Codoy v. Calugay| G.R. No. 123486| August 12, 1999| Pardo, J.
should appear at the bottom after the dispositions,
Summary: Respondents, the adopted daughter and others, filed an
application for probate of the holographic will of the deceased. The Court
ultimately denied the will as respondents failed to present at least 3
witnesses declaring with certainty the genuineness of the signatures of the
deceased, nor is there any expert witness who can make a comparison
between the other documents signed and the signatures appearing on the
will. Signatures in some of the dispositions were unreadable. There were
uneven strokes, retracing and erasures on the will. Compared, with the
smooth strokes on the letters presented, there is uncertainty on the identity
of the hand which wrote and signed the will.
Doctrine:
o While it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of
the will, courts should not dispel the possibility of a false document.
o The presentation of 3 witnesses declaring explicitly the genuineness of
the signature is mandatory.
Facts:
1. Respondents Calugay, Salcedo and Patigas, devisees and legatees of
the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal,
filed with the RTC, Misamis Oriental, a petition for probate
a. Claimed that the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal,
was of sound and disposing mind when she executed the will
on August 30, 1978. She died on January 16, 1990.
b. The assessed value of estate: P400,000.00
2. Petitioners Codoy and Ramonal filed an opposition to the petition for
probate, alleging:
a. that the holographic will was a forgery as it gives an
impression that a third hand other than the testator
executed the will.
b. Illegible.
c. Repeated dates incorporated or appearing on the will after
every disposition is out of the ordinary.
i. If the deceased was the one who executed the will,
and was not forced, the dates and the signature
as regularly done and not after every disposition.
d. And assuming that the holographic will is in the handwriting
of the deceased, it was procured by undue and improper
pressure and influence or through fraud and trickery.
3. 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 Seo Vda. de Ramonal.
4. RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the petition for probate
5. CA granted the appeal.
6. Hence, this petition.
Issue w/ Holding:
7. Whether the provisions of Art. 811 of the Civil Code are permissive
or mandatory.
a. It is mandatory. Said Art. 811 requires 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.
b. The use of the word “shall” connotes an imperative
obligation and inconsistent with discretion.
8. Whether or not the evidence were sufficient to prove the
genuineness of the handwriting and signature of the deceased?
a. No.
b. In this case, not all the witnesses testified explicitly that they
were familiar with the handwriting of the testator.
i. Neri: Merely identified the record of Special
Proceedings No. 427.
ii. Senon: Presented to identify the voter’s affidavit of
the decedent, which was not even produced as it was
no longer available.
iii. Binanay: Niece of the deceased, lived with the
decedent for 11 years, and assisted in the running of
her business and personal transactions.
 1. She testified that she saw pre-prepared Dispositive:
receipts and letters of the deceased, which
The decision appealed from was SET ASIDE. The records were ordered
she either mailed or gave to her tenants. She
remanded to the court of origin with instructions to allow petitioners to
did not declare that she saw the deceased
adduce evidence in support of their opposition.
sign a document or write a note.
iv. Fiscal Waga: He handled all the pleadings and
documents signed by the deceased.
1. Testified that the signatures “seems” similar
to the decedent’s signature in the pleadings
and other documents. Did not definitely
declare that it was hers.
v. Vedad: She processed the application of the
deceased or pasture permit
vi. Calugay: Lived with the deceased since birth and
adopted by the latter.
1. However, that was the only reason she gave.
She never declared that she saw the
deceased write a note or sign a document.
c. Further, during the cross-examination, the counsel for
petitioners elicited the fact that the will was not found in the
personal belongings of the deceased but was in the
possession of Binanay.
d. From a visual examination of the holographic will the strokes
are different when compared with other documents written
by the testator. The signature of the testator in some of the
disposition was not readable. There were uneven strokes,
retracing and erasures on the will. Comparing the signature
in the holographic will with the letters presented as
evidence, there were continuous flows of the strokes in the
latter, evidencing that there was no hesitation in writing
unlike that of the holographic will.
e. The Court, therefore, ruled that it cannot be certain that the
holographic will was in the handwriting of the deceased.
While it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the
exercise of the will, courts should not dispel the possibility of
a false document.