THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 122880. April 12, 2006.]

FELIX AZUELA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GERALDA

AIDA CASTILLO substituted by ERNESTO G. CASTILLO ,
respondents.

DECISION

TINGA, J : p

The core of this petition is a highly defective notarial will, purportedly

executed by Eugenia E. Igsolo (decedent), who died on 16 December 1982
at the age of 80. In refusing to give legal recognition to the due execution of
this document, the Court is provided the opportunity to assert a few
important doctrinal rules in the execution of notarial wills, all self-evident in
view of Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code.
A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of
pages on which the will is written is fatally defective. A will whose
attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is
fatally defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will which does
not contain an acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally
defective. Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A
notarial will with all three defects is just aching for judicial
rejection.
There is a distinct and consequential reason the Civil Code provides a
comprehensive catalog of imperatives for the proper execution of a notarial
will. Full and faithful compliance with all the detailed requisites under Article
805 of the Code leave little room for doubt as to the validity in the due
execution of the notarial will. Article 806 likewise imposes another safeguard
to the validity of notarial wills — that they be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witnesses. A notarial will executed with
indifference to these two codal provisions opens itself to nagging questions
as to its legitimacy.
The case stems from a petition for probate filed on 10 April 1984 with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The petition filed by petitioner Felix
Azuela sought to admit to probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo,
which was notarized on 10 June 1981. Petitioner is the son of the cousin of
the decedent.
The will, consisting of two (2) pages and written in the vernacular
Pilipino, read in full:
HULING HABILIN NI EUGENIA E. IGSOLO

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 SA NGALAN NG MAYKAPAL, AMEN:

AKO, si EUGENIA E. IGSOLO, nakatira sa 500 San Diego St.,

Sampaloc, Manila, pitongput siyam (79) na gulang, nasa hustong pagi-
isip, pag-unawa at memoria ay nag-hahayag na ito na ang aking huling
habilin at testamento, at binabali wala ko lahat ang naunang ginawang
habilin o testamento:
Una-Hinihiling ko na ako ay mailibing sa Sementerio del Norte, La
Loma sang-ayong sa kaugalian at patakaran ng simbahang katoliko at
ang taga-pag-ingat (Executor) ng habiling ito ay magtatayo ng
bantayog upang silbing ala-ala sa akin ng aking pamilya at kaibigan;
Pangalawa-Aking ipinagkakaloob at isinasalin ang lahat ng
karapatan sa aking pamangkin na si Felix Azuela, na siyang nag-alaga
sa akin sa mahabang panahon, yaong mga bahay na nakatirik sa lote
numero 28, Block 24 at nakapangalan sa Pechaten Korporasyon,
ganoon din ibinibigay ko ang lahat ng karapatan sa bahay na nakatirik
sa inoopahan kong lote, numero 43, Block 24 na pag-aari ng Pechaten
Corporation. Ipinagkakaloob kong buong buo ang lahat ng karapatan
sa bahay at lupa na nasa 500 San Diego St., Lot 42, Block 24,
Sampaloc, Manila kay Felix Azuela at ang pagkakaloob kong ito ay
walang pasubali't at kondiciones;

Pangatlo- Na ninunumbrahan ko si VART PAGUE na siyang

nagpapatupad ng huling habiling ito at kagustuhan ko rin na hindi na
kailanman siyang mag-lagak ng piyansiya.

Aking nilagdaan ang Huling Habilin na ito dito sa Maynila ika 10

ng Hunyo, 1981. TcDHSI

(Sgd.)
EUGENIA E. IGSOLO
(Tagapagmana)

PATUNAY NG MGA SAKSI

Ang kasulatang ito, na binubuo ng _____ dahon pati ang huling

dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa amin ni Eugenia E. Igsolo, tagapagmana
na siya niyang Huling Habilin, ngayon ika-10 ng Hunyo 1981, ay
nilagdaan ng nasabing tagapagmana sa ilalim ng kasulatang nabanggit
at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawa't dahon, sa harap ng lahat at
bawa't sa amin, at kami namang mga saksi ay lumagda sa harap ng
nasabing tagapagmana at sa harap ng lahat at bawa't isa sa amin, sa
ilalim ng nasabing kasulatan at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawa't
dahon ng kasulatan ito.

EUGENIA E. IGSOLO
address: 500 San Diego St.
Sampaloc, Manila Res. Cert. No. A-7717-37
Issued at Manila on March 10, 1981.
QUIRINO AGRAVA
address: 1228-Int. 3, Kahilum
Pandacan, Manila Res. Cert. No. A-458365
Issued at Manila on Jan. 21, 1981
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 LAMBERTO C. LEAÑO
address: Avenue 2, Block 7,
Lot 61, San Gabriel, G.MA., Cavite Res.
Cert. No. A-768277 issued at Carmona, Cavite
on Feb. 7, 1981

JUANITO ESTRERA
address: City Court Compound,
City of Manila Res. Cert. No. A574829
Issued at Manila on March 2, 1981.

Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10, 1981 dito

sa Lungsod ng Maynila.

(Sgd.)
PETRONIO Y. BAUTISTA
NOTARIO PUBLIKO
Until Dec. 31, 1981
PTR-152041-1/2/81-Manila
TAN # 1437-977-8 1

Doc. No. 1232;

Page No. 86;
Book No. 43;
Series of 1981

The three named witnesses to the will affixed their signatures on the
left-hand margin of both pages of the will, but not at the bottom of the
attestation clause.
The probate petition adverted to only two (2) heirs, legatees and
devisees of the decedent, namely: petitioner himself, and one Irene Lynn
Igsolo, who was alleged to have resided abroad. Petitioner prayed that the
will be allowed, and that letters testamentary be issued to the designated
executor, Vart Prague.
The petition was opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo (Geralda Castillo),
who represented herself as the attorney-in-fact of "the 12 legitimate heirs"
of the decedent. 2 Geralda Castillo claimed that the will is a forgery, and that
the true purpose of its emergence was so it could be utilized as a defense in
several court cases filed by oppositor against petitioner, particularly for
forcible entry and usurpation of real property, all centering on petitioner's
right to occupy the properties of the decedent. 3 It also asserted that
contrary to the representations of petitioner, the decedent was actually
survived by 12 legitimate heirs, namely her grandchildren, who were then
residing abroad. Per records, it was subsequently alleged that decedent was
the widow of Bonifacio Igsolo, who died in 1965, 4 and the mother of a
legitimate child, Asuncion E. Igsolo, who predeceased her mother by three
(3) months. 5
Oppositor Geralda Castillo also argued that the will was not executed
and attested to in accordance with law. She pointed out that decedent's
signature did not appear on the second page of the will, and the will was not
properly acknowledged. These twin arguments are among the central
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 matters to this petition.
After due trial, the RTC admitted the will to probate, in an Order dated
10 August 1992. 6 The RTC favorably took into account the testimony of the
three (3) witnesses to the will, Quirino Agrava, Lamberto Leano, and Juanito
Estrada. The RTC also called to fore "the modern tendency in respect to the
formalities in the execution of a will . . . with the end in view of giving the
testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes;" 7 and from this
perspective, rebutted oppositor's arguments that the will was not properly
executed and attested to in accordance with law.
After a careful examination of the will and consideration of the
testimonies of the subscribing and attesting witnesses, and having in
mind the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the
execution of a will, i.e., the liberalization of the interpretation of the law
on the formal requirements of a will with the end in view of giving the
testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes, this Court is
persuaded to rule that the will in question is authentic and had been
executed by the testatrix in accordance with law.
On the issue of lack of acknowledgement, this Court has noted
that at the end of the will after the signature of the testatrix, the
following statement is made under the sub-title, "Patunay Ng Mga
Saksi":
"Ang kasulatang ito, na binubuo ng _____ dahon pati ang
huling dahong ito, na ipinahayag sa amin ni Eugenia N. Igsolo,
tagapagmana na siya niyang Huling Habilin, ngayong ika-10 ng
Hunyo 1981, ay nilagdaan ng nasabing tagapagmana sa ilalim ng
kasulatang nabanggit at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawa't
dahon, sa harap ng lahat at bawa't sa amin, at kami namang
mga saksi ay lumagda sa harap ng nasabing tagapagmana at sa
harap ng lahat at bawa't isa sa amin, sa ilalim ng nasabing
kasulatan at sa kaliwang panig ng lahat at bawa't dahon ng
kasulatan ito."

The aforequoted declaration comprises the attestation clause

and the acknowledgement and is considered by this Court as a
substantial compliance with the requirements of the law.

On the oppositor's contention that the attestation clause was not

signed by the subscribing witnesses at the bottom thereof, this Court is
of the view that the signing by the subscribing witnesses on the left
margin of the second page of the will containing the attestation clause
and acknowledgment, instead of at the bottom thereof, substantially
satisfies the purpose of identification and attestation of the will.

With regard to the oppositor's argument that the will was not
numbered correlatively in letters placed on upper part of each page
and that the attestation did not state the number of pages thereof, it is
worthy to note that the will is composed of only two pages. The first
page contains the entire text of the testamentary dispositions, and the
second page contains the last portion of the attestation clause and
acknowledgement. Such being so, the defects are not of a serious
nature as to invalidate the will. For the same reason, the failure of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 testatrix to affix her signature on the left margin of the second page,
which contains only the last portion of the attestation clause and
acknowledgment is not a fatal defect.

As regards the oppositor's assertion that the signature of the

testatrix on the will is a forgery, the testimonies of the three
subscribing witnesses to the will are convincing enough to establish the
genuineness of the signature of the testatrix and the due execution of
the will. 8

The Order was appealed to the Court of Appeals by Ernesto Castillo,

who had substituted his since deceased mother-in-law, Geralda Castillo. In a
Decision dated 17 August 1995, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
and ordered the dismissal of the petition for probate. 9 The Court of Appeals
noted that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in
the will, thus rendering the will void and undeserving of probate. 10
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner argues that the requirement under Article 805 of the Civil
Code that "the number of pages used in a notarial will be stated in the
attestation clause" is merely directory, rather than mandatory, and thus
susceptible to what he termed as "the substantial compliance rule." 11
The solution to this case calls for the application of Articles 805 and
806 of the Civil Code, which we replicate in full.
Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be
subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the
testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by
his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

The testator or the person requested by him to write his name

and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid,
each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and
all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the
upper part of each page.
The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which
the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and
every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name,
under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the
pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the

witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them.
Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be
required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the
Clerk of Court.

The appellate court, in its Decision, considered only one defect, the
failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages of the will. But
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 an examination of the will itself reveals several more deficiencies.
As admitted by petitioner himself, the attestation clause fails to state
the number of pages of the will. 12 There was an incomplete attempt to
comply with this requisite, a space having been allotted for the insertion of
the number of pages in the attestation clause. Yet the blank was never filled
in; hence, the requisite was left uncomplied with.
The Court of Appeals pounced on this defect in reversing the trial
court, citing in the process Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca 13 and In re: Will of
Andrada. 14 In Uy Coque, the 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. 15 In ruling that the will could not be admitted to
probate, the Court made the following consideration which remains highly
relevant to this day: "The purpose of requiring the number of sheets to be
stated in the attestation clause is obvious; the document might easily be
so prepared that the removal of a sheet would completely change
the testamentary dispositions of the will and in the absence of a
statement of the total number of sheets such removal might be
effected by taking out the sheet and changing the numbers at the
top of the following sheets or pages. If, on the other hand, the total
number of sheets is stated in the attestation clause the falsification of the
document will involve the inserting of new pages and the forging of the
signatures of the testator and witnesses in the margin, a matter attended
with much greater difficulty." 16
The case of In re Will of Andrada concerned a will the attestation clause
of which failed to state the number of sheets or pages used. This
consideration alone was sufficient for the Court to declare "unanim[ity] upon
the point that the defect pointed out in the attesting clause is fatal." 17 It
was further observed that "it cannot be denied that the . . . requirement
affords additional security against the danger that the will may be tampered
with; and as the Legislature has seen fit to prescribe this requirement, it
must be considered material." 18
Against these cited cases, petitioner cites Singson v. Florentino 19 and
Taboada v. Hon. Rosal , 20 wherein the Court allowed probate to the wills
concerned therein despite the fact that the attestation clause did not state
the number of pages of the will. Yet the appellate court itself considered the
import of these two cases, and made the following distinction which
petitioner is unable to rebut, and which we adopt with approval:
Even a cursory examination of the Will (Exhibit "D"), will readily
show that the attestation does not state the number of pages used
upon which the will is written. Hence, the Will is void and undeserving
of probate.
We are not impervious of the Decisions of the Supreme Court in
"Manuel Singson versus Emilia Florentino, et al., 92 Phil. 161 and
Apolonio [Taboada] versus Hon. Avelino Rosal, et al., 118 SCRA 195 ,"
to the effect that a will may still be valid even if the attestation does
not contain the number of pages used upon which the Will is written.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 However, the Decisions of the Supreme Court are not applicable in the
aforementioned appeal at bench. This is so because, in the case of
"Manuel Singson versus Emilia Florentino, et al., supra," although the
attestation in the subject Will did not state the number of pages used
in the will, however, the same was found in the last part of the body of
the Will:
"xxx xxx xxx
The law referred to is article 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645, which requires that the
attestation clause shall state the number of pages or sheets upon
which the will is written, which requirement has been held to be
mandatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of
interpolation or omission of some of the pages of the will to the
prejudice of the heirs to whom the property is intended to be
bequeathed (In re Will of Andrada, 42 Phil. 180; Uy Coque vs.
Navas L. Sioca, 43 Phil., 405; Gumban vs. Gorcho, 50 Phil. 30;
Quinto vs. Morata, 54 Phil. 481; Echevarria vs. Sarmiento , 66 Phil.
611). The ratio decidendi of these cases seems to be that the
attestation clause must contain a statement of the number of
sheets or pages composing the will and that if this is missing or is
omitted, it will have the effect of invalidating the will if the
deficiency cannot be supplied, not by evidence aliunde, but by a
consideration or examination of the will itself. But here the
situation is different. While the attestation clause does not state
the number of sheets or pages upon which the will is written,
however, the last part of the body of the will contains a
statement that it is composed of eight pages, which
circumstance in our opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of
construction and places it within the realm of similar cases where
a broad and more liberal view has been adopted to prevent the
will of the testator from being defeated by purely technical
considerations." (page 165-165, supra) (Underscoring supplied)
In "Apolonio Tabaoda versus Hon. Avelino Rosal, et al ." supra, the
notarial acknowledgement in the Will states the number of pages used
in the:

"xxx xxx xxx

We have examined the will in question and noticed that the
attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in
writing the will. This would have been a fatal defect were it not
for the fact that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire will
that it is really and actually composed of only two pages duly
signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses. As earlier
stated, the first page which contains the entirety of the
testamentary dispositions is signed by the testatrix at the end or
at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed at the left
margin. The other page which is marked as "Pagina dos"
comprises the attestation clause and the acknowledgment. The
acknowledgment itself states that "this Last Will and Testament
consists of two pages including this page" (pages 200-201, supra)
(Underscoring supplied).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 However, in the appeal at bench, the number of pages used in
the will is not stated in any part of the Will. The will does not even
contain any notarial acknowledgment wherein the number of pages of
the will should be stated. 21

Both Uy Coque and Andrada were decided prior to the enactment of the
Civil Code in 1950, at a time when the statutory provision governing the
formal requirement of wills was Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
22 Reliance on these cases remains apropos, considering that the

requirement that the attestation state the number of pages of the will is
extant from Section 618. 23 However, the enactment of the Civil Code in
1950 did put in force a rule of interpretation of the requirements of wills, at
least insofar as the attestation clause is concerned, that may vary from 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 influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation
or in the language 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 805."
In the same vein, petitioner cites the report of the Civil Code
Commission, which stated that "the underlying and fundamental objective
permeating the provisions on the [law] on [wills] in this project consists in
the [liberalization] of the manner of their execution with the end in view of
giving the testator more [freedom] in [expressing] his last wishes. This
objective is in accord with the [modern tendency] in respect to the
formalities in the execution of wills." 24 However, petitioner conveniently
omits the qualification offered by the Code Commission in the very same
paragraph he cites from their report, that such liberalization be "but with
sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and
the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the
testator." 25
Caneda v. Court of Appeals 26 features an extensive discussion made
by Justice Regalado, speaking for the Court on the conflicting views on the
manner of interpretation of the legal formalities required in the execution of
the attestation clause in wills. 27 Uy Coque and Andrada are cited therein,
along with several other cases, as examples of the application of the rule of
strict construction. 28 However, the Code Commission opted to recommend a
more liberal construction through the "substantial compliance rule" under
Article 809. A cautionary note was struck though by Justice J.B.L. Reyes as to
how Article 809 should be applied:
. . . The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that
can be supplied by an examination of the will itself: whether all the
pages are consecutively numbered; whether the signatures appear in
each and every page; whether the subscribing witnesses are three or
the will was notarized. All these are facts that the will itself can reveal,
and defects or even omissions concerning them in the attestation
clause can be safely disregarded. But the total number of pages,
and whether all persons required to sign did so in the presence
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of each other must substantially appear in the attestation
clause, being the only check against perjury in the probate
proceedings. 29 (Emphasis supplied.)

The Court of Appeals did cite these comments by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in
its assailed decision, considering that the failure to state the number of
pages of the will in the 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 clause failed to state that the witnesses
subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the
testator and of each other, 30 the other omission cited by Justice J.B.L. Reyes
which to his estimation cannot be lightly disregarded.
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 need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal
and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will
being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except
by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause
and ultimately, of the will itself." 31 Thus, a failure by the attestation clause
to state that the testator signed every page can be liberally construed, since
that fact can be checked by a visual examination; while a 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 guarantee of compliance. 32
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 requiring the clause to state the number of pages on
which the will is written is to safeguard against possible interpolation or
omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent any increase or
decrease in the pages. 33 The failure to state the number of pages equates
with the absence of an averment on the part of the instrumental witnesses
as to how many pages consisted the will, the execution of which they had
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 it is comprised of, as was the situation in Singson and
Taboada. However, in this case, there could have been no substantial
compliance with the requirements under Article 805 since there is no
statement in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the
number of pages which comprise the will.
At the same time, Article 809 should not deviate from the need to
comply with the formal requirements as enumerated under Article 805.
Whatever the inclinations of the members of the Code Commission in
incorporating Article 805, the fact remains that they saw fit to prescribe
substantially the same formal requisites as enumerated in Section 618 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, convinced that these remained effective safeguards
against the forgery or intercalation of notarial wills. 34 Compliance with these
requirements, however picayune in impression, affords the public a high
degree of comfort that the testator himself or herself had decided to convey
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 property post mortem in the manner established in the will. 35 The
transcendent legislative intent, even as expressed in the cited
comments of the Code Commission, is for the fruition of the
testator's incontestable desires, and not for the indulgent
admission of wills to probate.
The Court could thus end here and affirm the Court of Appeals.
However, an examination of the will itself reveals a couple of even more
critical defects that should necessarily lead to its rejection.
For one, the attestation clause was not signed by the
instrumental witnesses. While the signatures of the instrumental
witnesses appear on the left-hand margin of the will, they do not appear at
the bottom of the attestation clause which after all consists of their
averments before the notary public.
Cagro v. Cagro 36 is material on this point. As in this case, "the
signatures of the three witnesses to the will do not appear at the bottom of
the attestation clause, although the page containing the same is signed by
the witnesses on the left-hand margin." 37 While three (3) Justices 38
considered the signature requirement had been substantially complied with,
a majority of six (6), speaking through Chief Justice Paras, ruled that the
attestation clause had not been duly signed, rendering the will fatally
defective.
There is no question that the signatures of the three witnesses to
the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause, although
the page containing the same is signed by the witnesses on the left-
hand margin.
We are of the opinion that the position taken by the appellant is
correct. The attestation clause is "a memorandum of the facts
attending the execution of the will" required by law to be made by the
attesting witnesses, and it must necessarily bear their signatures. An
unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the
witnesses, since the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof
negatives their participation.
The petitioner and appellee contends that signatures of the three
witnesses on the left-hand margin conform substantially to the law and
may be deemed as their signatures to the attestation clause. This is
untenable, because said signatures are in compliance with the legal
mandate that the will be signed on the left-hand 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
to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of the testator
and any or all of the witnesses. 39

The Court today reiterates the continued efficacy of Cagro. Article 805
particularly segregates the requirement that the instrumental witnesses sign
each page of the will, from the requisite that the will be "attested and
subscribed by [the instrumental witnesses]." The respective intents behind
these two classes of signature are distinct from each other. The signatures
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 on the left-hand corner of every page signify, among others, that the
witnesses are aware that the page they are signing forms part of the will. On
the other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause establish that the
witnesses are referring to the statements contained in the attestation clause
itself. Indeed, the attestation clause is separate and apart from the
disposition of the will. An unsigned attestation clause results in an
unattested will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand
margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause, such
signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses' undertakings in the clause,
since the signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a
wholly different avowal. SHcDAI

The Court may be more charitably disposed had the witnesses in this
case signed the attestation clause itself, but not the left-hand margin of the
page containing such clause. Without diminishing the value of the
instrumental witnesses' signatures on each and every page, the fact must be
noted that it is the attestation clause which contains the utterances reduced
into writing of the testamentary witnesses themselves. It is the witnesses,
and not the testator, who are required under Article 805 to state the number
of pages used upon which the will is written; the fact that the testator had
signed the will and every page thereof; and that they witnessed and signed
the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
another. The only proof in the will that the witnesses have stated these
elemental facts would be their signatures on the attestation clause.
Thus, the subject will cannot be considered to have been validly
attested to by the instrumental witnesses, as they failed to sign the
attestation clause.
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 acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses" has also not been complied with. The importance of this
requirement is highlighted by the fact that it had been segregated from the
other requirements under Article 805 and 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.

In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public, Petronio Y. Bautista,

wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito
sa Lungsod ng Maynila." 40 By no manner of contemplation can those words
be construed as an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one
who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court
and declaring it to be his act or deed. 41 It involves an extra step undertaken
whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that the executor of a
document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act
and deed.
It might be possible to construe the averment as a jurat, even though
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 it does not hew to the usual language thereof. A jurat is that part of an
affidavit where the notary certifies that before him/her, the document was
subscribed and sworn to by the executor. 42 Ordinarily, the language of the
jurat should avow that the document was subscribed and sworn before the
notary public, while in this case, the notary public averred that he himself
"signed and notarized" the document. Possibly though, the word " ninotario"
or "notarized" encompasses the signing of and swearing in of the executors
of the document, which in this case would involve the decedent and the
instrumental witnesses.
Yet even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as a
jurat, the will would nonetheless remain invalid, as the express requirement
of Article 806 is that the will be "acknowledged", and not merely subscribed
and sworn to. The will does not present any textual proof, much less one
under oath, that the decedent and the instrumental witnesses executed or
signed the will as their own free act or deed. The acknowledgment made in a
will provides for another all-important legal safeguard against spurious wills
or those made beyond the free consent of the testator. An
acknowledgement is not an empty meaningless act. 43 The acknowledgment
coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an
officer of the law that they had executed and subscribed to the will as their
own free act or deed. Such declaration is under oath and under pain of
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 testator. It also provides a further degree of assurance that the
testator is of certain mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to
those persons he/she had designated in the will.
It may not have been said before, but we can assert the rule, self-
evident as it is under Article 806. A notarial will that is not
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and sworn to
before a notary public.
There are two other requirements under Article 805 which were not
fully satisfied by the will in question. We need not discuss them at length, as
they are no longer material to the disposition of this case. The provision
requires that the testator and the instrumental witnesses sign each and
every page of the will on the left margin, except the last; and that all the
pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of
each page. In this case, the decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign
both pages of the will on the left margin, her only signature appearing at the
so-called "logical end" 44 of the will on its first page. Also, the will itself is not
numbered correlatively in letters on each page, but instead numbered with
Arabic numerals. There is a line of thought that has disabused the notion
that these two requirements be construed as mandatory. 45 Taken in
isolation, these omissions, by themselves, may not be sufficient to deny
probate to a will. Yet even as these omissions are not decisive to the
adjudication of this case, they need not be dwelt on, though indicative as
they may be of a general lack of due regard for the requirements under
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Article 805 by whoever executed the will.
All told, the string of mortal defects which the will in question suffers
from makes the probate denial inexorable.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. ESHAcI

SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 21-22.
2. Id. at 35.
3. Id. at 36.
4. Records, p. 505.

5. Id.
6. Penned by Judge Perfecto Laguio, Jr.
7. Rollo , p. 41.
8. Id. at 41-42.
9. Decision penned by Associate Justice (now Supreme Court Associate Justice)
Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Jorge S. Imperial
and Pacita Cañizares-Nye.

10. See rollo, pp. 46-50.

11. Id. at 24.
12. See rollo, p. 26.
13. 43 Phil. 405 (1922).

14. 42 Phil. 180 (1921).

15. Uy Coque v. Navas L. Sioca, supra note 13, at 409.

16. Id.
17. In re: Will of Andrada, supra note 14 at 181.
18. Id. at 182.
19. 92 Phil. 161 (1952).

20. No. L-36033, 5 November 1982, 118 SCRA 195.

21. Rollo , pp. 47-49. Underscoring not ours.
22. Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645
reads:
"No will, except as provided in the preceding section, shall be valid to pass
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 any estate, real or personal, nor charge or effect the same, unless it be
written in the language or dialect known by the testator and signed by him,
or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and
by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The
testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the
instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and
every page thereof, on the left margin, and said pages shall be numbered
correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each sheet. The
attestation shall state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the
will is written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page
thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express
direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and the latter witnessed and
signed the will and all pages thereof in the presence of the testator and each
other."

23. Id.
24. Rollo , pp. 23-25.
25. See Report of the Code Commission, p. 103. The full citation reads:
"The underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the provisions of
the law on wills in this Project consists in the liberalization of the manner of
their execution with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in
expressing his last wishes, but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to
prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper
pressure and influence upon the testator.
This objective is in accord with the modern tendency with respect to the
formalities in the execution of wills. The proposed Code provides for two
forms of will, namely, (1) the holographic, and (2) the ordinary will."

26. G.R. No. 103554, 28 May 1993, 222 SCRA 781.

27. Id. at 795-800.
28. Id. at 796-797.
29. Id. at 794; citing Lawyer's Journal, November 30, 1950, 566. In the same
article, Justice J.B.L. Reyes suggested that Article 809 be reworded in such a
manner that the will would not be rendered invalid if the defects and
imperfections in the attestation "can be supplied by an examination of the
will itself and it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in
substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805." See R.
BALANE, JOTTINGS AND JURISPRUDENCE IN CIVIL LAW (1998 ed.) at 87, citing
Lawyers Journal, November 30, 1950.
30. Id. at 792-793.
31. Id. at 800.
32. See BALANE, supra note 29, at 87.

33. Caneda v. Court of Appeals, supra note 26 at 790; citing Andrada, supra
note 14.
34. The Code Commission did qualify in its Report that the thrust towards
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 liberalization be qualified "with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to
prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper
pressure and influence upon the testator" Supra note 25.

35. "The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close
the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws
on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these
primordial ends. But, on the other hand, one must not lose sight of the fact
that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the
right to make a will." A. TOLENTINO, III Civil Code of the Philippines (1992
ed.), at 67.
36. 92 Phil. 1032 (1953)

37. Id. at 1033.

38. Justices Felix Bautista Angelo, Pedro Tuason and Felicisimo R. Feria.
39. Cagro v. Cagro, supra note 36, at 1033-1034.
40. Rollo , p. 22.
41. Tigno v. Aquino, G.R. No. 129416, 25 November 2004, 444 SCRA 61, 72.
42. See Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons Officials, 312 Phil. 100, 104; citing
Theobald v. Chicago Ry. Co., 75 Ill. App. 208.
43. Protacio v. Mendoza, Adm. Case No. 5764, 13 January 2003, 395 SCRA 10,
15; citing Coronado v. Felongco, 344 SCRA 565 (2000); Nunga v. Viray, 306
SCRA 487 (1999); Arrieta v. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248 (1997); Dinoy v. Rosal, 235
SCRA 419 (1994).

44. To use the term adopted by eminent civilists Prof. Balane and Dr. Tolentino,
who distinguish "the physical end — where the writing stops" from "the
logical end — where the last testamentary disposition ends." See BALANE,
supra note 29 at 60; TOLENTINO, supra note 35, at 70.
45. See e.g., BALANE, supra note 28 at 63, 67; TOLENTINO, supra note 34, at
104.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com