Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14003)
Facts:
The case involves Federico Azaola as the petitioner and appellant against Cesario Singson, the oppositor and appellee. The events leading to this case began with the death of Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance on September 9, 1957, at her residence in Quezon City. Following her death, Federico Azaola filed for the probate of a holographic will (Exhibit C) that named Maria Milagros Azaola as the sole heir, which was contested by Cesario Singson, the deceased's nephew. The opposition raised two main arguments: first, that the will was executed under undue influence from the petitioner and his wife; and second, that the testatrix did not genuinely intend for the document to serve as her last will, claiming it was written on August 5 or 6, 1957, rather than the date indicated in the will, November 20, 1956.
In the lower court, the Court of First Instance of Quezon City denied the probate of the will, citing Article 811 of the Civil Code, which requires at least three witnesses to ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14003)
Facts:
- Death of the Testatrix: Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance died on September 9, 1957, at her residence in Quezon City.
- Holographic Will: A holographic will (Exh. C) was presented by Francisco Azaola, the petitioner, naming Maria Milagros Azaola as the sole heir, excluding the deceased’s nephew, Cesario Singson.
- Witness Testimony: Francisco Azaola testified that he saw the holographic will one month before the testatrix’s death and recognized the handwriting and signatures as those of the testatrix. He presented additional documents (mortgage, powers of attorney, deeds of sale, and affidavits) to compare the handwriting.
- Opposition to Probate: Cesario Singson opposed the probate, alleging:
- The will was procured through undue influence by the petitioner and his wife.
- The testatrix did not seriously intend the document to be her last will.
- The will was written in August 1957, not November 20, 1956, as stated in the document.
- Trial Court Decision: The probate was denied because:
- Only one witness was presented, and Article 811 of the Civil Code requires three witnesses for contested holographic wills.
- The lone witness did not sufficiently prove that the body of the will was in the testatrix’s handwriting.
Issue:
- Whether the petitioner was required to produce more than one witness to prove the authenticity of the holographic will, given that its authenticity was not contested.
- Whether Article 811 of the Civil Code mandatorily requires the production of three witnesses to identify the handwriting and signature of a holographic will, even if its authenticity is contested.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court clarified that Article 811 of the Civil Code is not mandatory but directory, allowing flexibility in proving the authenticity of holographic wills. The case was remanded for further proceedings to ensure a fair determination of the will’s validity.