Cruz v. Judge Villasor, G.R. No. L-32213, November 26, 1973.

14 Aug



The probate of the last will and testament of the late Valente Z. Cruz was opposed by petitioner Agapita on the ground of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and undue influence, and that it was not executed in accordance with law. Of the three instrumental witnesses thereto, namely Deogracias T. Jamaloas Jr., Dr. Francisco Pañares and Atty. Angel H. Teves, Jr., one of them, the last named, is at the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to have been acknowledged.



Whether or not the probate of a will is valid if one of the three instrumental witnessed is the notary public to whom the will was acknowledged.



NO. To allow the notary public to act as third witness, or one the attesting and acknowledging witnesses, would have the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the will which would be in contravention of the provisions of Article 80 be requiring at least three credible witnesses to act as such and of Article 806 which requires that the testator and the required number of witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the will. The result would be, as has been said, that only two witnesses appeared before the notary public for or that purpose. In the circumstances, the law would not be duly in observed.


Leave a comment

Posted by on August 14, 2017 in Case Digests, Civil Law, Succession


Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: