Cruz v. Villasor
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the probate of the last will and testament of the late Valente Z. Cruz. Agapita N. Cruz, the surviving spouse, opposed the probate, alleging that the will was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and undue influence. She further contended that the testator was not fully informed of the will's contents and that it was not executed in accordance with legal requirements. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner, Agapita N. Cruz, filed an opposition to the probate of the will in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Despite her objections, the trial court allowed the probate of the will. This decision led to the present petition for review on certiorari filed by Agapita N. Cruz. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review on certiorari of the lower court's decision. The core issue presented is whether the supposed last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz was executed in accordance with Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code. Specifically, the petitioner argues that the will fails to meet the requirement of having at least three credible witnesses, as one of the attesting witnesses, Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr., also acted as the notary public before whom the will was acknowledged. This, the petitioner contends, effectively reduces the number of attesting witnesses before the notary to two, rendering the acknowledgment invalid.
Issue(s)
Whether the acknowledgment of a will before a notary public who is also one of the instrumental witnesses satisfies the legal requirements of Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, declaring the probate of the last will and testament of Valente Z. Cruz (Exhibit "E") as not valid and setting it aside. The Court ruled that the will was not executed in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the last will and testament in question was not executed in accordance with law. The Court reasoned that the notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness because he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. The act of acknowledging requires one to "avow, own as genuine, assent, or admit," and this must be done "before" another person. A notary public cannot split his personality to acknowledge his signature before himself, which would be an absurdity. Furthermore, the function of a notary public is to guard against illegal or immoral arrangements, a role that would be compromised if he were also an interested witness to the will's validity. This would place him in an inconsistent position and thwart the purpose of acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud. While American precedents exist where a notary may also act as a witness, these do not serve the purpose of Philippine law, especially when the notary acts not only as an attesting witness but also as the acknowledging witness. Article 806 explicitly requires the testator and the witnesses to acknowledge the will before a notary public. If the notary is one of the witnesses, it effectively means only two witnesses appeared before the notary for acknowledgment, contravening Article 805 which requires at least three credible witnesses. Therefore, the law would not be duly observed.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that a notary public cannot simultaneously act as an instrumental witness to a will and the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged. This dual role violates the requirement of Article 805 of the Civil Code for at least three credible witnesses and the mandate of Article 806 that the testator and witnesses must acknowledge the will before a notary public. The Court reasoned that the notary cannot acknowledge his own signature before himself, and allowing this would effectively reduce the number of attesting witnesses to two, thereby invalidating the will.