YAP TUA v. YAP KA KUAN

G.R. No. 6845,
 September 1, 1914

FACTS: One Perfecto Gabriel, representing the petitioner, Yap Tua, presented a petition in the CFI of the city of Manila, asking that the will of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong be admitted to probate. It appears that the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong died in the city of Manila on the 11th day of August, 1909. Accompanying said petition and attached thereto was the alleged will of the deceased. 

It appears that the will was signed by deceased, as well as Anselmo Zacarias, Severo Tabora, and Timoteo Paez. After hearing the foregoing witnesses, the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge, ordered that the last will and testament of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong be allowed and admitted to probate. The court further ordered that one Yap Tua be appointed as executor of the will. 

On the 28th of February, 1910, Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu appeared and presented a petition, alleging that they were interested in the matters of the said will and desired to intervene asked that a guardian ad litem be appointed to represented them in the cause. 

The court appointed Gabriel La O as guardianad litemof said parties. Gabriel La O accepted said appointment, took the oath of office and entered upon the performance of his duties as guardian ad litem of said parties. Gabriel La O appeared in court and presented a motion in which he alleged, in substance: 

First. that the will dated the 11th day of August, 1909, and admitted to probate by order of the court on the 29th day of September, 1909, was null, for the following reasons:

"(a) Because the same had not been authorized nor signed by the witnesses as the law prescribes. 

"(b) Because at the time of the execution of the will, the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong was not then mentally capacitated to execute the same, due to her sickness. 

"(c) Because her signature to the will had been obtained through fraud and illegal influence upon the part of persons who were to receive a benefit from the same, and because the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong had no intention of executing the same." 

Second. That before the execution of the said will, which they alleged to be null, the said Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong had executed another will, with all the formalities required by law, upon the 6th day of August, 1909. 

Upon the foregoing facts the court was requested to annul and se aside the order of the 29th day of September, 1909, and to grant t said minors an opportunity to present new proof relating to the due execution of said will.

The Judge granted the motion for rehearing. At the rehearing, number of witnesses were examined. At the close of the rehear in the court reached the conclusion that the will was the last will an testament of Tomasa and admitted it to probate. 

ISSUES:

1. Whether the will was executed in accordance with the law.

2. Whether the will was signed in the presence of those required by law.

RULING: As to the first issue, yes. Several witnesses testified tha they saw her write the name "Tomasa." One of the witnesse testified that she had written her full name. We are of the opinio and we think the law sustains our conclusion, that if Tomas Elizaga Yap Caong signed any portion of her name in the will, with the intention to sign the same, that it will amount to a signature. It has been held time and time again that one who makes a will may sign the same by using a mark, the name having been written by others. If writing a mark simply upon a will is sufficient indication of the intention of the person to make and execute a will, then certainly the writing of a portion or all of her name ought to be accepted as a clear indication of her intention to execute the will. 

It has been held time again that one who makes a will may sign the same by the use of a mark, the name having been written by others. If the writing of a mark simply upon a will is sufficient indication of the intention of the person to make and execute it, then certainly the writing of a portion or all of the name ought to be accepted as a clear indication of intention to execute it. The man who cannot write and who is obliged to make his mark simply therefore upon the will, is held to "sign" as effectually as if he had written his initials or his full name. It would seem to be sufficient, under the law requiring a signature by the person making a will to make his mark, to place his initials or all or any part of his name thereon. 

As to the second issue, YES. An effort was made to show that the will was signed by the witnesses in one room and by Tomasa in another. A plan of the room or rooms in which the will was signed was presented as proof and it was shown that there was but one room; that one part of the room was one or two steps below the floor of the other; that the table on which the witnesses signed the will was located upon the lower floor of the room. It was also shown that from the bed in which Tomasa was lying, it was possible for her to see the table on which the witnesses signed the will. 

While the rule is absolute that one who makes a will must sign the same in the presence of the witnesses and that the witnesses must sign in the presence of each other, as well as in the presence of the one making the will, yet, nevertheless, the actual seeing of the signature made is not necessary. It is sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possible for each of the necessary parties, if they so desire, to see the signatures placed upon the will.