74 AZAOLA v. SINGSON G.R. No. L-14003 5, 196 FACTS: An appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

. This case involves the determination of the quantity of evidence required for the probate of a holographic will. September 9, 1957: Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance died; Francisco Azaola, petitioner herein for probate, submitted the said holographic will whereby Maria Alilagros Azaola was made the sole heir as against the nephew of the deceased Cesario Singson (respondent). Francisco Azaola testified that he saw the holographic will a month, more or less, before the death of the testatrix, as the same was handed to him and his wife; he also testified that he recognized all the signatures appearing in the holographic will as the handwriting of the testatrix. Additional evidence: residence certificates to show the signatures of the testatrix for comparison purposes. Azaola testified that the penmanship appearing in the said documentary evidence is in the handwriting of the testatrix as well as the signatures appearing therein are the signatures of the testatrix (as contained in the stenographic notes). 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. 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.

ISSUE: WON three witnesses are necessary to establish the handwriting/ signature contained in a will. HELD: NO. The decision appealed from is set aside, and the records ordered remanded to the Court of origin, with instructions to hold a new trial in conformity with this opinion. RATIO: Where the will is holographic, no witnesses need to be present (Art. 10), and the rule requiring production of three witnesses must be deemed merely permissive if absurd results are to be avoided. The rule of the first paragraph of Article 811 of the Civil Code is merely directory and is not mandatory.

Art. 811, Civil Code: In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required. In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. Since the authenticity of the will was not contested, the proponent was not required to produce more than one witness. Even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, the Court is of the opinion that Article 811 of our present Civil Code cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the probate denied. Since no witness may have been present at the execution of a holographic will (none being required by law) the existence of witnesses possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. For it is not merely a question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be witnesses "who know the handwriting and signature of the testator" and who can declare truthfully "that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator." Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811 may even be impossible. This is evidently the reason for the second paragraph of Art. 811. The law foresees the possibility that no qualified witness may be found (or may refuse to testify), and provides for resort to expert evidence to supply the deficiency. The requirement can be considered mandatory only in the case of ordinary testaments, precisely because the presence of at least three witnesses at the execution of ordinary wills is made by law essential to their validity. 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. And because the law leaves it to the trial court to decide if experts are still needed, no unfavorable inference can be drawn from a party's failure to offer expert evidence, until and unless the court expresses dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay witnesses.