GARCIA V.

LACUESTA
G.R. NO. L-4067 NOVEMBER 29, 1951

Paras, CJ:

Doctrine:
The mere signing of the clause is not in an anyway like a thumbmark. The cross cannot
and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.

Facts:
Antero Mercado executed a will dated January 3, 1943, which was written in Ilocano
dialect. The will contains an attestation clause signed by three witnesses, which states the
following:
a.) “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…”
b.) “this will is written in Ilocano dialect which is spoken and understood by the testator”
c.) that the will is composed of three pages, all of which were signed in the presence of
the testator and the witnesses, and that each of the witnesses signed in the presence of
the testator.
The will is signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero Mercado,
followed below by "A reugo del testator" (to loosely translate in English: “signed in behalf of
the testator”) and the name of Florentino Javier. It appears that the will is signed by Atty. Javier,
under the express direction of Mercado. It was alleged that Mercado wrote a cross immediately
after his name. The attestation clause, however, did not contain a stipulation that Antero
Mercado caused Atty. Javier to write his name under his express direction.
The CFI of Ilocos allowed the probate of the will, but the CA reversed CFI’s decision
ruling that the attestation clause failed to certify the contents of the attestation clause and the
facts surrounding the signing of the testator and the witnesses.
Petitioner argues that there is no need to declare such because the cross written by the
testator after his name is sufficient to hold that Antero Mercado attests to what is written in the
clause. Petitioner posits that the writing of the cross is equivalent to that of a thumbmark,
which is ruled to be a sufficient signature in a number of cases.

Issue:
Whether or not the attestation clause in the will is valid?

Held:
No, the attestation clause in the will is not valid.

Ratio:
Supreme Court ruled that the attestation clause is invalid. 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 mere signing of the clause is not in anyway like a thumbmark. The cross cannot
and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.
Dispositive:
Petitioner lost. Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with against the
petitioner. So ordered.