Codoy vs. Calugay

The Supreme Court held that the provision of Article 811 of the Civil Code, which requires the presentation of at least three witnesses to explicitly declare that the signature in a contested holographic will is the genuine signature of the testator, is mandatory and not merely permissive.

Following the death of Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, her devisees and legatees sought to probate a document purported to be her holographic will, which was immediately met with opposition from her legal heirs who claimed the document was a forgery and procured through undue influence.

• Filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, as a petition for probate of a holographic will.
• RTC granted the oppositors' Demurrer to Evidence and denied the petition for probate for insufficiency of evidence.
• Appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC order and rendered judgment allowing the probate of the holographic will.
• Appealed to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

• Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal died on January 16, 1990, leaving a purported holographic will dated August 30, 1978, which instituted respondents Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo, and Eufemia Patigas as devisees and legatees.
• Respondents filed a petition for probate, claiming the testatrix was of sound mind and executed the will voluntarily without fraud or duress.
• Petitioners Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal opposed the probate, alleging the will was a forgery, illegible, and executed by a "third hand," noting that the repeated dates after every disposition were highly irregular.
• Respondents presented six witnesses to prove the handwriting, including a clerk of court, an election registrar, a former lawyer (Fiscal Waga), and relatives/associates (Binanay and Calugay), but none of them had actually seen the testatrix write the will.
• Fiscal Waga, the deceased's former lawyer, testified that the signature "seems to be" or is "similar" to the deceased's signature, but he could not be definite.
• Witness Matilde Binanay admitted on cross-examination that the will was not found in the deceased's personal belongings but had been kept secretly in Binanay's possession since 1985, five years before the testatrix's death.
• A visual examination of the holographic will by the Supreme Court revealed uneven strokes, retracing, erasures, and hesitation, which starkly contrasted with the continuous, flowing strokes found in other documents genuinely signed by the testatrix during her lifetime.
• Petitioners filed a demurrer to evidence instead of presenting their own evidence, which the RTC granted, but the CA reversed, relying on the doctrine that the three-witness rule for holographic wills is merely permissive.

• The holographic will is a forgery and illegible, giving the impression that a third party wrote it.
• The repeated dates incorporated after every disposition are out of the ordinary and suggest the document was not naturally executed by the deceased.
• Assuming the handwriting belonged to the deceased, it was procured through undue and improper pressure, influence, fraud, or trickery by the beneficiaries.
• The Court of Appeals erred in applying the permissive rule from Azaola vs. Singson because the three-witness requirement under Article 811 of the Civil Code for contested holographic wills is mandatory.
• The respondents failed 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.

• The deceased was of sound and disposing mind when she executed the holographic will on August 30, 1978.
• There was no fraud, undue influence, or duress employed, and the will was written voluntarily by the testatrix.
• The testimonies of their witnesses, particularly Evangeline Calugay and Matilde Ramonal Binanay, sufficiently established the authenticity of the testatrix's handwriting and signature.
• Based on the jurisprudence in Azaola vs. Singson, the requirement of three witnesses under Article 811 is merely permissive, and the court may allow probate if it is already convinced of the will's authenticity.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in immediately allowing the probate of the will upon reversing the demurrer to evidence instead of allowing the oppositors to present their evidence.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the provision of Article 811 of the Civil Code, requiring at least three witnesses to explicitly declare that the signature in a contested holographic will is genuine, is mandatory or merely permissive.
  • Whether the respondents successfully established the authenticity and due execution of the contested holographic will to warrant its allowance for probate.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the records to the court of origin with instructions to allow the petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their opposition, ensuring that the true intent of the testator is determined through an exhaustive and objective consideration of all evidence.
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court ruled that Article 811 of the Civil Code is strictly mandatory, as the use of the word "shall" denotes an imperative obligation designed to close the door against bad faith and prevent unscrupulous individuals from defeating the true wishes of the testator.
  • The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement because the witnesses did not explicitly and convincingly declare that the signature was genuine; the testimonies were doubtful, the will was kept in secret by a witness rather than found in the testator's belongings, and a visual comparison showed significant discrepancies in handwriting strokes.

• Mandatory Nature of Article 811 (Three-Witness Rule) — In the probate of a contested holographic will, it is a mandatory requirement that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the signature in the will is the genuine signature of the testator, serving as a safeguard against fraud and substitution of wills.
• Statutory Construction of the word "Shall" — The word "shall" in a statute commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion, creating a mandatory presumption in the application of the law.
• Object of Solemnities in Wills — The solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intended to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments, and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.

• "We are convinced, based on the language used, that Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The word 'shall' connotes a mandatory order."
• "Laws are enacted to achieve a goal intended and to guide against an evil or mischief that aims to prevent. In the case at bar, the goal to achieve 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."

• Azaola vs. Singson — Cited by the Court of Appeals to argue that the three-witness rule is permissive; the Supreme Court distinguished the current case by strictly applying the mandatory nature of Article 811 when a holographic will is actively contested.
• Ajero vs. Court of Appeals — Cited by the Supreme Court to emphasize that the object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to prevent bad faith, fraud, and the substitution of testaments.
• Pioneer Texturing Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission — Cited by the Supreme Court to support the statutory construction principle that the word "shall" denotes an imperative and mandatory obligation.

• Article 811, Civil Code — The central provision in this case, which mandates that if a holographic will is contested, at least three witnesses who know the handwriting and signature of the testator must explicitly declare that the signature is genuine.
• Article 810, Civil Code — Mentioned in the context of the CA's reasoning that no witness needs to be present during the actual execution of a holographic will.
• Section 1, Rule 35, Revised Rules of Court — Cited by the Court of Appeals regarding the effect of a reversed demurrer to evidence, though the Supreme Court ultimately remanded the case for the presentation of evidence.