SUCCESSION (Balane)

CASES under Art 811

Azaola vs. Singson

 Art 811 of the CC cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three
witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having probate denied.
Since no witness may have ever been present at the execution of a holographic will, none being
required by law, it becomes obvious that the existence of witness possessing requisite
qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent.
 There may be no available witness acquainted with the testator’s hand, or even if so
familiarized, the witness may be unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance this in Art 811,
may thus become an impossibility.
 The duty of the court is in fine, to exhaust all available lines of inquiry for the state is as much
interested as proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried into effect.
 The rule of the first paragraph of Art 811 is merely directory and not mandatory.
[Binayao: As the court may directly require expert testimony if there are no witness available]

Codoy vs, Calugay

 There may be no available witness acquainted with the testator’s hand, or even if so
familiarized, the witness may be unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance this in Art 811,
may thus become an impossibility. That, evidently, is the reason why paragraph 2 of Art 811
prescribes that
“In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph and if the
court may deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.”
 It may be true that the rule of this article requiring three witnesses to be presented if the will is
contested and only one if no contest is made was derived from the rule established for ordinary
testaments. But it can not be considered mandatory only cases 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 (Art 805). Where the will is holographic, not witness need be
present, and the rule requiring production of three witnesses must be deemed merely
permissive if absurd results are to be avoided.
 Paraphrasing Azaola vs. Singson, even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested,
Art 911 of the CC 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.
 The goals to achieve is to give effect to the wishes of the deceased and the evil to be prevented
is the possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit will employ means to defeat
the wished of the testator.
Gan vs. Yap (GR)

Rodelas vs. Aranza (XPN)

 holographic will itself is the material proof of authenticity of said wills.

 The execution and contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by bare
testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented,
otherwise, it shall produce no effect.
 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 or xerox copy of the holographic will may be
allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator.

Art 812, 813, 814

Kalaw vs. Relova

Art 815, 81, 817

Art 820-821

Gonzalez vs. CA

- competency of a person to be an instrumental witness to a will is determined by the statute.

That is, Arts 820-9821 of the CC. Whereas, his credibility depends on the appreciation of his
testimony and arises from the belief and conclusion of the Court that said witness is telling the
truth.
- In fine, the instrumental witness in order to be competent must be shown to have the
qualifications under Art 820 of the CC and none of the disqualifications under Art 821.
- For their testimony to be credible, that is worthy of belief and entitled to credence, it is not
mandatory that evidence be first established on record that the witnesses have a good standing
in the community or that they are honest and upright or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable,
for a person is presumed to be such unless the contrary is established otherwise.
- In other words, the instrumental witnesses must be competent and their testimonies must be
credible before the court allows the probate of the will they have attested.

Institution of Heirs – end of coverage for midterm

Forms- Sept 7
Witnesses – Sept 9

Revocation – Sept 15

Institution – Sept 17