Guerrero v. Bihis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura executed a last will and testament. Her daughter, petitioner Bella A. Guerrero, filed a petition for its probate, alleging she was named executrix and that the decedent was of sound mind and acted without duress at the time of execution. Respondent Resurreccion A. Bihis, another daughter, opposed the probate, claiming the will was not executed and attested as required by law, its attestation clause and acknowledgment did not comply with legal requirements, and the testatrix's signature was procured by fraud, with petitioner unduly influencing the will's procurement. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) appointed petitioner as special administratrix. After petitioner presented her evidence, respondent filed a demurrer, arguing non-compliance with Articles 804 and 805 of the Civil Code. The RTC denied probate, finding that Article 806 was not complied with because the will was acknowledged by the testatrix and witnesses at the testatrix's residence in Quezon City before a notary public commissioned for Caloocan City. The RTC ordered that intestate succession would govern the estate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's resolution. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, admitting that the will was acknowledged before a notary public outside his territorial jurisdiction but asserting that this fact did not affect the will's validity. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the acknowledgment of a notarial will before a notary public acting outside his territorial jurisdiction satisfied the requirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the acknowledgment of a notarial will before a notary public acting outside his territorial jurisdiction satisfies the requirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code. Whether the violation of mandatory or prohibitory statutes in the execution of an acknowledgment renders the act void.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, which upheld the RTC's resolution disallowing the probate of the will. The Court ruled that the acknowledgment of the will was void because it was performed by a notary public outside his territorial jurisdiction, rendering the will invalid and subject to intestate succession. The Court also directed that Atty. Macario O. Directo show cause why he should not be administratively sanctioned.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the acknowledgment of a notarial will before a notary public is an indispensable requisite for its validity under Article 806 of the Civil Code. An acknowledgment is the declaration by the testator and witnesses before a competent officer that they executed the will as their own free act or deed. This declaration must be made before a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public. The Notarial Law, specifically Section 240, explicitly states that the jurisdiction of a notary public is co-extensive with his province or city of commission, and no notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. Therefore, a notary public acting outside his territorial jurisdiction is bereft of power to perform any notarial act, and any such act is void, as if the person taking it were wholly without official character. In this case, Atty. Directo, commissioned for Caloocan City, lacked the authority to take the acknowledgment in Quezon City, rendering the acknowledgment invalid. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws are void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity, as provided by Article 5 of the Civil Code. The execution of the acknowledgment in this case violated the mandatory language of Article 806 of the Civil Code and the interdiction of Article 240 of the Notarial Law. These transgressions of mandatory and prohibitory statutes rendered the acts of the testatrix, her witnesses, and Atty. Directo completely void. The intent of the law to effectuate the decedent's final statements through her will was frustrated due to the unlawful acknowledgment, leading to the disallowance of the will and the application of intestate succession.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that the acknowledgment of a notarial will before a notary public is a mandatory requirement for its validity under Article 806 of the Civil Code. If the notary public performs this act outside his territorial jurisdiction, as prohibited by Section 240 of the Notarial Law, the acknowledgment is void. Consequently, the will, not having been validly acknowledged, is void and cannot be admitted to probate, leading to intestate succession.