Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14003)
Facts:
Federico Azaola v. Cesario Singson, G.R. No. L-14003, August 05, 1960, Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
Federico Azaola (petitioner/appellant) sought probate of a holographic will executed by Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance (the testatrix); Cesario Singson was the oppositor/appellee. The contested instrument (Exh. C) purported to make Maria Milagros Azaola the sole heir of the testatrix's property in Luskot, Quezon City.
The testatrix died on September 9, 1957 at her last residence in Luskot. The proponent produced one witness, Francisco Azaola, who testified that he had been handed the holographic will about one month before the testatrix’s death and who identified the handwriting and signatures on the will as those of the testatrix. To reinforce his identification he introduced exemplar documents (mortgage, special and general powers of attorney, deeds of sale and an affidavit, and two residence certificates) showing the testatrix’s handwriting and signatures. The witness’s testimony included some equivocation at one point (“apparently it must have been written by her”) but later he stated positively, “I would definitely say it is hers.” The assessed value of the testatrix’s property was shown to be P7,000.
Opposition to probate asserted (1) undue and improper pressure by the petitioner and his wife in procuring the will, (2) lack of intent by the testatrix that the instrument be her last will, and (3) that the date on the will was false (it was alleged to have been written in August 1957, not November 20, 1956 as stated).
The Court of First Instance of Quezon City, in Special Proceedings No. Q-2640, rendered judgment on January 15, 1958 denying probate. The trial court relied on Article 811 of the Civil Code and concluded that, because the probate was contested, the proponent should have produced at least three witnesses to identify the handwriting and signature and that the lone witness “did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix.”
An appeal on points of l...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the proponent required to produce more than one witness because the authenticity of the holographic will was not questioned?
- Does Article 811 of the Civil Code mandate the compulsory production of three witnesses to identify the handwriting and signature of the testator when the probate of a holographic will is contested?
- Did the Court of First Instance properly deny probate on the basis of the lone witness’s testimony, or should the trial court have been allowed to seek additional evidence (...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)