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.
Barut v. Cabacungan Digest
Barut vs. Cabacungan
G.R. L-6825 Febriary 15, 1912
Ponente: SC Justice Moreland

Facts:
1.Pedro Barut applied for the probate of the will of Maria Salomon. It is
alleged in the petition that testatrix died on Nov. 1908 in Sinait, Ilocos Sur
leaving the will dated March 3, 1907. The said will was witnessed by  3
persons. From the terms it appears that the petitioner received a larger part
of decedent's property. After this disposition, the testatrix revoked all other
wills and stated that since she is unable to read nor write, the will was read
to her and that she has instructed Severino Agapan, one of the witnesses
to sign her name in her behalf.

2. The lower court ruled that the will is not entitled to probate on the sole
ground that the handwriting of the person who signed the name of the
testatrix does not appear to be that of Agapan but that of another witness.

Issue: Whether or not a will's validity is affected when the person instructed
by a testator to write his name did not sign his name

HELD: No, it is immaterial who wrote the name of the testator provided it is
written at her request and in her present, and in the presence of the
witnesses. This is the only requirement under Sec. 618 of the Civil Code of
procedure at that time.