Javellana v. Ledesma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Apolinaria Ledesma executed a testament (Exhibit D) on March 30, 1950, and a codicil (Exhibit E) on May 29, 1952. These documents were admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The deceased's sister, Matea Ledesma, appealed the decision. Procedural History: The opposition initially raised grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, but these were abandoned. The issues were narrowed down to whether the testament was executed in the presence of witnesses, whether the acknowledgment clause was signed and sealed by the notary without the presence of the testatrix and witnesses, and if so, whether the codicil was rendered invalid. The Petition: The contestant-appellant argued that the trial court erred in refusing credence to her witnesses who testified that the testatrix signed the will in the presence of only one witness, and that the notary signed the acknowledgment without the presence of the testatrix and witnesses. The appellant also contended that the use of Spanish terms in the codicil indicated the testatrix did not understand its contents.
Issue(s)
Whether the testament of 1950 was executed by the testatrix in the presence of the instrumental witnesses. Whether the acknowledgment clause was signed and the notarial seal affixed by the notary without the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses. If so, whether the codicil was thereby rendered invalid and ineffective. Whether the use of Spanish terms in the codicil indicated the testatrix's lack of understanding.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance admitting the testament and codicil to probate. The appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the testament was executed in the presence of the instrumental witnesses: The Court found the testimony of the contestant's witnesses improbable and squarely contradicted by the concordant testimony of the instrumental witnesses. The Court noted that it was unlikely for the witnesses to insist the testatrix leave her home to sign the will when they could have gone to her. Furthermore, fatal flaws were revealed in the contestant's witnesses' testimony, such as their ability to recall the specific word "testamento" after four years despite it meaning nothing to them, and the implausibility of hearing a conversation from the kitchen separated from the main building. On whether the acknowledgment clause was signed and the notarial seal affixed by the notary without the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses: The Court acknowledged a variance between the instrumental witnesses' assertion that the notary signed and sealed the codicil in their presence and the notary's affirmation that he did so in his office. However, the Court held that this variance did not necessarily imply a perversion of truth but was likely due to the mind's tendency to substitute the usual for the slightly different. The Court found this phenomenon well-established in the recall of past events. On whether the codicil was thereby rendered invalid and ineffective: The Court ruled that the separate signing and sealing of the acknowledgment by the notary, out of the presence of the testatrix and witnesses, does not affect the validity of the codicil. Unlike the Code of 1889, the new Civil Code (Article 806) only requires that the will be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and witnesses, meaning they must avow the authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of their actions. The subsequent signing and sealing of the certification by the notary is not part of the acknowledgment itself nor the testamentary act, and thus its separate execution does not violate the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption. On whether the use of Spanish terms indicated lack of understanding: The Court found this argument unimpressive. It was established in evidence that the Spanish terms used in the codicil were of common use even in the vernacular, and the deceased was a woman of wide business interests, implying she understood such terms.
Main Doctrine
The signing and sealing by a notary public of his certification of acknowledgment of a testamentary instrument, after the acknowledgment has been made by the testator and witnesses, is not part of the acknowledgment itself nor of the testamentary act, and its separate execution out of the presence of the testator and witnesses does not invalidate the testament.