Codoy v.
Calugay is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the
G.R. No. 123486, 12 August 1999, 312 SCRA 333
FACTS:
Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia
Patigas, devisees and legatees of the holographic will of
the deceased Matilde Señ o Vda. de Ramonal, filed a
petition for probate of the holographic will of the
deceased.
In the petition, respondents claimed that the deceased was
of sound and disposing mind when she executed the will,
that there was no fraud, undue influence, and duress
employed in the person of the testator, and will was
written voluntarily.
Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an
opposition to the petition for probate, alleging that the
holographic will was a forgery and that the same is even
illegible. This gives an impression that a “third hand” of an
interested party other than the “true hand” of Matilde
Señ o Vda. de Ramonal executed the holographic will.
Petitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated or
appearing on will after every disposition is out of the
ordinary. If the deceased was the one who executed the
will, and was not forced, the dates and the signature
should appear at the bottom after the dispositions, as
regularly done and not after every disposition. And
assuming that the holographic will is in the handwriting of
the deceased, it was procured by undue and improper
pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries, or
through fraud and trickery.1â wphi1.nêt
Respondents presented six (6) witnesses and various
documentary evidence. Petitioners instead of presenting
their evidence, filed a demurrer to evidence, claiming that
respondents failed to establish sufficient factual and legal
basis for the probate of the holographic will of the
deceased Matilde Señ o Vda. de Ramonal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the will can be probated..
RULING:
Art. 811. 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. If the will is contested, at least
three of such witnesses shall be required.
It provides as a requirement for the probate of a contested
holographic will, that at least three witnesses explicitly
declare that the signature in the will is the genuine
signature of the testator.1â wphi1.nêThe word “shall”
connotes a mandatory order. We have ruled that “shall” in
a statute commonly denotes an imperative obligation and
presumption is that the word “shall,” when used in a
statute is mandatory.
It will be noted that not all the witnesses presented by the
respondents testified explicitly that they were familiar
with the handwriting of testator.
We cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document
being adjudged as the will of the testator, which is why if
the holographic will is contested, that law requires three
witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting
of the deceased.
The will was found not in the personal belongings of the
deceased but with one of the respondents, who kept it
even before the death of the deceased.
There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the
signature and the handwriting of the deceased with other
documents signed and executed by her during her lifetime.
holographic will. A visual examination of the holographic
will convince us that the strokes are different when
compared with other documents written by the testator.
The signature of the testator in some of the disposition is
not readable. There were uneven strokes, retracing and
erasures on the will.
Ajero v. CA
236 SCRA 488
FACTS:
The holographic will of Annie San was submitted for
probate.
Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds
that: neither the testament’s body nor the signature
therein was in decedent’s handwriting; it contained
alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by
decedent; and, the will was procured by petitioners
through improper pressure and undue influence.
The petition was also contested by Dr. Ajero with respect
to the disposition in the will of a house and lot. He claimed
that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in
its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.
However, the trial court still admitted the decedent’s
holographic will to probate.
The trial court held that since it must decide only the
question of the identity of the will, its due execution and
the testamentary capacity of the testatrix, it finds no
reason for the disallowance of the will for its failure to
comply with the formalities prescribed by law nor for lack
of testamentary capacity of the testatrix.
On appeal, the CA reversed said Decision holding that the
decedent did not comply with Articles 313 and 314 of the
NCC. It found that certain dispositions in the will were
either unsigned or undated, or signed by not dated. It also
found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations
made had not been authenticated by decedent.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in holding that Articles 813 and 814
of the NCC were not complies with.
HELD:
YES. A reading of Article 813 shows that its requirement
affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the
holographic will, but not its probate. If the testator fails to
sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that
these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure,
however, does not render the whole testament void.
Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to
probate notwithstanding non-compliance with the
provisions of Article 814.
Unless the authenticated alterations, cancellations or
insertions were made on the date of the holographic will
or on testator’s signature, their presence does not
invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will
only result in disallowance of such changes.
It is also proper to note that he requirements of
authentication of changes and signing and dating of
dispositions appear in provisions (Article 813 and 814)
separate from that which provides for the necessary
conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article
810).
This separation and distinction adds support to the
interpretation that only the requirements of Article 810 of
the NCC – and not those found in Articles 813 and 814 –
are essential to the probate of a holographic will.
Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court and Article 839 of
the Civil Code enumerate the grounds for disallowance of
wills. These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve
to disallow a will.
In a petition to admit a holographic will, the only issues to
be resolved are:
1.whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the
decedent’s last will and testament;
2.whether said will was executed in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by law;
3.whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary
capacity at the time the will was executed; and
4.whether the execution of the will and its signing were
the voluntary acts of the decedent.
The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of
wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud;
accordingly, laws on this subject should be interpreted to
attain these primordial ends.
In the case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity
is the requirement that they be totally authographic or
handwritten by the testator himself. Failure to strictly
observe other formalities will no result in the disallowance
of a holographic will that is unquestionable Cayetano v.
Leonidas, G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984.
20
JUL
[GUTIERREZ, JR., J.]
FACTS
The testatrix was an American citizen at the time of her
death and was a permanent resident of Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.; that the testatrix died in Manila while temporarily
residing with her sister; that during her lifetime, the
testatrix made her last will and testament according to the
laws of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that after the testatrix death,
her last will and testament was presented, probated,
allowed, and registered with the Registry of Wills at the
County of Philadelphia, U.S.A. An opposition to the
reprobate of the will was filed by herein petitioner alleging
among other things that the intrinsic provisions of the will
are null and void. The petitioner maintains that since the
respondent judge allowed the reprobate of Adoracion’s
will, Hermogenes C. Campos was divested of his legitime
which was reserved by the law for him.
ISSUES
[1]Whether or not the Philippine law will apply to
determine the intrinsic validity of a will executed by an
undisputed foreigner.
[2] Whether or not Philippine law will apply to determine
the capacity to succeed of Adoracion’s heirs.
RULING
[1] NO. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic
validity of the provisions of the will, as provided for by
Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the national law
of the decedent must apply. This was squarely applied in
the case of Bellis v. Bellis (20 SCRA 358).“It is therefore
evident that whatever public policy or good customs may
be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not
intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign
nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia,
the amount of successional rights, to the decedent’s
national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general
ones.”
[2] NO. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the
nation of the decedent. (Article 1039, Civil Code) The law
which governs Adoracion Campo’s will is the law of
Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the
decedent. Although the parties admit that the
Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that
all the estate may be given away by the testatrix to a
complete stranger, the petitioner argues that such law
should not apply because it would be contrary to the
sound and established public policy and would run
counter to the specific provisions of Philippine Law.
Rodelas v. Aranza
G.R. No. L-58509, 7 December 1982, 119 SCRA 16
FACTS:
The appellant filed a petition for the probate of the
holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla in 1977. The petition
was opposed by the appellees on the ground that the
deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise.
The lower court dismissed the petition for probate and
held that since the original will was lost, a photocopy
cannot stand in the place of the original.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a holographic will which was lost or
cannot be found can be proved by means of a photocopy
HELD:
Yes. The probate may be uncontested or not. If
uncontested, at least one Identifying witness is required
and, if no witness is available, experts may be resorted to.
If contested, at least three Identifying witnesses are
required. However, 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
photocopy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be
allowed because comparison can be made with the
standard writings of the testator.
In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, the Court ruled
that “the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed
holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony
of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The will
itself must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no
effect. The law regards the document itself as material
proof of authenticity.” But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it
says that “Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or
photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy;
or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity
of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and
tested before the probate court,” Evidently, the photostatic
or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will
may be admitted because then the authenticity of the
handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the
probate court.
Nepomuceno v. CA
139 SCRA 206
FACTS:
Martin Jugo left a duly executed and notarized Last Will
and Testament before he died. Petitioner was named
as sole executor. It is clearly stated in the Will that he was
legally married to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had
two legitimate children, but he had been estranged from his
lawful wife. In fact, the testator Martin Jugo and the
petitioner were married despite the subsisting first
marriage. The testator devised the free portion of his estate
to petitioner. On August 21, 1974, the petitioner filed a
petition for probate. On May 13, 1975, Rufina Gomez and
her children filed an opposition alleging undue and
improper influence on the part of the petitioner; that at the
time of the execution of the Will, the testator was already
very sick and that petitioner having admitted her living in
concubinage with the testator.
The lower court denied the probate of the Will on the
ground that as the testator admitted in his Will to
cohabiting with the petitioner. Petitioner appealed to CA.
On June 2, 1982, the respondent court set aside
the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal denying
the probate of the will. The respondent court declared the
Will to be valid except that the devise in favor of the
petitioner is null and void.
ISSUE:
W/N the CA acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after
declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased
Martin Jugo validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the
intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision.
HELD:
No. The respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when
after declaring the Will to be validly drawn, it went on to
pass upon the intrinsic validity of the Will and declared
the devise in favor of the petitioner null and void. The
general rule is that in probate proceedings, the court’s area
of inquiry is limited to an examination and resolution of the
extrinsic validity of the Will. The rule, however, is not
inflexible and absolute. Given exceptional circumstances,
the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation
constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the
Will.
The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on
its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will
be passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should
meet the issue (Nuguid v. Nuguid)
The Will is void under Article 739. The following donations
shall be void: (1) Those made between persons who were
guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the
donation; and Article 1028. The prohibitions mentioned
in Article 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply
to testamentary provisions.
There is no question from the records about the fact of a
prior existing marriage when Martin Jugo executed his
Will. The very wordings of the Will invalidate the legacy
because the testator admitted he was disposing the
properties to a person with whom he had been living in
concubinage.
The Heirs Of The Late Jesus Fran And Carmen Mejia
Rodriguez, petitioners,
vs. Hon. Bernardo Ll. Salas, Concepcion Mejia Espina And
Maria Mejia Gandiongco, respondents.
G.R. No. L-53546, June 25, 1992

Facts:
Remedios Tiosejo died with neither descendants nor
ascendants. She left real and personal properties. In her
last will and testament, she bequeathed to her collateral
relatives all her properties.

When the will was presented before the probate court,

private respondents who are sisters of the deceased filed a
manifestation, alleging that they needed time to study the
petition because some heirs have been intentionally
omitted. However, none file any opposition. The petition
thus became uncontested.

The probate court rendered a decision admitting the will

to probate. Then, a Project of Partition was submitted by
the executor to the court. The private respondents still did
not make any objections. Thereafter, the probate court
issued its Order approving the partition. Later, the
aforesaid branch which issued the order was converted to
a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

The private respondents filed with the new branch a

Motion for Reconsideration of the probate judgment and
the order of partition. The Petitions challenged the
jurisdiction of the court because only the English
translation of the will was attached to the petition and the
will was not even submitted to the court for their
examination.

Respondent Judge issued an order declaring the

testamentary disposition as void.

Issue:
Is it necessary that the original of the will be presented in
order for the court to acquire jurisdiction?

Ruling:
No. In several rulings of the Supreme Court, it ruled that it
is not necessary that the original of the will be attached to
the petition

That the annexing of the original will to the petition is not

a jurisdictional requirement is clearly evident in Section 1,
Rule 76 of the Rules of Court which allows the filing of a
petition for probate by the person named therein
regardless of whether or not he is in possession of the will,
or the same is lost or destroyed.

In the instant case, a copy of the original will and its

English translation were attached to the petition and made
integral parts of the same. It is to be presumed that upon
the filing of the petition the Clerk of Court, or his duly
authorized subordinate, examined the petition and found
that the annexes mentioned were in fact attached thereto.
Hence, the order of partition issued by the old probate
court is final and executor.