GARCIA v.

LACUESTA
G.R. No. L-4067            November 29, 1951

DOCTRINE: 90 Phil. 489

An attestation clause must state that another person wrote the testator’s name under the latter’s express direction. A cross cannot be taken
as the signature of the testator absent proof unless it is his usual signature. The cross was not proven to be the signature of the testator.

FACTS:
This case is an appeal by way of certiorari from a decision of the CA disallowing the will of Antero Mercado, which was written in Ilocano dialect
and contains an attestation clause. The will was signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of Mercado, followed below by "A reugo
del testator" and the name of Florentino Javier. Mercado is alleged to have written a cross mark (an “X”) after his name. The CFI of Ilocos Norte
allowed the will but the CA reversed the judgment of CFI. The CA ruled that the attestation clause was defective for failing to certify (1) that the
will was signed on all the left margins of the three pages and at the end of the will by Atty. Javier at the express request of the testator in the
presence of the testator and each and every one of the witnesses; (2) that the testator wrote a cross at the end of his name and on the left
margin of the three pages after Atty. Javier signed for him; and (3) that the three witnesses signed the will in the presence of the testator and of
each other.

ISSUE: Whether the will should be allowed and valid despite the defect of the attestation clause since the testator had placed a cross mark
himself as his signature.

RULING: NO.
The SC held that 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. The petitioner’s argument that such
recital is unnecessary because the testator signed the will himself using a cross mark which should be considered the same as a thumb mark
(which has been held sufficient in past cases) is not acceptable.
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. The SC is not prepared to liken the mere sign of the cross to a thumbmark, and the reason is obvious. The cross cannot and
does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark.
In other words, the attestation clause must state that another person wrote the testator’s name under the latter’s express direction. A cross
cannot be taken as a signature of the testator absent of proof unless it is his usual signature. In the case at bar, the cross was not proven to be
the signature of the testator.