Garcia vs. Lacuesta, et al.

A cross mark placed by a testator on a will is not synonymous with a thumbmark and does not constitute a valid signature unless it is proven to be the testator's usual manner of signing; additionally, if a will is signed by another person for the testator, the attestation clause must specifically state that the person signed the testator's name at the latter's express direction.

Antero Mercado executed a will written in the Ilocano dialect on January 3, 1943. During the execution, Atty. Florentino Javier wrote Antero Mercado's name, followed by the phrase "A ruego del testador" (at the request of the testator) and his own signature, while Mercado placed a cross mark after his name.

• The case originated as a petition for the probate of the will of Antero Mercado in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte.
• The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte admitted the will to probate.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, disallowing the will due to defects in the attestation clause and the manner of signing.
• The petitioner appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.

• Antero Mercado executed a three-page will in Ilocano, a dialect he understood and spoke.
• The will was not signed by Mercado's own hand in the traditional sense; instead, Atty. Florentino Javier wrote Mercado's name.
• Below the testator's name, Atty. Javier wrote "A ruego del testador" and signed his own name.
• A cross mark (+) appeared immediately after the written name of Antero Mercado on the will.
• The attestation clause stated that the testator and the witnesses signed the will, but it did not explicitly state that Atty. Javier signed the testator's name at the testator's express direction.
• The Court of Appeals found the attestation clause defective for failing to certify the specific circumstances of the signing by the third party (Atty. Javier) and the presence of the cross mark.
• There was no evidence presented to show that making a cross mark was the usual signature or habitual practice of Antero Mercado.

• The petitioner argued that the cross mark placed by Antero Mercado after his name should be considered a sufficient and valid signature.
• The petitioner contended that a cross mark is legally equivalent to a thumbmark, which has been repeatedly upheld as a valid signature in prior jurisprudence.
• The petitioner claimed that because the cross mark was a valid signature, the signature of Atty. Florentino Javier was mere surplusage and did not need to be mentioned in the attestation clause.

• The respondents argued that the will was void because the attestation clause failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the law regarding wills signed by a third party.
• The respondents maintained that the attestation clause must specifically state that the testator's name was written by another person at the testator's express direction and in his presence.
• The respondents challenged the validity of the cross mark as a substitute for a signature or a thumbmark.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the attestation clause was fatally defective for failing to state that the testator's name was written by another person at his express direction.
  • Whether a cross mark placed by a testator on a will is a valid signature equivalent to a thumbmark.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the attestation clause was fatally defective because it failed to state that Antero Mercado caused Atty. Florentino Javier to write his name under his express direction, a requirement under Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now Article 805 of the Civil Code).
  • The Court ruled that a cross mark is not equivalent to a thumbmark because a thumbmark has a unique biological trustworthiness (fingerprint) that a cross lacks.
• The Court held that a cross mark cannot be considered a valid signature unless it is proven to be the "usual signature" of the testator or one of the ways he habitually signed his name, which was not proven in this case.
• The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision to disallow the will, emphasizing that the formalities required by law for the execution of wills are mandatory to prevent fraud and substitution.

• Signature by Another (Signing by Proxy) — Under the law (Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, now Art. 805 of the Civil Code), if the testator does not sign the will himself, he must direct another person to sign his name in his presence and by his express direction. The attestation clause must specifically recite these facts to be valid.
• Thumbmark as Signature — Jurisprudence recognizes a thumbmark as a valid signature because of its distinctiveness and the inherent difficulty of forging the unique patterns of a fingerprint.
• Cross Mark as Signature — Unlike a thumbmark, a mere cross mark is generic and lacks individual characteristics. It is only considered a valid signature if it is shown to be the habitual or usual manner in which the testator signs his name.

• "The cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark."
• "It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the usual signature of Antero Mercado or even one of the ways by which he signed his name."

• De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil. 104 — Cited to acknowledge that a thumbmark has been held to be a sufficient signature in previous rulings.
• Dolar vs. Diancin, 55 Phil. 479 — Cited as part of the line of cases establishing the validity of thumbmarks in the execution of wills.
• Payad vs. Tolentino, 62 Phil. 848 — Referenced to support the principle that a testator's thumbmark is a valid substitute for a signature.
• Neyra vs. Neyra, 42 O. G. 2817 — Cited regarding the sufficiency of thumbmarks as signatures on testamentary documents.
• Lopez vs. Liboro, 46 O.G., Supp. No. 1, p. 211 — Cited to further illustrate the court's acceptance of thumbmarks as valid signatures.

• Section 618, Code of Civil Procedure — This was the prevailing law at the time of the will's execution (now reflected in Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code), requiring that the attestation clause state that the testator signed the will or that another person signed the testator's name by his express direction.