Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14003)
Facts:
In Azaola v. Singson, petitioner-appellant Federico Azaola sought the probate of a holographic will executed by his aunt, Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance, who died on September 9, 1957, at her residence in Luskot, Quezon City. The instrument, dated November 20, 1956, appointed Maria Milagros Azaola as sole heir, to the exclusion of the decedent’s nephew, Cesario Singson, the oppositor-appellee. Before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City (Special Proceedings No. Q-2640), petitioner presented one lay witness, Francisco Azaola, who testified that he had seen the will approximately one month prior to the testatrix’s death and positively identified both the handwriting and signature as those of Fortunata. To reinforce this, the proponent offered several documents—deeds of mortgage, powers of attorney, deeds of sale, affidavits, and residence certificates—all reflecting the testatrix’s handwriting. The opposition argued undue influence by petitioner and his wife, lack of testamentarCase Digest (G.R. No. L-14003)
Facts:
- Death and Will Submission
- On September 9, 1957, Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance died at 13 Luskot, Quezon City, her last known residence.
- Petitioner Francisco Azaola filed for probate of a holographic will (Exh. C) naming Maria Milagros Azaola as sole heir in opposition to the deceased’s nephew, Cesario Singson.
- Witness Testimony and Documentary Exhibits
- Francisco Azaola, a lay witness, testified that he received the holographic will from the testatrix about one month before her death and positively identified both handwriting and signature as hers.
- To corroborate, he submitted additional documents bearing the testatrix’s handwriting and signature:
- A mortgage document (Exh. E).
- A special power of attorney (Exh. F).
- A general power of attorney (Exh. F-1).
- Deeds of sale (Exhs. G and G-1) and an accompanying affidavit (Exh. G-2).
- Two residence certificates (Exhs. H and H-1).
- Opposition and Lower Court Decision
- Opposition grounds: alleged undue pressure by petitioner and wife; lack of serious testamentary intent; discrepancy in stated date of execution (claimed August 5 or 6, 1957 vs. November 20, 1956).
- The Court of First Instance denied probate, holding that under Article 811, three witnesses were required when a will is contested and that the lone witness failed to sufficiently prove the will’s handwriting authenticity.
Issues:
- Whether a proponent of a holographic will, whose authenticity is uncontested, must produce more than one witness who knows the testator’s handwriting and signature under Article 811 of the Civil Code.
- Whether Article 811 mandates presentation of three competent witnesses to identify a contested holographic will or allows judicial discretion, including resort to expert testimony.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)