G.R. No.

L-4067

November 29, 1951

In the Matter of the will of ANTERO MERCADO, deceased. ROSARIO GARCIA, petitioner,
vs.
JULIANA LACUESTA, ET AL., respondents.
Facts:
The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Antero Mercado, followed below by
"A reugo del testator" and the name of Florentino Javier. Antero Mercado is alleged to have written a cross immediately
after his name. The herein petitioner argues, however, that there is no need for such recital because the cross written by
the testator after his name is a sufficient signature and the signature of Atty. Florentino Javier is a surplusage . Petitioner's
theory is that the cross is as much a signature as a thumbmark, the latter having been held sufficient by this Court in the
casesof De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona.
Issue:
W/N the cross written by the testator after his name is a sufficient signature. No.
Ruling:
It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the usual signature of Antero Mercado or even one of the
ways by which he signed his name. After mature reflection, we are not prepared to liken the mere sign of the cross to a
thumb mark, and the reason is obvious. The cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumb mark.

Matias vs. Salud

Facts:
The CFI denied probate of the will of Gabina Raquel. It must be noted that Raquel was suffering from herpes zoster that
afflicted the right arm and shoulder of the testatrix, which made writing difficult and painful. Thus, upon the insistence of
the Lawyer, Raquel attempted to sign, but since it was so painful she just managed to thumb mark using her foot at the
document and the left margin at each page. 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 oppositors was that the finger mark cannot be regarded as the decedents valid signature
as it does not show distinct identifying ridgelines. And since the thumbprint was an invalid signature, there must appear in
the attestation clause that another person wrote the testators name at his request.
Issued: W/N the thumbprint was sufficient compliance with the law despite the absence of a description of such in the
attestation clause.
Ruling:
To the of the thumbprint as signature, the Supreme Court held that it has been in a long line of cases that thumb print is
always a valid and sufficient signature for the purpose of complying with the requirement of the article . 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 ask that it be signed by the testator, a requirement satisfied by a thumbprint or other mark
affixed by him.
As to the issue on 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 that 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 law.