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 January 1958 by the ourt of
!irst "nstance of #ue$on ity in its %pecial &roceedin's (o. #-)*+,, involves the determination of
the -uantity of evidence re-uired for the probate of a holo'raphic will.
The established facts are thus summari$ed in the decision appealed from ./ec. 0pp. pp. ))-)+12
34riefly speakin', the followin' facts were established by the petitioner5 that on %eptember 9,
1956, !ortunata %. 7da. de 8ance died at 19 :uskot, #ue$on ity, known to be the last
residence of said testatri;5 that !rancisco 0$aola, petitioner herein for probate of the
holo'raphic will, submitted the said holo'raphic will .<;h. 1 whereby =aria =ila'ros 0$aola
was made the sole heir as a'ainst the nephew of deceased esario %in'son5 that witness
!rancisco 0$aola testified that he saw the holo'raphic will .<;h. 1 one month, more or less,
before the death of the testatri;, as the same was handed to him and his wife5 that the
witness testified also that he reco'ni$ed all the si'natures appearin' in the holo'raphic will
.<;h. 1 as the handwritin' of the testatri; and to reinforce said statement, witness
presented the mort'a'e .<;h. <1, the special power of the attorney .<;h. !1, and the 'eneral
power of attorney .<;h. !-11, besides the deeds of sale .<;hs. > and >-11 includin' an
affidavit .<;h. >-)1, and that there were further e;hibited in court two residence certificates
.<;hs. ? and ?-11 to show the si'natures of the testatri;, for comparison purposes5 that said
witness, 0$aola, testified that the penmanship appearin' in the aforesaid documentary
evidence is in the handwritin' of the testatri; as well as the si'natures appearin' in the
aforesaid documentary evidence is in the handwritin' of the testatri; as well as the
si'natures appearin' therein are the si'natures of the testatri;5 that said witness, in answer
to a -uestion of his counsel admitted that the holo'raphic will was handed to him by the
testatri;. 3apparently it must have been written by her3 .t.s.n., p. 111. ?owever, on pa'e 1*
on the same transcript of the steno'raphic notes, when the same witness was asked by
counsel if he was familiar with the penmanship and handwritin' of the deceased !ortunata
7da. de 8ance, he answered positively in the affirmative and when he was asked a'ain
whether the penmanship referred to in the previous answer as appearin' in the holo'raphic
will .<;h. 1 was hers .testatri;@1, he answered, 3" would definitely say it is hers35 that it was
also established in the proceedin's that the assessed value of the property of the deceased
in :uskot, #ue$on ity, is in the amount of &6,,,,.,,.
The opposition to the probate was on the 'round that .11 the e;ecution of the will was procured by
undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the petitioner and his wife, and .)1 that the
testatri; did not seriously intend the instrument to be her last will, and that the same was actually
written either on the 5th or *th day of 0u'ust 1956 and not on (ovember ),, 195* as appears on the
will.
The probate was denied on the 'round that under 0rticle 811 of the ivil ode, the proponent must
present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the si'nature are in the writin' of the
testatri;, the probate bein' contested5 and because the lone witness presented by the proponent
3did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written in the handwritin' of the testatri;.3
The proponent appealed, ur'in'2 first, that he was not bound to produce more than one witness
because the will@s authenticity was not -uestioned5 and second, that 0rticle 811 does not mandatorily
re-uire the production of three witnesses to identify the handwritin' and si'nature of a holo'raphic
will, even if its authenticity should be denied by the adverse party.
0rticle 811 of the ivil ode of the &hilippines is to the followin' effect2
0/T. 811. "n the probate of a holo'raphic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness
who knows the handwritin' and si'nature of the testator e;plicitly declare that the will and
the si'nature are in the handwritin' of the testator. "f the will is contested, at least three of
such witnesses shall be re-uired.
"n the absence of any competent witnesses referred to in the precedin' para'raph, and if the
court deems it necessary, e;pert testimony may be resorted to. .*91a1.
Ae a'ree with the appellant that since the authenticity of the will was not contested, he was not
re-uired to produce more than one witness5 but even if the 'enuineness of the holo'raphic will were
contested, we are of the opinion that 0rticle 811 of our present ivil ode can not be interpreted as
to re-uire the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwritin' of the testator,
under penalty of havin' the probate denied. %ince no witness may have been present at the
e;ecution of a holo'raphic will, none bein' re-uired by law .0rt. 81,, new ivil ode1, it becomes
obvious that the e;istence of witness possessin' the re-uisite -ualifications is a matter beyond the
control of the proponent. !or it is not merely a -uestion of findin' and producin' any three
witnesses5 they must be witnesses 3who know the handwritin' and si'nature of the testator3 and
who can declare .truthfully, of course, even if the law does not so e;press1 3that the will and the
si'nature are in the handwritin' of the testator3. There may be no available witness of the testator@s
hand5 or even if so familiari$ed, the witnesses may be unwillin' to 'ive a positive opinion.
ompliance with the rule of para'raph 1 of 0rticle 811 may thus become an impossibility. That is
evidently the reason why the second para'raph of 0rticle 811 prescribes that B
in the absence of any competent witness referred to in the precedin' para'raph, and if the
court deems it necessary, e;pert testimony may be resorted to.
0s can be seen, the law foresees the possibility that no -ualified witness may be found .or what
amounts to the same thin', that no competent witness may be willin' to testify to the authenticity of
the will1, and provides for resort to e;pert evidence to supply the deficiency.
"t may be true that the rule of this article .re-uirin' that three witnesses be presented if the will is
contested and only one if no contest is had1 was derived from the rule established for ordinary
testaments .cf. aban' vs. Celfinado, +5 &hil., )915 Tolentino vs. !rancisco, 56 &hil., 6+)1. 4ut it can
not be i'nored that the re-uirement can be considered mandatory only in the case of ordinary
testaments, precisely because the presence of at least three witnesses at the e;ecution of ordinary
wills is made by law essential to their validity .0rt. 8,51. Ahere the will is holo'raphic, no witness
need be present .0rt. 1,1, and the rule re-uirin' production of three witnesses must be deemed
merely permissive if absurd results are to be avoided.
0'ain, under 0rticle 811, the resort to e;pert evidence is conditioned by the words 3if the ourt deem
it necessary3, which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the ourt should be convinced
of the will@s authenticity. Ahere the prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the court is
convinced by their testimony that the ill is 'enuine, it may consider it unnecessary to call for e;pert
evidence. Dn the other hand, if no competent witness is available, or none of those produced is
convincin', the ourt may still, and in fact it should, resort to handwritin' e;perts. The duty of the
ourt, in fine, is to e;haust all available lines of in-uiry, for the state is as much interested as the
proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried into effect.
ommentin' on analo'ous provisions of 0rticle *91 of the %panish ivil ode of 1889, the noted
ommentator, =ucuis %caevola .7ol. 1), )nd <d., p.+)11, sa'ely remarks2
:a manera como esta concebida la redaccion del ultimo apartado de dicho precepto induce
la conclusion de -ue siempre o por lo menos, en la mayor parte de los casos, el Jue$ debe
acudir al criterio pericial para -ue le ilustre acerca de la autenticidad del testamento
olo'rafo, aun-ue ya esten insertas en los autos del e;pediente las declaraciones testificales.
:a prudencia con -ue el Jue$ debe de proceder en resoluciones de transcendencia asi lo
e;i'e, y la indole delicada y peli'rosa del testamento olo'rafo lo hace necesario para mayor
'arantia de todos los interes comprometidos en a-uel.
<n efecto, el coteEo pericial de letras puede ser una confirmacion facultativa del dicho
profano de los testi'os y un modo de desvanecer las ultimas dudas -ue pudieran ocurrir al
Jue$ acerca de la autenticidad -ue trata de averi'aur y declarar. &ara eso se ha escrito la
frase del citado ultimo apartado, .siempre -ue el Jue$ lo estime conveniente1, haya habido o
no testi'os y dudaran o no estos respecto de los e;tremos por -ue son pre'untados.
<l arbitrio Eudicial en este caso debe formarse con independencia de los sucesos y de su
si'nificacion, para responder debidamente de las resoluciones -ue haya de dictar.
0nd because the law leaves it to the trial court if e;perts are still needed, no unfavourable inference
can be drawn from a party@s failure to offer e;pert evidence, until and unless the court e;presses
dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay witnesses.
Dur conclusion is that the rule of the first para'raph of 0rticle 811 of the ivil ode is merely
directory and is not mandatory.
onsiderin', however, that this is the first occasion in which this ourt has been called upon to
construe the import of said article, the interest of Eustice would be better served, in our opinion, by
'ivin' the parties ample opportunity to adduce additional evidence, includin' e;pert witnesses,
should the ourt deem them necessary.
"n view of the fore'oin', the decision appealed from is set aside, and the records ordered remanded
to the ourt of ori'in, with instructions to hold a new trial in conformity with this opinion. 4ut evidence
already on record shall not be retaken. (o costs.
Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera and Gutierrez avid, JJ., concur.