Guison v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jacoba Concepcion Salcedo executed a will on January 3, 1904. The will contained a clause stating that due to her inability to sign, Feliciano Maglaqui signed on her behalf in the presence of witnesses Ambrosio Reyes, Mariano de Leon, and Felix Polintan. The witnesses also attested to this arrangement, signing in the presence of each other and the testatrix. Procedural History: Probate of the will was initially refused by the lower court. The court's decision was based on the finding that the testatrix's name was not affixed to the will as required. The petitioner, Tomas Guison, subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant seeks review of the lower court's denial of probate. The core issue is whether the will is valid despite the testatrix's name not being directly signed by her, but rather by another person at her request and in her presence, with the witnesses attesting to this procedure. The appellant argues for the validity of the will under these circumstances. The Supreme Court, however, notes that this issue has been previously decided adversely to the appellant in prior cases.
Issue(s)
Whether a will is validly executed when the person requested to sign on behalf of the testator signs their own name instead of the name of the testator.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below refusing to probate the will is affirmed. Costs are against the appellant. The case is remanded for execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The primary legal question is whether a will is validly signed when the person requested to sign on behalf of the testator signs their own name instead of the name of the testator. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny probate, noting that the name of the testatrix, Jacoba Concepcion Salcedo, was conspicuously absent from the signature line. The Court clarified that while the law allows a third party to sign for a testator who is unable to do so, that third party must sign the name of the testator to satisfy formal requirements. In this instance, Feliciano Maglaqui’s act of signing his own name "(Firmado) FELICIANO MAGLAQUI" failed to bridge the legal requirement of the testatrix's signature. The Court relied on established jurisprudence, specifically the cases of Ex parte Pedro Arcenas and Ex parte Nemesio Delfin Santiago, which addressed identical legal issues. Consequently, the lack of the testatrix's name is a fatal defect in the execution of the will, rendering it void for probate purposes.
Main Doctrine
A will is invalid if the testatrix's name is not signed thereto, even if another person signs on her behalf at her request and in her presence, if the person signing writes their own name instead of the testatrix's name.