Codoy v. Calugay | G.R. No.

123486 | August 12, 1999 | Pardo, J

Petitioner/s: Eugene Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal

Respondent/s: Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo, and Eufemia Patigas

SUMMARY: Respondents filed for the probate of the will of the deceased Matilde Vda de. Ramonal. Petitioners
filed an opposition claiming forgery. Respondents presented six witnesses in support of their claim,
and the CA ruled in their favor. The CA ruled that ART 811 requiring three witnesses is not mandatory.
The Court reversed the CA, explaining that the word “shall” in the provision connotes a mandatory
order. “Shall” in a statute commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the
idea of discretion.

TOPIC: Probate of holographic wills

FACTS:

 Evangeline, Josephine, and Eufemia (respondents) were the devisees and legatees of the holographic will of
deceased Matilde Seno Vda. De Ramonal. They filed a petition for probate of the holographic will for the
property of the deceased amounting to P400,000.
 Eugenia and Manuel (petitioners), who were later on identified by the court as the legal adoptees of the
deceased, filed an opposition to the petition for probate. They alleged the following:
o The will was a forgery and even illegible.
o There were repeated dates incorporated in the will after every disposition, which was 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.
o 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.
 Respondents presented six witnesses and various documentary evidence. The testimonies of the six witnesses
are summarized as follows:
o Augusto Neri, Clerk of Court of CFI where the special proceedings for the probate of the will. He produced
and identified the records of the case for the purpose of laying the basis for the comparison of the
handwriting of the testatrix.
o Generosa Senon, election registrar. Was presented to produce and identify the voter’s affidavit of the
decedent. However, this was not produced for it was already destroyed.
o Matilde Binanay, niece of the deceased, lived with the latter for eleven years. She acquired familiarity
with the signature and handwriting of the deceased when she accompanied the deceased in collecting
rentals from tenants. The deceased always issued receipts.
 Furthermore, she testified that the deceased left a holographic will that was personally and
entirely written by the deceased.
o Fiscal Waga, handled all the pleadings and documents signed by the deceased in the intestate
proceedings of her late husband. Familiar with the handwriting of the deceased. He testified that the
signature appearing in the holographic will was similar to that of the deceased but he cannot be sure.
o Mrs. Vedad, processed the application of the deceased for a pasture permit. She testified that she was
familiar with the signature of the deceased since the deceased signed documents in her presence.
o Evangeline Calugay, lived with the deceased since birth, and was adopted. After a long period of time
she became familiar with the signature of the deceased. Testified that the signature appearing in the
holographic will is the true and genuine signature of Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramona
 Petitioners filed a demurrer to evidence.
 RTC ruling:
 o Granted demurrer to evidence.
o Holographic will was denied for insufficiency of evidence.
 CA ruling: Granted the notice of appeal filed by the respondents.
o Cited the case of Azaola v. Singson: “Even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested,
Article 811 of the civil code cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three
witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of the having the probate denied.
No witness need be present in the execution of the holographic will. And the rule requiring the
production of three witnesses is merely permissive. What the law deems essential is that the court is
convinced of the authenticity of the will.”
o The witnesses for the respondents were able to testify that the handwriting and signature in the will
were those of the testator herself.

ISSUE + RULING:

 W/N the provisions of ART 811 of the Civil Code are permissive or mandatory—MANDATORY.

o The word “shall” in the provision connotes a mandatory order. “Shall” in a statute commonly denotes
an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion.

 It must be remembered that the goal of the provision is to give effect to the wishes of the
deceased and the evil to be prevented is the possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for
their benefit will employ means to defeat the wishes of the testator.

 W/N the witnesses sufficiently establish the authenticity and due execution of the deceased’s holographic will
—NO.

o Not all the witnesses presented by the respondents testified that they were familiar with the
handwriting of the testator. The court went through the witnesses one by one:

 Augusto Neri, Clerk of Court of CFI where the special proceedings for the probate of the will. Not
presented to declare that the signature in the holographic will was that of the deceased.
 Generosa Senon, election registrar. Was not able to produce the voter’s affidavit for verification
as it was no longer available.
 Matilde Binanay, niece of the deceased, lived with the latter for eleven years. Merely testified
that she saw receipts and letters of the deceased, but she did not declare that she saw the
deceased sign a document or write a note.
 She also testified that she was the one who had kept in possession the will of the
deceased, and had kept that fact from the petitioners. Such actions put in issue her
motives.
 Evangeline Calugay, lived with the deceased since birth, and was adopted. She never declared
that she saw the deceased write a note or sign a document.
 Fiscal Waga, handled all the pleadings and documents signed by the deceased in the intestate
proceedings of her late husband. Testified that he was familiar with signature, but even he could
not positively identify the signature of that as the deceased.

o The insufficiency of the testimonies, taken along with other circumstances lead the Court to concoide
that the holographic will was in the handwriting of the deceased.

 Aside from the fact that the will was found not in the personal belongings of the deceased, there
was also no opportunity for an expert to compare the signature and the handwriting of the
deceased. Comparing the signature in the holographic will and the signatures in several
documents such as the application letter for pasture permit, the strokes are different. In the
 letters, there are continuous flows of the strokes, evidencing that there is no hesitation in
writing unlike that of the holographic will.

DISPOSITION:

 CA Decision: Set aside. The records are ordered remanded to the court of origin with instructions to allow
petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their opposition to the probate of the holographic will.

NOTES:

 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.

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.