G.R. No. L-5149
Gregorio Macapinlac, petitioner-appellee, vs. Mariano Alimurong, opponent-appellant.
March 22, 1910

FACTS:
Simplicia de los Santos died on June 19, 1907. Her surviving husband, Gregorio Macapinlac, submitted her will for probate. Mariano Alimurong, a nephew of the deceased, opposed the probate, alleging that the will was not executed and signed in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and was executed under duress and undue influence.

The trial court found that Simplicia de los Santos, though sick, was in full possession of her faculties when she executed the will on June 17, 1907. As she was unable to sign, she requested Amando de Ocampo to sign for her. Ocampo then wrote: “At the request of the testatrix D.a Simplicia de los Santos, I signed Amando de Ocampo.” Immediately thereafter, seven witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testatrix and of each other. The trial court concluded that the provisions of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure were fully complied with and admitted the will to probate.

Alimurong appealed, challenging the validity of the will’s execution, specifically the manner in which the testatrix’s signature was affixed, and reiterating the claim of undue influence.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the will was validly signed in accordance with the law, particularly when a person signs on behalf of the testatrix by her express direction.
2. Whether the will was executed under duress or undue and illegal influence.

RULING:
1. YES, the will was validly signed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding, holding that the signing by Amando de Ocampo, at the express request and in the presence of the testatrix, by writing “At the request of the testatrix D.a Simplicia de los Santos, I signed Amando de Ocampo,” fully complied with the provisions of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court clarified that this act constitutes the signature for the testatrix as if she signed the will herself, coupled with the signature of the witness who, at her request, signed for her, affirming the truth of this fact, and attested by the other witnesses then present. Any subsequent insertion of “For Simplicia de los Santos” was deemed not to affect the validity of the will or was considered unnecessary for compliance.

2. NO, there was no undue or illegal influence. The Court found no reason to overturn the trial court’s finding that no direct or illegal influence was exercised upon the testatrix. The evidence did not show that Father Lupo, mentioned by the opponent, influenced the testatrix directly in a manner that would overcome her freedom of will in expressing her last wishes.

Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from, upholding the probate of Simplicia de los Santos’ will.