IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF ANTERO MERCADO, DECEASED. ROSARIO GARCIA v.

JULIANA LACUESTA
G.R. No. L-4067
NOVEMBER 29, 1951
FACTS: Antero Mercado left a will dated January 3, 1943. The will appears to have been signed by
Atty. Florentino Javier as he wrote the name of Antero Mercado and his name for the testatior on the
will. HOWEVER, immediately after Antero Mercado’s will, Mercado himself placed an “X” mark.
The attestation clause was signed by three instrumental witnesses. Said attestation clause states that
all pages of the will 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.” The attestation clause
however did not indicate that Javier wrote Antero Mercado’s name.
ISSUE: WON the will is valid.
HELD: NO. 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.
But is there really a need for such to be included in the attestation clause considering that even though
Javier signed for Antero, Antero himself placed his signature by virtue of the “X” mark, and by that,
Javier’s signature is merely a surplusage? That the placing of the “X” mark is the same as placing Antero’s
thumb mark.
No. It’s not the same as placing the testator’s thumb mark. It would have been different had it been
proven that the “X” mark was Antero’s usual signature or was even one of the ways by which he signs
his name. If this were so, failure to state the writing by somebody else would have been immaterial,
since he would be considered to have signed the will himself.