View full case

EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY v. EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY

FACTS:

On April 6, 1990, a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal was filed by Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo, and Eufemia Patigas. They asserted that the deceased was of sound mind when she executed the will and that there was no fraud, undue influence, or duress involved. Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal opposed the petition, claiming that the holographic will was a forgery and illegible. They also alleged that the will was procured through improper means.

Respondents presented six witnesses, including the Clerk of Court and Matilde Ramonal Binanay, who testified that the holographic will was entirely written, dated, and signed by the deceased. Instead of presenting evidence, petitioners filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that respondents failed to establish sufficient factual and legal basis for the probate of the will.

The lower court granted the demurrer to evidence and denied the petition for probate. Respondents appealed the decision and reiterated the testimonies of their witnesses.

In another set of facts, Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal executed a holographic will on August 30, 1978. The will contained bequests and instructions on property distribution. The holographic will was written in Visayan and later translated into English. Witnesses testified about the similarity of Matilde's signature in the will to her previous signatures, although certainty could not be established.

Lastly, the case involves the issue of whether three witnesses are required to identify the testator's handwriting in a holographic will for it to be validly probated. The court held that the presence of witnesses during the execution is not necessary and that the rule requiring three witnesses is merely permissive. It stressed the court's duty to exhaust all available means to determine the authenticity of the will. In this case, witnesses testified that the handwriting and signature in the holographic will belong to the testator herself.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the ruling of the case of Azaola vs. Singson, 109 Phil. 102, relied upon by the Court of Appeals, was applicable to the case.

  2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that private respondents had been able to present credible evidence to prove that the date, text, and signature on the holographic will were written entirely in the hand of the testatrix.

  3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not analyzing the signatures in the holographic will of Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal.

RULING:

  1. The ruling of the case of Azaola vs. Singson was misapplied.

    The Supreme Court ruled that Article 811 of the Civil code is mandatory and not permissive. The presentation of three witnesses is required to prove the authenticity of a contested holographic will.

  2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that credible evidence was presented.

    The Supreme Court found that not all witnesses explicitly testified to being familiar with the handwriting of the testatrix. Moreover, there were inconsistencies and doubts raised during the testimonies and cross-examinations.

  3. The Court of Appeals erred in not properly analyzing the signatures.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the discrepancies and differences in the strokes, hesitation marks, and retracing found in the signature and handwriting of the testatrix in the holographic will compared to other documents.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the case is remanded to the lower court to allow petitioners to present evidence supporting their opposition to the probate of the will.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Article 811 of the Civil Code

    Mandatory requirement for at least three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator in a contested holographic will.

  2. Interpretation of "shall"

    Generally denotes an imperative obligation, consistent with the mandatory nature of legal provisions.

  3. Objective of Will Probate Laws

    To ensure the true intent of the testator is fulfilled and to guard against fraud and substitution.

  4. Admissibility and Evaluation of Evidence

    Testimonies regarding the familiarity with the signature of the testator must be explicit, and documentary comparisons should be made by experts, if necessary. Discrepancies in the presented evidence should be critically analyzed.