Cruz vs Villasor (1973) o He would be interested in sustaining the validity of the

Petitioner: Agapita N. Cruz will as it directly involves him and the validity of his act
Respondent: Judge Guillermo Villasor, Manuel Lugay o Very purpose of acknowledgment, which is to minimize
Ponencia: Esguerra fraud, would be thwarted
- American cases cited by appellees do not apply because the
DOCTRINE: The notary public to whom acknowledgment is made by the notary public in the case at bar was both an attesting witness
testator and the attesting witnesses cannot himself be an attesting or (signing of the will) and acknowledging witness (before a notary
acknowledging witness. public)
- The net effect is that only two witnesses attesting to the will and
FACTS: acknowledging the will before the presence of the notary public,
1. In the execution of the will of Valente Cruz, there were three attesting in contravention of both Articles 805 and 806.
witnesses, Deogracias Jamaloas, Dr. Francisco Panares, and Atty. Angel
Teves. Atty. Teves was also a notary public. DISPOSITION: Petition GRANTED. Order of CFI REVERSED. Will of
2. The will was submitted for probate before the CFI Cebu. Agapita, the Valente Cruz INVALID.
surviving spouse of Valente, opposed the same,
3. Agapita opposed the probate on these grounds:
a. Fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and undue influence
b. Instrument was executed without Valente having been fully
informed of its contents, particularly as to what properties he was
disposing
c. Instrument not executed in accordance with law
i. Because the third witness was the notary public, the
result is that only two witnesses appeared before the
notary public to acknowledge the will
4. CFI Cebu admitted the probate of the will of Valente Cruz

ISSUES:
1. W/N the last will and testament of Valente was made in accordance
with law (Articles 805 and 806)

RULING + RATIO:
1. NO
- The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged
cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he
cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will
- If the third witness were the notary public himself, he would have
to avow assent, or admit his having signed the will in front of
himself
o This cannot be done because he cannot split his
personality into two so that one will appear before the
other to acknowledge his participation in the making of
the will
- Function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against
any illegal or immoral arrangement. That function would defeated
if the notary public were one of the attesting instrumental
witnesses