On May 1975, a prominent and wealthy resident of Mabalacat, Pampanga named Venancio Rivera

died.

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.

Adelaido J. Rivera filed, also with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, a petition for the probate
of the holographic wills. this petition was in turn opposed by Jose Rivera, who reiterated that he was
the sole heir of Venancio's intestate estate.

The two cases were later consolidated and Adelaido was appointed as special administrator. The
Court 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.

The decision 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.

In support of his claim that he was the sole heir of the late Venancio Rivera, he submitted evidences
and presented Domingo Santos, who testified that Jose was indeed the son of the couple. Jose
insisted that Adelaido and his brothers and sisters were illegitimate children.

Adelaido, for his part, also denied recognizing him as a brother and maintained that their parents
were legally married and lived as such for many years. But he could not present his parents'
marriage certificate because it was destroyed when the town was burned during the war. He also
submitted his own birth certificate and those of his sisters, who were each described therein as the
legimitate children of Venancio Rivera and Maria Jocson. To prove that there were in fact two
persons by the same name of Venancio Rivera, Adelaido also offered his father's baptismal
certificate showing that his father’s parents were Magno Rivera and Gertrudes de los Reyes, as
contrasted with the marriage certificate submitted by Jose, which indicated that the Venancio Rivera
subject thereof was the son of Florencio Rivera and Estrudez Reyes.

Now the question is,

“Was there only one Venancio Rivera in Mabalacat, Pampanga, or were there two?” (It is important
to determine whether or not, Jose Rivera has the right to contest the wills)

The trial court ruled in favor of Adelaido J. Rivera.

Although Jose Rivera did present his parents' marriage certificate, Venancio was described therein
as the son of Florencio Rivera. Presumably, he was not the same Venancio Rivera described in
baptismal certificate, as the son of Magno Rivera.
Now for the holographic wills. 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 existence and therefore also the authenticity of the holographic wills were questioned by Jose
Rivera. He declared that Venancio Rivera died intestate; and denied the existence of the holographic
wills presented by Adelaido Rivera for probate. In both proceedings, Jose Rivera opposed the
holographic wills submitted by Adelaido Rivera and claimed that they were spurious.

The flaw in this argument is that, as we have already determined, 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the challenged decision is AFFIRMED, with costs against
the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.