Barut vs. Cabacungan, et al.

Under Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a will signed by another person at the testator's express direction is valid even if that person does not sign his own name; it is immaterial who writes the testator's name, provided it is written at the testator's request and in the testator's presence and in the presence of all the witnesses to the will.

Pedro Barut sought to probate the will of Maria Salomon, under which he received the larger part of her property; the opponents were relatives of the deceased. The governing statute was Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes the formal requirements for a valid will, including signature by the testator or by another at the testator's express direction and attestation by three or more witnesses. A related proceeding, Faustino Cabacungan vs. Pedro Barut, No. 6284, concerned an alleged later will of the same decedent and was decided together with this case.

Maria Salomon died on November 7, 1908, in Sinait, Ilocos Sur. She left a last will and testament dated March 2, 1907, written in the Ilocano dialect, under which Pedro Barut received the larger part of her property. The will named Severo Agayan, Timotea Inoselda, Catalino Ragasa, and A. M. Jimenez as witnesses. Because Salomon was unable to read or write, the will was read to her by Ciriaco Concepcion and Timotea Inoselda, and she instructed Severo Agayan to sign her name to it as testatrix. The will also revoked all former wills made by her.

Pedro Barut applied to probate the will. A number of Salomon's relatives contested and opposed the probate on various grounds, among them that a later will had been executed by the deceased. That later will was the subject of a separate probate proceeding, Faustino Cabacungan vs. Pedro Barut, No. 6284, and the evidence of the proponents and opponents in both cases was taken together for consideration.

In the probate court, the will was found not entitled to probate upon the sole ground that the handwriting of the person alleged to have signed the testatrix's name looked more like the handwriting of one of the other witnesses to the will than that of the person whose handwriting it was alleged to be. The probate court apparently inferred that the law required the person who signed the testatrix's name to sign his own name as well, and that because the name below that of the testatrix appeared not to be in the same handwriting, the person who signed for the testatrix had failed to sign his own name.

• Later Will: Respondents opposed probate on various grounds, among them that a later will had been executed by the deceased, which was the subject of a separate probate proceeding.

• Validity of Will / Signature by Another: Whether a will signed by another person at the testatrix's express direction is valid even if that person does not sign his own name, under Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Handwriting Dissimilarity: Whether the probate court may deny probate based solely on dissimilarity in the handwriting of the person who signed the testatrix's name, against the uncontradicted testimony of all the witnesses to the will.
• Subsequent Will: Whether the alleged later will bars probate of the will at issue, where the later will was held not to be the will of the deceased in the related case.

• Validity of Will / Signature by Another: Yes. Section 618 does not require the person who writes the testator's name at her express direction to sign his own name; validity depends on the signature being made at the testatrix's request, in her presence, and in the presence of the witnesses, with attestation and subscription as provided by law.
• Handwriting Dissimilarity: No. Mere dissimilarity in handwriting cannot overcome the uncontradicted testimony of all the witnesses that the signature was written by Severo Agayan at the testatrix's request and in her presence and in the presence of all the witnesses.
• Subsequent Will: No. The defense of a subsequent will was resolved in case No. 6284, where the later will was held not to be the will of the deceased.

• Validity of Will / Signature by Another: Section 618 provides that a will is valid if in writing and signed by the testator, 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 statute's attestation provision further states that the absence of the prescribed form of attestation does not invalidate the will if it is proven that the will was in fact signed and attested as provided. The Court reasoned that the person who writes the testator's name need not sign his own name; the law requires only three witnesses, not four. The important thing is that the testatrix's name 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. The identity of the person who wrote the name is immaterial so long as those requisites are met. The Court distinguished Ex parte Santiago, Ex parte Arcenas, and Guison vs. Concepcion because in those cases the person who signed for the testator wrote his own name instead of the testator's name, so the testator's name nowhere appeared as the executing party; here, the testatrix's name was written on the will.
• Handwriting Dissimilarity: The probate court's sole ground—that the handwriting of the person who signed the testatrix's name looked more like that of another witness—was insufficient to overcome the uncontradicted testimony of all the witnesses to the will that Severo Agayan wrote the testatrix's signature at her request and in her presence and in the presence of all the witnesses. Such mere dissimilarity could not invalidate the will where the statutory requisites were otherwise established.
• Subsequent Will: The defense of a subsequent will was resolved in the related case No. 6284, where the Court held that the later will was not the will of the deceased. Aside from that alleged subsequent will, the contestants presented no reason why the will should not be probated. The due and legal execution of the will by the testatrix was clearly established by the proofs, so the will had to be probated.

• Execution of Wills — Signature by Another at Testator's Request — Under Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a will may be signed by the testator or by the testator's name written by some other person in the testator's 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 person who writes the testator's name need not sign his own name; it is immaterial who writes the name provided it is written at the testator's request and in the testator's presence and in the presence of all the witnesses to the execution of the will.
• Attestation Clause Not Essential to Validity — The absence of the prescribed form of attestation does not render the will invalid if it is proven that the will was in fact signed and attested as required by Section 618.
• Insufficiency of Handwriting Dissimilarity — Mere dissimilarity between the handwriting of the person who signed the testator's name and the handwriting of the person alleged to have done so is not sufficient to overcome the uncontradicted testimony of all the witnesses to the will that the signature was written at the testator's request and in the presence of the testator and the witnesses.
• Distinction Where Signer Writes His Own Name Instead of Testator's — A will is not duly executed where the person authorized to sign the testator's name instead writes his own name, so that the testator's name nowhere appears attached to the will as the executing party. That situation is distinct from one where the testator's name is written and the signer merely fails to add his own signature.

• "It is immaterial who writes the name of the testatrix provided it is written at her request and in her presence and in the presence of all the witnesses to the execution of the will." — This is the majority's core rule, rejecting the probate court's reliance on handwriting dissimilarity.
• "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." — This states the ratio decidendi under Section 618.
• "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." — This explains why the probate court's requirement would nullify a statutorily valid will.
• "The due and legal execution of the will by the testatrix is clearly established by the proofs in this case. Upon the facts, therefore, the will must be probated." — This supports the dispositive order directing probate.

• Ex parte Santiago, 4 Phil. Rep., 692 — Cited by the Court as one of the cases allegedly in opposition; distinguished because the person who signed for the testator wrote his own name instead of the testator's name, so the testator's name did not appear on the will.
• Ex parte Arcenas, 4 Phil. Rep., 700 — Distinguished on the same ground; the decision there concerned a signer who failed to write the testator's name and instead signed his own.
• Guison vs. Concepcion, 5 Phil. Rep., 551 — Distinguished on the same ground; the testatrix's name was not written, and the signer wrote his own name.
• Faustino Cabacungan vs. Pedro Barut, No. 6284 — Related case decided with this one; the Court held that the alleged later will was not the will of the deceased, resolving the contestants' defense of a subsequent will.

• Section 618, Code of Civil Procedure — Provides that no will shall be valid to pass estate unless in writing and signed by the testator, 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. It further provides that the attestation shall state the fact that the testator signed or caused the will to be signed 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 does not render the will invalid if it is proven that the will was in fact signed and attested as provided. The Court applied this provision to hold that the signer's own signature is not required for validity.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, and Carson, JJ., concurred. Torres, J., filed a separate concurring opinion. Torres agreed that Section 618 does not expressly require the person who writes the testator's name to sign his own name, but he believed that prior decisions had prescribed such a signature and that it should be maintained as a prudent requirement of jurisprudence, not contrary to law, public order, or good custom, and serving as a guarantee of authenticity. He nevertheless concurred in reversing the probate court and directing probate of the will.