AZUELA v.

CA

FELIX AZUELA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA

CASTILLO substituted by ERNESTO G. CASTILLO, respondents.
G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006
DOCTRINE:
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 the document has attested
to the notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo.
2. However, this was opposed by Geralda Castillo, who was the attorney-in-fact of “the 12
legitimate heirs” of the decedent.
3. According to her, the will was forged, and imbued with several fatal defects.
4. Particularly, the issue relevant in this subject is that the will was not properly
acknowledged.
5. The notary public, Petronio Y. Bautista, only wrote “Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko
ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not the will is fatally defective as it was not properly acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witnesses as required by Article 806 of the Civil Code.
RULING:
YES, the will is fatally defective. The Court held that by no manner of contemplation can those
words be construed as an acknowledgment.
An acknowledgement 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 signore 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.
Yet even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as a jurat, the will would
nonetheless remain invalid, as the express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be
“acknowledged,” and not merely subscribed and sworn to. The will does not present any textual
proof, much less one under oath, that the decedent and the instrumental witnesses executed or
signed the will as their own free act or deed. The acknowledgment made in a will provides for
AZUELA v. CA

another all-important legal safeguard against spurious wills or those made beyond the free
consent of the testator.