SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 42258. January 15, 1936.]

In re Will of the deceased Leoncia Tolentino, VICTORIO PAYAD ,

petitioner-appellant, vs . AQUILINA TOLENTINO, oppositor-appellant.

Vicente Foz, Marciano Almario and Leonardo Abola for petitioner-appellant.

Leodegario Azarraga for oppositor-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. WILLS; ATTESTATION CLAUSE; TESTATOR'S SIGNATURE. — It was not

necessary that the attestation clause in question should state that the testatrix
requested Attorney A to sign her name inasmuch as the testatrix signed the will in
question in accordance with law.
2. ID.; ID.; TESTATOR'S MARK. — "A statute requiring a will to be 'signed' is
satis ed if the signature is made by the testator's mark." (Quoted by this court from 28
R. C. L., p. 117; De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil., 104, 108.)

DECISION

GODDARD , J : p

Both parties in this case appeal from an order of the trial court denying the
probate of the alleged will of Leoncia Tolentino, deceased. That court found that the will
in question was executed by the deceased on the date appearing thereon, September 7,
1933, one day before the death of the testatrix, contrary to the contention of the
oppositor that it was executed after her death. The court, however, denied probate 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.

The appeal of the oppositor-appellant is based upon the alleged failure of the
trial court in not nding that the will in question was executed after the death of Leoncia
Tolentino, or that she was mentally and physically incapable of executing said will one
day before her death. After a careful examination of the evidence on these points we
nd no reason for setting aside the conclusion of the trial court as set forth above. The
assignments of the oppositor-appellant are therefore overruled.
As to the contention of the petitioner-appellant, as stated above, the trial court
denied probate of the will on the sole ground that the attestation clause does not state
that the testatrix requested Attorney Almario to write her name. The last paragraph of
the questioned will reads in part as follows:
"En prueba de todo la cual, rmo el presente testamento con mi marca digital,
porque no puedo estampar mi rma a causa de mi debilidad, rogando al abogado M.
Almario que ponga mi nombre en el sitio donde he de estampar mi marca digital . . ."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The evidence of record establishes the fact the Leoncia Tolentino, assisted by
Attorney Almario, placed her thumb mark on each and every page of the questioned will
and that 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 by placing her thumb mark on each and every page thereof. "A statute requiring
a will to be 'signed' is satis ed if the signature is made by the testator's mark." (Quoted
by this court from 28 R. C. L., p. 117; De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil., 104, 108.)
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 testatrix 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 hereby admitted to probate with the costs of this
appeal against the oppositor-appellant.
Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial and Butte, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com