G.R. No. 1708 - Ex Parte Arcenas

On October 12, 1901, in the municipality of Capiz, Jose de los Santos e Isada, the testator, executed his last will and testament before Felipe Villasis y Castaneda, a notary public, and in the presence of three local witnesses.
Due to his ill health, the testator did not sign the will himself; instead, at his express request, the witness Naval Amisola Vidal y Reyes signed in his stead.
The attesting witnesses and the notary public also signed the document, thereby evidencing its execution.

Pedro Arcenas, one of the executors under the will, later presented the document for probate in the Court of First Instance.
Despite the parties interested being officially cited, no one opposed the probate proceedings at that stage.
The clerk introduced the register of public instruments for the year 1901, wherein the original will was recorded.

Felisberta Acevedo and Jose Acevedo, the two heirs named in the will, petitioned the court on September 28, 1902, for an examination of both the notary Villasis and the witness Naval A. Vidal regarding the authenticity of the will.
The court, however, did not examine the petition but later rendered a decision on October 1, 1903, disallowing the probate of the will.

The execution of the will was subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which had come into full effect on October 1, 1901, under Act No. 212 of the Philippine Commission approved on August 31, 1901.
Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly required that a will must be in writing and signed by the testator or, if the testator is unable or does not know how to sign, his name must be written by another person in the testator’s presence and by his express direction.
The section was designed to supersede the earlier Civil Code provision (Article 695, second paragraph), thereby establishing stricter requirements for the execution and attestation of wills.

The will lacked an essential requisite: the testator’s signature or his name written in the manner prescribed, as the witness Naval A. Vidal had failed to include the full name of the testator alongside his own signature in the proper form.
This omission was considered a substantial defect since the law mandates that such formality is necessary for the document to be valid and probated, regardless of any uncontested acceptance by interested parties.

Whether the will is valid given that the testator did not personally sign and the required form of attestation (i.e., the testator’s name written in the prescribed form) was not complied with.

Whether having the witness sign in place of the testator, without a proper rendition of the testator’s name in the manner mandated by law, is sufficient to validate the will.
The issue revolves around the interpretation and strict application of Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The question of whether the English text of Section 618, which governs the execution of wills, should be applied as it is, especially given its supremacy over any incorrect Spanish translation in earlier editions.
Whether any ambiguity or error in the translation might justify relaxing the strict compliance requirement.

Whether the absence of the testator’s signature (or the failure to follow the prescribed form when the testator is unable to sign) constitutes a fatal defect that must lead to the will’s disallowance, even if the substance of the testamentary dispositions is clear.