(ARTICLE 806)

JAVELLANA VS LEDESMA
G. R. No. L-7179
June 30, 1955
FACTS: 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, Da. 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.
The most important variation noted by the contestants concerns that signing
of the certificate of acknowledgment (in Spanish) appended to the Codicil in
Visayan. Unlike the testament, this codicil was executed after the enactment of the
new Civil Code, and, therefore, had to be acknowledged before a notary public (Art.
806). 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 testratrix
and the witnesses at San Pablo Hospital, the same was signed and sealed by notary
public Gimotea on the same occasion. On the other hand, Gimotea afirmed that he
dfd not do so, but brought the codicil to his office, and signed and sealed it there.

ISSUE: Whether or not the notary signed the certification of acknowledgment

without the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses would render the
testament/codicil invalid and ineffective.

RULING: No. 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 must 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. 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.