RIVERA VS IAC

FACTS:
On this case, there are two persons with the name Venancio Rivera.
In May 1975, Venancio Rivera, a wealthy man died. Petitioner Jose Rivera claimed
to be the only heir and filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration
over Venancio’s estate. Said petition was opposed by respondent Adelaido Rivera,
claimed that Venancio was his father and that the decedent did not die intestate
but left 2 holographic wills. Adeilado then filed a petition for the probate of the wills
but the same was opposed by Jose who reiterated that he was the sole heir of
Venancio’s intestate estate
Adelaido was subsequently appointed as special administrator. The trial court
found that Jose was the son of a different Venancio Rivera who was married to a
Maria Vital. As such, he had no claim to the estate. Then, the will was also admitted
to probate.

ISSUE:
WON the three-witness rule is applicable in this case since the holographic will was
contested

HELD:

No. The respondent court considered the wills valid because it found them to have
been written, dated and signed by the testator himself in accordance with Article
810 of the Civil Code. It also held there was no necessity of presenting the three
witnesses required under Article 811 because the authenticity of the wills had not
been questioned. Kasi under Article 811, if the will is contested, then at least 3
witness is required.
Since Jose Rivera is not the son of the decedent Venancio, and being a stranger,
he has no personality to contest the wills and his opposition thereto did not have
the legal effect of requiring the three witnesses. The testimony of Zenaida and
Venancio Jr (respondent’s siblings) as having been written and signed by their
father, was sufficient.