Lee vs Tambago, A.C No.
5281, February 2008
Facts:
 Complainant Manuel lee charged respondent Atty. Regino
Tambago with violation of the notarial law and the ethics of
the legal profession for notarising a spurious last will and
testament.
 Complainant averred that his father, Vicente lee, Sr., never
executed the contested will. The signature of the two
witnesses in the will are claimed to be spurious.
 In the said will, the decedent supposedly bequeathed his
entire estate to his wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of
land which he devised to Vicente Lee, Jr., and Elena Lee,
half siblings of the complainant.
 Complainant claimed that while the will was executed and
acknowledged on June 1965, the decedent’s residence
certificate noted in the acknowledgement of the will was
dated January 1962.
 Complainant also point out the absence of notation of the
residence certificate of the two witnesses in the will.
 Respondent answered that the complaint contain false
allegations. He claimed that the will and testament was
validly executed and actually notarized by him as per
affidavit of Gloria Novato, common law wife of the decedent,
and corroborated by the joint-affidavit of the children of the
decedent namely Elena Lee and Vicente Lee.
 The RTC referred the case to the IBP for investigation,
report, and recommendation.
 The IBP investigating commissioner found respondent guilty
of violation of the old notarial law. Also, the violation
constituted an infringement of legal ethics of the CPR. The
commissioner recommended the suspension of the
respondent for a period of 3 months.
 The IBP Board of Governors, in its resolution, adopted and
approved with modifications the recommendation of the
commissioner. Respondent was suspended from the practice
of law for 1 year and his notarial commission was revoked
and disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2
years.
Issue:
Whether or not the will is valid?
Ruling:
 The SC ruled that the will is invalid.
 The will was attested by only 2 witnesses and therefore
it is considered void.
 A notarial will is required by law to be subscribed at the
end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should
be attested and subscribed by 3 or more credible
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one
another.
 The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of
wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee
their truth and authenticity.
 The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and
the witnesses.
 An Acknowledgement is the act of one who has executed
a deed in going before some competent officer or court
and declaring it to be his act or deed. An
Acknowledgement in a notarial will has a two-fold
purpose: (1) to safeguard the testator’s wishes long
after his demise, and (2) to assure that his estate is
administered in the manner that he intends it to be
done.
 The acknowledgment of the will in question shows that
this requirement was neither strictly nor substantially
complied with. There was an absence of a notation of
the residence certificate of the notarial witnesses in the
acknowledgement. Similarly, the notation of the
testator’s old residence certificate in the same
acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These
omissions by respondent invalidated the will.
 Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed
by the law render the entire will invalid.
 Respondent was suspended to practice law for a period
of 1 year and his notarial commission is revoked and he
is perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a
notary public.