Matias vs. Salud

Matias v.
Salud
G.R. No. L-10751 June 23, 1958
(Art. 806)
Doctrine: The legal requisite that the will should be signed by testator is satisfied by
a thumbprint or other mark affixed by him. If such mark is affixed by the decedent, it
is unnecessary to state in the attestation clause that another person wrote the
testators name at his request. The absence of which is not a fatal defect.
It is to be conceded that where a testator employs an unfamiliar way of
signing, and 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; but the
failure to describe the unusual signature by itself alone is not sufficient to refuse
probate when the evidence for the proponent fully satisfies the court that the will
was executed and witnessed as required by law.
Facts:
CFI- denied probate of the will (the probate of the will was opposed by Basilia
Salud, the niece of the decedent) of Gabina Raquel 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.
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 siganture of the testatrix 'Gabina Raquel',
alongside is a smudged in violet ink claimed by the proponents as the
thumbmark allegedly affixed by the tetratrix. 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 draft 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 shown that the herpes zoster that afflicted the right arm and shoulder of
the testatrix made writing a difficult and painful act, to the extent that, after
writing one signature on the second page, she dropped the pen because of an
attack of pain that lasted many minutes, and evidently discouraged attempts to
sign.
Upon the insistence of the attorney, Gabina attempted to sign, but since it was
so painful she just managed to thumbmarked the foot of the document and the
left margin at each page.
The parties opposing the probate of the will contended that the will was void
due to the irregularities in the execution thereof.
One of the points raised by the oppositors was that the finger mark cannot be
regarded as the decedents valid signature as it does not show distinct
identifying ridge lines, and since the finger mark was an invalid signature, there
must appear in the attestation clause that another person wrote the testators
name at his request.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will was valid.
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 clarity of the ridge impressions, it is so dependent on
aleatory requirements as to require dexterity that can be expected of very few
persons; testators should not be required to possess the skill of trained officers.
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.
As to the validity of the thumbprints as signature, the SC held that it has been
held in a long line of cases that a thumbprint is always a valid and sufficient
signature for the purpose of complying with the requirement of the article.
Furthermore, the validity of thumbprints should not be limited in cases of illness
or infirmity. A thumbprint is considered as a valid and sufficient signature in
complying with the requirements of the article.

Matias vs. Salud

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matias vs. Salud

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matias vs. Salud

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matias v.

ISSUE: Whether or not the will was valid.

You might also like