Matias v.

Salud
L-10751, 23 June 1958

FACTS:

The CFI denied probate of the will of Gabina Raquel. It must be noted that Gabina Raquel was
suffering from herpes zoster that afflicted the right arm and shoulder of the testatrix,
which made writing difficult and a painful act. Thus, upon the insistence of the attorney, Gabina
attempted to sign, but since it was so painful she just managed to thumbmarked the foot of the
document and the left margin at each page. The parties opposing the probate of the will contended
that the will was void due to the irregularities in the execution thereof.

One of the points raised by the oppositors was that the finger mark can not be regarded as the
decedent’s valid signature as it does not show distinct identifying ridgelines. And since the finger
mark was an invalid signature, there must appear in the attestation clause that another person
wrote the testator’s name at his request.

ISSUE:

W/N the will was valid.

HELD:

YES. As to the clarity of the ridge impressions, it is so dependent on aleatory requirements as to

require dexterity that can be expected of very few persons; testators should not be required to
possess the skill of trained officers.

And as to the validity of the thumbprints as signature, the SC held that it has been held in a long
line of cases that a thumbprint is always a valid and sufficient signature for the purpose of
complying with the requirement of the article.

Furthermore, the validity of thumbprints should not be limited in cases of illness or infirmity. A
thumbprint is considered as a valid and sufficient signature in complying with the requirements of
the article.

Garcia v. Lacuesta
90 P 489

FACTS:

This case involves the will of Antero Mercado, which among other defects was signed by the
testator through a cross mark (an “X”). The will was signed by Atty. Javier who wrote the name of
Mercado as testator and the latter allegedly wrote a cross mark after his name. The CFI allowed the
will but the CA disallowed it because its attestation clause was defective for failing to certify 1) that
the will was signed by Atty. Javier at the express direction of the testator, 2) that the testator wrote
a cross at the end of his name after Atty. Javier signed for him, and 3) that the 3 witnesses signed
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.

ISSUE:

Whether the will should be allowed despite the defect of the attestation clause since the testator
had placed a cross mark himself as his signature.

HELD:
The attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Mercado directed Javier to write
the testator’s name under his express direction. Petitioner’s argument that such recital is
unnecessary because the testator signed the will himself using a cross mark which should be
considered the same as a thumb-mark (which has been held sufficient in past cases) is not
acceptable. A cross mark is not the same as a thumb mark, because the cross mark does not have
the same trustworthiness of a thumb mark.

Barut v. Cabacungan
21 P 461

FACTS:

Barut applied for the probate of the will of deceased, Maria Salomon. The testatrix stated in the
will that being unable to read or write, the will was read to her by Ciriaco Concepcion and Timotea
Inoselda and that she had instructed Severo Agayan to sign her name to it as testatrix. The probate
was contested by a number of the relatives of the deceased on various grounds.

The probate court found that the will was not entitled to probate because “the handwriting of the
person who it is alleged signed the name of the testatrix to the will for and on her behalf looked
more like the handwriting of one of the other witnesses to the will than to the person whose
handwriting it was alleged to be” (i.e. The probate court denied probate because the signature
seemed to not have been by Severo Agayan but by another witness).

ISSUE:

Was the dissimilarity in handwriting sufficient to deny probate of the will?

HELD:

No. The SC found that the mere dissimilarity in writing is sufficient to overcome the
uncontradicted testimony of all the witnesses that the signature of the testatrix was written by
Severo Agayan. It is also immaterial who writes the name of the testatrix provided it is written at
her request and in her presence and in the presence of all the witnesses to the execution of the will.

Based on Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that with respect to the validity of
the will, it is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of the testatrix signs his own or
not. The important thing is that it clearly appears that the name of the testatrix was signed at her
express direction in the presence of 3 witnesses and that they attested and subscribed it in her
presence and in the presence of each other. It may be wise that the one who signs the testator’s
name signs also his own; but that is not essential to the validity of the will.

The court also held that the 3 cases cited by the lower court was not applicable. In those cases, the
person who signed the will for the testator wrote his own name instead of the testator’s, so that the
testator’s name nowhere appeared in the will, and were thus wills not duly executed.