Azuela v. CA G.R. No.

122880; April 12,2006

FACTS: This is a case about execution of notarial wills. The facts of the case states that one Eugenia E. Igsolo who was an octogenarian at the time executed a defective notarial will on 16 December 1982. The controvers stemmed from an a!!lication for !robate of the will b "#uela who is the son of the cousin of Eugenia Igsolo $decedent%. The three named witnesses to the will affixed their signatures on the left&hand margin of both !ages of the will' but not at the bottom of the attestation clause. The !robate !etition adverted to onl two $2% heirs' legatees and devisees of the decedent' namel ( !etitioner himself' and one Irene ) nn Igsolo' who was alleged to have resided abroad. *etitioner !ra ed that the will be allowed. The !etition was o!!osed b +eralda "ida ,astillo $+eralda ,astillo%' who re!resented herself as the attorne &in&fact of -the 12 legitimate heirs- of the decedent. .!!ositor +eralda ,astillo also argued that the will was not executed and attested to in accordance with law. /he !ointed out that decedent0s signature did not a!!ear on the second !age of the will' and the will was not !ro!erl ac1nowledged. These twin arguments are among the central matters to this !etition. HEL : A !o"arial #ill "$a" i% !o" a&'!o#le()e( *e+ore a !o"ar, pu*li& *, "$e "e%"a"or a!( "$e #i"!e%%e% i% +a"all, (e+e&"ive, eve! i+ i" i% %u*%&ri*e( a!( %#or! "o *e+ore a !o"ar, pu*li&. The !rovision re2uires that the testator and the instrumental witnesses sign each and ever !age of the will on the left margin' exce!t the last3 and that all the !ages shall be numbered correlativel in letters !laced on the u!!er !art of each !age. In this case' the decedent' unli1e the witnesses' failed to sign both !ages of the will on the left margin' her onl signature a!!earing at the so&called -logical end- of the will on its first !age. "lso' the will itself is not numbered correlativel in letters on each !age' but instead numbered with "rabic numerals. There is a line of thought that has disabused the notion that these two re2uirements be construed as mandator . Ta1en in isolation' these omissions' b themselves' ma not be sufficient to den !robate to a will. 4et even as these omissions are not decisive to the ad5udication of this case' the need not be dwelt on' though indicative as the ma be of a general lac1 of due regard for the re2uirements under "rticle 867 b whoever executed the will. "ll told' the string of mortal defects which the will in 2uestion suffers from ma1es the !robate denial inexorable.