G.R. No. L-14003; August 5, 1960
FEDERICO AZAOLA, petitioner-appellant, vs. CESARIO SINGSON, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Federico Azaola petitioned for the probate of the holographic will of Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance, who died on September 9, 1957. The will, dated November 20, 1956, named Maria Milagros Azaola as the sole heir, to the exclusion of the testatrix’s nephew, Cesario Singson. The oppositor, Cesario Singson, contested the probate on grounds of undue influence and that the testatrix did not seriously intend the instrument to be her will, alleging it was actually written in August 1957. At the trial, the proponent presented only one witness, Francisco Azaola, who testified that he recognized the handwriting and signature on the will as that of the testatrix, based on his familiarity with her writing and by comparing it with other documents bearing her signature. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City denied the probate. It ruled that, under Article 811 of the Civil Code, since the will was contested, the proponent was required to present at least three witnesses to declare that the will and signature were in the testatrix’s handwriting, and that the lone witness’s testimony was insufficient to prove this.

ISSUE

Whether Article 811 of the Civil Code mandatorily requires the presentation of at least three witnesses to identify the handwriting and signature of the testator for the probate of a contested holographic will, such that failure to do so warrants denial of probate.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial. The Court held that the rule in the first paragraph of Article 811 requiring “at least three of such witnesses” if the will is contested is directory and not mandatory. The Court reasoned that since no witnesses are required by law for the execution of a holographic will (Art. 810), it may be impossible for the proponent to find or produce three qualified witnesses familiar with the testator’s handwriting. The second paragraph of Article 811, which allows resort to expert testimony if the court deems it necessary in the absence of competent witnesses, confirms that the three-witness rule is not absolute. The essential requirement is for the court to be convinced of the will’s authenticity. The court has a duty to exhaust all available lines of inquiry, including the testimony of lay witnesses and, if necessary, expert witnesses, to determine genuineness. The failure of a party to offer expert evidence does not justify an unfavorable inference unless the court is dissatisfied with the testimony of the lay witnesses. Consequently, the case was remanded to allow the parties to adduce additional evidence, including expert testimony if the court deems it necessary, without retaking evidence already on record.