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 ...

Facts:

Testatrix and Holographic Will

• Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance, known to reside at 13 Luskot, Quezon City, died on September 9, 1957.
• The holographic will, produced by petitioner Francisco Azaola for probate, was purportedly executed by the deceased testatrix.
• The will (referred to as Exh. C) made Maria Milagros Azaola the sole heir, in detriment to the deceased’s nephew, Cesario Singson.

Submission and Evidence Presented by the Proponent

• Francisco Azaola testified that he saw the holographic will about one month before the death, when it was handed to him and his wife.
• He affirmed that the signatures on the will were in the handwriting of the testatrix.
• Documentary evidence was introduced for handwriting comparison, including:
• A mortgage (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) along with an affidavit (Exh. G-2)
• Two residence certificates (Exhs. H and H-1)
• Additional testimony confirmed that witness Azaola recognized the penmanship on the holographic will as that of the testatrix.

Contestation and Grounds of Opposition

• The opposition argued against the probate on two main grounds:
• The will’s execution was allegedly procured by undue and improper pressure and influence exerted by the petitioner and his wife.
• The alleged discrepancy in the will’s date, asserting that it was actually written on the 5th or 6th day of August 1957, not on November 20, 1956 as indicated.
• It was emphasized that the probate was denied based on the insufficiency of evidence, specifically the lone witness failing to prove that the entire will was in the handwriting of the testatrix.

Statutory Framework and Evidentiary Requirements

• Article 811 of the Civil Code was central to the dispute, which provides:
• In uncontested probate of a holographic will, at least one witness knowledgeable of the testator’s handwriting and signature must testify.
• In contested cases, a minimum of three witnesses are required.
• In the absence of such witnesses, or if necessary, expert testimony may be availed.
• The assessed value of the deceased’s property in Quezon City was determined to be ₱7,000.00.

Issue:

Interpretation of Article 811

• Whether the mandatory requirement of producing three witnesses for a contested holographic will is absolute.
• Whether the authentication of a holographic will, whose genuineness is not in dispute, mandates the production of additional witnesses beyond the one originally presented.

Evidentiary Requirements in Holographic Will Probate

• Whether relying primarily on one witness familiar with the testatrix’s handwriting is sufficient for establishing authenticity.
• Whether the statutory provision allowing the resort to expert testimony should be applied as a substitute for the strict rule of producing three witnesses.

Judicial Discretion and Evidentiary Adducing

• Whether the court’s decision to require or not require additional evidentiary support (including expert testimony) falls within its discretionary power as envisaged by Article 811.
• How the discretion of the trial court in evidentiary matters affects the overall determination of the will’s authenticity.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)