Manuel L. Lee charged attorney Regino B. Tambago with notarizing a spurious last will and testament of Vicente Lee, Sr. that contained forged signatures. The will was purportedly executed in 1965 but referenced an outdated residence certificate from 1962. Additionally, the signature did not match other known signatures of the testator. The contested will was only attested by two witnesses instead of the required three. As such, the Supreme Court ruled the will invalid for failing to meet the formal legal requirements for a notarial will.
Manuel L. Lee charged attorney Regino B. Tambago with notarizing a spurious last will and testament of Vicente Lee, Sr. that contained forged signatures. The will was purportedly executed in 1965 but referenced an outdated residence certificate from 1962. Additionally, the signature did not match other known signatures of the testator. The contested will was only attested by two witnesses instead of the required three. As such, the Supreme Court ruled the will invalid for failing to meet the formal legal requirements for a notarial will.
Manuel L. Lee charged attorney Regino B. Tambago with notarizing a spurious last will and testament of Vicente Lee, Sr. that contained forged signatures. The will was purportedly executed in 1965 but referenced an outdated residence certificate from 1962. Additionally, the signature did not match other known signatures of the testator. The contested will was only attested by two witnesses instead of the required three. As such, the Supreme Court ruled the will invalid for failing to meet the formal legal requirements for a notarial will.
Manuel L. Lee charged attorney Regino B. Tambago with notarizing a spurious last will and testament of Vicente Lee, Sr. that contained forged signatures. The will was purportedly executed in 1965 but referenced an outdated residence certificate from 1962. Additionally, the signature did not match other known signatures of the testator. The contested will was only attested by two witnesses instead of the required three. As such, the Supreme Court ruled the will invalid for failing to meet the formal legal requirements for a notarial will.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
MANUEL L. LEE vs. ATTY. REGINO B.
TAMBAGO A.C. No. 5281 : February 12, 2008 CORONA, J.
Facts of the Case:
Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with
violation of the Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament. He averred that his father, the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the contested will. Furthermore, the spurious will contained the forged signatures of Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to its execution. The will was purportedly executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965. Complainant, however, pointed out that the residence certificate2 of the testator noted in the acknowledgment of the will was dated January 5, 1962. Furthermore, the signature of the testator was not the same as his signature as donor in a deed of donation (containing his purported genuine signature). Complainant also questioned the absence of notation of the residence certificates of the purported witnesses Noynay and Grajo.
Issue of the Case:
Whether the will complied with the formalities required by law.
Ruling of the Court:
The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution of wills. A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The will in question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and Grajo. On this circumstance alone, the will must be considered void. A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this particular requirement was neither strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of the testators old residence certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These omissions by respondent invalidated the will.
