G.R. No. L-6285, February 15, 1912
PEDRO BARUT, petitioner-appellant, vs. FAUSTINO CABACUNGAN, ET AL., opponents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Pedro Barut filed an application for the probate of the alleged last will and testament of Maria Salomon, who died on November 7, 1908. The will, dated March 2, 1907, was written in Ilocano. The testatrix, being unable to read or write, directed Severo Agayan to sign her name on the will, which was done in the presence of witnesses. The will was contested by relatives of the deceased, who claimed a later will existed (the subject of a separate case, G.R. No. L-6284). The probate court denied probate, finding that the handwriting of the person who signed the testatrix’s name appeared more like that of another witness, and seemingly inferred that the person signing for the testatrix must also sign his own name for the will to be valid.

ISSUE

Whether a will is invalid simply because the person who signed the testator’s name at her direction did not also sign his own name on the will.

RULING

NO. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the probate court and ordered the proceedings for the probate of the will to continue.

The Court held that under Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now relevant provisions of the Civil Code on wills), the essential requirements for a valid will are: (1) it is in writing; (2) signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by his express direction; and (3) attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The law does not require the person who signs the testator’s name to also affix his own signature. The validity of the will depends on clear proof that the testator’s name was signed at her express direction in the presence of the required witnesses, and that those witnesses attested and subscribed to the will in the presence of the testator and each other. The dissimilarity in handwriting noted by the lower court is immaterial to these statutory requirements. The uncontradicted testimony of the witnesses established that these essential formalities were complied with. The cases cited by the lower court (Ex parte Santiago, Ex parte Arcenas, and Guison vs. Concepcion) were distinguished, as they involved situations where the person signing for the testator wrote his own name instead of the testator’s, which is a failure to comply with the law, unlike the present case where the testator’s name was properly written at her direction.

(Note: A concurring opinion by Justice Torres expressed the view that, as a matter of policy and jurisprudential tradition, the person signing for the testator should also sign his own name to provide an additional guarantee of authenticity, but he concurred in the result as such requirement is not mandated by the statute.)