MATIAS v.

SALUD
June 23, 1958 | REYES, JBL, J.| Wills > Forms > Notarial will; manner of signing
PETITIONERS: AUREA MATIAS
RESPONDENTS: BASILIA SALUD
SUMMARY: Gabina executed a will, leaving most of her properties to Matias. Salud opposed, claiming,
among others that the fingerprint that Gabina affixed on the will was not a valid signature, as the identifying
ridges were not visible. SC held otherwise, and said that the fingerprint has been held to be a valid
signature.
.
DOCTRINE: See Held #s 4-6. (Semi-verbatim from the case since it seemed important).

FACTS:
1. This is is an appeal from the Order of the CFI, Cavite denying probate of the will of Gabina Raquel.

2. Gabina left no descendants/ascendants, and allegedly executed a will prepared by Atty. Abunag
in the presence of 3 witnesses (Gonzales, Samala, and Samonte).
3. The will is composed of 3 pages. On the lower half of the second page, preceding the attestation
clause, appears the signature Gabina Raquel which is admitted to be authentic. Alongside it
is a smudge in violet ink, with blurred ridge lines, claimed by the proponents to be a thumbmark
affixed by the testatrix. On the third page, at the end of the attestation clause appear the
signatures appearing on the left margin of each page; and on the upper part of each pages left
margin appears a violet ink smudge similar to the one previously described, accompanied by
the written words Gabina Raquel and underneath said name by Lourdes Samonte.
4. In the will, Gabina allegedly bequeathed most of her properties, valued at around P160k, to her niece,
Matias, allegedly to compensate her for the services she has rendered for over 30 years. She also left
other properties in favour of her other nieces and nephews, including respondent Salud.
5. The will, as well as the attestation were in Spanish. It was admitted, however, that Gabina had
testamentary capacity since she had mastered Spanish, and she knew how to sign her name, despite
being 90 years old and suffering from herpes zoster.
6. Petitioner: Gabina instructed Atty. Abunag to draft the will (Jan. 27, 1950), and that she had
summoned the witnesses to her home. The will was read to them by Abunag, to which Gabina
expressed conformity. Gabina thumbmarked the foot of each page on the left margin, and upon
the insistence of Abunag, tried to sign her name, but was not able to sign all the pages as her
right shoulder was hurting. Abunag then had Samonte sign Gabina Raquel by Lourdes
Samonte next to the thumbmarks.
7. Court took note that Gonzales (64 years old) did not testify as she was suffering from high blood
pressure (and that her memory was impaired), and the excitement might kill her.
8. Salud, a niece of Gabina, opposed the probate of the will. CFI ruled for Salud, and denied the probate
on the ff. grounds: (1) attestation clause did not state that Gabina and the witnesses signed each and
every page of the will; and while the left margins of each page exhibit the words Gabina Raquel by
Lourdes Samonte, the attestation does not express that Lourdes was expressly directed to sign for
Gabina; (2) Matias did not adequately explain the nonproduction of witness Modesta Gonzalez,
contrary to sec. 11, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court; (3) alleged signing and thumbmarking by the
deceased was not done in the presence of the witnesses, nor did the latter sign in the presence of
Gabina; (4) fraud and bad faith attended the execution of the will.
9. CFI gave credence to testimony by expert witness Capt. Jose Fernandez of the Phil.
Constabulary, to wit: (1) the fingerprints were impressed over the name of Gabina, and after the name
was written, contrary to what the witnesses asserted; (2) the words Gabina Raquel by Lourdes
Samonte were falsified and appear to have been written over a previous tracing; (3) the person who
wrote Gabina Raquel by Lourdes Samonte is different from the one who wrote Lourdes Samonte as
signature of an attesting witness; (4) the signature Lourdes Samonte on the left margin of page 3 of
 the testament was written only after that of Felipa Samala when the testimony for the proponent was
that they were written in the reverse order; and (5) the pen used in signing Gabina Raquel at the foot
of the will had separated nibs, while the other signatures in the document were written with a round
point pen, again contrary to the contention for the proponent that only one pen was used.
ISSUE: WN the will of the late Gabina Raquel may be subject to probate proceedings: - YES
HELD:
1. (As to the testimony of Fernandez) The conclusions of Fernandez are not clearly supported by
the facts. As to the finding that the fingerprints were affixed after the writing of the name,
Fernandez failed to take into account the time difference between the affixing of the fingerprints
and the writing of the names. Thus, the spreading out of the ink would only happen, according to
recognized authorities, when the ink is not dry. In this case, the ink has already dried up when the
names were affixed. The absence of spread does not prove that the stamping ink lines were
made after the writing was done.
2. (As to alleged forgery of Samontes signature on the 3rd page) the lighter shade of the underlying
characters strongly indicates that the overwriting was made to correct ink failure or other
imperfection in the first writing. The experts opinion is also discredited by the fact that Samonte
testified in favor of the will, there would then be no sense in forging Samontes signature. As to
the different orders of their signatures on the different pages, such does not signify that the
execution of the testament was in any way abnormal or fraudulent.
3. (As to the fact that Gonzales did not testify) While Gonzalez was not placed on the stand, the
proponent made no secret of her whereabouts, nor of the reason why she was not asked to
testify: the record shows that both Dr. Bellaflor and Dr. Sanchez agreed that Gonzalez was
suffering from hypertension, that she was in the danger zone, and might collapse and die as a
consequence of a little excitement on her part. The trial court, having expressly made of record
that it would not like to assume responsibility for whatever might happen to this woman, could
not logically hold proponent to account for not risking her death.
4. (As to whether the fingerprint could count as a valid signature) Respondent claims that the
fingerprint cannot be valid since it does not show distinct identifying ridge lines. This
Court has repeatedly held that the legal requisite that the will should be signed by the
testator is satisfied by a thumbprint or other mark affixed by him; and that where such
mark is affixed by the decedent, it is unnecessary to state in the attestation clause that
another person wrote the testators name at his request. While in some of these cases the
signing by mark was described in the will or in the attestation clause, it does not appear
that the Court ever held that the absence of such description is a fatal defect.
5. Respondent relies on the case of Garcia v. Lacuesta, wherein this Court denied probate
holding that a will signed with a cross written after the testators name is not a sufficient
signature. But in that case no showing was made that the cross mark was the testators
habitual signature nor was any explanation given why he should use a cross when he
knew how to sign. In this case, however, it was shown that the herpes zoster that afflicted
the right arm and shoulder of testatrix made writing a difficult and painful act, to the extent
that, after writing one signature on the second page, she dropped the pen because of an
attack of pain that lasted many minutes and evidently discourage attempts to sign.
6. As to the clarity of the ridge impressions, it is so dependent on aleatory circumstances
(consistency of the ink, overinking, slipping of the finger, etc.) as to require a dexterity that
can be expected of very few persons; and we do not believe testators should be required
to possess the skill of trained officers. It is to be conceded that 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;
but the failure to describe the unusual signature by itself alone is not sufficient to refuse
probate when the evidence for the proponent fully satisfies the court (as it does satisfy us
in this case) that the will was executed and witnessed as required by law.