Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Garcia Vs Lacuesta

    Uploaded by

    Jusio Rae Reyes
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision disallowing the will of Antero Mercado. The attestation clause was fatally defective because it failed to state that Antero Mercado expressly directed his lawyer, Atty. Florentino Javier, to write Mercado's name. While the petitioner argued the cross Mercado wrote was sufficient as his signature, the Court disagreed, finding a cross cannot be reliably likened to a thumbmark which has previously been accepted as a valid signature. As the attestation clause was defective, the Court did not determine if the will was properly signed and witnessed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garcia Vs Lacuesta

    Uploaded by

    Jusio Rae Reyes
    29 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision disallowing the will of Antero Mercado. The attestation clause was fatally defective because it failed to state that Antero Mercado expressly directed his lawyer, Atty. Florentino Javier, to write Mercado's name. While the petitioner argued the cross Mercado wrote was sufficient as his signature, the Court disagreed, finding a cross cannot be reliably likened to a thumbmark which has previously been accepted as a valid signature. As the attestation clause was defective, the Court did not determine if the will was properly signed and witnessed.

    Original Title

    Garcia vs Lacuesta.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision disallowing the will of Antero Mercado. The attestation clause was fatally defective because it failed to state that Antero Mercado expressly directed his lawyer, Atty. Florentino Javier, to write Mercado's name. While the petitioner argued the cross Mercado wrote was sufficient as his signature, the Court disagreed, finding a cross cannot be reliably likened to a thumbmark which has previously been accepted as a valid signature. As the attestation clause was defective, the Court did not determine if the will was properly signed and witnessed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views2 pages

    Garcia Vs Lacuesta

    Uploaded by

    Jusio Rae Reyes
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision disallowing the will of Antero Mercado. The attestation clause was fatally defective because it failed to state that Antero Mercado expressly directed his lawyer, Atty. Florentino Javier, to write Mercado's name. While the petitioner argued the cross Mercado wrote was sufficient as his signature, the Court disagreed, finding a cross cannot be reliably likened to a thumbmark which has previously been accepted as a valid signature. As the attestation clause was defective, the Court did not determine if the will was properly signed and witnessed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-4067            November 29, 1951

    In the Matter of the will of ANTERO MERCADO, deceased. ROSARIO GARCIA, petitioner,


    vs.
    JULIANA LACUESTA, ET AL., respondents.

    Elviro L. Peralta and Hermenegildo A. Prieto for petitioner.


    Faustino B. Tobia, Juan I. Ines and Federico Tacason for respondents.

    PARAS, C.J.:

    This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals disallowing the will of Antero Mercado
    dated January 3, 1943. The will is written in the Ilocano dialect and contains the following
    attestation clause:

    We, the undersigned, by these presents to 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 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 statement, this the third day of January, one thousand
    nine hundred forty three, (1943) A.D.

    (Sgd.) NUMERIANO (Sgd.) "ROSENDA


    EVANGELISTA CORTES
    (Sgd.) BIBIANA ILLEGIBLE
    The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero
    Mercado, followed below by "A reugo del testator" and the name of Florentino Javier. Antero
    Mercado is alleged to have written a cross immediately after his name. The Court of Appeals,
    reversing the judgement 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 and at
    the end of the will by Atty. Florentino Javier at the express request of the testator in the presence
    of the testator 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.

    In our opinion, the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero Mercado
    caused Atty. Florentino Javier to write the testator's name under his express direction, as required
    by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The herein petitioner (who is appealing by way of
    certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals) argues, however, that there is no need for
    such recital because the cross written by the testator after his name is a sufficient signature and
    the signature of Atty. Florentino Javier is a surplusage. Petitioner's theory is that the cross is as
    much a signature as a thumbmark, the latter having been held sufficient by this Court in the cases
    of De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil., 104; Dolar vs. Diancin, 55 Phil., 479;
    Payad vs. Tolentino, 62 Phil., 848; Neyra vs. Neyra, 76 Phil., 296 and Lopez vs. Liboro, 81 Phil.,
    429.

    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. After mature reflection, we are not
    prepared to liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark, and the reason is obvious. The cross
    cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.

    What has been said makes it unnecessary for us to determine there is a sufficient recital in the
    attestation clause as to the signing of the will by the testator in the presence of the witnesses, and
    by the latter in the presence of the testator and of each other.

    Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with against the petitioner. So ordered.

    Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy