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
|
0 yorum:
Post a Comment
Thank you so much for visiting. God bless you and your family always.