UP Law F2021 046 Matias v.

Salud
Succession - 1958 J.B.L. Reyes

SUMMARY

Gabina Raquel executed her will in the presence of four witnesses, but was not able to affix her
signature in the attestation clause due to pain in her shoulders, but was able to affix on the other pages
of the document. One of the witnesses affix Raquel’s name, putting “Gabina Raquel by Lourdes
Samonte” on each of the signature. A majority part of the properties of Raquel were bequeathed to her
niece, the petitioner Aurea Matias. The oppositor, Basilia Salud opposed when Matias filed the
document to the CFI of Cavite for probation, effectively saying that the document was executed in fraud
and bad faith, heavily relying on the expert witness Capt. Jose Fernandez of Phil. Constabulary. CFI ruled
in favor of Salud. Upon appeal, SC reversed, preponderance of evidence was with the petitioners Matias
and formal requisites were satisfied.

FACTS

 Jan. 27, 1950 - Gabina Raquel executed testamentary document in Cavite, in the presence of Modesta
Gonzales, Felipa Samala and Lourdes Samonte, who signed as witnesses, and of Atty. Ricardo
Agbunag, who prepared the instrument;
 The purported testamentary document, among others, contained,:
o Three pages;
o On the lower half of second page, before the attestation clause, appears the signature “Gabina
Raquel”;
o Alongside is a smudge of violet ink with blurred ridge lines claimed to be the thumb mark of
Raquel;
o On the third page, at the end of attestation clause appears the signatures (similarly affixed on
the left side of other pages of the document) accompanied by the words “Gabina Raquel” and
underneath it “by Lourdes Samonte”;
o Most of the properties were bequeathed to Raquel’s niece Aurea Matias who was also
appointed as executrix without bond
 It was alleged that when Raquel, after affixing her thumb mark, signed only at the end of
testamentary dispositions because immediately after, she dropped the pen, grasping her right
shoulder and complaining of pain:
o After 20 minutes, attorney Agbunag, seeing that Gabina Raquel could not proceed, instructed
Lourdes Samonte to write “Gabina Raquel by Lourdes Samonte” next to each thumbmark.
 The document was filed for probation at the CFI of Cavite but the same was opposed by Raquel’s
niece Basilia Salud;
 CFI ruled in favor of the oppositors, and denied the probation on the following grounds, among
others:
o attestation clause did not state that the testatrix and the witnesses signed each and every
page of the will
o alleged signing and thumbmarking by the deceased was not done in the presence of the
witnesses, nor did the latter sign in the presence of Gabina Raquel;
o fraud and bad faith attended the execution of the will.
 In arriving with the decision, the CFI relied heavily on the expert testimony of one Capt. Jose
Fernandez (Phil. Constabulary) averring that the facts presented by the petitioner Matias and other
testamentary witnesses were not true.
 RATIO

W/N the lower court erred in not admitting the testamentary document for probate
Yes.

The Court threw out the expert testimony of Capt. Fernandez, upholding the version presented by the
petitoner Matias and the other testamentary witnesses of the events that transpired in the execution of
Raquel’s testamentary document. The Court held that the lower court erred in considering that the
preponderance of evidence were with oppositor Salud, since the credibility of the expert testimony was not
satisfactorily established, and was contradicted by two witnesses to the execution of the will.

On the contention that the fingermark of the testatrix cannot be regarded as her valid signature and that
the attestation clause should be held defective because it fails to state that Lourdes Samonte signed for the
testator, the Court held the legal requisite that the will should be signed by the testator is satisfied by
a thumbprint or other mark affixed by him and that where such mark is affixed by the decedent, it is
unnecessary to state in the attestation clause that another person wrote the testator’s name at his
request. While in some of these cases the signing by mark was described in the will or in the
attestation clause, it does not appear that the Court ever held that the absence of such description is
a fatal defect.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the document Exh. “D” ordered admitted to
probate. Let the records be returned to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with this
opinion. Costs against appellees.

So Ordered.

Notes:

No cited Civil Code provision.