Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    16 Garcia vs. Lacuesta (Art 805)

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Erik Madria
    The CA denied probate of Antero Mercado's will written in Ilocano because the attestation clause was defective. It failed to state that Mercado expressly directed his lawyer to write Mercado's name and that Mercado then wrote a cross after his name. The SC affirmed, finding the cross was not Mercado's usual signature and could not be considered a valid signature without the recital of express direction in the attestation clause. For a will to be valid where another signs the testator's name, the attestation clause must state it was done at the testator's express direction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    16 Garcia vs. Lacuesta (Art 805)

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Erik Madria
    57 views1 page
    The CA denied probate of Antero Mercado's will written in Ilocano because the attestation clause was defective. It failed to state that Mercado expressly directed his lawyer to write Mercado's name and that Mercado then wrote a cross after his name. The SC affirmed, finding the cross was not Mercado's usual signature and could not be considered a valid signature without the recital of express direction in the attestation clause. For a will to be valid where another signs the testator's name, the attestation clause must state it was done at the testator's express direction.

    Original Description:

    16 Garcia vs. Lacuesta (Art 805)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The CA denied probate of Antero Mercado's will written in Ilocano because the attestation clause was defective. It failed to state that Mercado expressly directed his lawyer to write Mercado's name and that Mercado then wrote a cross after his name. The SC affirmed, finding the cross was not Mercado's usual signature and could not be considered a valid signature without the recital of express direction in the attestation clause. For a will to be valid where another signs the testator's name, the attestation clause must state it was done at the testator's express direction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    57 views1 page

    16 Garcia vs. Lacuesta (Art 805)

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Erik Madria
    The CA denied probate of Antero Mercado's will written in Ilocano because the attestation clause was defective. It failed to state that Mercado expressly directed his lawyer to write Mercado's name and that Mercado then wrote a cross after his name. The SC affirmed, finding the cross was not Mercado's usual signature and could not be considered a valid signature without the recital of express direction in the attestation clause. For a will to be valid where another signs the testator's name, the attestation clause must state it was done at the testator's express direction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    16

    In the Matter of the Will of Case flow:


    ANTERO MERCADO, deceased.
    CFI – Petition for probate of a will – GRANTED
    ROSARIO GARCIA, petitioner,
    vs. CA – Probate of the will - DENIED
    JULJANA LACUESTA, ET AL., respondents.
    SC – Petition for review by certiorari – CA decision affirmed
    G.R. No. L-4067 November 29, 1951

    FACTS:
     Antero Mercado, testator, left a will written in Ilocano dialect.

     The will was signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Mercado as testator and the latter
    allegedly wrote a cross mark after his name.

     The CFI allowed the will but the CA disallowed it because the attestation clause was defective for failing to
    certify that (1) the will was signed by Atty. Javier at the express direction of the testator in the presence if the
    testator and his witnesses, (2) the testator wrote a cross at the end of his name after Atty. Javier signed for him,
    and (3) the 3 witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other.

     Petitioner argues that there is no need for the recital because the cross written by the testator after his name is
    a sufficient signature – that it is as much a signature as a thumbmark, the latter having been held sufficient by
    the Court.

    ISSUE(s): HELD:
    WON the attestation clause is YES, the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to state that Antero Mercado
    fatally defective caused Atty. Flavier to write the testator’s name under his express direction.

    The cross appearing on the will is not the usual signature of Antero Mercado or even
    one of the ways by which he signed his name. The cross cannot be liken to a
    thumbmark.

    DOCTRINES (from eSCRA):

    1.WILLS; ATTESTATION CLAUSE; SIGNING BY ANOTHER OF TESTATOR'S NAME AT LATTER'S DIRECTION.—When the
    testator expressly caused another to sign the former's name, this fact must be recited in the attestation clause.
    Otherwise, the will is fatally defective.

    2.ID.; SIGNATURE OF TESTATOR; CROSS.—Where the cross appearing on a will is not the usual signature of the testator
    or even one of the ways by which he signed his name, that cross cannot be considered a valid signature.

    You might also like