Topic: Requirements of Probate

EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL, petitioners, vs. EVANGELINE R.

CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, and EUFEMIA PATIGAS, respondents.
[G.R. No. 123486. August 12, 1999]
Pardo, J./First Division
Nature: Petition for review on Certiorari that stemmed from a proceeding for probate of Matilde
Vda de Ramonals will.
Doctrine: 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.
Facts:
-

On 6 April 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees
and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo 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
voters affidavit, but failed to as the same was already destroyed and no longer available.
The third, the deceaseds niece, claimed that she had acquired familiarity with the
deceaseds 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 latters application for pasturepermit.
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 Ramonals demurrer to evidence was granted by the lower court. It was
reversed on appeal with the Court of Appeals which granted the probate.

Issue/s:
1. W/N 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 deceaseds 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 voters affidavit for verification as it was no
longer available.
The deceaseds 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.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE. The records are ordered
remanded to the court of origin with instructions to allow petitioners to adduce evidence in support

of their opposition to the probate of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seo Vda. de
Ramonal.