Succession 1
Succession 1
All services which are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public The partition inter vivos of the properties of Don Julian is undoubtedly valid
order or public policy may likewise be the object of a contract. pursuant to Article 1347. However, considering that it would become legally
operative only upon the death of Don Julian, the right of his heirs from the second
Well-entrenched is the rule that all things, even future ones, which are not outside marriage to the properties adjudicated to him under the compromise agreement
the commerce of man may be the object of a contract. The exception is that no was but a mere expectancy. It was a bare hope of succession to the property of
contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritance, and the exception their father. Being the prospect of a future acquisition, the interest by its nature
to the exception is the partition inter vivos referred to in Article 1080. was inchoate. It had no attribute of property, and the interest to which it related
was at the time non-existent and might never exist.
For the inheritance to be considered "future," the succession must not have been
opened at the time of the contract. A contract may be classified as a contract upon Evidently, at the time of the execution of the deed of assignment covering Lot No.
future inheritance, prohibited under the second paragraph of Article 1347, where 63 in favor of petitioner, Don Julian remained the owner of the property since
the following requisites concur: ownership over the subject lot would only pass to his heirs from the second
(1) That the succession has not yet been opened; marriage at the time of his death. Thus, as the owner of the subject lot, Don Julian
(2) That the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and retained the absolute right to dispose of it during his lifetime. His right cannot be
Article 1318 of the New Civil Code enumerates the requisites of a valid contract,
namely: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the
subject matter of the contract; and (3) Cause of the obligation which is established.
Thus, Article 1352 declares that contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause
produce no effect whatsoever. Those contracts lack an essential element and they
are not only voidable but void or inexistent pursuant to Article 1409, paragraph (2).
The absence of the usual recital of consideration in a transaction which normally
should be supported by a consideration such as the assignment made by Don Julian
of all nineteen (19) lots he still had at the time, coupled with the fact that the
assignee is a corporation of which Don Julian himself was also the President and
Director, forecloses the application of the presumption of existence of
consideration established by law.
Neither could the Supplemental Deed validly operate as a donation. Article 749 of
the New Civil Code is clear on the point, thus:
UC School of Law by NY-YO
Wills and Succession 2019-2020
Heirs of Basbas vs. Basbas And, contraposed to the fact that Valentin’s status as a legitimate child of Severo is
already established, Nicolas’ status as a purported heir of Severo can no longer be
Facts: established, Nicolas’ right thereto expiring upon his death.
Severo Basbas and wife Ana River had a son, Valentin. During Severo’s lifetime, he
acquired a property in Sta. Rosa, Laguna (Lot 39). Adjacent to this lot (Lot 40) was Glaringly, there is no pretension from respondent’s end that Nicolas was born of a
later acquired by Valentin. Petitioner heirs of Valentin Basbas discovered that valid marriage, only that he is Severo’s son. Nonetheless, even if respondents were
Crispiniano and Ricardo Basbas y Talampas (grandchildren of Nicolas Basbas) minded to establish the status of Nicolas, whether he is a legitimate or an
secured for themselves a TCT over Lot 39, on the basis of an Extra-Judicial illegitimate child of Severo, such can no longer be done.
Settlement of Estate of deceased Severo Basbas which states that the only heirs of
Severo are Felomino Basbas and Melencio Casubha. In Heirs of Yaptinchay, the complaint for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of
certain TCT's was dismissed for failure of the petitioners to demonstrate "any proof
Petitioners filed an action for Annulment of Title and Reconveyance with Damages or even a semblance of it" that they had been declared the legal heirs of the
against Crispiniano and Ricardo, who both denied petitioner’s ownership over Lot
deceased couple, the spouses Yaptinchay. In stark contrast, the records of this case
39, contending that Severo was survived by Valentin and Nicolas Basbas (paternal
reveal a document, an Extrajudicial Settlement of Marcelo Sr.'s estate, which
grandfather of Crispiniano and Ricardo), who evenly divided Severo’s estate – Lot
39 was inherited by Nicolas, and Lot 40 was inherited by Valentin. This, however, explicitly recognizes herein respondents as Marcelo Sr.'s legitimate children and
was not supported by any document. The MTC and RTC ruled in favour of heirs. The same document settles and partitions the estate of Marcelo Sr. specifying
petitioners, after finding that petitioners fully established their filiation with Severo. Teofista's paraphernal properties, and separates the properties she owns in
The CA, however, reversed said ruling, and applied the ruling in Heirs of Yaptinchay common with her children, herein respondents. Plainly, there is no need to re-
v. Hon. Del Rosario, holding that matters on filiation and heirship fall within the declare herein respondents as heirs of Marcelo Sr., and prolong this case
jurisdiction of a probate court, which the MTC or RTC of Sta. Rosa were not interminably.
designated to be, and that these matters must be threshed out in a special
proceeding. Thus, we find no need for a separate proceeding for a declaration of the heirs of
Severo in order to resolve petitioners’ Action for Annulment of Title and
Issue and Ruling: W/N the ruling in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Hon. Del Rosario is Reconveyance of the subject property. Prescinding from the foregoing, a closer
applicable in this case scrutiny of the documents presented in evidence by Crispiniano and Ricardo before
the trial court, betray the fraudulence of their claim.
Negative; Not only is the petitioners’ heirship to Severo uncontroverted. The status
of Valentin as a compulsory heir of Severo and of petitioners’ statuses as heirs of
Valentin and Severo are stipulated facts agreed to by Crispiniano and respondent
Ricardo.
On the other hand, Crispiniano and respondent Ricardo miserably fail to establish
the status of their ascendant and purported predecessor-ininterest, Nicolas. In fact,
the testimony of respondent Ricardo tells about the status of Valentin, not about
Nicolas’ status, as a compulsory heir of Severo.
In all, Valentin’s long-possessed status as a legitimate child and thus, heir of Severo,
need no longer be the subject of a special proceeding for declaration of heirship as
envisioned by the Court of Appeals. There is no need to re-declare his statusas an
heir of Severo.
The existence of the questioned certificates of title, and other related documents,
constitute clouds on said interest. There seems, therefore, to be no necessity that
the plaintiff should have been declared first as an heir of Norberta Bas as a
prerequisite to this action. Her possession of the subject lot under a claim of
ownership is a sufficient interest to entitle her to bring this suit. (Citation omitted)
This case has gone a long way since the complaint was filed in 1997. A full-blown
trial had taken place and judgment was rendered by the Regional Trial Court where
it thoroughly discussed, evaluated, and weighed all the pieces of documentary
evidence and testimonies of the witnesses of both parties. At this point, to dismiss
the case and require petitioner to institute a special proceeding to determine her
status as heir of the late Norberta would hamper, instead of serve, justice.
"Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the
absence of proof to the contrary.
"The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time
of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the
will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was
publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the
will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval."
According to Article 799, the three things that the testator must have the ability to
know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the nature of the estate to
be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the testator’s bounty, and (3) the character
of the testamentary act. Applying this test to the present case, we find that the
appellate court was correct in holding that Placido had testamentary capacity at the
time of the execution of his will.
It must be noted that despite his advanced age, he was still able to identify
accurately the kinds of property he owned, the extent of his shares in them and
even their locations. As regards the proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient
that he identified his wife as sole beneficiary. As we have stated earlier, the
omission of some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There
being no showing of fraud in its execution, intent in its disposition becomes
irrelevant.
Abada executed his will on 4 June 1932. The laws in force at that time are the Civil (3) W/N the will must expressly state that it is written in a language or dialect
Code of 1889 or the Old Civil Code, and Act No. 190 or the Code of Civil known to the testator
Procedure which governed the execution of wills before the enactment of the New
Civil Code. Negative; Caponong-Noble points out that nowhere in the will can one discern that
Abada knew the Spanish language. She alleges that such defect is fatal and must
The matter in dispute in the present case is the attestation clause in the will of result in the disallowance of the will. On this issue, the Court of Appeals held that
Abada. Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. the matter was not raised in the motion to dismiss, and that it is now too late to
2645, governs the form of the attestation clause of Abada’s will. raise the issue on appeal. We agree with Caponong-Noble that the doctrine of
estoppel does not apply in probate proceedings. In addition, the language used in
(2) W/N the will of Abada requires acknowledgement before a notary public the will is part of the requisites under Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and the Court deems it proper to pass upon this issue.
Negative; Caponong-Noble asserts that the will of Abada does not indicate that it is
written in a language or dialect known to the testator. Further, she maintains that Nevertheless, Caponong-Noble’s contention must still fail. There is no statutory
the will is not acknowledged before a notary public. She cites in particular Articles requirement to state in the will itself that the testator knew the language or dialect
804 and 805 of the Old Civil Code, thus: used in the will. This is a matter that a party may establish by
proof aliunde. Caponong-Noble further argues that Alipio, in his testimony, has
Art. 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in [a] language or failed, among others, to show that Abada knew or understood the contents of the
dialect known to the testator. will and the Spanish language used in the will. However, Alipio testified that Abada
used to gather Spanish-speaking people in their place. In these gatherings, Abada
UC School of Law by NY-YO
Wills and Succession 2019-2020
and his companions would talk in the Spanish language. This sufficiently proves that a long series of cases to support his view. The Court, after examining the cases
Abada speaks the Spanish language. invoked by the parties, held:
(4) (a) W/N the will of Abada has an attestation clause, and if so, (b) whether x x x It is, of course, not possible to lay down a general rule, rigid and
the attestation clause complies with the requirements of the applicable inflexible, which would be applicable to all cases. More than anything else,
laws the facts and circumstances of record are to be considered in the
application of any given rule. If the surrounding circumstances point to a
(a) Affirmative; A scrutiny of Abada’s will shows that it has an attestation clause. regular execution of the will, and the instrument appears to have been
executed substantially in accordance with the requirements of the law, the
Caponong-Noble proceeds to point out several defects in the attestation clause. inclination should, in the absence of any suggestion of bad faith, forgery or
Caponong-Noble alleges that the attestation clause fails to state the number of fraud, lean towards its admission to probate, although the document may
pages on which the will is written. suffer from some imperfection of language, or other non-essential defect.
x x x.
The allegation has no merit. The phrase "en el margen izquierdo de todas y cada
una de las dos hojas de que esta compuesto el mismo" which means "in the left An attestation clause is made for the purpose of preserving, in permanent
margin of each and every one of the two pages consisting of the same" shows that form, a record of the facts attending the execution of the will, so that in
the will consists of two pages. The pages are numbered correlatively with the letters case of failure of the memory of the subscribing witnesses, or other
"ONE" and "TWO" as can be gleaned from the phrase "las cuales estan paginadas casualty, they may still be proved. (Thompson on Wills, 2d ed., sec. 132.) A
correlativamente con las letras "UNO" y "DOS." will, therefore, should not be rejected where its attestation clause serves
the purpose of the law. x x x
Caponong-Noble further alleges that the attestation clause fails to state expressly
that the testator signed the will and its every page in the presence of three (b) Affirmative; We rule to apply the liberal construction in the probate of Abada’s
witnesses. She then faults the Court of Appeals for applying to the present case the will. Abada’s will clearly shows four signatures: that of Abada and of three other
rule on substantial compliance found in Article 809 of the New Civil Code. persons. It is reasonable to conclude that there are three witnesses to the will. The
The first sentence of the attestation clause reads: "Suscrito y declarado por el question on the number of the witnesses is answered by an examination of the will
testador Alipio Abada como su ultima voluntad y testamento en presencia de itself and without the need for presentation of evidence aliunde. The Court
nosotros, habiendo tambien el testador firmado en nuestra presencia en el margen explained the extent and limits of the rule on liberal construction, thus:
izquierdo de todas y cada una de las hojas del mismo." The English translation is:
"Subscribed and professed by the testator Alipio Abada as his last will and [T]he so-called liberal rule does not offer any puzzle or difficulty, nor does
testament in our presence, the testator having also signed it in our presence on the it open the door to serious consequences. The later decisions do tell us
left margin of each and every one of the pages of the same." The attestation clause when and where to stop; they draw the dividing line with precision. They
clearly states that Abada signed the will and its every page in the presence of the do not allow evidence aliunde to fill a void in any part of the document or
witnesses. supply missing details that should appear in the will itself. They only
permit a probe into the will, an exploration within its confines, to
However, Caponong-Noble is correct in saying that the attestation clause does not ascertain its meaning or to determine the existence or absence of the
indicate the number of witnesses. On this point, the Court agrees with the appellate requisite formalities of law. This clear, sharp limitation eliminates
court in applying the rule on substantial compliance in determining the number of uncertainty and ought to banish any fear of dire results.
witnesses. While the attestation clause does not state the number of witnesses, a
close inspection of the will shows that three witnesses signed it. (5) W/N the attestation clause of Abada’s will does not expressly state the
circumstances that the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all its
In Adeva vda. De Leynez v. Leynez, the petitioner, arguing for liberal construction of pages in the presence of the testator and of each other
applicable laws, enumerated a long line of cases to support her argument while the
respondent, contending that the rule on strict construction should apply, also cited Negative; Precision of language in the drafting of an attestation clause is desirable.
However, it is not imperative that a parrot-like copy of the words of the statute be
UC School of Law by NY-YO
Wills and Succession 2019-2020
made. It is sufficient if from the language employed it can reasonably be deduced
that the attestation clause fulfills what the law expects of it.
The last part of the attestation clause states "en testimonio de ello, cada uno de
nosotros lo firmamos en presencia de nosotros y del testador." In English, this
means "in its witness, every one of us also signed in our presence and of the
testator." This clearly shows that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing of
the will of the testator, and that each witness signed the will in the presence of one
another and of the testator.
The petition was opposed by Geralda Castillo, who represented as the attorney-in- The case of In re Will of Andrada concerned a will the attestation clause of which
fact of the 12 legitimate heirs of Igsolo. Castillo claimed that the will is a forgery, failed to state the number of sheets or pages used. This consideration alone was
only made to be utilized as a defense in the cases (forcible entry and usurpation of sufficient for the Court to declare "unanim[ity] upon the point that the defect
real property) filed by oppositor against petitioner. Oppositor asserted that Eugenia pointed out in the attesting clause is fatal." It was further observed that "it cannot
was actually survived by 12 legitimate heirs (grandchildren) who were then residing be denied that the x x x requirement affords additional security against the danger
abroad. Oppositor also argued that the will was not executed and attested to in that the will may be tampered with; and as the Legislature has seen fit to prescribe
accordance with law, pointing out that the decedent’s signature did not appear on this requirement, it must be considered material."
the second page of the will and that the will was not properly acknowledged.
Both Uy Coque and Andrada were decided prior to the enactment of the Civil Code
The RTC admitted the will to probate, after a careful examination of the will and in 1950, at a time when the statutory provision governing the formal requirement
consideration of the testimonies of the subscribing and attesting witnesses and of wills was Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance on these cases
having in mind the liberalization of the interpretation of the law. It also considered remains apropos, considering that the requirement that the attestation state the
the requirements of the law on the attestation and acknowledgement to have been number of pages of the will is extant from Section 618. However, the enactment of
substantially complied with. The CA reversed the RTC and ordered dismissal of the the Civil Code in 1950 did put in force a rule of interpretation of the requirements
petition for probate after noting that the attestation clause failed to state the of wills, at least insofar as the attestation clause is concerned, that may vary from
number of pages used in the will, thus rendering it void. the philosophy that governed these two cases. Article 809 of the Civil Code states:
"In the absence of bad faith, forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and
In the present petition, petitioner argues that Art. 805 of the Civil code is merely influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language
directory and thus susceptible to the substantial compliance rule. used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact
executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of article
Issue and Ruling: W/N the will complied with the requisites under the law 805."
Negative; As admitted by petitioner himself, the attestation clause fails to state the Caneda v. Court of Appeals features an extensive discussion made by Justice
number of pages of the will. There was an incomplete attempt to comply with this Regalado, speaking for the Court on the conflicting views on the manner of
requisite, a space having been allotted for the insertion of the number of pages in interpretation of the legal formalities required in the execution of the attestation
the attestation clause. Yet the blank was never filled in; hence, the requisite was clause in wills. Uy Coque and Andrada are cited therein, along with several other
left uncomplied with. cases, as examples of the application of the rule of strict construction. However, the
Code Commission opted to recommend a more liberal construction through the
The Court of Appeals pounced on this defect in reversing the trial court, citing in the "substantial compliance rule" under Article 809. A cautionary note was struck
process Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca and In re: Will of Andrada. In Uy Coque, the though by Justice J.B.L. Reyes as to how Article 809 should be applied:
Court noted that among the defects of the will in question was the failure of the
attestation clause to state the number of pages contained in the will. In ruling that x x x The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be
the will could not be admitted to probate, the Court made the following supplied by an examination of the will itself: whether all the pages are
consideration which remains highly relevant to this day: "The purpose of requiring consecutively numbered; whether the signatures appear in each and every
the number of sheets to be stated in the attestation clause is obvious; the page; whether the subscribing witnesses are three or the will was
UC School of Law by NY-YO
Wills and Succession 2019-2020
notarized. All these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or that they saw fit to prescribe substantially the same formal requisites as
even omissions concerning them in the attestation clause can be safely enumerated in Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, convinced that these
disregarded. But the total number of pages, and whether all persons remained effective safeguards against the forgery or intercalation of notarial
required to sign did so in the presence of each other must substantially wills. Compliance with these requirements, however picayune in impression,
appear in the attestation clause, being the only check against perjury in affords the public a high degree of comfort that the testator himself or herself had
the probate proceedings. (Emphasis supplied.) decided to convey property post mortem in the manner established in the will. The
transcendent legislative intent, even as expressed in the cited comments of the
The Court of Appeals did cite these comments by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in its assailed Code Commission, is for the fruition of the testator’s incontestable desires, and
decision, considering that the failure to state the number of pages of the will in the not for the indulgent admission of wills to probate.
attestation clause is one of the defects which cannot be simply disregarded.
In Caneda itself, the Court refused to allow the probate of a will whose attestation The Court could thus end here and affirm the Court of Appeals. However, an
clause failed to state that the witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to examination of the will itself reveals a couple of even more critical defects that
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other, the other omission cited should necessarily lead to its rejection.
by Justice J.B.L. Reyes which to his estimation cannot be lightly disregarded.
For one, the attestation clause was not signed by the instrumental witnesses.
Caneda suggested: "[I]t may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that
omission which can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the Cagro v. Cagro is material on this point. As in this case, "the signatures of the three
need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would witnesses to the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause,
not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed. However, those although the page containing the same is signed by the witnesses on the left-hand
omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the margin." While three (3) Justices considered the signature requirement had been
invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself." Thus, a substantially complied with, a majority of six (6), speaking through Chief Justice
failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can be Paras, ruled that the attestation clause had not been duly signed, rendering the will
liberally construed, since that fact can be checked by a visual examination; while a fatally defective.
failure by the attestation clause to state that the witnesses signed in one another’s
presence should be considered a fatal flaw since the attestation is the only textual There is no question that the signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not
guarantee of compliance. appear at the bottom of the attestation clause, although the page containing the
same is signed by the witnesses on the left-hand margin.
The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on which the will
was written remains a fatal flaw, despite Article 809. The purpose of the law in We are of the opinion that the position taken by the appellant is correct. The
requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which the will is written is to attestation clause is "a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the
safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and will" required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily
to prevent any increase or decrease in the pages. The failure to state the number of bear their signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act
pages equates with the absence of an averment on the part of the instrumental of the witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof
witnesses as to how many pages consisted the will, the execution of which they had negatives their participation.
ostensibly just witnessed and subscribed to. Following Caneda, there is substantial
compliance with this requirement if the will states elsewhere in it how many pages The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three witnesses on the
it is comprised of, as was the situation in Singson and Taboada. However, in this left-hand margin conform substantially to the law and may be deemed as their
case, there could have been no substantial compliance with the requirements under signatures to the attestation clause. This is untenable, because said signatures are
Article 805 since there is no statement in the attestation clause or anywhere in the in compliance with the legal mandate that the will be signed on the left-hand
will itself as to the number of pages which comprise the will. margin of all its pages. If an attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at
the bottom thereof, be admitted as sufficient, it would be easy to add such clause
At the same time, Article 809 should not deviate from the need to comply with the to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or all
formal requirements as enumerated under Article 805. Whatever the inclinations of of the witnesses.
the members of the Code Commission in incorporating Article 805, the fact remains
UC School of Law by NY-YO
Wills and Succession 2019-2020
The Court today reiterates the continued efficacy of Cagro. Article 805 particularly deed. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to
segregates the requirement that the instrumental witnesses sign each page of the the notary that the executor of a document has attested to the notary that the
will, from the requisite that the will be "attested and subscribed by [the same is his/her own free act and deed.
instrumental witnesses]." The respective intents behind these two classes of
signature are distinct from each other. The signatures on the left-hand corner of It might be possible to construe the averment as a jurat, even though it does not
every page signify, among others, that the witnesses are aware that the page they hew to the usual language thereof. A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the
are signing forms part of the will. On the other hand, the signatures to the notary certifies that before him/her, the document was subscribed and sworn to by
attestation clause establish that the witnesses are referring to the statements the executor. Ordinarily, the language of the jurat should avow that the document
contained in the attestation clause itself. Indeed, the attestation clause is separate was subscribed and sworn before the notary public, while in this case, the notary
and apart from the disposition of the will. An unsigned attestation clause results in public averred that he himself "signed and notarized" the document. Possibly
an unattested will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin though, the word "ninotario" or "notarized" encompasses the signing of and
of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause, such signatures cannot swearing in of the executors of the document, which in this case would involve the
demonstrate these witnesses’ undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that decedent and the instrumental witnesses.
do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal.
Yet even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as a jurat, the will
The Court may be more charitably disposed had the witnesses in this case signed would nonetheless remain invalid, as the express requirement of Article 806 is that
the attestation clause itself, but not the left-hand margin of the page containing the will be "acknowledged", and not merely subscribed and sworn to. The will does
such clause. Without diminishing the value of the instrumental witnesses’ not present any textual proof, much less one under oath, that the decedent and the
signatures on each and every page, the fact must be noted that it is the attestation instrumental witnesses executed or signed the will as their own free act or deed.
clause which contains the utterances reduced into writing of the testamentary The acknowledgment made in a will provides for another all-important legal
witnesses themselves. It is the witnesses, and not the testator, who are required safeguard against spurious wills or those made beyond the free consent of the
under Article 805 to state the number of pages used upon which the will is written; testator. An acknowledgement is not an empty meaningless act. The
the fact that the testator had signed the will and every page thereof; and that they acknowledgment coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare
witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the before an officer of the law that they had executed and subscribed to the will as
testator and of one another. The only proof in the will that the witnesses have their own free act or deed. Such declaration is under oath and under pain of
stated these elemental facts would be their signatures on the attestation clause. perjury, thus allowing for the criminal prosecution of persons who participate in the
execution of spurious wills, or those executed without the free consent of the
Thus, the subject will cannot be considered to have been validly attested to by the testator. It also provides a further degree of assurance that the testator is of certain
instrumental witnesses, as they failed to sign the attestation clause. mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to those persons he/she had
designated in the will.
Yet, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition
should also hinge. The requirement under Article 806 that "every will must be It may not have been said before, but we can assert the rule, self-evident as it is
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses" has also under Article 806. A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public
not been complied with. The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the by the testator and the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and
fact that it had been segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and sworn to before a notary public.
entrusted into a separate provision, Article 806. The non-observance of Article 806
in this case is equally as critical as the other cited flaws in compliance with Article
805, and should be treated as of equivalent import.