Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

122880 April 12, 2006

FELIX AZUELA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA AIDA CASTILLO s !s"i" "#$ !% ERNESTO G. CASTILLO, Respondents. DECISION TINGA, J.: The core of this petition is a hi hl! defective notarial "ill, p#rportedl! e$ec#ted %! E# enia E. I solo &decedent', "ho died on () Dece*%er (+,- at the a e of ,.. In ref#sin to ive le al reco nition to the d#e e$ec#tion of this doc#*ent, the Co#rt is provided the opport#nit! to assert a fe" i*portant doctrinal r#les in the e$ec#tion of notarial "ills, all self/evident in vie" of 0rticles ,.1 and ,.) of the Civil Code. A &ill &'os# (""#s"("io) *l( s# $o#s )o" *o)"(i) "'# ) +!#r o, p(-#s o) &'i*' "'# &ill is &ri""#) is ,("(ll% $#,#*"i.#. A &ill &'os# (""#s"("io) *l( s# is )o" si-)#$ !% "'# i)s"r +#)"(l &i")#ss#s is ,("(ll% $#,#*"i.#. A)$ p#r'(ps +os" i+por"()"l%, ( &ill &'i*' $o#s )o" *o)"(i) () (*/)o&l#$-+#)", ! " ( +#r# jurat, is ,("(ll% $#,#*"i.#. A)% o)# o, "'#s# $#,#*"s is s ,,i*i#)" "o $#)% pro!("#. A )o"(ri(l &ill &i"' (ll "'r## $#,#*"s is 0 s" (*'i)- ,or 0 $i*i(l r#0#*"io). There is a distinct and conse2#ential reason the Civil Code provides a co*prehensive catalo of i*peratives for the proper e$ec#tion of a notarial "ill. 3#ll and faithf#l co*pliance "ith all the detailed re2#isites #nder 0rticle ,.1 of the Code leave little roo* for do#%t as to the validit! in the d#e e$ec#tion of the notarial "ill. 0rticle ,.) li4e"ise i*poses another safe #ard to the validit! of notarial "ills 5 that the! %e ac4no"led ed %efore a notar! p#%lic %! the testator and the "itnesses. 0 notarial "ill e$ec#ted "ith indifference to these t"o codal provisions opens itself to na in 2#estions as to its le iti*ac!. The case ste*s fro* a petition for pro%ate filed on (. 0pril (+,6 "ith the Re ional Trial Co#rt &RTC' of Manila. The petition filed %! petitioner 3eli$ 07#ela so# ht to ad*it to pro%ate the notarial "ill of E# enia E. I solo, "hich "as notari7ed on (. 8#ne (+,(. Petitioner is the son of the co#sin of the decedent. The "ill, consistin of t"o &-' pa es and "ritten in the vernac#lar Pilipino, read in f#ll9 H:;IN< H0=I;IN NI E:<ENI0 E. I<SO;O S0 N<0;0N N< M0>?0P0;, 0MEN9 0?O, si E:<ENI0 E. I<SO;O, na4atira sa 1.. San Die o St., Sa*paloc, Manila, piton p#t si!a* &@+' na #lan , nasa h#ston pa i/isip, pa /#na"a at *e*oria a! na /haha!a na ito na an a4in h#lin ha%ilin at testa*ento, at %ina%ali "ala 4o lahat an na#nan ina"an ha%ilin o testa*ento9 :na/Hinihilin 4o na a4o a! *aili%in sa Se*enterio del Norte, ;a ;o*a san /a!on sa 4a# alian at pata4aran n si*%ahan 4atoli4o at an ta a/pa /in at &E$ec#tor' n ha%ilin ito a! *a tata!o n %anta!o #pan sil%in ala/ala sa a4in n a4in pa*il!a at 4ai%i anA Pan ala"a/04in ipina 4a4aloo% at isinasalin an lahat n 4arapatan sa a4in pa*an 4in na si 3eli$ 07#ela, na si!an na /ala a sa a4in sa *aha%an panahon, !aon * a %aha! na na4atiri4 sa lote n#*ero -,, =loc4 -6 at na4apan alan sa Pechaten ?orporas!on, anoon din i%ini%i a! 4o an lahat n 4arapatan sa %aha! na na4atiri4 sa inoopahan 4on lote, n#*ero 6B, =loc4 -6 na pa /aari n Pechaten Corporation. Ipina 4a4aloo% 4on %#on %#o an lahat n 4arapatan sa %aha! at l#pa na nasa 1.. San Die o St., ;ot 6-, =loc4 -6, Sa*paloc, Manila 4a! 3eli$ 07#ela at an pa 4a4aloo% 4on ito a! "alan pas#%aliCt at 4ondicionesA Pan atlo/ Na nin#n#*%rahan 4o si V0RT P0<:E na si!an na papat#pad n h#lin

ha%ilin ito at 4a #st#han 4o rin na hindi na 4ailan*an si!an *a /la a4 n pi!ansi!a. 04in nila daan an H#lin Ha%ilin na ito dito sa Ma!nila i4a (. n H#n!o, (+,(. &S d.' E:<ENI0 E. I<SO;O &Ta apa *ana' P0T:N0> N< M<0 S0?SI 0n 4as#latan ito, na %in#%#o n DDDD dahon pati an h#lin dahon ito, na ipinaha!a sa a*in ni E# enia E. I solo, ta apa *ana na si!a ni!an H#lin Ha%ilin, n a!on i4a/(. n H#n!o (+,(, a! nila daan n nasa%in ta apa *ana sa ilali* n 4as#latan na%an it at sa 4ali"an pani n lahat at %a"aCt dahon, sa harap n lahat at %a"aCt sa a*in, at 4a*i na*an * a sa4si a! l#*a da sa harap n nasa%in ta apa *ana at sa harap n lahat at %a"aCt isa sa a*in, sa ilali* n nasa%in 4as#latan at sa 4ali"an pani n lahat at %a"aCt dahon n 4as#latan ito. E:<ENI0 E. I<SO;O address9 1.. San Die o St. Sa*paloc, Manila Res. Cert. No. 0/@@(@/B@ Iss#ed at Manila on March (., (+,(. E:IRINO 0<R0V0 address9 (--,/Int. B, ?ahil#* Pandacan, Manila Res. Cert. No. 0/61,B)1 Iss#ed at Manila on 8an. -(, (+,( ;0M=ERTO C. ;E0FO address9 0ven#e -, =lco4 @, ;ot )(, San <a%riel, <.M0., Cavite Res. Cert. No. 0/@),-@@ iss#ed at Car*ona, Cavite on 3e%. @, (+,( 8:0NITO ESTRER0 address9 Cit! Co#rt Co*po#nd, Cit! of Manila Res. Cert. No. 01@6,-+ Iss#ed at Manila on March -, (+,(. Nila daan 4o at ninotario 4o n a!on (. n H#n!o (., (+,( dito sa ;#n sod n Ma!nila. &S d.' PETRONIO >. =0:TIST0 Doc. No. (-B- A NOT0RIO P:=;I?O Pa e No. ,) A :ntil Dec. B(, (+,( =oo4 No. 6B A PTR/(1-.6(/(G-G,(/Manila Series of (+,( T0N H (6B@/+@@/,1 The three na*ed "itnesses to the "ill affi$ed their si nat#res on the left/hand *ar in of %oth pa es of the "ill, %#t not at the %otto* of the attestation cla#se. The pro%ate petition adverted to onl! t"o &-' heirs, le atees and devisees of the decedent, na*el!9 petitioner hi*self, and one Irene ;!nn I solo, "ho "as alle ed to have resided a%road. Petitioner pra!ed that the "ill %e allo"ed, and that letters testa*entar! %e iss#ed to the desi nated e$ec#tor, Vart Pra #e. The petition "as opposed %! <eralda 0ida Castillo &<eralda Castillo', "ho represented herself as the attorne!/in/fact of Ithe (- le iti*ate heirsI of the decedent. 2 <eralda Castillo clai*ed that the "ill is a for er!, and that the tr#e p#rpose of its e*er ence "as so it co#ld %e #tili7ed as a defense in several co#rt cases filed %! oppositor a ainst petitioner, partic#larl! for forci%le entr! and #s#rpation of real propert!, all centerin on petitionerCs ri ht to occ#p! the properties of the decedent. 3 It also asserted that contrar! to the representations of petitioner, the decedent "as act#all! s#rvived %! (- le iti*ate heirs, na*el! her randchildren, "ho "ere then residin a%road. Per records, it "as s#%se2#entl! alle ed that decedent "as the "ido" of =onifacio I solo, "ho died in (+)1, 4

and the *other of a le iti*ate child, 0s#ncion E. I solo, "ho predeceased her *other %! three &B' *onths.5 Oppositor <eralda Castillo also ar #ed that the "ill "as not e$ec#ted and attested to in accordance "ith la". She pointed o#t that decedentCs si nat#re did not appear on the second pa e of the "ill, and the "ill "as not properl! ac4no"led ed. These t"in ar #*ents are a*on the central *atters to this petition. 0fter d#e trial, the RTC ad*itted the "ill to pro%ate, in an Order dated (. 0# #st (++-. 6 The RTC favora%l! too4 into acco#nt the testi*on! of the three &B' "itnesses to the "ill, E#irino 0 rava, ;a*%erto ;eano, and 8#anito Estrada. The RTC also called to fore Ithe *odern tendenc! in respect to the for*alities in the e$ec#tion of a "ill $ $ $ "ith the end in vie" of ivin the testator *ore freedo* in e$pressin his last "ishesAI 7 and fro* this perspective, re%#tted oppositorCs ar #*ents that the "ill "as not properl! e$ec#ted and attested to in accordance "ith la". 0fter a caref#l e$a*ination of the "ill and consideration of the testi*onies of the s#%scri%in and attestin "itnesses, and havin in *ind the *odern tendenc! in respect to the for*alities in the e$ec#tion of a "ill, i.e., the li%erali7ation of the interpretation of the la" on the for*al re2#ire*ents of a "ill "ith the end in vie" of ivin the testator *ore freedo* in e$pressin his last "ishes, this Co#rt is pers#aded to r#le that the "ill in 2#estion is a#thentic and had %een e$ec#ted %! the testatri$ in accordance "ith la". On the iss#e of lac4 of ac4no"led e*ent, this Co#rt has noted that at the end of the "ill after the si nat#re of the testatri$, the follo"in state*ent is *ade #nder the s#%/title, IPat#na! N M a Sa4siI9 I0n 4as#latan ito, na %in#%#o n DDDDD dahon pati an h#lin dahon ito, na ipinaha!a sa a*in ni E# enia N. I solo, ta apa *ana na si!a ni!an H#lin Ha%ilin, n a!on i4a/(. n H#n!o (+,(, a! nila daan n nasa%in ta apa *ana sa ilali* n 4as#latan na%an it at sa 4ali"an pani n lahat at %a"aCt dahon, sa harap n lahat at %a"aCt sa a*in, at 4a*i na*an * a sa4si a! l#*a da sa harap n nasa%in ta apa *ana at sa harap n lahat at %a"aCt isa sa a*in, sa ilali* n nasa%in 4as#latan at sa 4ali"an pani n lahat at %a"aCt dahon n 4as#latan ito.I The afore2#oted declaration co*prises the attestation cla#se and the ac4no"led e*ent and is considered %! this Co#rt as a s#%stantial co*pliance "ith the re2#ire*ents of the la". On the oppositorCs contention that the attestation cla#se "as not si ned %! the s#%scri%in "itnesses at the %otto* thereof, this Co#rt is of the vie" that the si nin %! the s#%scri%in "itnesses on the left *ar in of the second pa e of the "ill containin the attestation cla#se and ac4no"led *ent, instead of at the %otto* thereof, s#%stantiall! satisfies the p#rpose of identification and attestation of the "ill. Jith re ard to the oppositorCs ar #*ent that the "ill "as not n#*%ered correlativel! in letters placed on #pper part of each pa e and that the attestation did not state the n#*%er of pa es thereof, it is "orth! to note that the "ill is co*posed of onl! t"o pa es. The first pa e contains the entire te$t of the testa*entar! dispositions, and the second pa e contains the last portion of the attestation cla#se and ac4no"led e*ent. S#ch %ein so, the defects are not of a serio#s nat#re as to invalidate the "ill. 3or the sa*e reason, the fail#re of the testatri$ to affi$ her si nat#re on the left *ar in of the second pa e, "hich contains onl! the last portion of the attestation cla#se and ac4no"led *ent is not a fatal defect. 0s re ards the oppositorCs assertion that the si nat#re of the testatri$ on the "ill is a for er!, the testi*onies of the three s#%scri%in "itnesses to the "ill are convincin eno# h to esta%lish the en#ineness of the si nat#re of the testatri$ and the d#e e$ec#tion of the "ill.8 The Order "as appealed to the Co#rt of 0ppeals %! Ernesto Castillo, "ho had s#%stit#ted his since deceased *other/in/la", <eralda Castillo. In a Decision dated (@ 0# #st (++1, the Co#rt of 0ppeals reversed the trial co#rt and ordered the dis*issal of the petition for

pro%ate.9 The Co#rt of 0ppeals noted that the attestation cla#se failed to state the n#*%er of pa es #sed in the "ill, th#s renderin the "ill void and #ndeservin of pro%ate. 10 Hence, the present petition. Petitioner ar #es that the re2#ire*ent #nder 0rticle ,.1 of the Civil Code that Ithe n#*%er of pa es #sed in a notarial "ill %e stated in the attestation cla#seI is *erel! director!, rather than *andator!, and th#s s#scepti%le to "hat he ter*ed as Ithe s#%stantial co*pliance r#le.I11 The sol#tion to this case calls for the application of 0rticles ,.1 and ,.) of the Civil Code, "hich "e replicate in f#ll. 0rt. ,.1. Ever! "ill, other than a holo raphic "ill, *#st %e s#%scri%ed at the end thereof %! the testator hi*self or %! the testatorKs na*e "ritten %! so*e other person in his presence, and %! his e$press direction, and attested and s#%scri%ed %! three or *ore credi%le "itnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The testator or the person re2#ested %! hi* to "rite his na*e and the instr#*ental "itnesses of the "ill, shall also si n, as aforesaid, each and ever! pa e thereof, e$cept the last, on the left *ar in, and all the pa es shall %e n#*%ered correlativel! in letters placed on the #pper part of each pa e. The attestation shall state the n#*%er of pa es #sed #pon "hich the "ill is "ritten, and the fact that the testator si ned the "ill and ever! pa e thereof, or ca#sed so*e other person to "rite his na*e, #nder his e$press direction, in the presence of the instr#*ental "itnesses, and that the latter "itnessed and si ned the "ill and all the pa es thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. If the attestation cla#se is in a lan #a e not 4no"n to the "itnesses, it shall %e interpreted to the*. 0rt. ,.). Ever! "ill *#st %e ac4no"led ed %efore a notar! p#%lic %! the testator and the "itnesses. The notar! p#%lic shall not %e re2#ired to retain a cop! of the "ill, or file another "ith the office of the Cler4 of Co#rt. The appellate co#rt, in its Decision, considered onl! one defect, the fail#re of the attestation cla#se to state the n#*%er of pa es of the "ill. =#t an e$a*ination of the "ill itself reveals several *ore deficiencies. 0s ad*itted %! petitioner hi*self, the attestation cla#se fails to state the n#*%er of pa es of the "ill.12 There "as an inco*plete atte*pt to co*pl! "ith this re2#isite, a space havin %een allotted for the insertion of the n#*%er of pa es in the attestation cla#se. >et the %lan4 "as never filled inA hence, the re2#isite "as left #nco*plied "ith. The Co#rt of 0ppeals po#nced on this defect in reversin the trial co#rt, citin in the process Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca13 and In re: Will of Andrada.14 In Uy Coque, the Co#rt noted that a*on the defects of the "ill in 2#estion "as the fail#re of the attestation cla#se to state the n#*%er of pa es contained in the "ill. 15 In r#lin that the "ill co#ld not %e ad*itted to pro%ate, the Co#rt *ade the follo"in consideration "hich re*ains hi hl! relevant to this da!9 IThe p#rpose of re2#irin the n#*%er of sheets to %e stated in the attestation cla#se is o%vio#sA "'# $o* +#)" +i-'" #(sil% !# so pr#p(r#$ "'(" "'# r#+o.(l o, ( s'##" &o l$ *o+pl#"#l% *'()-# "'# "#s"(+#)"(r% $isposi"io)s o, "'# &ill ()$ i) "'# (!s#)*# o, ( s"("#+#)" o, "'# "o"(l ) +!#r o, s'##"s s *' r#+o.(l +i-'" !# #,,#*"#$ !% "(/i)- o " "'# s'##" ()$ *'()-i)- "'# ) +!#rs (" "'# "op o, "'# ,ollo&i)- s'##"s or p(-#s. If, on the other hand, the total n#*%er of sheets is stated in the attestation cla#se the falsification of the doc#*ent "ill involve the insertin of ne" pa es and the for in of the si nat#res of the testator and "itnesses in the *ar in, a *atter attended "ith *#ch reater diffic#lt!.I16 The case of In re Will of Andrada concerned a "ill the attestation cla#se of "hich failed to state the n#*%er of sheets or pa es #sed. This consideration alone "as s#fficient for the Co#rt to declare I#nani*Lit!M #pon the point that the defect pointed o#t in the attestin

cla#se is fatal.I17 It "as f#rther o%served that Iit cannot %e denied that the $ $ $ re2#ire*ent affords additional sec#rit! a ainst the dan er that the "ill *a! %e ta*pered "ithA and as the ;e islat#re has seen fit to prescri%e this re2#ire*ent, it *#st %e considered *aterial.I 18 0 ainst these cited cases, petitioner cites Singson v. Florentino19 and Taboada v. on. !osal,20 "herein the Co#rt allo"ed pro%ate to the "ills concerned therein despite the fact that the attestation cla#se did not state the n#*%er of pa es of the "ill. >et the appellate co#rt itself considered the i*port of these t"o cases, and *ade the follo"in distinction "hich petitioner is #na%le to re%#t, and "hich "e adopt "ith approval9 Even a c#rsor! e$a*ination of the Jill &E$hi%it IDI', "ill readil! sho" that the attestation does not state the n#*%er of pa es #sed #pon "hich the "ill is "ritten. Hence, the Jill is void and #ndeservin of pro%ate. Je are not i*pervio#s of the Decisions of the S#pre*e Co#rt in IMan#el Sin son vers#s E*ilia 3lorentino, et al., +- Phil. ()( and 0polonio LTa%oadaM vers#s Hon. 0velino Rosal, et al., ((, SCR0 (+1,I to the effect that a "ill *a! still %e valid even if the attestation does not contain the n#*%er of pa es #sed #pon "hich the Jill is "ritten. Ho"ever, the Decisions of the S#pre*e Co#rt are not applica%le in the afore*entioned appeal at %ench. This is so %eca#se, in the case of IMan#el Sin son vers#s E*ilia 3lorentino, et al., s#pra,I altho# h the attestation in the s#%Nect Jill did not state the n#*%er of pa es #sed in the "ill, ho"ever, the sa*e "as fo#nd in the last part of the %od! of the Jill9 I$ $ $ The la" referred to is article )(, of the Code of Civil Proced#re, as a*ended %! 0ct No. -)61, "hich re2#ires that the attestation cla#se shall state the n#*%er of pa es or sheets #pon "hich the "ill is "ritten, "hich re2#ire*ent has %een held to %e *andator! as an effective safe #ard a ainst the possi%ilit! of interpolation or o*ission of so*e of the pa es of the "ill to the preN#dice of the heirs to "ho* the propert! is intended to %e %e2#eathed &In re Jill of 0ndrada, 6- Phil. (,.A :! Co2#e vs. Navas ;. Sioca, 6B Phil., 6.1A <#*%an vs. <orcho, 1. Phil. B.A E#into vs. Morata, 16 Phil. 6,(A Echevarria vs. Sar*iento, )) Phil. )(('. The ratio decidendi of these cases see*s to %e that the attestation cla#se *#st contain a state*ent of the n#*%er of sheets or pa es co*posin the "ill and that if this is *issin or is o*itted, it "ill have the effect of invalidatin the "ill if the deficienc! cannot %e s#pplied, not %! evidence ali#nde, %#t %! a consideration or e$a*ination of the "ill itself. =#t here the sit#ation is different. Jhile the attestation cla#se does not state the n#*%er of sheets or pa es #pon "hich the "ill is "ritten, ho"ever, the last part of the %od! of the "ill contains a state*ent that it is co*posed of ei ht pa es, "hich circ#*stance in o#r opinion ta4es this case o#t of the ri id r#le of constr#ction and places it "ithin the real* of si*ilar cases "here a %road and *ore li%eral vie" has %een adopted to prevent the "ill of the testator fro* %ein defeated %! p#rel! technical considerations.I &pa e ()1/()1, s#pra' &:nderscorin s#pplied' In I0polonio Ta%aoda vers#s Hon. 0velino Rosal, et al.I s#pra, the notarial ac4no"led e*ent in the Jill states the n#*%er of pa es #sed in the9 I$ $ $ Je have e$a*ined the "ill in 2#estion and noticed that the attestation cla#se failed to state the n#*%er of pa es #sed in "ritin the "ill. This "o#ld have %een a fatal defect "ere it not for the fact that, in this case, it is discerni%le fro* the entire "ill that it is reall! and act#all! co*posed of onl! t"o pa es d#l! si ned %! the testatri$ and her instr#*ental "itnesses. 0s earlier stated, the first pa e "hich contains the entiret! of the testa*entar! dispositions is si ned %! the testatri$ at the end or at the %otto* "hile the instr#*ental "itnesses si ned at the left *ar in. The other pa e "hich is *ar4ed as IPa ina dosI co*prises the attestation cla#se and the ac4no"led *ent. The ac4no"led *ent itself states that Ithis ;ast Jill and Testa*ent consists of t"o pa es incl#din this pa eI &pa es -../-.(, s#pra' &:nderscorin s#pplied'. Ho"ever, in the appeal at %ench, the n#*%er of pa es #sed in the "ill is not stated in an! part of the Jill. The "ill does not even contain an! notarial ac4no"led *ent "herein the

n#*%er of pa es of the "ill sho#ld %e stated.21 =oth Uy Coque and Andrada "ere decided prior to the enact*ent of the Civil Code in (+1., at a ti*e "hen the stat#tor! provision overnin the for*al re2#ire*ent of "ills "as Section )(, of the Code of Civil Proced#re. 22 Reliance on these cases re*ains apropos, considerin that the re2#ire*ent that the attestation state the n#*%er of pa es of the "ill is e$tant fro* Section )(,.23 Ho"ever, the enact*ent of the Civil Code in (+1. did p#t in force a r#le of interpretation of the re2#ire*ents of "ills, at least insofar as the attestation cla#se is concerned, that *a! var! fro* the philosoph! that overned these t"o cases. 0rticle ,.+ of the Civil Code states9 IIn the a%sence of %ad faith, for er!, or fra#d, or #nd#e and i*proper press#re and infl#ence, defects and i*perfections in the for* of attestation or in the lan #a e #sed therein shall not render the "ill invalid if it is proved that the "ill "as in fact e$ec#ted and attested in s#%stantial co*pliance "ith all the re2#ire*ents of article ,.1.I In the sa*e vein, petitioner cites the report of the Civil Code Co**ission, "hich stated that Ithe #nderl!in and f#nda*ental o%Nective per*eatin the provisions on the Lla"M on L"illsM in this proNect consists in the Lli%erali7ationM of the *anner of their e$ec#tion "ith the end in vie" of ivin the testator *ore Lfreedo*M in Le$pressin M his last "ishes. This o%Nective is in accord "ith the L*odern tendenc!M in respect to the for*alities in the e$ec#tion of "ills.I 24 Ho"ever, petitioner convenientl! o*its the 2#alification offered %! the Code Co**ission in the ver! sa*e para raph he cites fro* their report, that s#ch li%erali7ation %e I%#t "ith s#fficient safe #ards and restrictions to prevent the co**ission of fra#d and the e$ercise of #nd#e and i*proper press#re and infl#ence #pon the testator.I 25 Caneda v. Court of A""eals26 features an extensive discussion made by

Justice Rega ado! s"ea#ing for t$e %ourt on t$e conf icting vie&s on t$e manner of inter"retation of t$e ega forma ities re'uired in t$e execution of t$e attestation c ause in &i s( 27 )y %o'ue and *ndrada are cited t$erein! a ong &it$ severa ot$er cases! as exam" es of t$e a"" ication of t$e ru e of strict construction( 28 +o&ever! t$e %ode %ommission o"ted to recommend a more ibera construction t$roug$ t$e ,substantia com" iance ru e, under *rtic e 809( * cautionary note &as struc# t$oug$ by Justice J(-(.( Reyes as to $o& *rtic e 809 s$ou d be a"" ied/ x x x 0$e ru e must be imited to disregarding t$ose defects t$at can be su"" ied by an examination of t$e &i itse f/ &$et$er a t$e "ages are consecutive y numbered1 &$et$er t$e signatures a""ear in eac$ and every "age1 &$et$er t$e subscribing &itnesses are t$ree or t$e &i &as notari2ed( * t$ese are facts t$at t$e &i itse f can revea ! and defects or even omissions concerning t$em in t$e attestation c ause can be safe y disregarded( -ut t$e tota number of "ages! and &$et$er a "ersons re'uired to sign did so in t$e "resence of eac$ ot$er must substantia y a""ear in t$e attestation c ause! being t$e on y c$ec# against "er3ury in t$e "robate "roceedings(29 45m"$asis su"" ied(6 0$e %ourt of *""ea s did cite t$ese comments by Justice J(-(.( Reyes in its assai ed decision! considering t$at t$e fai ure to state t$e number of "ages of t$e &i in t$e attestation c ause is one of t$e defects &$ic$ cannot be sim" y disregarded( 7n %aneda itse f! t$e %ourt refused to a o& t$e "robate of a &i &$ose attestation c ause fai ed to state t$at t$e &itnesses subscribed t$eir res"ective signatures to t$e &i in t$e "resence of t$e testator and of eac$ ot$er!30 t$e ot$er omission cited by Justice J(-(.( Reyes &$ic$ to $is estimation cannot be ig$t y disregarded(

%aneda suggested/ ,879t may t$us be stated t$at t$e ru e! as it no& stands! is t$at omission &$ic$ can be su"" ied by an examination of t$e &i itse f! &it$out t$e need of resorting to extrinsic evidence! &i not be fata and! corres"onding y! &ou d not obstruct t$e a o&ance to "robate of t$e &i being assai ed( +o&ever! t$ose omissions &$ic$ cannot be su"" ied exce"t by evidence a iunde &ou d resu t in t$e inva idation of t$e attestation c ause and u timate y! of t$e &i itse f(,31 0$us! a fai ure by t$e attestation c ause to state t$at t$e testator signed every "age can be ibera y construed! since t$at fact can be c$ec#ed by a visua examination1 &$i e a fai ure by t$e attestation c ause to state t$at t$e &itnesses signed in one anot$er:s "resence s$ou d be considered a fata f a& since t$e attestation is t$e on y textua guarantee of com" iance( 32
0$e fai ure of t$e attestation c ause to state t$e number of "ages on &$ic$ t$e &i &as &ritten remains a fata f a&! des"ite *rtic e 809( 0$e "ur"ose of t$e a& in re'uiring t$e c ause to state t$e number of "ages on &$ic$ t$e &i is &ritten is to safeguard against "ossib e inter"o ation or omission of one or some of its "ages and to "revent any increase or decrease in t$e "ages( 33 0$e fai ure to state t$e number of "ages e'uates &it$ t$e absence of an averment on t$e "art of t$e instrumenta &itnesses as to $o& many "ages consisted t$e &i ! t$e execution of &$ic$ t$ey $ad ostensib y 3ust &itnessed and subscribed to( ;o o&ing %aneda! t$ere is substantia com" iance &it$ t$is re'uirement if t$e &i states e se&$ere in it $o& many "ages it is com"rised of! as &as t$e situation in <ingson and 0aboada( +o&ever! in t$is case! t$ere cou d $ave been no substantia com" iance &it$ t$e re'uirements under *rtic e 805 since t$ere is no statement in t$e attestation c ause or any&$ere in t$e &i itse f as to t$e number of "ages &$ic$ com"rise t$e &i ( *t t$e same time! *rtic e 809 s$ou d not deviate from t$e need to com" y &it$ t$e forma re'uirements as enumerated under *rtic e 805( =$atever t$e inc inations of t$e members of t$e %ode %ommission in incor"orating *rtic e 805! t$e fact remains t$at t$ey sa& fit to "rescribe substantia y t$e same forma re'uisites as enumerated in <ection 618 of t$e %ode of %ivi >rocedure! convinced t$at t$ese remained effective safeguards against t$e forgery or interca ation of notaria &i s(34 %om" iance &it$ t$ese re'uirements! $o&ever "icayune in im"ression! affords t$e "ub ic a $ig$ degree of comfort t$at t$e testator $imse f or $erse f $ad decided to convey "ro"erty "ost mortem in t$e manner estab is$ed in t$e &i ( 35 0$e transcendent egis ative intent! even as ex"ressed in t$e cited comments of t$e %ode %ommission! is for t$e fruition of t$e testator:s incontestab e desires! and not for t$e indu gent admission of &i s to "robate( 0$e %ourt cou d t$us end $ere and affirm t$e %ourt of *""ea s( +o&ever! an examination of t$e &i itse f revea s a cou" e of even more critica defects t$at s$ou d necessari y ead to its re3ection( ;or one! t$e attestation c ause &as not signed by t$e instrumenta &itnesses( =$i e t$e signatures of t$e instrumenta &itnesses a""ear on t$e eft?$and margin of t$e &i ! t$ey do not a""ear at t$e bottom of t$e attestation c ause &$ic$ after a consists of t$eir averments before t$e notary "ub ic(

%agro v( %agro36 is materia on t$is "oint( *s in t$is case! ,t$e signatures of t$e t$ree &itnesses to t$e &i do not a""ear at t$e

bottom of t$e attestation c ause! a t$oug$ t$e "age containing t$e same is signed by t$e &itnesses on t$e eft?$and margin(, 37 =$i e t$ree 436 Justices38 considered t$e signature re'uirement $ad been substantia y com" ied &it$! a ma3ority of six 466! s"ea#ing t$roug$ %$ief Justice >aras! ru ed t$at t$e attestation c ause $ad not been du y signed! rendering t$e &i fata y defective( 0$ere is no 'uestion t$at t$e signatures of t$e t$ree &itnesses to t$e &i do not a""ear at t$e bottom of t$e attestation c ause! a t$oug$ t$e "age containing t$e same is signed by t$e &itnesses on t$e eft?$and margin( =e are of t$e o"inion t$at t$e "osition ta#en by t$e a""e ant is correct( 0$e attestation c ause is ,a memorandum of t$e facts attending t$e execution of t$e &i , re'uired by a& to be made by t$e attesting &itnesses! and it must necessari y bear t$eir signatures( *n unsigned attestation c ause cannot be considered as an act of t$e &itnesses! since t$e omission of t$eir signatures at t$e bottom t$ereof negatives t$eir "artici"ation( 0$e "etitioner and a""e ee contends t$at signatures of t$e t$ree &itnesses on t$e eft?$and margin conform substantia y to t$e a& and may be deemed as t$eir signatures to t$e attestation c ause( 0$is is untenab e! because said signatures are in com" iance &it$ t$e ega mandate t$at t$e &i be signed on t$e eft?$and margin of a its "ages( 7f an attestation c ause not signed by t$e t$ree &itnesses at t$e bottom t$ereof! be admitted as sufficient! it &ou d be easy to add suc$ c ause to a &i on a subse'uent occasion and in t$e absence of t$e testator and any or a of t$e &itnesses( 39 0$e %ourt today reiterates t$e continued efficacy of %agro( *rtic e 805 "articu ar y segregates t$e re'uirement t$at t$e instrumenta &itnesses sign eac$ "age of t$e &i ! from t$e re'uisite t$at t$e &i be ,attested and subscribed by 8t$e instrumenta &itnesses9(, 0$e res"ective intents be$ind t$ese t&o c asses of signature are distinct from eac$ ot$er( 0$e signatures on t$e eft?$and corner of every "age signify! among ot$ers! t$at t$e &itnesses are a&are t$at t$e "age t$ey are signing forms "art of t$e &i ( @n t$e ot$er $and! t$e signatures to t$e attestation c ause estab is$ t$at t$e &itnesses are referring to t$e statements contained in t$e attestation c ause itse f( 7ndeed! t$e attestation c ause is se"arate and a"art from t$e dis"osition of t$e &i ( *n unsigned attestation c ause resu ts in an unattested &i ( 5ven if t$e instrumenta &itnesses signed t$e eft? $and margin of t$e "age containing t$e unsigned attestation c ause! suc$ signatures cannot demonstrate t$ese &itnesses: underta#ings in t$e c ause! since t$e signatures t$at do a""ear on t$e "age &ere directed to&ards a &$o y different avo&a ( 0$e %ourt may be more c$aritab y dis"osed $ad t$e &itnesses in t$is case signed t$e attestation c ause itse f! but not t$e eft?$and margin of t$e "age containing suc$ c ause( =it$out diminis$ing t$e va ue of t$e instrumenta &itnesses: signatures on eac$ and every "age! t$e fact must be noted t$at it is t$e attestation c ause &$ic$ contains t$e utterances reduced into &riting of t$e testamentary &itnesses t$emse ves( 7t is t$e &itnesses! and not t$e testator! &$o are re'uired under *rtic e 805 to state t$e number of "ages used u"on &$ic$ t$e &i is &ritten1 t$e fact t$at t$e testator $ad signed t$e &i and every "age t$ereof1 and t$at t$ey &itnessed and signed t$e &i and a t$e "ages t$ereof in t$e "resence of t$e testator and

of one anot$er( 0$e on y "roof in t$e &i t$at t$e &itnesses $ave stated t$ese e ementa facts &ou d be t$eir signatures on t$e attestation c ause( 0$us! t$e sub3ect &i cannot be considered to $ave been va id y attested to by t$e instrumenta &itnesses! as t$ey fai ed to sign t$e attestation c ause( Aet! t$ere is anot$er fata defect to t$e &i on &$ic$ t$e denia of t$is "etition s$ou d a so $inge( 0$e re'uirement under *rtic e 806 t$at ,every &i must be ac#no& edged before a notary "ub ic by t$e testator and t$e &itnesses, $as a so not been com" ied &it$( 0$e im"ortance of t$is re'uirement is $ig$ ig$ted by t$e fact t$at it $ad been segregated from t$e ot$er re'uirements under *rtic e 805 and entrusted into a se"arate "rovision! *rtic e 806( 0$e non?observance of *rtic e 806 in t$is case is e'ua y as critica as t$e ot$er cited f a&s in com" iance &it$ *rtic e 805! and s$ou d be treated as of e'uiva ent im"ort( 7n ieu of an ac#no& edgment! t$e notary "ub ic! >etronio A( -autista! &rote ,Bi agdaan #o at ninotario #o ngayong10 ng +unyo 10 4sic6! 1981 dito sa .ungsod ng Cayni a(,40 -y no manner of contem" ation can t$ose &ords be construed as an ac#no& edgment( *n ac#no& edgment is t$e act of one &$o $as executed a deed in going before some com"etent officer or court and dec aring it to be $is act or deed(41 7t invo ves an extra ste" underta#en &$ereby t$e signor actua y dec ares to t$e notary t$at t$e executor of a document $as attested to t$e notary t$at t$e same is $isD$er o&n free act and deed( 7t mig$t be "ossib e to construe t$e averment as a 3urat! even t$oug$ it does not $e& to t$e usua anguage t$ereof( * 3urat is t$at "art of an affidavit &$ere t$e notary certifies t$at before $imD$er! t$e document &as subscribed and s&orn to by t$e executor( 42 @rdinari y! t$e anguage of t$e 3urat s$ou d avo& t$at t$e document &as subscribed and s&orn before t$e notary "ub ic! &$i e in t$is case! t$e notary "ub ic averred t$at $e $imse f ,signed and notari2ed, t$e document( >ossib y t$oug$! t$e &ord , ninotario, or ,notari2ed, encom"asses t$e signing of and s&earing in of t$e executors of t$e document! &$ic$ in t$is case &ou d invo ve t$e decedent and t$e instrumenta &itnesses( Aet even if &e consider &$at &as affixed by t$e notary "ub ic as a 3urat! t$e &i &ou d nonet$e ess remain inva id! as t$e ex"ress re'uirement of *rtic e 806 is t$at t$e &i be ,ac#no& edged,! and not mere y subscribed and s&orn to( 0$e &i does not "resent any textua "roof! muc$ ess one under oat$! t$at t$e decedent and t$e instrumenta &itnesses executed or signed t$e &i as t$eir o&n free act or deed( 0$e ac#no& edgment made in a &i "rovides for anot$er a ?im"ortant ega safeguard against s"urious &i s or t$ose made beyond t$e free consent of t$e testator( *n ac#no& edgement is not an em"ty meaning ess act(43 0$e ac#no& edgment coerces t$e testator and t$e instrumenta &itnesses to dec are before an officer of t$e a& t$at t$ey $ad executed and subscribed to t$e &i as t$eir o&n free act or deed( <uc$ dec aration is under oat$ and under "ain of "er3ury! t$us a o&ing for t$e crimina "rosecution of "ersons &$o "artici"ate in t$e execution of s"urious &i s! or t$ose executed &it$out t$e free consent of t$e testator( 7t a so "rovides a furt$er degree of assurance t$at t$e testator is of certain mindset in ma#ing

t$e testamentary dis"ositions to t$ose "ersons $eDs$e $ad designated in t$e &i ( 7t may not $ave been said before! but &e can assert t$e ru e! se f? evident as it is under *rtic e 806( * notaria &i t$at is not ac#no& edged before a notary "ub ic by t$e testator and t$e &itnesses is fata y defective! even if it is subscribed and s&orn to before a notary "ub ic( 0$ere are t&o ot$er re'uirements under *rtic e 805 &$ic$ &ere not fu y satisfied by t$e &i in 'uestion( =e need not discuss t$em at engt$! as t$ey are no onger materia to t$e dis"osition of t$is case( 0$e "rovision re'uires t$at t$e testator and t$e instrumenta &itnesses sign eac$ and every "age of t$e &i on t$e eft margin! exce"t t$e ast1 and t$at a t$e "ages s$a be numbered corre ative y in etters " aced on t$e u""er "art of eac$ "age( 7n t$is case! t$e decedent! un i#e t$e &itnesses! fai ed to sign bot$ "ages of t$e &i on t$e eft margin! $er on y signature a""earing at t$e so?ca ed , ogica end, 44 of t$e &i on its first "age( * so! t$e &i itse f is not numbered corre ative y in etters on eac$ "age! but instead numbered &it$ *rabic numera s( 0$ere is a ine of t$oug$t t$at $as disabused t$e notion t$at t$ese t&o re'uirements be construed as mandatory(45 0a#en in iso ation! t$ese omissions! by t$emse ves! may not be sufficient to deny "robate to a &i ( Aet even as t$ese omissions are not decisive to t$e ad3udication of t$is case! t$ey need not be d&e t on! t$oug$ indicative as t$ey may be of a genera ac# of due regard for t$e re'uirements under *rtic e 805 by &$oever executed t$e &i ( * to d! t$e string of morta defects &$ic$ t$e &i suffers from ma#es t$e "robate denia inexorab e( <@ @RE5R5E( E*B05 @( 07BF* *ssociate Justice =5 %@B%)R/ .5@B*RE@ *( G)7<)C-7BF *ssociate Justice %$air"erson *B0@B7@ 0( %*R>7@ %@B%+70* *ssociate Justice * 0 0 5 < 0 * 0 7 @ B 7 attest t$at t$e conc usions in t$e above Eecision $ad been reac$ed in consu tation before t$e case &as assigned to t$e &riter of t$e o"inion of t$e %ourt:s Eivision( .5@B*RE@ *( G)7<)C-7BF *ssociate Justice %$air"erson! 0$ird Eivision % 5 R 0 7 ; 7 % * 0 7 @ B %*R>7@ C@R*.5< *sscociate Justice in 'uestion

=+5R5;@R5! t$e "etition is E5B75E( %osts against "etitioner(

>ursuant to <ection 13! *rtic e H777 of t$e %onstitution! and t$e Eivision %$air"erson:s *ttestation! it is $ereby certified t$at t$e conc usions in t$e above Eecision $ad been reac$ed in consu tation before t$e case &as assigned to t$e &riter of t$e o"inion of t$e %ourt:s Eivision( *R05C7@ H( >*BF*B7-*B %$ief Justice