Azaola vs. Singson

 


FEDERICO AZAOLA vs.
CESARIO SINGSON

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

Testator: Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance
Petitioner: Francisco Azaola
Oppositor: Cesario Singson


FACTS:


Francisco Azaola submitted the will of Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance for probate.
Azaola testified on the authenticity of the will. 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.


ISSUE:


Whether or not the requirement of three witnesses for the probate of a holographic will is
directory or mandatory.


RULING:


No. The SC held that since the authenticity of the will was not contested, he was
not required to produce more than one witness; but even if the genuineness of the
holographic will were contested, the SC opined that Article 811 of our present
Civil Code cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of
three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having
the probate denied.


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 thecourt deems it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. Considering,
however, that it was the first occasion in which the Supreme Court has been called
upon to construe the import of said article, the records were ordered remanded to the
Court of origin.

-digested by Zensky75




No comments

Thank you so much for visiting. God bless you and your family always.

Back to Top