Azaola v. Singson (August Singson (August 5, 1960) Jose Benedicto Luna (J.B.L.) Reyes, J . F. Lavides and L.B. Alcuaz for Federico Azaola Vicente J. Cuna and P.S. Singson for Cesario Singson. FACTS •
•
•
•
•
Sep. 9, 1957 - !R"#$A"A S. %da. de &ance died in 'e 'ouse in Lusot, *ue+on ity Lusot St. is nea $. Raie+ and . Rodigue+ A/e., Bgy. Bgy. on anue2, a2apit sa *.3., 4andang o a2as. S'e 2et a 'o2ogap'ic i22, dated $o/. 80, 1956, instituting aia 3LAR!S A+ao2a A+ao2a as 'e so2e o 'ei. uing t'e po4ate poceedings, otunatas nep'e, appe22ee esaio S3$S!$, opposed t'e i22, a22eging t'at it as ade unde t'e undue in2uence o i2agos and 'e 'us4and R3! A+ao2a. !n tia2, edeico testiied t'at: ;e sa t'e i22 one ont' 4eoe otunata died, 'en s'e 'anded t'e i22 to t'e Sps. A+ao2a o ;e ecogni+ed t'e signatues in t'e i22 as otunatas 'anditing, as e/inced 4y t'e otgage, o specia2 poe o attoney, genea2 poe o attoney, deeds o sa2e and esidence cetiicates, a22 signed 4y otunata. "'e penans'ip in t'e i22 is t'at o otunatas o "'e assessed /a2ue o t'e Lusot popety is <7000 o Jan. 15, 195= > * 3 denied probate on probate on t'e gound t'at t'e i22 4eing contested, Federico had to present 3 witnesses who could declare that the will and the signature signature are in the hand of the testator testator and Federico failed to do so. so . He only presented one witness. witness . !n appea2, edeico agues t'at: !n2y one itness is e?uied 4ecause t'e i22 as not contested o "'e t'ee-itness e?uieent in $ =11 is not andatoy e/en i t'e aut'enticity o t'e i22 is o contested.
ISSUE (HELD @$ t'e t'ee-itness e?uieent is andatoy (!"# only dire$tory %ATI" •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
$ =11 cannot 4e intepeted to ipose t'e andatoy e?uieent o poducing t'ee itnesses to identiy t'e 'anditing o t'e testato, unde pena2ty o 'a/ing t'e po4ate denied. "'is is 4ecause o t'e pecu2ia natue o 'o2ogap'ic i22s, especia22y t'e act t'at t'e 2a does not e?uie any itnesses t'eeto. "'e on2y e?uieent o t'e itnesses (i t'ee ae any) is t'at t'ey ust 4e a42e to tut'u22y dec2ae t'at t'e i22 and signatue ae in t'e 'anditing o t'e testato. "'e 2a oesees t'at t'ee ay 4e no itnesses, itnesses, so it a22oed o epet testiony ($ =11, C8). 3t ay 4e aditted t'at t'e u2e e?uiing t'ee itnesses as dei/ed o t'e u2e on notaia2 i22s, 4ut t'e u2e is andatoy on2y it' espect to notaia2 i22s ($ =05). As t'e 2a ($ =10) does not e/en e?uie e?uie a itness to 4e pesent in t'e eecution eecution o a 'o2ogap'ic 'o2ogap'ic i22, t'e t'ee-itness u2e ust 4e deeed peissi/e i a4sud esu2ts ae to 4e a/oided. *uoting t'e S D4ecause JBLE: F Again under Article Article !"" !"" the resort to e#pert e#pert evidence is conditioned $% the words &if the Court dee' it necessar%& which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the Court should be convinced of the will's authenticity . (here the prescri$ed nu'$er of witnesses is produced and the court is convinced $% their testi'on% that the will is genuine it 'a% consider it unnecessar% to call for e#pert evidence. )n the other hand if no competent witness is available, or none of those produced is convincing, convincing, the Court Court may still, and in fact it should, resort to handwriting experts experts.. *he dut% of the court in fine is to e#haust all availa$le lines of in+uir% for the state is as 'uch interested as the proponent that the true intention of the testator $e carried into into effect .G .G ucius Scae/o2a, on S 691 Dac'ine tans2ated o t'e Spanis'E: F"'e pudence it' 'ic' t'e Judge ust poceed in eso2utions o 2ie ipotance so e?uies it,, and t'e de2icate and dangeous natue o t'e 'o2ogap'ic testaent, aes it necessay o aHo guaantee o a22 t'e inteests copoised. 3n eect, t'e epet atc'ing o 2ettes can 4e an optiona2 coniation o t'e a4o/e entioned 2ayan itnesses and a ay o dispe22ing t'e 2ast dou4ts t'at cou2d DoccuE to t'e Judge a4out t'e aut'enticity t'at D'eE ties to esta42is' and dec2ae. o t'at t'ee 'as 4een itten t'e p'ase o t'e 2ast said paagap', ('ene/e t'e
•
•
Judge s'ou2d conside it suita42e), t'ee 'a/e 4een o not itnesses and t'ey i22 dou4t o not t'ese it' egad to t'e ends 'y t'ey ae ased.G S: F And $ecause the law leaves it to the trial court to decide if e#perts are still needed no unfavoura$le inference can $e drawn fro' a part%,s failure to offer e#pert evidence until arid unless the court e#presses dissatisfaction with the testi'on% of the la% witnesses.G AS A" BAR: Since t'is as t'e ist tie t'at t'e issue 'as 4een aised 4eoe t'e S, t'e case as eanded, in t'e inteests o Hustice, to ena42e t'e paties to pesent additiona2 e/idence, inc2uding epet itnesses, s'ou2d t'e out dee it necessay
DIS&"SITI"!'
