JAVELLANA VS.

LEDESMA
G.R. No. L-7179. June 30, 1955

Doctrine
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 can not be said
to violate the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption.

Facts
CFI-Iloilo admitted to probate the purported testament and codicil 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 oppositor, Da. Matea Ledesma, sister and nearest surviving relative of said deceased, insisted that
the said documents were not executed in conformity with law.

The issue was concentrated into three specific questions:

(1) whether the testament of 1950 was executed by the testatrix in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses;
(2) whether the acknowledgment clause was signed and the notarial seal affixed by the notary without the
presence of the testatrix and the witnesses; and
(3) if so, whether the codicil was thereby rendered invalid and ineffective.

ISSUE: W/N the signing and sealing of the will or codicil in the absence of the testator and
witnesses affects the validity of the will

HELD: NO.

The instrumental witnesses 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, Atty.Gimotea on
the same occasion. On the other hand, Atty. 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. Unlike in the Old Civil Code of 1899, the NCC
does not require that the signing of the testator, the witnesses and the notary be accomplished in one
single act. All that is required is that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and witnesses. The subsequent signing and sealing is not part of the acknowledgement itself nor
of the testamentary act. Their separate execution out of the presence of the testator and the witnesses
cannot be a violation of the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption. Finally, 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.

Disposition:
The decision admitting the will to probate is affirmed.