Case Digest (G.R. No. 35066) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Felix Azuela v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006), the decedent, Eugenia E. Igsolo, executed a two-page notarial will in Pilipino on June 10, 1981, before Notary Public Petronio Y. Bautista. The instrument bequeathed three real properties to her nephew, petitioner Felix Azuela, and appointed Vart Prague as executor. Its attestation clause omitted the total number of pages and bore no signatures at its foot, while the testatrix failed to sign the second page, and the document contained an unorthodox jurat rather than an acknowledgment. After Igsolo’s death on December 16, 1982, petitioner filed a probate petition on April 10, 1984, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. Opposed by Geralda Aida Castillo, acting for the decedent’s alleged twelve heirs, the petition was granted by the RTC on August 10, 1992, which invoked a “modern tendency” toward liberal formalities. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed on August 17, 1995, finding the will void for Case Digest (G.R. No. 35066) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Will
- Eugenia E. Igsolo (decedent) executed a notarial will on June 10, 1981; died December 16, 1982.
- Felix Azuela (petitioner), a collateral heir, filed a probate petition on April 10, 1984 in RTC Manila to admit the will and appoint Vart Prague as executor.
- Opposition and Procedural History
- Geralda Aida Castillo, as attorney-in-fact for 12 alleged legitimate heirs, opposed the petition, claiming forgery and improper execution.
- RTC Manila admitted the will to probate on August 10, 1992; CA reversed on August 17, 1995 for failure to state page number in the attestation clause; SC petition followed.
Issues:
- Formal Defects Under Articles 805 and 806
- Does the omission of the number of pages in the attestation clause render the notarial will fatally defective?
- Do the absence of witnesses’ signatures at the bottom of the attestation clause and the lack of a proper acknowledgment before a notary public invalidate the will?
- Substantial Compliance Doctrine
- Can Article 809’s “substantial compliance” principle cure these formal defects?
- Are precedents (e.g., Singson v. Florentino, Taboada v. Rosal) permitting liberal construction applicable here?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)