Short answer. Yes, potentially. Article 811 of the Civil Code allows expert testimony to be resorted to in the absence of any competent witness who knows the testator's handwriting, but only if the court itself deems it necessary — it is a fallback for when no qualified witness is available, not a substitute you can choose freely instead of witnesses.
What the law says
In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator.
Civil Code, Article 811 — Proving a Holographic Will. Read the full provision →
What the law says
In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.
Civil Code, Article 811 — Proving a Holographic Will. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If the will is contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required.
Civil Code, Article 811 — Proving a Holographic Will. Read the full provision →
The ordinary requirement: at least one handwriting witness
Article 811 first sets the baseline: in the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. Ordinarily, then, probate depends on producing at least one person who genuinely recognizes your mother's handwriting and is willing to testify to that effect.
Expert testimony as a fallback
The article then addresses your situation directly: in the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. If nobody who genuinely knows your mother's handwriting is available to testify, this provision lets the process turn to a handwriting expert instead — but the article frames it as something the court may resort to, not an automatic right to bypass witnesses whenever it is more convenient.
Three witnesses if the will is contested
The article also raises the bar if the will is contested: at least three of such witnesses shall be required instead of just one. This higher threshold, and the expert-testimony fallback that follows it, apply together — if the will ends up contested and no competent witnesses are available at all, the court's discretion to resort to expert testimony becomes the mechanism for reaching a decision on the handwriting's authenticity.
What the article leaves to the court's discretion
Article 811 does not guarantee that expert testimony will be accepted or that it will resolve the question in your favor — it conditions the resort to expert testimony on the court's own judgment that it is necessary, and it does not spell out what qualifies someone as an expert for this purpose or how their testimony is to be weighed against other evidence. Those are matters left to the specific proceedings and evidence in your mother's case.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Eugenia Ramonal Codoy, et al. vs. Evangeline R. Calugay, et al, G.R. No. 123486, August 12, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →