GR 2002; (August, 1905) (Digest)
G.R. No. 2002 : August 18, 1905
PARTIES:
Petitioner/Appellant: Nemesio Delfin Santiago (in probate proceedings, represented by attorney Mariano Crisostomo).
Respondent/Appellee: The Estate of Esperanza Cecilio, deceased (through the Court of First Instance of Bulacan).
FACTS:
Nemesio Delfin Santiago appealed an order from the Court of First Instance of Bulacan denying the probate of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Esperanza Cecilio. The court denied probate on the specific ground that the name of the testatrix, Esperanza Cecilio, was not attached to the document, either by herself or by another person at her request. The will contained a concluding paragraph stating that due to her weakness and inability to sign, the document was written by Mr. Eugenio Agustines at her request, and after it was executed and read to her, she caused him to sign it. Attached to this statement was the signature of Eugenio Agustines, followed by the attesting clause and signatures of the witnesses. The testatrix’s own name did not appear anywhere on the instrument.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the document purporting to be the will of Esperanza Cecilio was executed in accordance with the formal requirements of the law, specifically, whether the signature of Eugenio Agustines (instead of the testatrix’s name) satisfies the statutory requirement for signing a will.
RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the order of the lower court denying probate. The document is NOT a valid will.
The Court held that the document failed to comply with the mandatory formalities prescribed under Section 618 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure). The English text of the statute, which governs its construction, clearly requires that a will must be “signed by the testator, or by the testator’s name written by some other person in his presence and by his express direction.” In this case, the other person (Eugenio Agustines) signed his own name, not the name of the testatrix. This fatal defect cannot be cured by proof of good faith or the testatrix’s intent, as strict compliance with the statutory formalities for wills is required to prevent fraud and mistake.
The Court distinguished the case from certain English decisions cited by the appellant, noting that the English statutes under which those cases were decided only required signing “by the testator or by some other person in his presence and by his direction,” unlike the Philippine law which explicitly requires the other person to write “the testator’s name.” The imperfect Spanish translations of Act No. 190 could not be relied upon to alter the clear mandate of the English text.