Azaola vs. Singson Case Digest
G.R. No. 14003 ; August 5, 1960 ; 109 Phil. 102
PRINCIPLE/S:
Succession
a) Article 811 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines is MANDATORY only for notarial wills
Witness/es needs to
presented for probate of notarial wills.
Reason: Presence of at
least three witnesses at the execution of ordinary wills is made by law
essential to their validity
Number of witnesses
necessary:
1 – will has no contest
At least 3 – will is
contested
c) Rule if there is no
witness or none of those
produced is convincing
Court may resort to handwriting experts
- The law leaves it to the trial court
if experts are still needed
d) Article 811 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines is DISCRETIONARY for holographic wills is not
contested
- Witness/es are may
not be needed for probate of notarial wills if the will is NOT CONTESTED
Reason: The law does not require any witness to be
present at the execution of a holographic wil (Art. 810, new Civil Code).
Hence, it becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing the
requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent.
e) Article 811 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines is MANDATORY for holographic wills if it is
CONTESTED
Number of witnesses
necessary:
FACTS: Testator
Yance died. Petitioner Francisco Azaola submitted
for probate her holographic will, in which Maria Azaola was made the sole heir
as against the nephew, respondent Singson.
Francisco Azaola, was also the sole witness presented to
testify on the handwriting of the testatrix. He testified that he had seen the holographic will about one
month before the death of the testatrix, as it was given to him and his wife
and that he recognized all the signatures appearing in the holographic will
as the handwriting of the
testatrix. Francisco presented presented documents to reinforce his
statement.
The probate was opposed.
Subsequently, 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 “did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written in the handwriting of the
testatrix.”
Petitioner 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/S: WON Article 811 of the
Civil Code is mandatory or permissive.
HELD: Permissive since the
authenticity of the will was not contested, petitioner was not required to
produce more than one witness. But even if the genuineness of the holographic
will were contested, Article 811 can not be interpreted to require the
compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the
testator in holographic wills. This is because no witness may have been present
at the execution of a holographic will, none being required by law (Art. 810, new Civil Code), it becomes obvious
that the existence of witness possessing the requisite qualifications is a
matter beyond the control of the proponent.
As such, if there are
no competent witness available, the court may resort to expert evidence. The law leaves it to the trial court
if experts are still needed. Hence, the rule requiring production of three witnesses in
holographic wills must be deemed merely permissive if absurd results are to be
avoided.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment