Suroza vs Honrado

- Marcelina supposed executed a will, which is in English and

was thumbarked by her. She was illiterate.
- Administrative action against the judge for serious misconduct
or enefficiency.

Abangan vs Abangan
- The records do not show that the testatrix knew the dialect in
which the will is written. But the circumstances appearing in
the will itself that the same was executed in Cebu and in the
dialect of this locality, in which the testatrix was a neighbor is
enough. ENOUGH

Payad vs Tolentino
- Tolentino assisted by Atty. Almario, placed her thumb mark on
each and every page of the questioned will and that the said
attorney merely wrote her name to indicate the place where
she placed said thumb mark. In other words, ATTY. ALMARIO
DID NOT SIGN FOR THE TESTATRIX.
- Thus, it is not necessary that the attestation clause includes
that Tolentino requested Atty. Almario to sign her name
inasmuch as the testatrix signed the will in question in
accordance with the law.
- It is not essential to state in the attestation clause that the
person delegated by the testator to sign in his behalf did so in
the presence of the testator. It is enough that it be proved in
court that this was what happened. (See Jallores v. Interino,
L-42463). Nor is it possible to state therein that another
person was requested by the testator to sign for him, when
the testator himself has thumb marked the will.

Matias vs. Salud

- It is unnecessary to state in the attestation clause that

another person wrote the testator's name at his request. While
in some of the cases the signing of mark was described in the
 attestation clause, it does not appear that the Court ever held
that the absence of such description is Fatal defect.
- When therefore the law says that the will shall be signed by
the testator or textatrix, the law is fulfilled not only by the
customary written signature but by the testator or testratix's
thumbmark.

Garcia vs Lacuesta
- In here, the testator written a cross as his signature to the
will. But this is not sufficient nor it is allowed, unless it is his
usual manner of signing.
- Thus, the attestatikn clause should have indicated that
another person who was Atty Javier, was requested by the
testator to write testator's name under his express direction.
- The attestation clause is fatally defective
for failing to state that Mercado caused Atty. Javier to write
the testator’s name under his express direction, as required
by Sec 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The sign of a cross unless it is the testator’s usual manner of
signing, cannot be likened by a thumb mark.
-
Barut vs. Cabacungan
- The person requested to write testator's name failed to sign in
his own name. THIS DOES NOT AFFECT VALIDITY.
- It is immarerial 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.
- With respect to the validity if the will, it is unimportant
whether the persin who writes the name of the textatrix signs
or not.
- To hold a will invalid for the lack of the signathre of the
person signing the name of the principal, is a complete
abrogation of thevlaw of wills.
- Essential thing for validity is that the agent write the testators
name. Nothing more.
-

Nera vs Rimando
 - Upon the other hand, if there is a curtain separating the
testator and some witnesses — from the other witness — there
would be a physical obstruction, and the will cannot be valid.
- The question whether the testator and the subscribing
witnesses to an alleged will sign the instrument in the
presence of each other does not depend upon proof of the
fact that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper at the
moment of its subscription by each of them, but that at that
moment existing conditions and their position with relation to
each other were such that by merely casting the eyes in the
proper direction they could have seen each other sign. To
extend the doctrine further would open the door to the
possibility of all manner of fraud, substitution, and the like,
and would defeat the purpose for which this particular
condition is prescribed in the code as one of the requisites in
the execution of a will.

Icasiano vs Icasiano
- The records show that the original of the will, consisting of
five pages, and while signed at the end and in every page,
does not contain the signature of one of the attesting
witnesses, Atty. Natividad, on page three thereof.
- The court ruled that the inadvertent failure of one witness to
affix his signature to one page of a testament, due to
simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is
not per se sufficient to justify denial of probate.
- It was merely an oversight as shown by his testimony as well
as by duplicate copy of the will, which bears a complete sign
of signatures in every page.
- Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured not only
the fact that the testatrix and two other witnesses isgned the
defective page but also by its bearing of imprint of the seal of
notary public.

Cagro vs Cagro
- The petitioner and appellee contends that the signature of the
three witnesses on the left-margin conform substantially to
the law and may be deemed as their signatures to the
attestation clause. THIS IS UNTENABLE.
- Said signatures are in compliance with the legal mandate that
the will be signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages.
 Failure to sign at the attestation clause, will make it easy to
add such clause to a will on a subsequent occasion.

Javellana vs Ledesma
- The codicil was signed by the witnesses at San Pablo Hospital
and was brought by Gimotea to his office, and signed and
sealed it there.
- Art 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code reveals that while
testator and witnesses must sign in the presence of each
other, all that is required is that every will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and
witnesses. Their separate execution out of the presence of the
testatrix and her witnesses cannot be said to violate the rule
that testaments should be completed without interruption.
- The cetification of acknowledgement need not be signed by
the notary in the presence of the testator and the witnesses.

Cruz vs Villasor
- Of the three instrumental witness, one of them is at the same
time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to
have been acknowledged.
- The last will and testament is NOT EXECUTED ACCORDING TO
LAW. The notary public before whom the will was
acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental
witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having
signed the will.
- Consequently, is the third witness were the notary public
himself, he would have to avow, assent, or admit his having
signed the will in front of himself. This cannot be done
because he cannot split his personality into two.