41. PAYAD, petitioner-appellant, vs. TOLENTINO, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS: Both parties in this case appeal from an order of the trial court denying the
probate of the alleged will of Leoncia Tolentino, deceased on the ground that the
attestation clause was not in conformity with the requirements of law in that it is not
stated therein that the testatrix caused Attorney Almario to write her name at her
express direction.
ISSUE: Whether the attestation clause does not state that the testratrix requested
Attorney Almario to write her name.
HELD: The evidence of record established the fact that Leoncia Tolentino, assisted
by Attorney Almario, placed her thumb mark on each and every age of time
questioned will and the said attorney merely wrote her name to indicate the place
where she placed said thumb mark. In other words Attorney Almario did not sign for
the testatrix. She signed for placing her thumb mark on each and every page
thereof "A statute requiring a will to be 'signed' is satisfied if the signature is made
by the testator's mark." It is clear, therefore, that it was not necessary that the
attestation clause in question should state that the testatrix requested Attorney
Almario to sign her name inasmuch as the testratrix signed the will in question in
accordance with law. The appealed order of the trial court is reversed and the
questioned will of Leoncia Tolentino, deceased is admitted to probate.
42. De gala vs Gonzales
Facts:
On November 23, 1920, Severina Gonzales executed a will in which Serapia
de Gala, a niece of Severina, was designated executrix. The testatrix died in
November, 1926, leaving no heirs by force of law, and on December 2, 1926,
Serapia, through her counsel, presented the will for probate. Apolinario Gonzales, a
nephew of the deceased, filed an opposition to the will on the ground that it had not
been executed in conformity with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. On April 2, 1927, Serapia de Gala was appointed special administratrix of
the estate of the deceased.
On September 20, 1928, the Court of First Instance ordered Sinforoso Ona to deliver
to Serapia de Gala all the property left by the deceased. Instead of delivering the
property as ordered, Sinforoso filed a motion asking that the appointment of Serapia
de Gala as special administratrix be cancelled and that he, Sinforoso, be appointed
in her stead. The motion was opposed both by Apolinario Gonzales and by Serapia
de Gala, but on March 3, 1928, it was nevertheless granted, Serapia was removed,
and Sinforoso was appointed special administrator in her place, principally on the
ground that he had possession of the property in question and that his appointment
would simplify the proceedings.
An order dated January 20, 1928, declared the will valid and admitted it to probate.
All of the parties appealed, Serapia de Gala from the order removing her from the
office of special administratrix, and Apolinario Gonzales and Sinforoso Ona from the
order probating the will.
The appellants Sinforoso Ona and Apolinario Gonzales argue that the will in question
was not executed in the form prescribed by section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure as amended by Act No. 2645. That section reads as follows:

"No will, except as provided in the preceding section, shall be valid to pass any
estate, real or personal, nor charge or affect the same, unless it be written in the
language or dialect known by the testator and signed by him, or by the testator's
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 each other. The testator or the person requested by him to write
his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid,
each and every page thereof, on the left margin, and said pages shall be numbered
correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each sheet. The attestation shall
state the number of sheets or pages used, upon which the will is written, and the
fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other
person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of three
witnesses, and the latter witnessed and signed the will and all pages thereof in the
presence of the testator and of each other."
The principal points raised by the appeal are (1) that the person requested to sign
the name of the testatrix signed only the latter's name and not her own; (2) that the
attestation clause does not mention the placing of the thumb-mark of the testatrix
in the will; and (3) that the fact that the will had been signed in the presence of the
witnesses was not stated in the attestation clause but only in the last paragraph of
the body of the will.
Issue: whether or not the signature of the testatrix is valid
Held: Valid. It appeared in the attestation clause that the signature was affixed in
the presence of the witnesses, and the form of the signature is sufficiently described
and explained in the last clause of the body of the will. It may be conceded that the
attestation clause does not, standing alone, quite meet the requirements of the
statute, but taken in connection with the last clause of the body of the will, it is
fairly clear and sufficiently carries out the legislative intent.
In executing her last will and testament, the testatrix placed her thumb-mark
between her given name and surname, written by another person. It was not
mentioned in the attestation clause that the testatrix signed by thumb-mark, but
the form of the signature was sufficiently described and explained in the last clause
of the body of the will. Held, that the signature was valid.
43. Dolor vs Diancin
Facts:
Estate of Diancin, Teopista Dolar Vs Fidel Diancin Facts: The will of Paulino
Diancin was denied probate on the sole ground that the thumbmarks appearing
were not thumbmarks of the testator. Exhibit 8 was presented; it is a document of
sale containing an admitted genuine thumbmark of Paulino Diancin. Carlos Jaena,
attempted to qualify as an expert gace his opinion that the thumbmarks were not
made by the same person. The trial judge expressed his opinion that great
differences existed between the two marks.
Issue: The sole issue is whether the will may be probated despite the alleged
discrepancy between the thumb marks?
Held:
The Supreme Court through Justice Malcolm found error on part of the trial
court. In cases of dispute as to the will there is an obvious mean to ascertain
whether the same is genuine. Resort may be had on the testimony of the
instrumental witnesses present during the execution of the will. In the case at bar,
the three instrumental witnesses were united in testifying on matters concerning
the execution of the will. Moreover a certain Diosdado Dominado testified; that he

was the one who prepared the will for Diancin, that the thumbmarks are those of
Diancin, and that he saw Diancin make these impressions.
44. Matias vs Salud
FACTS:
The CFI denied probate of the will of Gabina Raquel. It must be noted that
Gabina Raquel was suffering from herpes zoster that afflicted the right arm and
shoulder of the testatrix, which made writing difficult and a painful act. Thus, 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 can not
be regarded as the decedents valid signature as it does not show distinct
identifying ridgelines. 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:
W/N the will was valid.
HELD:
YES. 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.
And 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.

45. Abaya vs Zalamero

Facts:
On the 6th of August, 1906, 'Roinan Abaya filed a petition with the Court of
First Instance of La Laguna, for the allowance of the will executed by Juan Zalamero,
a resident of Pagsanhan, in said province, and produced in court the said will, which
was written in the Tagalog dialect. Donata Zalamero opposed the petition, alleging
that the will had been executed under pressure and unlawful and improper influence
on the part of those who were to benefit thereby, and that it had not been executed
and signed in accordance with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
On the 10th of January, 1907, the court refused to admit the will of said Juan
Zalamero, as requested by Roman Abaya;
Abaya alleged that Juan Zalamero, while in life, executed his will on the 29th
of October, 1905, under unlawful pressure and influence exercised by those who
were thereby benefited; and second, that the said will was not executed and signed
in accordance with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue: WON there is compliance with the statutory requirements provided for by the
Civil Code
Held: Yes
Where it appears in a will that the testator has stated that by reason of his inability
to sign his name he requested one of the three witnesses present to do so, and that
as a matter of fact, the said witness wrote the name and surname of the testator
who, stating that the instrument executed by him contained his last will, put the
sign of the cross between his said name and surname, all of which details are set
forth in a note which the witnesses forthwith subscribed in the presence of the
testator and of each other, said will may be probated.
When the essential requisites of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the
execution and validity of a will have been complied with, the fact that the witness
who was requested to sign the name of the testator, omitted to state the words "by
request of the testator," when writing of his own hand the name and surname of the
said testator, and the fact that said witness subscribed his name together with the
other witnesses and not below the name of the testator, does not constitute a
defect nor invalidate the said will.
It was not expressly pretended that the said will should be disallowed under the
provisions of section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure, either because the testator
was insane or otherwise mentally incapable to execute such instrument at the time
of its execution, or because it was procured by undue and improper pressure and
influence on the part of the beneficiaries; nor, even if such request had been made,
could the nullity of the said will have been judicially declared in view of the lack of
satisfactory proof of the presence of such circumstances. Therefore, the court, in
order to disallow the petition, had to disregard them and rest the decision upon the
allegation that the will was not executed in accordance with the provisions of
section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.