Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

On May 30, 1975, a prominent and wealthy resident of that town named Venancio Rivera died. Sometime in July of the same year, Jose Rivera, claiming to be the only surviving legitimate son of the deceased, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration over Venancio's estate. This petition was opposed by Adelaido J. Rivera, who denied that Jose was the son of the decedent. Adelaido averred that Venancio was his father and did not die intestate but in fact left two holographic wills.

​

On November 7, 1975, Adelaido J. Rivera filed, also with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, a petition for the probate of the holographic wills. Said petition was in turn opposed by Jose Rivera, who reiterated that he was the sole heir of Venancio's intestate estate. After four days, the two cases were consolidated. Adelaido J. Rivera was later appointed special administrator. After joint trial, Judge Eliodoro B. Guinto found that Jose Rivera was not the son of the decedent but of a different Venancio Rivera who was married to Maria Vital. The Venancio Rivera whose estate was in question was married to Maria Jocson, by whom he had seven children, including Adelaido. Jose Rivera had no claim to this estate because the decedent was not his father. The holographic wills were also admitted to probate.  On appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed by the then Intermediate Appellate Court. Its decision is now the subject of this petition, which urges the reversal of the respondent court.

​

ISSUE:

Whether or not three (3) witnesses are needed to prove the validity of the holographic will.

​

RULING:

No. The respondent court considered them 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. The Court has determined the flaw in the argument is that Jose Rivera is not the son of the deceased Venancio Rivera whose estate is in question. Hence, being a mere stranger, he had 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 Rivera, Jr., who authenticated the wills as having been written and signed by their father, was sufficient.