[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
601 views1 page

Guerrero vs. Bihis

The Supreme Court ruled that a will was not validly executed and could not be probated because [1] it was acknowledged by the testatrix and witnesses before a notary public who lacked jurisdiction, as he was commissioned for a different city, and [2] the acknowledgment violated the Notarial Law and Civil Code. For a will to be valid, it must be acknowledged before a notary public who has jurisdiction over the place of acknowledgment, and any violation of mandatory laws renders the act void. As the will in question did not satisfy these legal requirements, it could not be accepted for probate.

Uploaded by

Edz Votefornoymar Del Rosario
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
601 views1 page

Guerrero vs. Bihis

The Supreme Court ruled that a will was not validly executed and could not be probated because [1] it was acknowledged by the testatrix and witnesses before a notary public who lacked jurisdiction, as he was commissioned for a different city, and [2] the acknowledgment violated the Notarial Law and Civil Code. For a will to be valid, it must be acknowledged before a notary public who has jurisdiction over the place of acknowledgment, and any violation of mandatory laws renders the act void. As the will in question did not satisfy these legal requirements, it could not be accepted for probate.

Uploaded by

Edz Votefornoymar Del Rosario
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

25. Guerrero vs.

Bihis
G.R. No. 174144  The Notarial law provides:
April 17, 2007  SECTION 240. Territorial jurisdiction.
Petitioners: BELLA A. GUERRERO The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be co-extensive with the province. The
Respondents: RESURRECCION A. BIHIS jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila shall be co-extensive with said city. No notary
Ponente: J. Cotons shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. Since Atty.
Directo was not a commissioned notary public for and in Quezon City, he lacked the authority to
FACTS: take the acknowledgment of the testratix and the instrumental witnesses. In the same vain, the
testratix and the instrumental witnesses could not have validly acknowledged the will before
 Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner Bella A. Guerrero and respondent him.
Resurreccion A. Bihis, died.  Moreover, Article 5 of the Civil Code provides:
 Guerrero filed for probate in the RTC QC. Respondent Bihis opposed her elder sister’s  ART. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be
petition on the following grounds: void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
 the will was not executed and attested as required by law;  The violation of a mandatory or a prohibitory statute renders the act illegal and void unless
 its attestation clause and acknowledgment did not comply with the requirements of the law itself declares its continuing validity. Here, mandatory and prohibitory statutes
the law; were transgressed in the execution of the alleged "acknowledgment." The compulsory
 the signature of the testatrix was procured by fraud; and language of Article 806 of the Civil Code was not complied with and the interdiction of
 petitioner and her children procured the will through undue and improper pressure Article 240 of the Notarial Law was breached. Ineluctably, the acts of the testatrix, her
and influence. witnesses and Atty. Directo were all completely void.
 The trial court denied the probate of the will ruling that Article 806 of the Civil Code was
not complied with because the will was “acknowledged” by the testatrix and the witnesses
at the testatrix’s residence in Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a ** Article 806 of the Civil Code provides:
commissioned notary public for and in Caloocan City. 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
ISSUE: the office of the Clerk of Court.

Whether or not the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses before a
notary public acting outside the place of his commission satisfy the requirementunder Article 806
of the Civil Code.

HELD:

NO

 One of the formalities required by law in connection with the execution of a


notarial will is that it must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses. This formal requirement is one of the indispensable requisites for the validity of
a will. In other words, a notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for
probate.

You might also like