BALONAN v.

ABELLANA
FACTS
The Last Will and Testament of Anacleta Abellana was sought to be probated which was written in Spanish
language consisting of two pages. The first page is signed by Juan Abello and under his name appears typewritten
Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana. On the second page, appears the signature of Juan Bello under whose name
appears the phrase, Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana this time, the phrase is handwritten.
ISSUE
WON the signature of Dr. Juan Bello above the typewritten statement Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana x x
x, ciudad de zamboanga, comply with the requirements of law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be
executed
HELD
NO.
Article 805 of the Civil Code provides that:
Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the
testators name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction , and attested
and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
WILLS; EXECUTION OF WILL; SUBSCRIBED AT THE END BY SOME PERSON OTHER THAN THE TESTATOR,
INSUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW
A will subscribed at the end thereof by some other person other than the testator in such manner that the
signature of said person appears above the typewritten statement Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana x x x, Ciudad de
Zamboanga, may not be admitted to probate for failure to comply with the express requirement of the law that the
testator must himself sign the will or that his name be affixed thereto by some other person in his presence and by his
express direction.
In the case at bar the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written under the will by said
Abellana herself, or by Juan Abello. There is, therefore, a failure to comply with the express requirement in the law
that the testator must himself sign the will, or that his name be affixed thereto by some other person in his presence
and by his express direction.
Note that the phrase Por la testadora Anacleta Abellana was typewritten and above it was the signature of Abello
so in effect, when Abello only signed his name without writing that he is doing so for Anacleta, he actually omitted the
name of the testatrix. This is a substantial violation of the law and would render the will invalid.
In the case of Ex Parte Pedro Arcenas, et. Al, it was held that:
X x x where the testator does not know how, or is unable, to sign, it will not be sufficient that one of the attesting
witnesses signs the will at the testator's request, the notary certifying thereto as provided in Article 695 of the Civil
Code, which, in this respect, was modified by section 618 above referred to, but it is necessary that the testator's
name be written by the person signing in his stead in the place where he could have signed if he knew how or was
able to do so, and this in the testator's presence and by his express direction; so that a will signed in a manner
different than that prescribed by law shall not be valid and will not be allowed to be probated.
Where a testator does not know how, or is unable for any reason, to sign the will himself, it shall be signed in the
following manner:
John Doe by the testator, Richard Doe; or in this form: "By the testator, John Doe, Richard Doe." All this must be
written by the witness signing at the request of the testator.
TABOADA v. ROSAL
FACTS
The Last Will and Testament of the late Dorotea Perez was petitioned for probate by herein petitioner. It was
written in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect which consists of two pages. The first page contains the entire testamentary
dispositions and is signed at the end or bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the
three (3) instrumental witnesses. The second page which contains the attestation clause and the acknowledgment is
signed at the end of the attestation clause by the three (3) attesting witnesses and at the left hand margin by the
testatrix. The will does not contain page number. The petition to probate was denied. MFR was filed by the petitioner
but Judge Pamatian was not able to act on it for the reason that he was transferred to another jurisdiction.
Respondent judge herein assumed the case and denied the petition and the motion for reconsideration on the grounds

that a) that the testator and the instrumental witnesses did not all sign on the left margin of the page as prescribed
by law; that the testator and the witnesses should have placed their signature in the same place b) that the
attestation clause failed to state the number of pages used in writing the will this, according to Judge Rosal violated
the requirement that the attestation clause shall state the number of pages or sheets upon which the will is written,
which requirement has been held to be mandatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of interpolation or
omission of some of the pages of the will to the prejudice of the heirs to whom the property is intended to be
bequeathed
Petitioners contention:
Article 805 of the Civil Code does not make it a condition precedent or a matter of absolute necessity for the extrinsic
validity of the will that the signatures of the subscribing witnesses should be specifically located at the end of the will
after the signature of the testatrix. He contends that it would be absurd that the legislature intended to place so heavy
an import on the space or particular location where the signatures are to be found as long as this space or particular
location wherein the signatures are found is consistent with good faith and the honest frailties of human nature.
ISSUES
WON (I) Article 805 of the Civil Code require that the testatrix and all the three instrumental and attesting
witnesses sign at the end of the will and in the presence of the testatrix and of one another
(II) the absence of page number affects the validity of the will
HELD
I
NO.
Testamentary Succession; Wills; The terms attestation and subscription, defined-It must be noted that the law uses the terms attested and subscribed Attestation consists in witnessing the
testator's execution of the will in order to see and take note mentally that those things are, done which the statute
requires for the execution of a will and that the signature of the testator exists as a fact. On the other hand,
subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names upon the same paper for the purpose of Identification of such
paper as the will which was executed by the testator.
The attesting witnesses may sign at the left-hand margin of the pages of a will instead of at the end of
the will-Insofar as the requirement of subscription is concerned, it is our considered view that the will in this case was
subscribed in a manner which fully satisfies the purpose of Identification.
The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of the will attested not only to
the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation
clause.
The law on the formal requirements of a will should be liberally construed. While perfection in drafting is
desirable, unsubstantial departures should be ignored-While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be
ignored, especially where the authenticity of the will is not assailed. The law is to be liberally construed, "the
underlying and fundamental objective permeating the provisions on the law on wills in this project consists in the
liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing
his last wishes but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of
undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. This objective is in accord with the modern tendency in
respect to the formalities in the execution of a will".
II
It depends.
Failure of attestation clause to state number of pages would have been fatal had not the Will at bar
consisted only of two pages and the acknowledgment clause states that the Will has only two pages-We have examined the will in question and noticed that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages
used in writing the will. This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that, in this case, it is discernible
from the entire wig that it is really and actually composed of only two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her
instrumental witnesses. As earlier stated, the first page which contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions is
signed by the testatrix at the end or at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin. The

other page which is marked as "Pagina dos" comprises the attestation clause and the acknowledgment. The
acknowledgment itself states that "This Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including this page".
Thus, the law must be interpreted liberally.
Further, there is substantial compliance with the law. It would be absurd that the legislature intended to place so
heavy an import on the space or particular location where the signatures are to be found as long as this space or
particular location wherein the signatures are found is consistent with good faith.

In Singson v. Florentino, et al. (92 Phil. 161, 164), this Court made the following observations with respect to the
purpose of the requirement that the attestation clause must state the number of pages used:
The law referred to is article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645, which requires that the
attestation clause shall state the number of pages or sheets upon which the win is written, which requirement has
been held to be mandatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of interpolation or omission of some of the
pages of the will to the prejudice of the heirs to whom the property is intended to be bequeathed The ratio decidendi
of these cases seems to be that the attestation clause must contain a statement of the number of sheets or pages
composing the will and that if this is missing or is omitted, it will have the effect of invalidating the will if the
deficiency cannot be supplied, not by evidence aliunde, but by a consideration or examination of the will itself. But
here the situation is different. While the attestation clause does not state the number of sheets or pages upon which
the will is written, however, the last part of the body of the will contains a statement that it is composed of eight
pages, which circumstance in our opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of construction and places it within the
realm of similar cases where a broad and more liberal view has been adopted to prevent the will of the testator from
being defeated by purely technical considerations.
AZUELA v. CA
FACTS
Petitioner, son of the cousin of the deceased, filed a petition seeking for the probate of the will of Eugenia E.
Igloso. The will is written in the vernacular Pilipino which consists of two pages. The first page contained all the
testamentary dispositions, signed by the instrumental witnesses and the testratix on the left margin, but the page was
not numbered in letters but in Arabic; and, the second page wherein the attestation clause indicates no number of
pages used, not signed by the instrumental witnesses but whose signatures appear on the left margin of the second
page, and the acknowledgment which contains the phrase Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 Hunyo, 1981 dito
sa Lungsod ng Maynila. The probate petition was opposed by Geralda Castillo, the attorney-in-fact of the 12
legitimate heirs of the decedent who are residing abroad. Castillo contends that the will was not executed and attested
to in accordance with law with her main contentions that the decedents signature did not appear on the second page
of the will, that the will was not properly acknowledged and that the attestation clause fails to state the number of the
pages of the will.
Petitioners argument:
That the requirement under Art. 805 of the CC that the number of pages used in a notarial will be stated in the
attestation clause is merely directory, rather than mandatory, and thus susceptible to what he termed as the
substantial compliance rule.
ISSUES
WON
(1) a will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is written is fatally
defective
(2) a will whose attestation clause is not signed by the instrumental witnesses is fatally defective
(3) a will does not contain an acknowledgment but a mere jurat is fatally defective
HELD
1. A WILL WHOSE ATTESTATION CLAUSE DOES NOT CONTAIN THE NUMBER OF PAGES USED
As admitted by petitioner himself, the attestation clause fails to state the number of pages of the will. 12 There was an
incomplete attempt to comply with this requisite, a space having been allotted for the insertion of the number of
pages in the attestation clause. Yet the blank was never filled in; hence, the requisite was left uncomplied with.
As compared to Uy Coque and Andrada

Attestation clause; The enactment of the CC in 1950 did put in force a rule of interpretation of the
requirements of wills, at least insofar as the attestation clause is concerned-Both Uy Coque and Andrada were decided prior to the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950, at a time when the
statutory provision governing the formal requirement of wills was Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 22
Reliance on these cases remains apropos, considering that the requirement that the attestation state the number of
pages of the will is extant from Section 618. 23 However, the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950 did put in force a rule
of interpretation of the requirements of wills, at least insofar as the attestation clause is concerned, that may vary
from the philosophy that governed these two cases. Article 809 of the Civil Code states: "In the absence of bad faith,
forgery, or fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation
or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and
attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of article 805."
As compared to Singson and Taboada wherein the SC ruled that a will may still be valid even if the attestation does
not contain the number of pages used upon which the Will is written. However, the Decisions of the Supreme Court
are not applicable in the aforementioned appeal at bench.
This is so because, in the case of "Manuel Singson versus Emilia Florentino, et al., supra," although the attestation in
the subject Will did not state the number of pages used in the will, however, the same was found in the last part of
the body of the Will.
While the attestation clause does not state the number of sheets or pages upon which the will is written, however, the
last part of the body of the will contains a statement that it is composed of eight pages, which circumstance in our
opinion takes this case out of the rigid rule of construction and places it within the realm of similar cases where a
broad and more liberal view has been adopted to prevent the will of the testator from being defeated by purely
technical considerations."
In "Apolonio Tabaoda versus Hon. Avelino Rosal, et al.", the notarial acknowledgement in the Will states the number of
pages used.
This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire will that it
is really and actually composed of only two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses. As
earlier stated, the first page which contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions is signed by the testatrix at
the end or at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin. The other page which is marked
as "Pagina dos" comprises the attestation clause and the acknowledgment. The acknowledgment itself states that
"this Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including this page
Ratio:
The law referred to is article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2645, which requires that the
attestation clause shall state the number of pages or sheets upon which the will is written, which requirement has
been held to be mandatory as an effective safeguard against the possibility of interpolation or omission of some of the
pages of the will to the prejudice of the heirs to whom the property is intended to be bequeathed
The ratio decidendi of these cases seems to be that the attestation clause must contain a statement of the number of
sheets or pages composing the will and that if this is missing or is omitted, it will have the effect of invalidating the
will if the deficiency cannot be supplied, not by evidence aliunde, but by a consideration or examination of the will
itself.
As compared to the present case:
The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on which the will was written remains a fatal flaw,
despite Article 809. The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to state the number of pages on which the will is
written is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent any
increase or decrease in the pages. 33 The failure to state the number of pages equates with the absence of an
averment on the part of the instrumental witnesses as to how many pages consisted the will, the execution of which
they had ostensibly just witnessed and subscribed to. Following Caneda, there is substantial compliance with this
requirement if the will states elsewhere in it how many pages it is comprised of, as was the situation in Singson and
Taboada. However, in this case, there could have been no substantial compliance with the requirements under Article
805 since there is no statement in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the number of pages which
comprise the will.
However, in the appeal at bench, the number of pages used in the will is not stated in any part of the Will. The will
does not even contain any notarial acknowledgment wherein the number of pages of the will should be stated.
2. A WILL WHOSE ATTESTATION CLAUSE IS NOT SIGNED BY THE INSTRUMENTAL WITNESSES
A failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can be liberally construed,
since that fact can be checked by a visual examination, while a failure by the attestation clause to state
that the witnesses signed in one anothers presence should be considered a fatal flaw since the
attestation is the only textual guarantee of compliance"[I]t may thus be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that omission which can be supplied by an examination of
the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not

obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be supplied
except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will itself." 31
Thus, a failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can be liberally construed, since
that fact can be checked by a visual examination; while a failure by the attestation clause to state that the witnesses
signed in one anothers presence should be considered a fatal flaw since the attestation is the only textual guarantee
of compliance.
The fact remains that the members of the Code Commission saw fit to prescribe substantially the same
formal requisites enumerated in Section 618 of the code of Civil procedure, convinced that these
remained effective safeguards against forgery or intercalation of notarial wills; The transcendent
legislative intent, even as expressed in the comments of the Code Commission, is for the fruition of the
testators incontestable desires, and not for indulgent admission of wills to probateAt the same time, Article 809 should not deviate from the need to comply with the formal requirements as
enumerated under Article 805. Whatever the inclinations of the members of the Code Commission in incorporating
Article 805, the fact remains that they saw fit to prescribe substantially the same formal requisites as enumerated in
Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, convinced that these remained effective safeguards against the forgery or
intercalation of notarial wills.34 Compliance with these requirements, however picayune in impression, affords the
public a high degree of comfort that the testator himself or herself had decided to convey property post mortem in the
manner established in the will. 35 The transcendent legislative intent, even as expressed in the cited
comments of the Code Commission, is for the fruition of the testators incontestable desires, and not for
the indulgent admission of wills to probate.
Article 805 particularly segregates the requirement that the instrumental witnesses sign each page of the
will, from the requisite that the will be "attested and subscribed by [the instrumental witnesses]." The
respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct from each other; Even if the
instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation
clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses undertakings in the clause, since the
signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal-The Court today reiterates the continued efficacy of Cagro. Article 805 particularly segregates the requirement that
the instrumental witnesses sign each page of the will, from the requisite that the will be "attested and subscribed by
[the instrumental witnesses]." The respective intents behind these two classes of signature are distinct from each
other. The signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify, among others, that the witnesses are aware that
the page they are signing forms part of the will. On the other hand, the signatures to the attestation clause establish
that the witnesses are referring to the statements contained in the attestation clause itself. Indeed, the attestation
clause is separate and apart from the disposition of the will. An unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested
will. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation
clause, such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses undertakings in the clause, since the signatures that do
appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal.
That it is the attestation clause which contains the utterances reduced into writing of the testamentary
witnesses themselves. It is the witnesses, and not the testator, who are required under Article 805 to
state the number of pages used upon which the will is written-The Court may be more charitably disposed had the witnesses in this case signed the attestation clause itself, but not
the left-hand margin of the page containing such clause. Without diminishing the value of the instrumental witnesses
signatures on each and every page, the fact must be noted that it is the attestation clause which contains the
utterances reduced into writing of the testamentary witnesses themselves. It is the witnesses, and not the testator,
who are required under Article 805 to state the number of pages used upon which the will is written; the fact that the
testator had signed the will and every page thereof; and that they witnessed and signed the will and all the pages
thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. The only proof in the will that the witnesses have stated
these elemental facts would be their signatures on the attestation clause.
3. A WILL DOES NOT CONTAIN AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT BUT A MERE JURAT
An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or
court and declaring it to be his act or deed. 41 It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor
actually declares to the notary that the executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same
is his/her own free act and deed-Yet, there is another fatal defect to the will on which the denial of this petition should also hinge. The requirement
under Article 806 that "every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses" has
also not been complied with. The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it had been segregated
from the other requirements under Article 805 and entrusted into a separate provision, Article 806. The nonobservance of Article 806 in this case is equally as critical as the other cited flaws in compliance with Article 805, and
should be treated as of equivalent import.
In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public, Petronio Y. Bautista, wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10
ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila."40 By no manner of contemplation can those words be construed
as an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some
competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. 41 It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the
signor actually declares to the notary that the executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same is
his/her own free act and deed.

A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before him/her, the document was
subscribed and sworn to by the executor-It might be possible to construe the averment as a jurat, even though it does not hew to the usual language thereof.
A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before him/her, the document was subscribed and
sworn to by the executor.42 Ordinarily, the language of the jurat should avow that the document was subscribed and
sworn before the notary public, while in this case, the notary public averred that he himself "signed and notarized" the
document. Possibly though, the word "ninotario" or "notarized" encompasses the signing of and swearing in of the
executors of the document, which in this case would involve the decedent and the instrumental witnesses.
The express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be "acknowledged", and not merely subscribed and
sworn to; The acknowledgment coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an
officer of the law that they had executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed-even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as a jurat, the will would nonetheless remain invalid, as the
express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be "acknowledged", and not merely subscribed and sworn to. The
will does not present any textual proof, much less one under oath, that the decedent and the instrumental witnesses
executed or signed the will as their own free act or deed. The acknowledgment made in a will provides for another allimportant legal safeguard against spurious wills or those made beyond the free consent of the testator. An
acknowledgement is not an empty meaningless act. 43 The acknowledgment coerces the testator and the instrumental
witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that they had executed and subscribed to the will as their own free
act or deed. Such declaration is under oath and under pain of perjury, thus allowing for the criminal prosecution of
persons who participate in the execution of spurious wills, or those executed without the free consent of the testator.
It also provides a further degree of assurance that the testator is of certain mindset in making the testamentary
dispositions to those persons he/she had designated in the will.
A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses is fatally
defective, even if it is subscribed and sworn to before a notary public-It may not have been said before, but we can assert the rule, self-evident as it is under Article 806. A notarial will
that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses is fatally defective,
even if it is subscribed and sworn to before a notary public.
PAYAD v TOLENTINO
FACTS
Leoncia Tolentino made a will. But instead of having his signature affixed on each and every page of the will,
she placed her thumb mark where Atty. Almario wrote her name to indicate the location where her thumb mark should
be placed. The RTC then denied the probate of the will on the ground that the attestation clause did not state that the
testatrix requested Atty. Almario to write her name at the testatrixs express direction, which according to the RTC is
not in conformity with the requirements of the law.
ISSUE
WON it is necessary to state in the attestation clause that one is requested by the T to write her name
HELD
NO.
It was not necessary that the attestation clause in question should state that the testatrix requested Atty. Almario to
sign her name inasmuch as the testatrix signed the will in question in accordance with law.
A statute requiring a will to be signed is satisfied if the signature is made by the testators mark.
MATIAS v SALUD
FACTS
This case is an appeal from a CFI Cavite order denying the probate of the will of Gabina Raquel. The document
consist of 3 pages and it seems that after the attestation clause, there appears the signature of the testatrix 'Gabina
Raquel', alongside is a smudged in violet ink claimed by the proponents as the thumbmark allegedly affixed by the
testatrix. On the third page at the end of the attestation clause appears signatures on the left margin of each page,
and also on the upper part of each left margin appears the same violet ink smudge accompanied by the written words
'Gabina Raquel' with 'by Lourdes Samonte' underneath it.
The proponent's evidence is to the effect that the decedent allegedly instructed Atty. Agbunag to drat her will
and brought to her on January 1950. With all the witnesses with her and the lawyer, the decedent affixed her
thumbmark at the foot of the document and the left margin of each page. It was also alleged that she attempted to
sign using a sign pen but was only able to do so on the lower half of page 2 due to the pain in her right shoulder. The
lawyer, seeing Gabina unable to proceed instructed Lourdes Samonte to write 'Gabina Raquel by Lourdes Samonte'
next to each thumbmark, after which the witnesses signed at the foot of the attestation clause and the left hand
margin of each page.The probate was opposed by Basilia Salud, the niece of the decedent.

The CFI of cavite denied the probate on the ground that the attestation clause did not state that the testatrix
and the witnesses signed each and every page nor did it express that Lourdes was specially directed to sign after the
testatrix.
ISSUE
WON the thumbprint was sufficient compliance with the law despite the absence of a description of such in the
attestation clause
HELD
YES
The absence of the description on the attestation clause that another person wrote the testatrix' name at her request
is not a fatal defect, The legal requirement only ask that it be signed by the testator, a requirement satisfied by a
thumbprint or other mark affixed by him.
As to the issue on the clarity of the ridge impression, it is held to be dependent on the aleatory circumstances. Where
a testator employs an unfamiliar way of signing and that both the attestation clause and the will are silent on the
matter, such silence is a factor to be considered against the authenticity of the testament. However, the failure to
describe the signature itself alone is not sufficient to refuse probate when evidence fully satisfied that the will was
executed and witnessed in accordance with law
GARCIA v LACUESTA
FACTS
Antero Mercado left a will dated January 3, 1943. The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino
Javier as he wrote the name of Antero Mercado and his name for the testator on the will. HOWEVER, immediately
after Antero Mercados will, Mercado himself placed an X mark. The attestation clause was signed by three
instrumental witnesses. Said attestation clause states that all pages of the will were signed in the presence of the
testator and witnesses, and the witnesses in the presence of the testator and all and each and every one of us
witnesses. The attestation clause however did not indicate that Javier wrote Antero Mercados name.
Petitioners contention
That there is no need for such recital because the cross written by the testator after his name is a sufficient
signature and the signature of atty. Javier is a surplusage.
ISSUE
WON the will is valid
HELD
NO. The attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero Mercado caused Atty. Florentino
Javier to write the testators name under his express direction, as required by Section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
But is there really a need for such to be included in the attestation clause considering that even though Javier signed
for Antero, Antero himself placed his signature by virtue of the X mark, and by that, Javiers signature is merely a
surplusage? That the placing of the X mark is the same as placing Anteros thumb mark.
No. Its not the same as placing the testators thumb mark. It would have been different had it been proven that the
X mark was Anteros usual signature or was even one of the ways by which he signs his name. If this were so,
failure to state the writing by somebody else would have been immaterial, since he would be considered to have
signed the will himself.
BARUT v CABACUNGAN
FACTS
Petitioners application to probate the will of Maria Solomon was denied by the court on the ground that the
one who signed the name of the testatrix did not affix his own signature. It was found out that the signature affixed
on the will is in the handwriting different from the one who wrote the name of the testator.
ISSUE
WON the person who signed the name of the testator must also affix his signature
HELD
NO. With respect to the validity of a will, it is not important that the person who writes the name of the
testator should also sign his own; the important thing is that it should clearly appear that the name of the testator
was signed at his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and in the presence of the testator and of
each other.

The attestation shall state the fact that the testator signed the will, or caused it to be signed by some other person, at
his express direction, in the presence of three witnesses, and that they attested and subscribed it in his presence and
in the presence of each other. But the absence of such form of attestation shall not render the will invalid if it is
proven that the will was in fact signed and attested as in this section provided.
From these provisions it is entirely 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 three witnesses and that they
attested and subscribed it in her presence and in the presence of each other. That is all the statute requires. It may be
wise as a practical matter that the one who signs the testator's name signs also his own; but that it is not essential to
the validity of the will. Whether one parson or another signed the name of the testatrix in this case is absolutely
unimportant so far as the validity of her will is concerned. The plain wording of the statute shows that the requirement
laid down by the trial court, if it did lay down, is absolutely unnecessary under the law; and the reasons underlying
the provisions of the statute relating to the execution of wills do not in any sense require such a provision. From the
standpoint of language it is an impossibility to draw from the words of the law the inference that the persons who
signs the name of the testator must sign his own name also. The law requires only three witnesses to a will, not four.
Nor is such requirement found in any other branch of the law. The name of a person who is unable to write may be
signed by another by express direction to any instrument known to the law. There is no necessity whatever, so far as
the validity of the instrument is concerned, for the person who writes the name of the principal in the document to
sign his own name also. As a matter of policy it may be wise that he do so inasmuch as it would give such intimation
as would enable a person proving the document to demonstrate more readily the execution by the principal. But as a
matter of essential validity of the document, it is unnecessary. The main thing to be established in the execution of the
will is the signature of the testator. If that signature is proved, whether it be written by himself or by another at his
request, it is none the less valid, and the fact of such signature can be proved as perfectly and as completely when
the person signing for the principal omits to sign his own name as it can when he actually signs. To hold a will invalid
for the lack of the signature of the person signing the name of the principal is, in the particular case, a complete
abrogation of the law of wills, as it rejects and destroys a will which the statute expressly declares is valid.
NERA v RIMANDO
FACTS
The validity of the will as to the due execution of the instrument was questioned the other witness being in a
large room connecting the smaller room where the testator and subscribing witnesses attached their signatures-which is not in accordance with the requirement that the testator and the witnesses signed in the presence of one
another.
ISSUE
WON the signing of the will by the witness must be done actually and physically in the presence of one
another
HELD
The position of the testator and of the witnesses to a will, at the moment of the subscription by each, must be such
that they see each other sign if they choose to do so.
The question whether the testator and the subscribing witnesses to an alleged will sign the instrument in the presence
of each other does not depend upon the proof of the fact that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper at the
moment of its subscription by each of them, but whether at that moment existing conditions and the position of the
parties, with relation to each other, were such that by merely casting their eyes in the proper direction they could
have seen each other sign.
One witness in outer room when will is signed
If one subscribing witness to a will is shown to have been in an outer room at the time when the testator and the
other witnesses attach their signatures to the instrument in an inner room, the will would be invalid- the attaching of
the said signatures, under such circumstances, not being done in the presence of the witness in the outer room.
Garcia v. Vasquez
G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969
Fernando, J (Ponente)
Facts:
1. Gliceria del Rosario executed 2 wills, one in June 1956, written in Spanish, a language she knew an spoke. The
other will was executed in December 1960 consisting of only one page, and written in Tagalog. The witnesses to the
1960 will declared that the will was first read 'silently' by the testatrix before signing it. The probate court admitted
the will.
2. The oppositors alleged that the as of December 1960, the eyesight of the deceased was so poor and defective that
she could not have read the provisions contrary to the testimony of the witnesses.
Issue: Whether or not the will is valid

RULING: The will is not valid. If the testator is blind, Art. 808 of the New Civil Code (NCC) should apply.If the testator
is blind or incapable of reading, he must be apprised of the contents of the will for him to be able to have the
opportunity to object if the provisions therein are not in accordance with his wishes.
The testimony of her opthalmologist established that notwithstanding an operation to remove her cataract and being
fitted with the lenses, this did not improve her vision. Her vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not
for reading. There was no evidence that her vision improved at the time of the execution of the 2nd will. Hence, she
was incapable of reading her own will. The admission of the will to probate is therefor erroneous.