You are on page 1of 2

Facts:

The Court of First Instance of Iloilo admitted to probate a testament and codicil duly executed by the deceased
Da. Apolinaria Ledesma Vda. de Javellana. Based on the testimony of the witnesses, the testament was executed
by testatrix and witnesses in the presence of each other at the house of the decedent on General Hughes St.,
Iloilo City on March 30, 1950. However, the codicil had been signed by the testatrix and the witnesses at the San
Pablo Hospital and was brought by Gimotea, the notary public, to his office and signed and sealed it there. Unlike
the testament, this codicil was executed after the enactment of the new Civil Code, and, therefore, had to be
acknowledged before a notary public. Da. Matea Ledesma, sister and nearest surviving relative of said deceased,
appealed from the decision, insisting that the said exhibits were not executed in conformity with law.

Issue:
whether or not the notary signed the certification of acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and the
witnesses, does not affect the validity of the codicil.

Ruling:
No. The new Civil Code does not require that the signing of the testator, witnesses and notary should be
accomplished in one single act. All that is required is that based on Art. 806 is that every will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The subsequent signing and sealing by
the notary of his certification that the testament was duly acknowledged by the participants neither a part of the
acknowledgment itself nor testamentary act. . Hence their separate execution out of the presence of the testatrix
and her witnesses cannot be said to violate the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption

Garcia vs. Vasquez

Facts:
Gliceria Avelino del Rosario died unmarried leaving no descendents, ascendants, brother
or sister. She was said to be 90 years old more or less, and possessed of an estate
consisting mostly of real properties. Gliceria allegedly executed 2 wills: the 1956 will
consisting of 12 pages written in Spanish and the 1960 will that has one page written in
Tagalog. Consuelo S. Gonzales Vda. de Precilla, a niece of the deceased, petitioned for
probate of the alleged 1960 last will and testament of Gliceria A. del Rosario and for her
appointment as special administratrix. The petition was opposed separately by several
groups of alleged heirs attacking the validity of the will. The witnesses were called to
testify and said that the will was read by the testratrix herself “silently” before signing it
in the presence of the witnesses and the notary public. However, the oppositors
maintained that the testatrix’s eyesight was so poor and defective that she could not have
read the provisions of the will contrary to the testimonies of the witnesses. The
ophthalmologist of the testatrix testified in the Court regarding the condition of the
testatrix. He said that notwithstanding the operation, removal of cataract and having
aphakic lens, her vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading
prints. No evidence was presented showing that the testatrix’s condition improved during
the signing of the will.

Issue:

Whether or not the will of the testatrix is valid.

Ruling:

No. The conclusion is inescapable that with the condition of her eyesight in August,
1960, and there is no evidence that it had improved by 29 December 1960, Gliceria del
Rosario was incapable of reading, and could not have read the provisions of the will
supposedly signed by her on 29 December 1960. It is worth noting that the instrumental
witnesses stated that she read the instrument "silently" which is a conclusion and not a
fact. Also, the appearance of the will being crammed together in a single sheet of paper,
written very close on the edges of the paper, without margins and having typographucal
errors shows that the testatrix could not have physically read or understood. The due
execution of her will would have required observance of the provisions of Article 808 of
the Civil Code. The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if
he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself is to make the provisions known to
him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes.
Nothing in the records show that the requisites in Article 808 was complied with.

You might also like