Azaola vs Singson

CASE TITLE

FEDERICO AZAOLA, petitioner-appellant, 
vs.
CESARIO SINGSON, oppositor-appellee.

CASE NUMBER

G.R. No. L-14003             August 5, 1960

LAWYERS

F. Lavides and L.B. Alcuaz for appellant.
Vicente J. Cuna and P.S. Singson for appellee.

PONENTE

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

FACTS OF THE CASE

·        PETITION

      This appeal, taken on points of law from a decision rendered on 15 January 1958 by the Court         of First Instance of Quezon City in its Special Proceedings No. Q-2640, involves the                         determination of the quantity of evidence required for the probate of a holographic will.

The established facts are thus summarized in the decision appealed from

·        "Briefly speaking, the following facts were established by the petitioner;

·        September 9, 1957, Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance died at 13 Luskot, Quezon City, known to be the last residence of said testatrix; that Francisco Azaola,

·        petitioner herein for probate of the holographic will, submitted the said holographic will

·        However, on page 16 on the same transcript of the stenographic notes, when the same witness was asked by counsel if he was familiar with the penmanship and handwriting of the deceased Fortunata Vda. de Yance, he answered positively in the affirmative and when he was asked again whether the penmanship referred to in the previous answer as appearing in the holographic will (Exh. C) was hers (testatrix'), he answered, "I would definitely say it is hers"; that it was also established in the proceedings that the assessed value of the property of the deceased in Luskot, Quezon City, is in the amount of P7,000.00.

ISSUE RELATED TO WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Whether or not the 1^st paragraph in article 811 is Mandatory

Held

No, Our conclusion is that the rule of the first paragraph of Article 811 of the Civil Code is merely directory and is not mandatory.

Considering, however, that this is the first occasion in which this Court has been called upon to construe the import of said article, the interest of justice would be better served, in our opinion, by giving the parties ample opportunity to adduce additional evidence, including expert witnesses, should the Court deem them necessary.

The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the Civil Code, the proponent must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature are in the writing of the testatrix, the probate being contested; and because the lone witness presented by the proponent "did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix."

The proponent appealed, urging: first, that he was not bound to produce more than one witness because the will's authenticity was not questioned; and second, that Article 811 does not mandatorily require the production of three witnesses to identify the handwriting and signature of a holographic will, even if its authenticity should be denied by the adverse party.

            Article 811 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to the following effect:

ART. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required.

In the absence of any competent witnesses referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. (691a).

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is set aside, and the records ordered remanded to the Court of origin, with instructions to hold a new trial in conformity with this opinion. But evidence already on record shall not be retaken. No costs.