Aurelia Matias vs.

Basilia Salud

G.R. No. L-10751, June 23, 1958

DOCTRINE:

The absence of the description on the attestation clause that another person wrote the
testatrix' name at her request is not a fatal defect, The legal requirement only asks that it be
signed by the testator, a requirement satisfied by a thumbprint or other mark affixed by him.

FACTS:

Gabina Raquel (Raquel) executed a will. However, Raquel was suffering from herpes
zoster that afflicted her right arm and shoulder, which made writing a difficult and painful act.
Thus, upon the insistence of the attorney, Raquel attempted to sign, but since it was so painful,
she just managed to thumb marked the foot of the document and the left margin on each page.
The probate was opposed by Basilia Salud, the niece of Raquel. The parties opposing the
probate of the will contended that the will was void due to the irregularities in the execution
thereof.

One of the points raised by the opposition was that the finger mark cannot be regarded
as the decedent’s valid signature as it does not show distinct identifying ridgelines. And since
the finger mark was an invalid signature, there must appear in the attestation clause that
another person wrote the testator’s name at his request.

The CFI denied probate of the will of Gabina Raquel.

ISSUE:

Is the will of Gabina Raquel valid?

RULING:

YES. The absence of the description on the attestation clause that another person wrote
the testatrix' name at her request is not a fatal defect, The legal requirement only asks that it be
signed by the testator, a requirement satisfied by a thumbprint or other mark affixed by him.

As to the issue of the clarity of the ridge impression, it is held to be dependent on the
aleatory circumstances. Where a testator employs an unfamiliar way of signing and both the
attestation clause and the will are silent on the matter, such silence is a factor to be considered
against the authenticity of the testament. However, the failure to describe the signature itself
alone is not sufficient to refuse probate when evidence fully satisfied that the will was executed
and witnessed in accordance with the law.

As to the validity of the thumbprints as signatures, the SC held that it has been held in a
long line of cases that a thumbprint is always a valid and sufficient signature for the purpose of
complying with the requirement of the article.