Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.B.L., J.:
This appeal, taken on points of law from a decision
rendered on 15 January 1958 by the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City in its Special Proceedings No.
Q-2640, involves the determination of the quantity of
evidence required for the probate of a holographic will.
The established facts are thus summarized in the
decision appealed from (Rec. App. pp. 22-24):
"Briefly speaking, the following facts were established
by the petitioner; that on September 9, 1957,
Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance died at 13 Luskot, Quezon
City, known to be the last residence of said testatrix;
that Francisco Azaola, petitioner herein for probate of
the holographic will, submitted the said holographic
will (Exh. C) whereby Maria Milagros Azaola was made
the sole heir as against the nephew of deceased
Cesario Singson; that witness Francisco Azaola testified
that he saw the holographic will (Exh. C) one month,
more or less, before the death of the testatrix, as the
same was handed to him and his wife; that the witness
testified also that he recognized all the signatures
appearing in the holographic will (Exh. C) as the
handwriting of the testatrix and to reinforce said
statement, witness presented the mortgage (Exh. E),
the special power of the attorney (Exh. F), and the
general power of attorney (Exh. F-1), besides the deeds
of sale (Exhs. G and G-1) including an affidavit (Exh. G2), and that there were further exhibited in court two
residence certificates (Exhs. H and H-1) to show the
signatures of the testatrix, for comparison purposes;
that said witness, Azaola, testified that the penmanship
appearing in the aforesaid documentary evidence is in
the handwriting of the testatrix as well as the
signatures appearing in the aforesaid documentary
evidence is in the handwriting of the testatrix as well
as the signatures appearing therein are the signatures
of the testatrix; that said witness, in answer to a
question of his counsel admitted that the holographic
will was handed to him by the testatrix. "apparently it
must have been written by her" (t.s.n., p. 11).
However, on page 16 on the same transcript of the
stenographic notes, when the same witness was asked
by counsel if he was familiar with the penmanship and
handwriting of the deceased Fortunata Vda. de Yance,
he answered positively in the affirmative and when he
was asked again whether the penmanship referred to
in the previous answer as appearing in the holographic
will (Exh. C) was hers (testatrix'), he answered, "I
would definitely say it is hers"; that it was also
established in the proceedings that the assessed value
of the property of the deceased in Luskot, Quezon City,
is in the amount of P7,000.00.
The opposition to the probate was on the ground that
(1) the execution of the will was procured by undue
and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
petitioner and his wife, and (2) that the testatrix did
not seriously intend the instrument to be her last will,
and that the same was actually written either on the
5th or 6th day of August 1957 and not on November
20, 1956 as appears on the will.
The probate was denied on the ground that under
Article 811 of the Civil Code, the proponent must
present three witnesses who could declare that the will
and the signature are in the writing of the testatrix, the
probate being contested; and because the lone witness
presented by the proponent "did not prove sufficiently
that the body of the will was written in the handwriting
of the testatrix."
The proponent appealed, urging: first, that he was not
bound to produce more than one witness because the
will's authenticity was not questioned; and second, that
Article 811 does not mandatorily require the production
of three witnesses to identify the handwriting and
signature of a holographic will, even if its authenticity
should be denied by the adverse party.
Petitioners
argued
that
the
repeated
dates
incorporated or appearing on will after every
disposition is out of the ordinary. If the deceased was
the one who executed the will, and was not forced, the
dates and the signature should appear at the bottom
after the dispositions, as regularly done and not after
every disposition. And assuming that the holographic
will is in the handwriting of the deceased, it was
procured by undue and improper pressure and
influence on the part of the beneficiaries, or through
fraud and trickery.1wphi1.nt
Respondents presented six (6) witnesses and various
documentary
evidence.
Petitioners
instead
of
presenting their evidence, filed a demurrer 6 to
evidence, claiming that respondents failed to establish
sufficient factual and legal basis for the probate of the
holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. de
Ramonal.
On November 26, 1990, the lower Court issued an
order, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration,
the Demurrer to Evidence having being well taken,
same is granted, and the petition for probate of the
document (Exhibit "S") on the purported Holographic
Will of the late Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal, is
denied for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merits. 7
On December 12, 1990, respondents filed a notice of
appeal,8 and in support of their appeal, the
respondents once again reiterated the testimony of the
following witnesses, namely: (1) Augusto Neri; (2)
Generosa Senon; (3) Matilde Ramonal Binanay; (4)
Teresita Vedad; (5) Fiscal Rodolfo Waga; and (6)
Evangeline Calugay.
To have a clear understanding of the testimonies of the
witnesses, we recite an account of their testimonies.
Augusto Neri, Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of
Misamis Oriental, where the special proceedings for the
probate of the holographic will of the deceased was
filed. He produced and identified the records of the
case. The documents presented bear the signature of
the deceased, Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal, for the
purpose of laying the basis for comparison of the
handwriting of the testatrix, with the writing treated or
admitted as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered.
Generosa Senon, election registrar of Cagayan de Oro,
was presented to produced and identify the voter's
affidavit of the decedent. However, the voters' affidavit
was not produced for the same was already destroyed
and no longer available.
Matilde Ramonal Binanay, testified that the deceased
Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal was her aunt, and that
after the death of Matilde's husband, the latter lived
with her in her parent's house for eleven (11) years
from 1958 to 1969. During those eleven (11) years of
close association the deceased, she acquired
familiarity with her signature and handwriting as she
used to accompany her (deceased Matilde Seo Vda.
de Ramonal) in collecting rentals from her various
tenants of commercial buildings, and deceased always
issued receipts. In addition to this, she (witness Matilde
Binanay) assisted the deceased in posting the records
of the accounts, and carried personal letters of the
deceased to her creditors.
Matilde Ramonal Binanay further testified that at the
time of the death of Matilde Vda. de Ramonal, she left
a holographic will dated August 30, 1978, which was
personally and entirely written, dated and signed, by
the deceased and that all the dispositions therein, the
dates, and the signatures in said will, were that of the
deceased.
Fiscal Rodolfo Waga testified that before he was
appointed City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro, he was a
practicing lawyer, and handled all the pleadings and
documents signed by the deceased in connection with
the proceedings of her late husband, as a result of
which he is familiar with the handwriting of the latter.
He testified that the signature appearing in the
holographic will was similar to that of the deceased,
Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal, but he can not be sure.
The fifth witness presented was Mrs. Teresita Vedad, an
employee of the Department of Environment and
only chance at comparison was during the crossexamination of Ms. Binanay when the lawyer of
petitioners asked Ms. Binanay to compare the
documents which contained the signature of the
deceased with that of the holographic will and she is
not a handwriting expert. Even the former lawyer of
the deceased expressed doubts as to the authenticity
of the signature in the holographic will.
A visual examination of the holographic will convince
us that the strokes are different when compared with
other documents written by the testator. The signature
of the testator in some of the disposition is not
readable. There were uneven strokes, retracing and
erasures on the will.
Comparing the signature in the holographic will dated
August 30, 1978,33 and the signatures in several
documents such as the application letter for pasture
permit dated December 30, 1980,34 and a letter dated
June 16, 1978,35 the strokes are different. In the letters,
there are continuous flows of the strokes, evidencing
that there is no hesitation in writing unlike that of the
holographic will. We, therefore, cannot be certain that
ruling holographic will was in the handwriting by the
deceased.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from is SET
ASIDE. The records are ordered remanded to the court
of origin with instructions to allow petitioners to
adduce evidence in support of their opposition to the
probate of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde
Seo vda. de Ramonal.1wphi1.nt
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, 522, the
Supreme Court held that 'in the matter of holographic
wills the law, it is reasonable to suppose, regards the
document itself as the material proof of authenticity of
said wills.
MOREOVER, this Court notes that the alleged
holographic will was executed on January 25, 1962
while Ricardo B. Bonilla died on May 13, 1976. In view
of the lapse of more than 14 years from the time of the
execution of the will to the death of the decedent, the
fact that the original of the will could not be located
shows to our mind that the decedent had discarded
before his death his allegedly missing Holographic Will.
Appellant's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Hence, an appeal to the Court of Appeals in which it is
contended that the dismissal of appellant's petition is
contrary to law and well-settled jurisprudence.
On July 7, 1980, appellees moved to forward the case
to this Court on the ground that the appeal does not
involve question of fact and alleged that the trial court
committed the following assigned errors:
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A LOST
HOLOGRAPHIC WILL MAY NOT BE PROVED BY A COPY
THEREOF;
II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
DECEDENT HAS DISCARDED BEFORE HIS DEATH THE
MISSING HOLOGRAPHIC WILL;
III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING
APPELLANT'S WILL.
The only question here is whether a holographic will
which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by
means of a photostatic copy. Pursuant to Article 811 of
the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is the
allowance of the will by the court after its due
execution has been proved. The probate may be
uncontested or not. If uncontested, at least one
Identifying witness is required and, if no witness is
available, experts may be resorted to. If contested, at
least three Identifying witnesses are required.
However, if the holographic will has been lost or
destroyed and no other copy is available, the will can
not be probated because the best and only evidence is
the handwriting of the testator in said will. It is
necessary that there be a comparison between sample
handwritten statements of the testator and the
handwritten will. But, a photostatic copy or xerox copy
of the holographic will may be allowed because
comparison can be made with the standard writings of
the testator. In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509,
the Court ruled that "the execution and the contents of
a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved
by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen
and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented;
otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards
the document itself as material proof of authenticity."
But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps
it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic
copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by
other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of
the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and
tested before the probate court," Evidently, the
photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed
holographic will may be admitted because then the
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be
determined by the probate court.
WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court dated
October 3, 1979, denying appellant's motion for
reconsideration dated August 9, 1979, of the Order
dated July 23, 1979, dismissing her petition to approve
the will of the late Ricardo B. Bonilla, is hereby SET
ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
THELMA
IT IS SO ORDERED.