Codoy vs. Calugay

The requirement in Article 811 of the Civil Code that at least three witnesses must explicitly declare the authenticity of a contested holographic will is mandatory, not permissive.

The case involves the probate of a holographic will executed by Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal. Upon her death, respondents (devisees and legatees) sought to probate the will. Petitioners (the decedent's legally adopted children) opposed the probate, alleging the will was a forgery, illegible, and procured through undue influence and fraud.

• Original Filing: RTC, Misamis Oriental, Branch 18 (Special Proceedings for Probate of Will)
• Lower Court Decision: November 26, 1990 — Granted petitioners' Demurrer to Evidence; denied probate for insufficiency of evidence.
• Appeal: Respondents appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 31365).
• CA Decision: October 9, 1995 — Reversed the RTC; allowed the probate of the holographic will, holding that Art. 811's three-witness rule is merely permissive.
• SC Action: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CA decision.

• The Holographic Will: Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal allegedly executed a holographic will on August 30, 1978, written in Visayan ("Tugon"). The will contains six dispositions, each individually dated and signed, bequeathing properties and jewelry to respondents.
• The Probate Petition: On April 6, 1990, respondents filed a petition for probate, claiming the testator was of sound mind and free from fraud or undue influence.
• The Opposition: Petitioners opposed, arguing the will was a forgery due to illegibility and the unusual placement of dates and signatures after every disposition rather than at the bottom.
• Respondents' Evidence: Respondents presented six witnesses to prove the will's authenticity:
  • Augusto Neri (Clerk of Court): Produced records of another special proceeding containing the decedent's signature for comparison, but did not testify to personal familiarity with her handwriting.
  • Generosa Senon (Election Registrar): Presented to identify the decedent's voter's affidavit, but the affidavit was destroyed and unavailable.
  • Matilde Ramonal Binanay (Niece): Lived with the decedent for 11 years. Familiar with the signature from collecting rentals and posting accounts. Admitted she never saw the decedent sign a document or write a note. Confessed she possessed the will since 1985 (5 years before the testator's death) after taking it from an aparador. Admitted observing retracings, hesitancy, and tremors in the will's handwriting.
  • Teresita Vedad (DENR Employee): Familiar with the signature from processing the decedent's pasture permit application.
  • Fiscal Rodolfo Waga (Former Lawyer): Handled pleadings for the decedent. Testified the signature in the will "seems to be" or is "similar" to the decedent's, but explicitly admitted he was not definite and was merely supposing.
  • Evangeline Calugay (Respondent): Lived with decedent since birth. Claimed familiarity with the signature but never saw the decedent write or sign.
  • The Demurrer: Instead of presenting their own evidence, petitioners filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing respondents failed to establish a factual and legal basis for probate. The RTC granted the demurrer.
  • Suspicious Circumstances: The will was not found among the decedent's personal belongings but was in the possession of Ms. Binanay years before the death. The handwriting showed uneven strokes, retracings, and erasures. A visual comparison with other authentic documents (e.g., a 1978 letter, a 1980 application) showed the authentic documents had continuous, fluid strokes without the hesitancy present in the will.

• The CA erred in applying Azaola v. Singson to hold that Art. 811 is merely permissive.
• The CA erred in holding that respondents presented credible evidence to prove the date, text, and signature were in the testatrix's hand.
• The CA erred in failing to analyze the signatures in the holographic will.
• Article 811 of the Civil Code requires at least three witnesses to explicitly declare the signature is genuine, and this requirement is mandatory.

• Relying on Azaola v. Singson, Article 811 cannot be interpreted to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses under penalty of denying probate, since no witnesses are required at the execution of a holographic will.
• The rule requiring three witnesses is merely permissive; what is essential is that the court is convinced of the will's authenticity.
• The testimonies of Evangeline Calugay and Matilde Ramonal Binanay sufficiently established the authenticity of the handwriting and signature.

• Procedural Issues: Whether petitioners, having filed a demurrer to evidence that was initially granted by the RTC but reversed by the CA, should be allowed to adduce evidence upon remand.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the three-witness requirement under Article 811 of the Civil Code for a contested holographic will is mandatory or merely permissive.
  • Whether respondents successfully proved the authenticity of the holographic will through the witnesses presented.

• Procedural: The SC remanded the case to the court of origin with explicit instructions to allow petitioners to adduce evidence. While the general rule under Sec. 1, Rule 35 of the Revised Rules of Court states that a movant who files a demurrer and wins, but whose dismissal is reversed on appeal, loses the right to present evidence, the SC ordered the remand to ensure an exhaustive and objective consideration of the evidence to determine the true intent of the deceased.
• Substantive:
  • Article 811 is mandatory. The SC ruled that the word "shall" in the statute connotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with discretion. The law's objective is to give effect to the wishes of the deceased while preventing the evil of unscrupulous individuals substituting false wills.
  • Respondents failed to prove the will's authenticity. None of the witnesses explicitly declared they saw the testator write or sign the will. Binanay and Calugay based familiarity merely on living with the decedent and seeing pre-prepared receipts. Fiscal Waga expressed doubt, testifying the signature merely "seems to be" the decedent's. The SC conducted its own visual examination and found uneven strokes, retracings, and hesitancy, contrasting with the fluid strokes in authentic documents. The fact that the will was in a respondent's possession five years before the testator's death further cast doubt on its authenticity.

• Mandatory Nature of Article 811 — For a contested holographic will, the presentation of at least three witnesses who explicitly declare that the will and signature are in the handwriting of the testator is mandatory, not merely permissive. The use of "shall" in the statute denotes an imperative obligation designed to prevent fraud and substitution of wills.
• Competency of Witnesses to Identify Handwriting — Witnesses must possess personal knowledge of the testator's handwriting. Familiarity derived merely from living with the testator or seeing pre-prepared documents, without ever seeing the testator actually write or sign, is insufficient to explicitly declare the will's authenticity.

• Article 811, Civil Code — Requires that if a holographic will is contested, at least three witnesses must declare that the will and signature are in the handwriting of the testator. The SC applied this provision strictly, holding the word "shall" makes the three-witness requirement mandatory, not permissive, to safeguard against fraudulent wills.
• Article 810, Civil Code — States that a holographic will does not require witnesses at the time of execution. The SC noted this, but clarified that the absence of attesting witnesses at execution makes the Art. 811 probate requirement even more crucial to prevent fraud.
• Section 1, Rule 35, Revised Rules of Court — Governs the effect of a demurrer to evidence. The CA cited this to justify rendering judgment for respondents upon reversing the RTC's grant of demurrer. The SC bypassed the strict application of this rule by remanding the case for further evidence reception to ascertain the testator's true intent.