Azaola Vs Singson 109 Phil 102

1. Azaola v.
Singson | 109 Phil 102 (1960)

SCRA:
1.WILLS AND LAST TESTAMENT; HOLOGRAPHIC WILL; PROBATE OF; REQUISITE AS TO NUMBER
OF WITNESSES.—Since the authenticity of the holographic will was not contested, proponent was not
required to produce more than one witness; but even if the genuineness of the holographic will were
contested, 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. Since no witness may have been present at the execution of a holographic will, none being
required by law, it becomes obvious that the existence of witnesses possessing the requisite qualifications
is a matter beyond the control of the proponent.
2.ID.; ID.; ID.; PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES MERELY PREREQUISITE.—Where the will is holographic,
no witness need be present and the rule requiring production of three witnesses must be deemed merely
permissive if absurd results are to be avoided'.
3.ID.; RESORT TO EXPERT EVIDENCE.—Under Article 811, the resort to expert evidence is conditioned
by the words "if the Court deem it necessary", which reveals that what the law deems essential is that the
Court should be convinced of the will's authenticity.
FACTS
 Sep. 9, 1957 - FORTUNATA S. Vda. de Yance died in her house in Luskot, Quezon City
o Luskot St. is near N. Ramirez and E. Rodriguez Ave., Brgy. Don Manuel, malapit sa Q.I.,
bandang Galas.
o She left a holographic will, dated Nov. 20, 1956, instituting Maria MILAGROS Azaola as
her sole heir.
 During the probate proceedings, Fortunata’s nephew, appellee Cesario SINGSON, opposed the
will, alleging that it was made under the undue influence of Milagros and her husband FEDERICO
Azaola.
 On trial, Federico testified that:
o He saw the will one month before Fortunata died, when she handed the will to the Sps.
Azaola
o He recognized the signatures in the will as Fortunata’s handwriting, as evinced by the
mortgage, special power of attorney, general power of attorney, deeds of sale and
residence certificates, all signed by Fortunata.
o The penmanship in the will is that of Fortunata’s
o The assessed value of the Luskot property is P7000
 Jan. 15, 1958 – QC CFI denied probate on the ground that the will being contested, Federico had
to present 3 witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature are in the hand of the
testator, and Federico failed to do so. He only presented one witness.
 On appeal, Federico argues that:
o Only one witness is required because the will was not contested
o The three-witness requirement in NCC 811 is not mandatory even if the authenticity of the
will is contested.
ISSUE (HELD)
W/N the three-witness requirement is mandatory (NO, only directory)
RATIO
 NCC 811 cannot be interpreted to impose the mandatory requirement of producing three witnesses
to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the probate denied.
 This is because of the peculiar nature of holographic wills, especially the fact that the law does not
require any witnesses thereto.
 The only requirement for the witnesses (if there are any) is that they must be able to truthfully
declare that the will and signature are in the handwriting of the testator.
 The law foresees that there may be no witnesses, so it allowed for expert testimony (NCC 811, ¶2).
 It may be admitted that the rule requiring three witnesses was derived from the rule on notarial
wills, but the rule is mandatory only with respect to notarial wills (NCC 805).
 As the law (NCC 810) does not even require a witness to be present in the execution of a
holographic will, the three-witness rule must be deemed permissive if absurd results are to be
avoided.
 Quoting the SC [because JBL]: “Again, under Article 811, the resort to expert evidence is
conditioned by the words "if the Court deem it necessary", which reveal that what the law deems
essential is that the Court should be convinced of the will's authenticity. Where the prescribed
number of witnesses is produced and the court is convinced by their testimony that the will is
genuine, it may consider it unnecessary to call for expert evidence. On the other hand, if no
competent witness is available, or none of those produced is convincing, the Court may
still, and in fact it should, resort to handwriting experts. The duty of the court, in fine, is to
exhaust all available lines of inquiry, for the state is as much interested as the proponent that the
true intention of the testator be carried into effect.”
 Mucius Scaevola, on SCC 691 [machine translated from the Spanish]: “The prudence with which
the Judge must proceed in resolutions of like importance so requires it,, and the delicate and
dangerous nature of the holographic testament, makes it necessary for major guarantee of all the
interests compromised. In effect, the expert matching of letters can be an optional confirmation of
the above mentioned layman witnesses and a way of dispelling the last doubts that could [occur]
to the Judge about the authenticity that [he] tries to establish and declare. For that there has been
written the phrase of the last said paragraph, (whenever the Judge should consider it suitable),
there have been or not witnesses and they will doubt or not these with regard to the ends why they
are asked.”
 SC: “And because the law leaves it to the trial court to decide if experts are still needed, no
unfavourable inference can be drawn from a party's failure to offer expert evidence, until arid unless
the court expresses dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay witnesses.”
CASE AT BAR: Since this was the first time that the issue has been raised before the SC, the case was
remanded, in the interests of justice, to enable the parties to present additional evidence, including expert
witnesses, should the Court deem it necessary

Azaola Vs Singson 109 Phil 102

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Azaola Vs Singson 109 Phil 102

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Azaola Vs Singson 109 Phil 102

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. Azaola v.

Singson | 109 Phil 102 (1960)

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.