EXTRINSIC VALIDITY
Florentino Javier at the express
Garcia vs La Cuesta
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of
Appeals disallowing the will of Antero Mercado.
The will is written in the Ilocano dialect and
contains the following attestation clause:
"We, the undersigned, by these presents
do declare that the foregoing testament
of Antero Mercado was signed by himself
and also by us below his name and of this
attestation clause and that of the left
margin of the three pages thereof. Page
three the continuation of this attestation
clause; this will is written in Ilocano
dialect which is spoken and understood
by the testator, and it bears the
corresponding number in letter which
compose of three pages and all of them
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.
"In testimony, whereof, we sign
this testament, this the third day
of January, one thousand nine
hundred forty three, (1943) A.D.
The will appears to have been signed by Atty.
Florentino Javier
- who wrote the name of Antero
Mercado,
- followed below by "A ruego del
testador" and
- the name of Florentino Javier. Antero
Mercado is alleged to have written a
cross immediately after his name.
CA: reversing the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Norte, ruled that the
attestation clause failed
(1 ) to certify that the will was signed on all the
left margins of the three pages
a. and at the end of the will by Atty.
request of the testator in the
presence of the testator
b. and each and every one of the
witnesses;
(2) to certify that after the signing of the name
of the testator by Atty. Javier
- at the former's request said testator
has written a cross at the end of his
name and
- on the left margin of the three pages
of which the will consists and at the end
thereof;
(3) to certify that the three witnesses signed
the will in all the pages thereon in the presence
of the testator and of each other.
Issue : Whether or not 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.
ATTESTATION CLAUSE; SIGNING BY ANOTHER
OF TESTATOR'S NAME AT LATTER'S
DIRECTION. When the testator expressly
caused another to sign the former's name, this
fact must be recited in the attestation clause.
Otherwise, the will is fatally defective.
SIGNATURE OF TESTATOR; CROSS. Where
the cross appearing on a will is not the usual
signature of the testator or even one of the
ways by which he signed his name, that cross
cannot be considered a valid signature.
Yap Tua vs Yap Ka Kuan
Yap Tua vsYap Ca Kuan
August 1909 : One Perfecto Gabriel, representing
the petitioner, Yap Tua, presented a petition in the
CFI of Manila
- Asking that the will of Tomasa Elizaga Yap
Caong be ADMITTED TO PROBATE
- As the last will and testatement of Tomasa
Elizaga Yap Caong, DECEASED
It appears that :
- Elizaga Yap Caong died in Manila
- August 11 1909
- Accompanying said petition and attached
thereto was the alleged will of deceased
- It appears that the will wassigned by
deceased as well as Zacaria, Tabora, and
Paez
Petition was brought on for hearing, Sept 18 1909.
Several witnesses were sworn
Paez declared that he was 48years old
- That he had known the said Tomasa
ELizaga Yap Caong
- That she had died on August 11 1909
- Before her death she had executed a last
will and testament
- That he was present at the time of
execution of same
- That he had signed the will as a witness
- That aselmo Zacarias and Severo Tabora
had also signed said will as witnesses
- That they had signed the will in presence of
deceased
Agustin declared that he was 40 years old
- That he knew the deceased during her
lifetime
- Died on..
- Before her death executed
- That there were also present paez, tabora
and anselmo
- Signed the will *testator)
- Voluntarily signed (yap)
- In possession of her faculties
-No further witnesses were called and there was no
futher opposition presented to the legalization of
the said will
After hearing, Judge ordered that the last will be
admitted to probate. Will was marked exhibit A
- Appointed Yap Tua executor of the will
upon giving of a bond
From records, it appears that no further
proceedings were had until when YAP CA KUAN
and YAP CA LLU appeared and presented petition
alleging that they were interested in the matters of
the said will and desired to intervene asked that a
guardian ad litem be appointed to represented
them in the cause
March 1 1910: court appointed Gabriel La O
guardian ad litem of said parites
Gabriel accepted and took oath and entered upon
performance of duties
March 2, 1910 : Gabriel presented a motion in
which he alleged that :
First. That the will dated the 11th
day of August, 1909, and admitted to
probate by order of the court on the 29th
day of September, 1909, was null, for the
following reasons:
 "(a) Because the
same had not been
authorized nor signed by
the witnesses as the law
prescribes.
"(b) Because at the
time of the execution of the
will, the said Tomasa Elizaga
Yap Caong was not then
mentally capacitated to
execute the same, due to her
sickness.
"(c) Because her
signature to the will had been
obtained through fraud and
illegal influence upon the part
of persons who were to
receive a benefit from the
same, and because the said
Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong
had no intention of
Second. That before the execution of
the said will, which they alleged to be null,
the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong had
executed another will, with all the formalities
required by law, upon the 6th day of August,
1909.
Third. That the said Yap Ca Kuan and
Yap Ca Llu were minors and that, even
though they had been negligent in
presenting their opposition to the legalization
of the will, said negligent was excusable, on
account of their age.
Upon foregoing facts the court was requested to
ANNUL and SET ASIDE the order of September 29
1909 and to GRANT to said minors an opportunity
to present new proof relating to due execution of
said will
Upon hearing of said motion for rehearing, Judge
granted said motion and ordered that the rehearing
should take place upon March 18, 1910
- And directed that notive should be given to
the petitioners of said rehearing
- And to all other persons interested in the
will
- At the rehearing a number of witnesses
were examined
It will be remembered that one of the grounds
which the new trial was requested was that the
deceased, Elizaga Yap Caong had not signed the
will during the rehearing, presented a witness
called Puzon.
Puzon testified that he was a professor and an
expert in handwriting, and upon being shown
the will Exhibit A, testified that the name and
surname on Exhibit A in his judgement were
written by two different hands, thru given
name is the same as that upon exhibit 1
- Because he found in the name Tomasa in
Exhibit A a similarity in the tracing to the
Tomasa in Exhibit 1 that comparing
surname on exhibit A with the surname on
Exhibit 1 he found that the character of
writing was thoroughly distinguished
- and different by tracing and
- by direction of the letters in the said two
exhibits that from his experience and
observation
- he believed that the name Tomasa and Yap
Caong appearing in the signature on Exhibit
A were written by different persons.
Puzon being cross questioned with reference to his
capacity as an expert in handwriting, testified that :
1. While he was a stuent in Ateneo, he had
studied penmanship
2. That he could not tell exactly whn that was
EXCEPT that he had concluded his course in
year 1882
3. That since that time he had been telegraph
operator for 17 years and that he had acted
 as an expert in handwriting in courts in
provinces
Gabriel La O was called as a witness during
rehearing and testified that :
1. He had drawn the will of the August 1909 at
the request of Elizaga Yap Caong.
2. That it was drawin in accord with her
request and under her directions
3. That she had signed it
4. That the same had been signed by three
witnesses in her presence and in the
presence of each other
5. That the will was written in her house
6. That she was sick and was lying in her bed
7. But that she sat up to sign the will
8. That she signed the will with great difficulty
9. That she was in her right mind
Tabora- was also called as witness again during
rehearing. He tesitified that :
1. He knew elizaga
2. She was dead
3. Signature as a witness was placed there by
hum..
4. that he did not know whether anybody
there told her to sign the will or not;
5. that he signed two wills; that he did not
know La O;
6. that he did not believe that Tomasa had
signed the will (Exhibit A) before he
arrived at the house;
7. that he was not sure that he had seen
Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong sign Exhibit A
because there were many people and
there was a screen at the door and he
could not see; that he was called as a
witness to sign the second will and was
told by the people there that it was the
same as the rst; that the will (Exhibit A)
was on a table, far from the patient, in
the house but outside the room where
the patient was; that the will was signed
by Paez and himself; that Anselmo
Zacarias was there; that he was not sure
whether Anselmo Zacarias signed the
will or not; that he was not sure whether
Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong could see the
table on which the will was written at
the time it was signed or not; that there
were many people in the house;
8. that he remembered the names of Pedro
and Lorenzo; that he could not
remember the names of any others;
9. that the will remained on the table after
he signed it; that after he signed the will
he went into the room where Tomasa
was lying; that the will was left on the
table outside; that Tomasa was very ill;
10. that he heard the people asking Tomasa
to sign the will after he (the witness) has
signed it; that he saw Paez sign the will;
11. that he could not remember whether
Anselmo Zacarias had signed the will,
because immediately after he and Paez
signed it, he left because he was
hungry; that the place where the table
was located was in the same house, on
the oor, about two steps down from the
floor on which Tomasa was.
Ru no R Papa was called as a witness for
purpose of supporting the allegation that
Elizaga Yap Caong was mentally incapacitated
to make the will. Papa decalred that
1. he was a physician
2. he knew elizaga
3. he had treated her in August 9
4. he visited her on August 8
5. he visted again on 9th and 10th of Agusut
6. last day of visit, he found woman very weak
very weak from her sickness
7. third stage of TB
8. lying in bed
9. little sense
10. lost all intelligence
11. died on 11th of august
12. when she was asked if feeling any pain, did
not answer
13. condition of stupor, induces suffering
Anselmo was called as a witness during rehearing.
He testified that :
1. he had known Tomasa Elizaga Yap
Caong since he was a child; that Tomasa
was dead;
2. that he had written the will Exhibit A;
3. that it was all in his writing except the
last part, which was written by Carlos
Sobaco;
4. that he had written the will Exhibit A at
the request of the uncle of Tomasa;
5. that Lorenzo, the brother of the
deceased, was the one who had
instructed him as to the terms of the
will;
6. that the deceased had not spoken to him
concerning the terms of the will;
7. that the will was written in the dining
room of the residence of the deceased;
8. that Tomasa was in another room
different from that in which the will was
written;
9. that the will was not written in the
presence of Tomasa;
10. that he signed the will as a
witness in the room where Tomasa was
lying;
11. that the other witnesses signed
the will in the same room; that when he
went into the room where the sick
woman was (Tomasa Elizaga Yap
Caong) Lorenzo had the will in his
hands; that when Lorenzo came to the
bed he showned the will to his sister
(Tomasa) and requested her to sign it;
12. that she was lying stretched out
on the bed and two women, who were
taking care of her, helped her to sit up,
supporting her by placing their hands at
her back;
13. that when she started to write
her name, he withdrew from the bed on
account of the heat inside the room;
14. when he came back again to the
sick bed the will was signed as was
again in the hands of Lorenzo; that he
did not see Tomasa sign the will because
he withdrew from the room;
15. that he did not know whether
Tomasa had been informed of the
contests of the will or not; he supposed
she must have read it because Lorenzo
turned the will over to her;
16. that when Lorenzo asked her to
sign the will, he did not know what she
said he could not hear her voice;
17. that he did not know whether the
sick woman saw him sign the will or not;
18. that he believed that Tomasa
died the next day after the will had been
signed; that the other two witnesses,
Timoteo Paez and Severo Tabora, had
signed the will in the room with the sick
woman;
19. that he saw them sign the will
and that they saw him sign it; that he
was not sure whether the testatrix could
have seen them at the time they signed
the will or not;
20. that there was a screen before
the bed;
21. that he did not think that Lorenzo
had been giving instructions as to the
contents of the will;
22. that bout ten or fteen minutes
elapsed from the time Lorenzo handed
the will to Tomasa before she started to
sign it;
23. that the pen with which she
signed the will was given to her and she
held it.
Cleotilde Mariano testified that:
1. he was a cigarette maker;
2. that he knew Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong
and
3. that she was dead;
4. that she had made two wills; that the rst
one was written by La O and
5. the second by Zacarias; that he was
present at the time Zacarias wrote the
second one;
6. that he was present when the second
will was taken to Tomasa for signature;
7. that Lorenzo had told Tomasa that the
second will was exactly like the first;
8. that Tomasa said she could not sign it.
On cross examination, he testified that there was a
lot of visitors there; that Zacarias was not there;
that Paez and Tabora were there; that he had told
Tomasa that the second will was exactly like the
first.
During rehearing Cornelia, Serrano and Pedro
Francisco were also examined as witnesses. There
is NOTHING in their testimony, however, which in
our opinion is important
In rebuttal Julia de la Cruz was called as a
witness. She testi ed that
1. she was 19 years of age;
2. that she knew Tomasa Elizaga Yap
Caong during her lifetime; that she lived
in the house of Tomasa during the last
week of her illness;
3. that Tomasa had made two wills;
4. hat she was present when the second
one was executed;
5. that a lawyer had drawn the will in the
dining room and after it had been drawn
and everything nished, it was taken to
where Doa Tomasa was, for her
signature; that it was taken her by
Anselmo Zacarias;
6. that she was present at the time Tomasa
signed the will that there were many
other people present also;
7. that she did not see Timoteo Paez there;
that she saw Severo Tabora that Anselmo
Zacarias was present;
8. that she did not hear Cleotilde Mariano
ask Tomasa to sign the will;
9. that she did not hear Lorenzo say to
Tomasa that the second will was the
same as the rst;
10. that Tomasa asked her to help her to sit
up and to put a pillow to her back when
Zacarias gave her some paper or
document and asked her to sign it;
11. that she saw Tomasa take hold of the
pen and try to sign it but she did not see
the place she signed the document, for
the reason that she left room;
12. that she saw Tomasa sign the document
but did not see on what place of
document she signed;
13. that she heard Tomasa ask for another
notary public and
14. that a notary public came the next
morning that Tomasa was able to move
about in the bed;
15. that she had seen Tomasa in the act of
starting to write her signature when she
told her to get her
Yap Cao Quiang was also called as a witness in
rebuttal. He testi ed that
1. he knew Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong and
knew that she had made a will;
2. that he saw the will at the time it was
written;
3. that he saw Tomasa sign it on her bed
he did not hear Lorenzo ask Tomasa to
sign the will that Lorenzo had handed
the will to Tomasa to sign;
4. that he saw the witnesses sign the will
on a table near the bed; that the table
was outside the curtain or screen and
near the entrance to the room where
Tomasa was lying.
Lorenzo Yap Caong testi ed as a witness on
rebuttal. He said that :
1. he knew Anselmo Zacarias and that
Zacarias wrote the will of Tomasa
Elizaga Yap Caong;
2. that Tomasa had given him instructions;
3. that Tomasa had said that she wanted
to make another will; that he had seen
the witnesses sign the will;
4. that the will was on the table near the
bed of Tomasa;
5. that Tomasa, from where she was lying
in the bed, could see the table where
the witnesses had signed the will.
HELD :
WILLS; FORM OF SIGNATURE; FIRST NAME OF
TESTATOR ONLY. It has been held time
again that one who makes a will may sign the
same by the use of a mark, the name having
been written by others. If the writing of a mark
simply upon a will is sufficient indication of the
intention of the person to make and execute it,
then certainly the writing of a portion or all of
the name ought to be accepted as a clear
indication of intention to execute it. The man
who cannot write and who is obliged to make
his mark simply therefore upon the will, is held
to "sign" as effectually as if he had written his
initials or his full name. It would seem to be
sufficient, under the law requiring a signature
by the person making a will to make his mark,
to place his initials or all or any part of his name
thereon.
SIGNATURE OF TESTATOR AND WITNESSES.
While the rule is absolute that one who
makes a will must sign the same in the
presence of the witnesses and that the
witnesses must sign in the presence of each
other, as well as in the presence of the one
making the will, yet, nevertheless, the actual
seeing of the signature made is not necessary.
It is sufficient if the signatures are made
where it is possible for each of the necessary
parties, if they so desire, to see the signatures
placed upon the will.
Lopez vs Liboro
Facts :
CFI Batangas : appellant opposed
unsuccessfully the probate of what purports to
be the last will and testament of Don Sixto
Lopez, who died at the age of 83 in Batangas.
Almost six months after the document in
question was executed.
Present appellant specified grounds for his
opposition, to wit:
1. First sheet, which is also first page is not
paged either in letters or in Arabic
numerals
2. That the witnesses to the will provided
contradictory statements
3. That don sixto used his thumb mark to
sign the will
4. There was no indication in the will that
the language used therein is known by
Sixto Lopez
Only one of these objections is reiterated,
formulated in these words: "That the court a
quo erred in holding that the document Exhibit
"A" was executed in all particulars as required
by law."
To this objection is added the alleged error of
the court "in allowing the petitioner to introduce
evidence that Exhibit "A" was written in a
language known to the decedent after petitioner
rested his case and over the vigorous objection
of the oppositor."
5.
The will in question comprises two
pages, each of which is written on one
side of a separate sheet.
The first sheet is not paged either in
letters or in Arabic numerals. This, the
appellant believes, is a fatal defect.
Issue : Whether or not it is valid? Thumbmark
Held :
SIGNATURE BY MARK. A statute requiring a
will to be "signed" is satisfied if the signature is
made by the testator's mark.
The testator affixed his thumbmark to the
instrument instead of signing his name. The
reason for this was that the testator was
suffering from "partial paralysis." While another
in testator's place might have directed someone
else to sign for him, as appellant contends
should have been done, there is nothing curious
or suspicious in the fact that the testator chose
the use of mark as the means of authenticating
his will. It was a matter of taste or preference.
Both ways are good. A statute requiring a will to
be "signed" is satis ed if the signature is made
by the testator's mark. (De Gala vs. Gonzales
and Ona, 53 Phil., 108; 28 R. C. L., 117.)
PAGING; PURPOSE; OMISSION OF PAGE
NUMBER SUPPLIED BY OTHER MEANS OF
IDENTIFICATION. The purpose of the law in
prescribing the paging of wills is to guard
against fraud, and to afford means of
preventing the substitution or of detecting the
loss of any of its pages. (Abangan vs. Abangan,
40 Phil., 476.) The omission to put a page
number on a sheet, if that be necessary, may
be supplied by other forms of identification
more trustworthy than the conventional
numeral words or characters.
EVIDENCE; WITNESSES, CREDIBILITY OF;
CONTRADICTIONS ON INCIDENTS.
contradictions in the testimony of the
instrumental witnesses as are set out in the
appellant's brief are incidents, not all of which
every one of the witnesses can be supposed to
have perceived, or to recall in the same order
in which they occurred. Far from being an
evidence of falsehood, the contradictions
constitute an evidence of good faith.
Taboada vs Rosal
Facts :
In the petition for probate filed with the
respondent court, the petitioner attached the
: their addresses be held in abeyance
1. alleged last will and testament of the late
Dorotea Perez.
2. Written in Cebuano-Visayan dialect, the
will consists of two pages.
3. The first page contains the entire
testamentary dispositions and
4. is signed at the end or bottom of the
page by the testatrix alone and
5. at the left hand margin by the three (3)
instrumental witnesses.
6. The second page which contains the
attestation clause and the
acknowledgment is signed at the end of
the attestation clause by the three 13)
attesting witnesses and
7. at the left hand margin by the testatrix.
No opposition was filed after pets
compliance with requirement of
publications
TC: Commissioned the branch clerk of court to
receive the pets evidence
Petitioner submitted his evidence and presented
Timkang, one of the subscribing witnesses to
the will who testified on its genuiness and
dueexecution
TC : issued questioned orders
1. Denying probate of the will of Dorotea
Perez
2. For want of a fomarlity in its execution
3. Petitioner is required to submit names of
intestate heirs with their corresponding
addresses
4. So that they could be properly notified
and could intervene in summary
settlement of estate
Instead of complying with order, petitioner filed
a manifestation and or MOTION EX PARTE
praying :
1. For a 30 day period within which to
deliberate on any step to be taken as a
result of disallowance of will
2. For a 10 days period required by court to
submit the names of intestate heirs with
Petitioner : filed a motion for reconsideration of
order denying probate of will
Motion together with previous manifestation and
or motion COULD NOT BE ACTED UPON due to
his transfer to his new station at Pasig
Meanwhile, Petitioner filed a motion for
appointment of special administrator
DENIED LAHAT.
Hence this petition
ISSUE :
For the validity of a formal notarial will, does
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?
HELD :
The objects of attestation and of subscription
were fully met and satisfied in the present case
when the instrumental witnesses signed at the
left margin of the sole page which contains all
the testamentary dispositions, especially so
when the will was properly identified by
subscribing witness Vicente Timkang to be the
same will executed by the testatrix. There was
no question of fraud or substitution behind the
questioned order.
a) that the objects of attestation and
subscription were fully met and satisfied in the
present case when the instrumental witnesses
signed at the left margin of the sole page which
contains all the testamentary dispositions,
especially so when the will was properly
identified by a subscribing witness to be the
same will executed by the testatrix; and b) that
the failure of the attestation clause to state the
number of pages used in writing the will would
have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact
that it is really and actually composed of only
two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her
instrumental witnesses.
CIVIL LAW; WILLS AND TESTAMENTS;
NOTARIAL WILL; FORMALITIES;
ATTESTATION AND SUBSCRIPTION; DEFINED.
Under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will
must be subscribed or signed at its end by the
testator himself or by the testator's name
written by another 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. 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
(Ragsdale v. Hill, 269 SW 2d 911).
ATTESTATION CLAUSE; FAILURE TO STATE
THE NUMBER OF PAGES USED IN WRITING THE
WILL IS FATAL; EXCEPTION; CASE AT BAR.
The failure of the will's attestation clause to
state the number of pages used in writing the
will 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 (See
Singson vs. Florentino, et al. (192 Phil. 161,
1641 and Icasiano vs. Icasiano, [11 SCRA 422,
429].)
Nera vs Rimando
Facts :
A majority of the members of court is of opinion
that this subscribing witness was in the small
room with testator and the other subscribing
witnesses at the time when they attached their
signatures to the instrument
TC : did not consider determination of this
question of fact of vital importance in the
determination of this case
Alleged fact that one of subscribing witnesses
was in outer room when testator
Other describing witnesses signed instrument in
the inner room, had it been proven
WOULD NOT be sufficient in itself to invalidate
the execution of the will
We are unanimously of opinion that had this
subscribing witness been proven to have been
in outer room at the time when the testator and
other subscribing witnesses attached their
signatures to isnturment in inner room,
- It would have been invalid as a will, the
attaching of those signatures under
circumstances not being done in the
presence of witnesses
THE LINE OF VISION FROM THIS WITNESS TO
TESTATOR AND OTHER SUBSCRIBING
WITNESSES WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE BEEN
EMPEDED BY CURTAIN SEPARATING INNER
FROM OUTER ONE at the moment of inscription
of each signature

Issue/s:

1. whether one of the subscribing witnesses

was present in the small room where it
was executed at the time when the
testator and the other subscribing
witnesses attached their signatures;
2. whether at that time he was outside,
some eight or ten feet away, in a large
room connecting with the smaller room
by a doorway, across which was hung a
curtain which made it impossible for one
in the outside room to see the testator
and the other subscribing witnesses in
the act of attaching their signatures to
the instrument.

Held :

SIGNING IN THE PRESENCE OF EACH OTHER.

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 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 WH.L

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
held invalid the attaching of the said
signatures, under such circumstances, not
being done "in the presence" of the witness in
the outer room.