G.R. No. 4454 - Ex Parte Ondevilla

These proceedings were instituted for the probate of the will of Pascuala Olaguer, deceased.
Petitioners and appellants, identified as Juan Ondevilla et al., sought to have the will admitted to probate.
The probate proceedings originated from a lower court decision which refused the probate of the will.

The will was executed in the presence of a sufficient number of witnesses, a fact acknowledged in both the record and the decision below.
Due to the testatrix’s inability to sign at the time of execution, she requested that a person named Fructuoso Llenaresa sign on her behalf.
Fructuoso Llenaresa executed the signature by writing the statement: "For Pascuala Olaguer, 'Fructuoso Llenaresa.'"
The essential element in question was the method in which the testatrix’s name appeared at the foot of the will.

The trial judge determined that the manner of writing the testatrix’s name did not conform with the prescribed legal requirements.
The judge opined that, for a testator unable to sign, the proxy signer should write only the testator’s name and have the testator make a cross that is witnessed and attested by credible witnesses.
Based solely on this formality issue, the judge refused the probate of the will.

Section 618 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions was cited, which requires all wills to be in writing and signed either by the testator or, upon his express direction, by another person in his presence and attested by three or more credible witnesses.
The provision emphasizes that the will must bear the name of the testator, without prescribing a rigid form for affixing the name.
The court referenced the case of Ex parte Pedro Arcenas et al. (Case No. 1708, 4 Phil. Rep., 700), which upheld that when a testator is unable to sign, the will may be executed by writing the testator’s name in a form similar to “By the testator, [Testator’s Name], [Name of the person signing].”
In the present case, although the words “the testator” were omitted, the essential requirement of having the testator’s name was met.

Whether the form of signing employed in the will, specifically the omission of the words “the testator” and instead using the format “For Pascuala Olaguer, Fructuoso Llenaresa,” is sufficient to satisfy the requirements prescribed by the law.
Whether the absence of the prescribed formula (i.e., the testator making a cross or the proxy’s statement limited to the testator’s name only) invalidates the will, notwithstanding the clear presence of the testator’s name.
Whether judicial interpretation should allow a liberal construction of formalities when the essential intent of the testator, as evidenced by the writing of the testator’s name, is unmistakable.