Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Guerrero vs. Bihis Digest

    Uploaded by

    iwamawi
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that a will acknowledged before a notary public outside of his territorial jurisdiction is void. In this case, the testatrix and witnesses acknowledged the will in Quezon City before a notary public commissioned in Caloocan City. 2) Under the Notary Law, a notary public only has authority to perform notarial acts, including taking acknowledgments, within his territorial jurisdiction. 3) Since the acknowledgment of the will was taken outside the jurisdiction of the notary public, it did not comply with the requirements of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court therefore denied the probate of the will.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Guerrero vs. Bihis Digest

    Uploaded by

    iwamawi
    1K views1 page
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that a will acknowledged before a notary public outside of his territorial jurisdiction is void. In this case, the testatrix and witnesses acknowledged the will in Quezon City before a notary public commissioned in Caloocan City. 2) Under the Notary Law, a notary public only has authority to perform notarial acts, including taking acknowledgments, within his territorial jurisdiction. 3) Since the acknowledgment of the will was taken outside the jurisdiction of the notary public, it did not comply with the requirements of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court therefore denied the probate of the will.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court ruled that a will acknowledged before a notary public outside of his territorial jurisdiction is void. In this case, the testatrix and witnesses acknowledged the will in Quezon City before a notary public commissioned in Caloocan City. 2) Under the Notary Law, a notary public only has authority to perform notarial acts, including taking acknowledgments, within his territorial jurisdiction. 3) Since the acknowledgment of the will was taken outside the jurisdiction of the notary public, it did not comply with the requirements of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court therefore denied the probate of the will.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Guerrero vs. Bihis Digest

    Uploaded by

    iwamawi
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that a will acknowledged before a notary public outside of his territorial jurisdiction is void. In this case, the testatrix and witnesses acknowledged the will in Quezon City before a notary public commissioned in Caloocan City. 2) Under the Notary Law, a notary public only has authority to perform notarial acts, including taking acknowledgments, within his territorial jurisdiction. 3) Since the acknowledgment of the will was taken outside the jurisdiction of the notary public, it did not comply with the requirements of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court therefore denied the probate of the will.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Guerrero vs. Bihis deed.

    Such declaration is under oath and under pain of perjury, thus paving
    521 SCRA 394, April 17, 2007 the way for the criminal prosecution of persons who participate in the
    execution of spurious wills, or those executed without the free consent of the
    Petitioner: Bella A. Guerrero testator. It also provides a. further degree of assurance that the testator is of a
    Respondent: Resurrecion A. Bihis certain mindset in making the testamentary dispositions to the persons
    instituted as heirs or designated as devise or legatees in the will.

    DOCTRINES:  An acknowledgement can only be made before a competent officer, that is


    a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public.
    An acknowledgement taken outside the territorial limits of the officer’s jurisdiction is void
    as if the person taking it were wholly without official character.  Under the Notary Law, the jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila
    shall be coextensive with the said city. No notary shall possess authority to do
    any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. Hence, a notary public is
    FACTS: authorized to perform notarial acts, including the taking of the
    acknowledgements, within that territorial jurisdiction only. Any notarial act
     On February 19, 1994, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, the mother of the parties, outside the limits of jurisdiction has no force and effect
    died at the Metropoliatan Hospital in Tondo, Manila.
     On May 24, 1994, Guerrero filed a petition to probate decedent’s last will and  As pronounced in Tecson v. Tecson, an acknowledgement taken outside the
    testament and her appointment as executrix in RTC QC. territorial limits of the officer’s jurisdiction is void as if the person taking it were
     Respondent opposed the petition. Bihis contended that the will was not wholly without official character.
    executed and attested as required by law, acknowledgement did not comply
    with the requirement, and the signature of the testatrix was procured by fraud  Since Atty. Directo was not a commissioned notary public for and in Quezon
    and undue and improper pressure and influence by Guerrero. City, he lacked the authority to take the acknowledgment of the testatrix and
     Eventually, the trial court appointed Guerrero and respondent withdrew her the instrumental witnesses. In the same vein, the testatrix and her witnesses
    opposition, could not have validly acknowledged the will before him. Thus, Felisa Tamio
     But on January 17, 2000, after petitioner presented evidence, respondent filed de Buenaventura’s last will and testament was, in effect, not acknowledged as
    for a demurrer alleging that the petitioner’s evidence failed to establish that required by law. The acts of the testatrix, her witnesses, and Atty. Directo were
    the will complied with Art. 804 and 805 of NCC. all void.

    RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS: Disposition: SC affirmed decision of CA and denied probate of the will.

     Trial court denied the probate of the will ruling that Art. 806 was not complied
    with because the will was “acknowledged” by the testatrix and witnesses at
    the testatrix’s residence in Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who
    has a commissioned notary public for and in Caloocan City.
     CA affirmed ruling by the trial court.

    PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
    Guerrero contended that the fact that the notary public was acting outside his territorial
    jurisdiction did not affect the validity of the notarial will.

    ISSUE: Whether the will “acknowledged “ by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses
    before a notary public acting outside the place of his commission satisfy the
    requirement under Art. 806 of the Civil Code

    RULING + RATIO: NO

     A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
    and the instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be accepted for probate.

     The acknowledgment of a notarial will coerces the testator and the


    instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law, the notary
    public, that they executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or
    1

    You might also like