In the matter of the will of Maria Siason y Madrid de Ledesma vs. Probate proceedings

Under section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a will is validly signed when the testator’s name is written by another person at the testator’s express direction, even if the name appears in the form “At the request of [testator]” immediately after the testament and before the witnesses’ signatures; and the witnesses subscribe in the testator’s presence and in each other’s presence when they are all in the same apartment, regardless of whether they or the testator can read the instrument.

Maria Siason y Madrid de Ledesma was the testatrix whose will was offered for probate. The instrument’s validity was governed by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribed the requisites of execution and attestation for wills, including signature by the testator or by the testator’s name written by another at his express direction, and subscription by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The statutory text had been construed in prior decisions, including Ex parte Arcenas, which corrected an incorrect Spanish translation and identified a correct signature formula without excluding substantially equivalent forms.

Maria Siason y Madrid de Ledesma was ill and confined to her house. Her will was executed in the sala where she lay upon a sofa. The instrument was thereafter offered for probate, and the Court of First Instance refused probate on the ground that it was not subscribed by the witnesses in the presence of the testatrix and of each other as required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

During the execution, the witnesses differed as to whether the testatrix, from where she lay, could read what was written at the table. The first witness, after signing, went away from the table. The witnesses were all in the same apartment where the testatrix lay.

The signature to the instrument ended in this form: “At the request of Señora Maria Siason. CATALINO GEVA. T. SILVERIO. FRUCTUOSO G. MORIN. RAFAEL ESPIN.” The name “Señora Maria Siason” appeared after the words “At the request of” and before the names of the witnesses. On appeal, it was contended that those words formed part of the recital and not a signature, the only signatures being the names of the witnesses themselves. The Supreme Court compared this placement with Guison vs. Concepcion, where the testatrix’s name occurred only in the body of the attestation clause after the first signatures of the witnesses.

• Presence of Witnesses: Whether the witnesses subscribed the will in the presence of the testatrix and of each other within the meaning of section 618 where they were all in the same apartment but differed as to whether the testatrix could read what was written at the table and the first witness, after signing, went away from the table.
• Sufficiency of Signature: Whether the words “Señora Maria Siason” written after “At the request of” by another person at her request constituted the testatrix’s name written by another at her express direction, sufficient as a signature under section 618.

• Presence of Witnesses: Yes. The witnesses were all in the same apartment and thus present; the statute does not require that they or the testatrix read what was written. A witness who left the room or was so remote as to be cut off from actual participation would not satisfy the presence requirement.
• Sufficiency of Signature: Yes. The name immediately followed the testament and preceded the witnesses’ names, and was written by another at the testatrix’s request; it constituted her name written by another at her express direction. The distinction from Guison vs. Concepcion was tenable because there the name appeared only in the attestation clause after the witnesses’ first signatures.

• Presence of Witnesses: Section 618 requires attestation and subscription by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. The witnesses were in the same apartment where the testatrix lay on a sofa. Although they differed as to whether the testatrix could read what was written at the table, and the first witness after signing went away from the table, these circumstances did not impair validity. The statute does not exact that either the witnesses or the testator read what was written. Presence means actual participation in the proceedings; had one witness left the room or placed himself so remotely as to be cut off from actual participation, the subscription might not have taken place in his presence. Because all were in the same apartment, the presence requirement was satisfied.
• Sufficiency of Signature: Section 618 allows the will to be signed by the testator or by the testator’s name written by some other person in his presence and by his express direction. The concluding sentence of the section makes the execution requisites, not the attestation-clause wording, controlling. The misunderstanding from the incorrect Spanish translation was corrected in Ex parte Arcenas. The words “Señora Maria Siason” are her name. Although occurring after “At the request of,” the majority held they were not merely a recital. In Guison vs. Concepcion, no signature was found where the testatrix’s name appeared only in the body of the attestation clause after the first signatures of the witnesses. Here, the name immediately followed the testament itself and preceded the names of the witnesses, a distinction the majority deemed tenable. Sustaining this form did not qualify Ex parte Santiago, Ex parte Arcenas, or Abaya vs. Zalamero; Arcenas pointed out the correct formula but did not exclude other substantially equivalent forms. Thus the instrument was validly signed.

• Presence of Witnesses in Will Execution — Under section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a will must be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other. Presence is satisfied when the witnesses are in the same apartment as the testator during execution; the law does not require that the witnesses or the testator read the will. A witness who leaves the room or places himself so remotely as to be cut off from actual participation in the proceedings may cause the subscription to fail the presence requirement.
• Signature by Another at Express Direction — A will may be signed by the testator or by the testator’s name written by another person in the testator’s presence and by his express direction. The name need not be in the testator’s own hand. The Court accepted the words “Señora Maria Siason” after “At the request of” and before the witnesses’ signatures as the testatrix’s name written by another at her request, sufficient as a signature, rather than a mere recital.
• Substantial Equivalence of Signature Forms — The correct formula for a signature pointed out in Ex parte Arcenas is not exclusive; other forms substantially equivalent to it may satisfy the statutory requirement.
• Distinction from Attestation-Clause Recital — A testatrix’s name appearing only in the body of the attestation clause after the witnesses’ first signatures, as in Guison vs. Concepcion, is not a valid signature; but a name immediately following the testament and preceding the witnesses’ names may be treated as a signature.

• “Had one of the witnesses left the room or placed himself so remotely therein as to be cut off from actual participation in the proceedings, then the subscription might not have taken place in his presence within the meaning of the law.” — States the limit of the presence requirement: physical presence in the same apartment suffices, but absence or remoteness that cuts off actual participation does not.
• “The majority of the court, however, are of the opinion that the distinction is a tenable one inasmuch as in the Concepcion will the name of the testatrix occurred only in the body of the attestation clause, after the first signatures of the witnesses, whereas in this will it immediately follows the testament itself and precedes the names of the witnesses.” — States the ratio for treating the name in this will as a sufficient signature and distinguishing Guison vs. Concepcion.
• “In the Arcenas case the court pointed out the correct formula for a signature which ought to be followed, but did not mean to exclude any other form substantially equivalent.” — Clarifies that the statutory signature requirement permits substantially equivalent forms.
• “The decision of the court below is reversed, without costs, and that court is directed to admit the instrument before it to probate as the last will of the testatrix.” — States the dispositive order directing probate.

• Ex parte Arcenas, 4 Phil. Rep. 700 — Cited for the correction of the incorrect Spanish translation of section 618 and for the rule that the correct signature formula pointed out therein does not exclude other substantially equivalent forms.
• Guison vs. Concepcion, 5 Phil. Rep. 551 — Distinguished. There, no signature was found although the attestation clause contained the testatrix’s name and was signed by the witnesses; the name appeared only in the body of the attestation clause after the witnesses’ first signatures, unlike the present will where it immediately followed the testament and preceded the witnesses’ names.
• Ex parte Santiago, 4 Phil. Rep. 692 — Cited as not qualified by the Court’s acceptance of the signature form in this case.
• Abaya vs. Zalamero — Cited as not qualified by the Court’s ruling; no citation appears in the text.

• Section 618, Code of Civil Procedure — Requisites of will. No will is valid 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. The attestation shall state that the testator signed or caused the will to be signed by another 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. 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 the execution clause as controlling and held the name written by another at request sufficient and the presence requirement satisfied by the witnesses being in the same apartment.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, JJ., concur. Willard, J., concurs in the result.

• Carson, J. — Dissented. The will was signed by the name of the witness at the request of the testatrix, but not by the name of the testatrix written by the witness. The English version of section 618 requires that where the testator does not sign, the will must be signed by the testator’s name attached by another; the Spanish version is imperfect. The name of the testatrix appeared merely in the recital that she requested someone to sign for her, not as a signature. Guison vs. Concepcion was indistinguishable. Public policy requires strict compliance with the requisites for a valid will, even if the result defeats the testatrix’s intent. Johnson, J., concurred.