the
substantial compliance rule the Supreme Court stated that inthe absence of bad faith, forgery, or
fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence,defects and imperfections in the form of
attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the
will was in fact executed and attested insubstantial compliance with all the requirements of
article 805. At the present case it is apparent that it lacks the requirement of stating in the
attestation clause the pages used in the will.
2. No. The Supreme Court held that that Article 805 particularly segregates the requirement of
the signing of the witnesses on the left margin and the attestation and subscription by the
witnesses. The respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct. The
signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify, among others, that the witnesses are
aware that the page they are signing forms part of the will. On the other hand, the signatures to
the attestation clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the statements contained in the
attestation clause itself. The attestation clause is separate and apart from the disposition of the
will. An unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested will. Thus, the will cannot be
considered as validly attested.
3. No. The requirement of under Article 806 states that every will must beacknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The non-observanc eof Article 806 is fatal flaw
equivalent to non-compliance with Article 805.In the present case, although there was the
statement of the notary public stating,
“nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo” does no contemplates 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 executo rof a document
has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed. Hence, there was no
proper acknowledgment