G.R. No. 6845; September 1, 1914
YAP TUA, petitioner-appellee, vs. YAP CA KUAN and YAP CA KUAN, objectors-appellants.

FACTS:
On August 23, 1909, a petition was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the probate of the alleged last will and testament of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong, who died on August 11, 1909. The will (Exhibit A), dated August 11, 1909, was signed by the deceased and witnessed by Anselmo Zacarias, Severo Tabora, and Timoteo Paez. After a hearing on September 18, 1909, where witnesses Paez and Pablo Agustin testified to the due execution of the will, the court admitted the will to probate on September 29, 1909, and appointed Yap Tua as executor.

Subsequently, on February 28, 1910, minors Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu (appellants) appeared, claiming an interest in the estate. Through their appointed guardian ad litem, they filed a motion for a new trial under Section 113 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions. They alleged that: (a) the will was not properly signed by the witnesses as required by law; (b) the testatrix was mentally incapacitated at the time of execution due to illness; and (c) her signature was obtained through fraud and undue influence. They further claimed that the testatrix had executed a prior valid will on August 6, 1909.

The court granted a rehearing. During the rehearing, the appellants presented evidence, including testimony from handwriting expert Tomas Puzon, who opined that the surname “Yap Caong” on the contested will (Exhibit A) was written by a different hand than the given name “Tomasa,” though the given name was similar to that on the prior will. Witnesses also testified about the physical circumstances of the signing, suggesting the testatrix may not have signed in the presence of the witnesses, and the witnesses may not have signed in her presence or in the presence of each other.

After the rehearing, the lower court affirmed its order admitting the will of August 11, 1909, to probate. The minors appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the will dated August 11, 1909, was executed in accordance with law and should be admitted to probate.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court, admitting the will to probate.

1. On the Signature of the Testatrix: The Court held that the evidence sufficiently established that Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong signed the will. Addressing the expert testimony, the Court found it inconclusive and noted that the expert’s qualifications were not firmly established. More importantly, the Court ruled that even if the testatrix only wrote her given name “Tomasa” and not her full surname, this constituted a sufficient signature under the law. Citing various authorities, the Court held that a mark, initials, or any part of one’s name placed with the intention of executing the will satisfies the statutory requirement for a signature.

2. On the Presence Requirements for Signing: The Court found that a preponderance of the evidence showed that the statutory formalities were complied with. The rule that the testatrix must sign in the presence of the witnesses and the witnesses must sign in the presence of the testatrix and each other was satisfied. The Court clarified that actual seeing is not necessary; it is sufficient if the signing is done in such a place that it was possible for the parties, if they so desired, to see each other sign. The physical layout of the room, with the signing table visible from the testatrix’s bed, met this requirement.

3. On Mental Capacity and Undue Influence: The Court found no credible evidence to support the claims that the testatrix was mentally incapacitated or that her signature was procured by fraud or undue influence. The testimony of the attesting witnesses to her soundness of mind and voluntary act was upheld.

The Supreme Court deferred to the trial court’s opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh conflicting evidence, concluding that the will of August 11, 1909, was executed freely, voluntarily, and in compliance with the law.