29.Cruz v.

Villasor
54 scra 31

Facts:The CFI of Cebu allowed the probate of the will of Valenti Cruz.Petitioner Agapita
Cruz,spouse of the decedent,however,opposed the allowance of such will alleging
that it was executed through fraud,deceit,misrepresentation and undue influence.She
further alleged that the instrument was executed without the testator having been
informed of its contents and finally,that it was not executed in accordance with the
law.

One of the witnesses,Angel Tevel Jr. was also the notary public before whom the will
was acknowledged. Despite the objection,the lower court admitted the will to probate
on the ground that there is substantial compliance with the legal requirements of
having at least 3 witnesses notwithstanding the fact that the notary public was one of
them.

Issue:W/N the will is valid.

Ruling:The will is not valid.The notary public cannot be considered as the third
instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed
the said will.An acknowledging officer cannot serve as witness at the same time.

To acknowledge before means to avow,or to own as genuine,to assent,admit,and

'before' means in front of or preceding in space or ahead of,the notary cannot split
his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his
participation in the making of the will.To permit such situation would be absurd.

Finally,the function of a notary among others is to guard against any illegal or

immoral arrangements,a function defeated if he were to be one of the attesting or
instrumental witnesses.He would be interested in sustaining the validity of the will as
it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act.He would be in an
inconsistent position thwarting the very purpose of acknowledgment which is to
minimize fraud.