Javellana v. Ledesma, 97 Phil. 258 (1955).
FACTS:
The Court of First Instance of Iloilo admitted to probate the documents in the Visayan
dialectas the testament and codicil duly executed by the deceased Da. Apolinaria Ledesma
Vda. de Javellana, on March 30, 1950, and May 29, 1952, respectively, with Ramon Tabiana,
Gloria Montinola de Tabiana and Vicente Yap as witnesses.
The contestant, Matea Ledesma, sister and nearest surviving relative of said deceased,
appealed from the decision, insisting that the said exhibits were not executed in conformity
with law.
Ledesma is questioning the validity of the codicil contending that the fact that the notary did
not sign the instrument in the presence of the testator and the witness made the codicil
was not executed in conformity with the law.
ISSUE:
W/N the codicil was validly executed.
HELD:
The instrumental witnesses (who happen to be the same ones who attested the will of 1950)
asserted that after the codicil had been signed by the testatrix and the witnesses at the
San Pablo Hospital, the same was signed and sealed by notary public Gimotea on the
same occasion.
On the other hand, Gimotea affirmed that he did not do so, but brought the codicil to his office,
and signed and sealed it there.
The variance does not necessarily imply conscious perversion of truth on the part of the
witnesses, but appears rather due to a well-established phenomenon, the tendency of the mind,
in recalling past events, to substitute the usual and habitual for what differs slightly from it.
Whether or not the notary signed the certification of acknowledgment in the presence of
the testatrix and the witnesses, does not affect the validity of the codicil.
The new Civil Code does not require that the signing of the testator, witnesses and notary
should be accomplished in one single act.
A comparison of Articles 805 and 806 of the new Civil Code reveals that while testator and
witnesses sign in the presence of each other, all that is thereafter required is that “every will
must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses” (Art. 806); (i.e.,
that the latter should avow to the certifying officer the authenticity of their signatures and the
voluntariness of their actions in executing the testamentary disposition). This was done in this
case.
The subsequent signing and sealing by the notary of his certification that the testament
was duly acknowledged by the participants therein is no part of the acknowledgment
itself nor of the testamentary act.
Hence their separate execution out of the presence of the testatrix and her witnesses cannot be
said to violate the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption. It is noteworthy
that Article 806 of the new Civil Code does not contain words requiring that the testator and the
witnesses should acknowledge the testament on the same day or occasion that it was executed.
