7/27/2019 Azaola vs Singson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/azaola-vs-singson 1/3

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960

FEDERICO AZAOLA, petitioner-appellant,vs.

CESARIO SINGSON, oppositor-appellee.

F. Lavides and L.B. Alcuaz for appellant.Vicente J. Cuna and P.S. Singson for appellee.

REYES, J..L., J .!

This appeal, taken on points of law from a decision rendered on 15 Janar! 1"5# $! the Cort of%irst &nstance of 'e(on Cit! in its )pecial *roceedin+s No. '-/, involves the determinationof the 0antit! of evidence re0ired for the pro$ate of a holo+raphic will.

The esta$lished facts are ths smmari(ed in the decision appealed from 2ec. App. pp. -34

Briefl! speakin+, the followin+ facts were esta$lished $! the petitioner6 that on )eptem$er ",1"57, %ortnata ). 8da. de 9ance died at 1: ;skot, 'e(on Cit!, known to $e the lastresidence of said testatri<6 that %rancisco A(aola, petitioner herein for pro$ate of theholo+raphic will, s$mitted the said holo+raphic will E<h. C3 where$! =aria =ila+ros A(aolawas made the sole heir as a+ainst the nephew of deceased Cesario )in+son6 that witness%rancisco A(aola testified that he saw the holo+raphic will E<h. C3 one month, more or less,$efore the death of the testatri<, as the same was handed to him and his wife6 that thewitness testified also that he reco+ni(ed all the si+natres appearin+ in the holo+raphic willE<h. C3 as the handwritin+ of the testatri< and to reinforce said statement, witnesspresented the mort+a+e E<h. E3, the special power of the attorne! E<h. %3, and the +eneralpower of attorne! E<h. %-13, $esides the deeds of sale E<hs. > and >-13 incldin+ anaffidavit E<h. >-3, and that there were frther e<hi$ited in cort two residence certificatesE<hs. ? and ?-13 to show the si+natres of the testatri<, for comparison prposes6 that saidwitness, A(aola, testified that the penmanship appearin+ in the aforesaid docmentar!evidence is in the handwritin+ of the testatri< as well as the si+natres appearin+ in theaforesaid docmentar! evidence is in the handwritin+ of the testatri< as well as thesi+natres appearin+ therein are the si+natres of the testatri<6 that said witness, in answerto a 0estion of his consel admitted that the holo+raphic will was handed to him $! thetestatri<. apparentl! it mst have $een written $! her t.s.n., p. 113. ?owever, on pa+e 1 onthe same transcript of the steno+raphic notes, when the same witness was asked $! conselif he was familiar with the penmanship and handwritin+ of the deceased %ortnata 8da. de9ance, he answered positivel! in the affirmative and when he was asked a+ain whether thepenmanship referred to in the previos answer as appearin+ in the holo+raphic will E<h. C3was hers testatri<@3, he answered, & wold definitel! sa! it is hers6 that it was alsoesta$lished in the proceedin+s that the assessed vale of the propert! of the deceased in;skot, 'e(on Cit!, is in the amont of *7,///.//.

The opposition to the pro$ate was on the +rond that 13 the e<ection of the will was procred $!nde and improper pressre and inflence on the part of the petitioner and his wife, and 3 thatthe testatri< did not seriosl! intend the instrment to $e her last will, and that the same wasactall! written either on the 5th or th da! of A+st 1"57 and not on Novem$er /, 1"5 asappears on the will.

The pro$ate was denied on the +rond that nder Article #11 of the Civil Code, the proponentmst present three witnesses who cold declare that the will and the si+natre are in the writin+

7/27/2019 Azaola vs Singson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/azaola-vs-singson 2/3

of the testatri<, the pro$ate $ein+ contested6 and $ecase the lone witness presented $! theproponent did not prove sfficientl! that the $od! of the will was written in the handwritin+ of thetestatri<.

The proponent appealed, r+in+4 first, that he was not $ond to prodce more than one witness$ecase the will@s athenticit! was not 0estioned6 and second, that Article #11 does not

mandatoril! re0ire the prodction of three witnesses to identif! the handwritin+ and si+natre ofa holo+raphic will, even if its athenticit! shold $e denied $! the adverse part!.

 Article #11 of the Civil Code of the *hilippines is to the followin+ effect4

 A2T. #11. &n the pro$ate of a holo+raphic will, it shall $e necessar! that at least one witnesswho knows the handwritin+ and si+natre of the testator e<plicitl! declare that the will andthe si+natre are in the handwritin+ of the testator. &f the will is contested, at least three ofsch witnesses shall $e re0ired.

&n the a$sence of an! competent witnesses referred to in the precedin+ para+raph, and if thecort deems it necessar!, e<pert testimon! ma! $e resorted to. "1a3.

e a+ree with the appellant that since the athenticit! of the will was not contested, he was notre0ired to prodce more than one witness6 $t even if the +enineness of the holo+raphic willwere contested, we are of the opinion that Article #11 of or present Civil Code can not $einterpreted as to re0ire the complsor! presentation of three witnesses to identif! thehandwritin+ of the testator, nder penalt! of havin+ the pro$ate denied. )ince no witness ma!have $een present at the e<ection of a holo+raphic will, none $ein+ re0ired $! law Art. #1/,new Civil Code3, it $ecomes o$vios that the e<istence of witness possessin+ the re0isite0alifications is a matter $e!ond the control of the proponent. %or it is not merel! a 0estion offindin+ and prodcin+ an! three witnesses6 the! mst $e witnesses who know the handwritin+and si+natre of the testator and who can declare trthfll!, of corse, even if the law does notso e<press3 that the will and the si+natre are in the handwritin+ of the testator. There ma! $eno availa$le witness of the testator@s hand6 or even if so familiari(ed, the witnesses ma! $enwillin+ to +ive a positive opinion. Compliance with the rle of para+raph 1 of Article #11 ma!

ths $ecome an impossi$ilit!. That is evidentl! the reason wh! the second para+raph of Article#11 prescri$es that

in the a$sence of an! competent witness referred to in the precedin+ para+raph, and if thecort deems it necessar!, e<pert testimon! ma! $e resorted to.

 As can $e seen, the law foresees the possi$ilit! that no 0alified witness ma! $e fond or whatamonts to the same thin+, that no competent witness ma! $e willin+ to testif! to the athenticit!of the will3, and provides for resort to e<pert evidence to sppl! the deficienc!.

&t ma! $e tre that the rle of this article re0irin+ that three witnesses $e presented if the will iscontested and onl! one if no contest is had3 was derived from the rle esta$lished for ordinar!testaments cf. Ca$an+ vs. elfinado, 5 *hil., "16 Tolentino vs. %rancisco, 57 *hil., 73. Bt itcan not $e i+nored that the re0irement can $e considered mandator! onl! in the case of ordinar!testaments, precisel! $ecase the presence of at least three witnesses at the e<ection ofordinar! wills is made $! law essential to their validit! Art. #/53. here the will is holo+raphic, nowitness need $e present Art. 1/3, and the rle re0irin+ prodction of three witnesses mst $edeemed merel! permissive if a$srd reslts are to $e avoided.

 A+ain, nder Article #11, the resort to e<pert evidence is conditioned $! the words if the Cortdeem it necessar!, which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the Cort shold $econvinced of the will@s athenticit!. here the prescri$ed nm$er of witnesses is prodced and

7/27/2019 Azaola vs Singson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/azaola-vs-singson 3/3

the cort is convinced $! their testimon! that the ill is +enine, it ma! consider it nnecessar! tocall for e<pert evidence. Dn the other hand, if no competent witness is availa$le, or none of thoseprodced is convincin+, the Cort ma! still, and in fact it shold, resort to handwritin+ e<perts.The dt! of the Cort, in fine, is to e<hast all availa$le lines of in0ir!, for the state is as mchinterested as the proponent that the tre intention of the testator $e carried into effect.

Commentin+ on analo+os provisions of Article "1 of the )panish Civil Code of 1##", the notedCommentator, =cis )caevola 8ol. 1, nd Ed., p.13, sa+el! remarks4

;a manera como esta conce$ida la redaccion del ltimo apartado de dicho precepto indcela conclsion de 0e siempre o por lo menos, en la ma!or parte de los casos, el Je( de$eacdir al criterio pericial para 0e le ilstre acerca de la atenticidad del testamento olo+rafo,an0e !a esten insertas en los atos del e<pediente las declaraciones testificales. ;aprdencia con 0e el Je( de$e de proceder en resolciones de transcendencia asi lo e<i+e,! la indole delicada ! peli+rosa del testamento olo+rafo lo hace necesario para ma!or+arantia de todos los interes comprometidos en a0el.

En efecto, el coteo pericial de letras pede ser na confirmacion facltativa del dichoprofano de los testi+os ! n modo de desvanecer las ltimas ddas 0e pdieran ocrrir al

Je( acerca de la atenticidad 0e trata de averi+ar ! declarar. *ara eso se ha escrito lafrase del citado ltimo apartado, siempre 0e el Je( lo estime conveniente3, ha!a ha$ido ono testi+os ! ddaran o no estos respecto de los e<tremos por 0e son pre+ntados.

El ar$itrio dicial en este caso de$e formarse con independencia de los scesos ! de ssi+nificacion, para responder de$idamente de las resolciones 0e ha!a de dictar.

 And $ecase the law leaves it to the trial cort if e<perts are still needed, no nfavora$leinference can $e drawn from a part!@s failre to offer e<pert evidence, ntil and nless the corte<presses dissatisfaction with the testimon! of the la! witnesses.

Dr conclsion is that the rle of the first para+raph of Article #11 of the Civil Code is merel!director! and is not mandator!.

Considerin+, however, that this is the first occasion in which this Cort has $een called pon toconstre the import of said article, the interest of stice wold $e $etter served, in or opinion, $!+ivin+ the parties ample opportnit! to addce additional evidence, incldin+ e<pert witnesses,shold the Cort deem them necessar!.

&n view of the fore+oin+, the decision appealed from is set aside, and the records orderedremanded to the Cort of ori+in, with instrctions to hold a new trial in conformit! with this opinion.Bt evidence alread! on record shall not $e retaken. No costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera and Gutierrez avid, JJ.,concr.