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

Ajero vs. CA

 

G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994

SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, respondents.

FACTS:

Annie Sand named as devisees petitioners Roberto and Thelma Ajero, private respondent Clemente Sand, Meriam S. Arong, Leah Sand, Lilia Sand, Edgar Sand, Fe Sand, Lisa S. Sand, and Dr. Jose Ajero, Sr., and their children.

Petition for allowance of decedent's holographic will was opposed by Private respondent on the grounds that: neither the testament's body nor the signature therein was in decedent's handwriting; it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent; and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence. The petition was likewise opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero. He contested the disposition in the will of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte. He claimed that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.

Kalaw vs. Relova

 

G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984

ROSA K. KALAW, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN RELOVA, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Batangas, Branch VI, Lipa City, and GREGORIO K. KALAW, respondents.

FACTS:

Natividad K. Kalaw’s first written holographic will named ROSA K. Kalaw, her sister as her sole heir. On September 1, 1971, private respondent GREGORIO K. KALAW, claiming to be the sole heir filed a petition before the Court of First Instance for probate of the will. ROSA K. Kalaw opposed probate alleging, in substance, that the holographic Will contained alterations, corrections, and insertions without the proper authentication by the full signature of the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code.

SAGRADO LABRADOR vs. CA

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF MELECIO LABRADOR.

SAGRADO LABRADOR vs. CA

G.R. Nos. 83843-44              

April 5, 1990

FACTS:

Melecio Labrador left behind a parcel of land and a holographic will. His heirs were Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio, Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita. Sagrado Labrador filed a petition for the probate of Melecio’s holographic will.

In re will of Ana Abangan (Case Digest)

 

G.R. No. L-13431            November 12, 1919

In re will of Ana Abangan.
GERTRUDIS ABANGAN, executrix-appellee,
vs.
ANASTACIA ABANGAN, ET AL., opponents-appellants.