Azaola v.

Singson (August 5, 1960)

Jose Benedicto Luna (J.B.L.) Reyes, J.
F. Lavides and L.B. Alcuaz for Federico Azaola
Vicente J. Cuna and P.S. Singson for Cesario Singson.
FACTS

Sep. 9, 1957 - FORTUNATA S. Vda. de Yance died in her house in Luskot, Quezon City
o Luskot St. is near N. Ramirez and E. Rodriguez Ave., Brgy. Don Manuel, malapit sa Q.I., bandang
Galas.
o She left a holographic will, dated Nov. 20, 1956, instituting Maria MILAGROS Azaola as her sole
heir.

During the probate proceedings, Fortunatas nephew, appellee Cesario SINGSON, opposed the will, alleging
that it was made under the undue influence of Milagros and her husband FEDERICO Azaola.

On trial, Federico testified that:

o He saw the will one month before Fortunata died, when she handed the will to the Sps. Azaola
o He recognized the signatures in the will as Fortunatas handwriting, as evinced by the mortgage,
special power of attorney, general power of attorney, deeds of sale and residence certificates, all
signed by Fortunata.
o The penmanship in the will is that of Fortunatas
o The assessed value of the Luskot property is P7000

Jan. 15, 1958 QC CFI denied probate on the ground that the will being contested, Federico had to
present 3 witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature are in the hand of the testator, and
Federico failed to do so. He only presented one witness.

On appeal, Federico argues that:

o Only one witness is required because the will was not contested
o The three-witness requirement in NCC 811 is not mandatory even if the authenticity of the will is
contested.
ISSUE (HELD)
W/N the three-witness requirement is mandatory (NO, only directory)
RATIO

NCC 811 cannot be interpreted to impose the mandatory requirement of producing three witnesses to
identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the probate denied.

This is because of the peculiar nature of holographic wills, especially the fact that the law does not require
any witnesses thereto.

The only requirement for the witnesses (if there are any) is that they must be able to truthfully declare that
the will and signature are in the handwriting of the testator.

The law foresees that there may be no witnesses, so it allowed for expert testimony (NCC 811, 2).

It may be admitted that the rule requiring three witnesses was derived from the rule on notarial wills, but the
rule is mandatory only with respect to notarial wills (NCC 805).

As the law (NCC 810) does not even require a witness to be present in the execution of a holographic will,
the three-witness rule must be deemed permissive if absurd results are to be avoided.

Quoting the SC [because JBL]: Again, under Article 811, the resort to expert evidence is conditioned by the
words "if the Court deem it necessary", which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the Court
should be convinced of the will's authenticity. Where the prescribed number of witnesses is produced
and the court is convinced by their testimony that the will is genuine, it may consider it unnecessary to call
for expert evidence. On the other hand, if no competent witness is available, or none of those
produced is convincing, the Court may still, and in fact it should, resort to handwriting experts. The
duty of the court, in fine, is to exhaust all available lines of inquiry, for the state is as much interested as the
proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried into effect.

Mucius Scaevola, on SCC 691 [machine translated from the Spanish]: The prudence with which the Judge
must proceed in resolutions of like importance so requires it,, and the delicate and dangerous nature of the
holographic testament, makes it necessary for major guarantee of all the interests compromised. In effect,
the expert matching of letters can be an optional confirmation of the above mentioned layman witnesses and
a way of dispelling the last doubts that could [occur] to the Judge about the authenticity that [he] tries to
establish and declare. For that there has been written the phrase of the last said paragraph, (whenever the

Judge should consider it suitable), there have been or not witnesses and they will doubt or not these with
regard to the ends why they are asked.
SC: And because the law leaves it to the trial court to decide if experts are still needed, no unfavourable
inference can be drawn from a party's failure to offer expert evidence, until arid unless the court expresses
dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay witnesses.
CASE AT BAR: Since this was the first time that the issue has been raised before the SC, the case was
remanded, in the interests of justice, to enable the parties to present additional evidence, including expert
witnesses, should the Court deem it necessary

DISPOSITION: Petition granted. Case remanded for new trial; evidence on record shall not be retaken.