CODOY VS CALUGAY

FACTS:

 On 6 April 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees
and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, filed
a petition for probate of the said will. They attested to the genuineness and due execution
of the will on 30 August 1978.
 Eugenio Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed their opposition claiming that the will
was a forgery and that the same is even illegible. They raised doubts as regards the
repeated appearing on the will after every disposition, calling the same out of the
ordinary. If the will was in the handwriting of the deceased, it was improperly procured.
 Evangeline Calugay, etc. presented 6 witnesses and various documentary evidence. The
first witness was the clerk of court of the probate court who produced and identified the
records of the case bearing the signature of the deceased.
 The second witness was election registrar who was made to produce and identify the
voter’s affidavit, but failed to as the same was already destroyed and no longer available.
 The third, the deceased’s niece, claimed that she had acquired familiarity with the
deceased’s signature and handwriting as she used to accompany her in collecting rentals
from her various tenants of commercial buildings and the deceased always issued
receipts. The niece also testified that the deceased left a holographic will entirely written,
dated and signed by said deceased.
 The fourth witness was a former lawyer for the deceased in the intestate proceedings of
her late husband, who said that the signature on the will was similar to that of the
deceased but that he can not be sure.
 The fifth was an employee of the DENR who testified that she was familiar with the
signature of the deceased which appeared in the latter’s application for pasture permit.
The fifth, respondent Evangeline Calugay, claimed that she had lived with the deceased
since birth where she had become familiar with her signature and that the one appearing
on the will was genuine.
 Codoy and Ramonal’s demurrer to evidence was granted by the lower court. It was
reversed on appeal with the Court of Appeals which granted the probate.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Article 811 of the Civil Code, providing that at least three witnesses
explicitly declare the signature in a contested will as the genuine signature of the testator,
is mandatory or directory.
2. Whether or not the witnesses sufficiently establish the authenticity and due execution of
the deceased’s holographic will.

HELD:

1. YES. The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order, an imperative obligation and is
inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the word “shall”,
when used in a statute, is mandatory. In the case at bar, the goal to be achieved by the
law, 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. The paramount consideration in the present petition is to
determine the true intent of the deceased.

2. NO. We cannot be certain that the holographic will was in the handwriting of the
deceased. The clerk of court was not presented to declare explicitly that the signature
appearing in the holographic will was that of the deceased. The election registrar was not
able to produce the voter’s affidavit for verification as it was no longer available. The
 deceased’s niece saw pre-prepared receipts and letters of the deceased and did not
declare that she saw the deceased sign a document or write a note. The will was not
found in the personal belongings of the deceased but was in the possession of the said
niece, who kept the fact about the will from the children of the deceased, putting in issue
her motive. Evangeline Calugay never declared that she saw the decreased write a note
or sign a document. The former lawyer of the deceased expressed doubts as to the
authenticity of the signature in the holographic will. (As it appears in the foregoing, the
three-witness requirement was not complied with.) A visual examination of the
holographic will convinces that the strokes are different when compared with other
documents written by the testator. The records are remanded to allow the oppositors to
adduce evidence in support of their opposition. The object of solemnities surrounding the
execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of
wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore, the laws on
this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. But,
on the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the
law to restrain and curtail the exercise the right to make a will. However, 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, the law requires three witnesses to
declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.

Article 811, paragraph 1. provides: “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.” The
word “shall” connotes a mandatory order, an imperative obligation and is inconsistent
with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the word “shall”, when used in
a statute, is mandatory.

PECSON VS CORONEL

FACTS:
 On November 28, 1922, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga probated as the last will
and testament of Dolores Coronel (testatrix) who named as her sole heir Lorenzo
Pecson, the husband of her niece.
 The relatives of testatrix by consanguinity questioned the genuineness of the will on the
following grounds:
o First, that it was improbable and exceptional that Dolores Coronel should dispose
of her estate by excluding her blood relatives;
o and second, that if such will was not expressed in fact, it was due to extraneous
illegal influence.

ISSUE: Whether the decedent can exclude her blood relatives in the disposition of her estate.

HELD: YES. It is true that the ties of relationship in the Philippines are very strong but we
understand that cases of preterition of relatives from the inheritance are not rare. The liberty to
dispose of one’s estate by will when there are no forced (compulsory) heirs is rendered sacred by
the Civil Code Art, 763 in force in the Philippines since 1989.

The SC held that nothing is strange in the preterition made by Dolores Coronel of her blood
relatives, nor in the designation of Lorenzo Pecson as her sole beneficiary. Furthermore, although
the institution of the beneficiary here would not seem the most usual and customary, still this
would not be null per se.

“In the absence of any statutory restriction every person possesses absolute dominion over his
property, and may bestow it upon whomsoever he pleases without regard to natural or legal claim
upon his bounty. If the testator possesses the requisite capacity to make a will, and the
disposition of his property is not affected by fraud or undue influence, the will is not rendered
invalid by the fact that it is unnatural, unreasonable, or unjust. Nothing can prevent the testator
from making a will as eccentric, as injudicious, or as unjust as caprice, frivolity, or revenge can
dictate. X X X ” (40 Cyc., 1079.)

Grounds for disallowing a will under the Rules of Court

A will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:

1. If not executed and attested as required by law;

2. If the testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will at the time of its
execution;
3. If it was executed under duress or the influence of fear or threats;
4. If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
beneficiary or of some other person for his benefit; and
5. If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick and he did not intend that
the instrument should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto (Sec. 9, Rule
76, RoC).
Grounds for disallowing a will under the Civil Code

The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:

1. If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;

2. If the testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will at the time of
its execution;
3. If it was executed through force or under duress or the influence of fear or threats;
4. If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
beneficiary or of some other person;
5. If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud; and
6. If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be
his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto (Art. 839, CC).

The above lists are exclusive and no other grounds can serve to disallow a will (Pecson v.
Coronel, GR L-20374, Oct. 11, 1923. 45 Phil. 216).

DE PAPA VS CAMACHO

FACTS:

 Appellees and appellant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho have as a common ancestor the late
Balbino Tioco (who had a sister by the name of Romana Tioco), father of appellees and
great grandfather of defendant.
 During her lifetime, Romana gratuitously donated four parcels of land to her niece Toribia
Tioco (legitimate sister of appellees). When Toribia died, she was survived by her
husband, Eustacio Dizon, and their two legitimate children Faustino and Trinidad (mother
of Dalisay).
 The 4 parcels of land were left as inheritance of Toribia‟s two children in equal pro-
indiviso shares. They too inherited 3 parcels of land which was supposed to be the
inheritance of the late Toribia Tioco from her father Balbino.
 However, when Faustino died intestate, single and without issue, the ½ pro-indiviso
share in the 7 parcels of land was left to his father Eustacio Dizon, as his sole intestate
heir, who received the said property subject to a reserve troncal.
  Subsequently, Trinidad died intestate and her rights and interests in the parcels of land
were inherited by her only legitimate childe, appellant Dalisay. Eustacio thereafter died
intestated, survived by his only legitimate defendant Dalisay Tongko-Camacho.
 The lower Court declared that the appellees as well as appellant Dalisay were entitled as
reservatarios to ½ of the seven parcels of land in dispute, in equal proportions.

ISSUE:

Whether or not all relatives of the prepositus (Faustino) within the third degree in the appropriate
line succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista.

RULING:

No. Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession,
the plaintiffs-appellees must be held without any right thereto because, as aunt and uncles,
respectively, of Faustino Dizon (the prepositus), they are excluded from the succession by his
niece, the defendant-appellant, although they are related to him within the same degree as the
latter. As held in the case of Abellana v. Ferraris, under the Article 1009, the absence of brothers,
sisters, nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles,
cousins, etc.) being called to the succession. Hence, a decedent’s uncles and aunts may not
succeed ab intestato so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and
qualified to succeed, similar to the case at hand.

ISSUE:

Whether or not uncles and aunts, together with niece who survived the reservista would be
considered reservatorios.

RULING:

The court ruled that the uncles and aunts shall not share in the reserveable property, since, under
the law of intestate succession a descendant’s uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestate so
long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to inherit. The
rule on proximity applies. (The relatives in the direct ascending shall exclude relatives in the
collateral line.)

In reserva troncal, the successional rights of the relatives of the praepositus within the 3rd degree
are determined by, and subject to, the rules of intestate succession; so as to exclude uncles and
aunts of the descendant from the reservable property by his niece or nephew

Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession, when there are relatives of the
descendant within the third degree, the right of the nearest relative, called reservatario, over the
property which the reservista (person holding it subject to reservation) should return to him,
excludes that of the one more remote.