SUCCESSION DOCTRINE:
[42] CODOY V. CALUGAY  The requirement (for the probate of a contested holographic will) of the
G.R. NO. 123486 | AUGUST 12, 1999
PARDO, J.
AKYAR| GROUP I
PETITIONERS: Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal
RESPONDENTS: Evangeline R. Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas
TOPIC: 7. Forms; c. Holographic Will; i. General
CASE SUMMARY:
 In 1990, respondents Calugay, Salcedo, and Patigas – devisees and legatees of the
holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, filed with the
RTC a petition for probate of the said holographic will. The petitioners herein,
Codoy and Ramonal – legally adopted children of the deceased, filed an
opposition to the said petition, alleging that such will was illegible and forged.
They pointed out that repeated dates incorporated or appearing on the will after
every disposition is out of the ordinary. After presentation of witnesses and
various documentary evidence, the petitioners filed a demurrer, which was
granted. However, upon appeal, the CA reversed the decision, citing Azaola v.
Singson, where it was held that where the will is holographic, no witness need be
present and the rule requiring production of 3 witnesses must be deemed merely
permissive if absurd results are to be avoided. Hence, this petition. The SC set
aside the contested decision of the CA, noting that not all the witnesses presented
by the respondents testified explicitly that they were familiar with the handwriting
of the testator; and that those who were supposedly familiar did not testify that
they witnessed the testator write a note or sign a document. The SC also noted that
the strokes made on the will are different as compared to ones on other documents
written by the testator. The SC agreed that some signatures were not readable.
 The SC held that the aforesaid rule provided in Article 811, CC was mandatory.
The goal of the aforesaid law was to give effect to the wishes of the deceased
and the evil to be prevented by it is the possibility that unscrupulous
individuals who for their benefit will employ means to defeat the wishes of the
testator.
production of three witnesses to explicitly declare the signature in the will is
genuine is mandatory.
 The object of the 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. xxx 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, that the law requires
three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.
(Ajero v. CA)
FACTS:
 In April 1990, the respondents filed with the RTC, Misamis Oriental, a petition for
probate of the holographic will of the deceased, who died on January of the same
year. They claimed that the deceased was of sound and disposing mind when she
executed the will in August 1978 and that the will was written voluntarily. The
assessed value of all the deceased’s property was about p400,000.
 In June 1990, the petitioners filed an opposition to the aforesaid petition, claiming
that the will was forged and illegible. And assuming it was written by the
deceased, such was done because of undue and improper pressure and influence
or fraud or trickery on the part of the beneficiaries.
 The will was written in Visayan. There were repeated dates incorporated or
appearing on the will after every disposition. (This was pointed out by the
petitioners as out of the ordinary.
 The respondent’s presented six witnesses.
o Augusto Neri was the Clerk of Court in the CFI where the special proceedings
for the probate was filed. He produced and identified the records of the case.
o Generoso Senon, election registar of Cagayan de Oro, was presented to
produce and identify the voter’s affidavit of the decedent.
o Matilde Binanay, niece of the decedent who lived with the latter for 11 years,
declared that she acquired familiarity with the decedent’s signature and
handwriting. She assisted the decedent in collecting rentals and delivering
letters. She testified that was in possession of the will since 1985 but only
revealed the will after the decedent’s death.
o Fiscal Rodolfo Waga, former lawyer of the deceased, handled all the
pleadings and documents signed by the deceased in connection with the
 intestate proceedings of her late husband. He testified that the signatures were DISPOSITIVE:
similar.  IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE. The records are
o Teresita Veda, employee of DENR, processed an application by the deceased ordered remanded to the court of origin with instructions to allow petitioners to
and was familiar with the latter’s signature. adduce evidence in support of their opposition to the probate of the holographic
o Evangeline Calugay, adopted daughter of the deceased, lived with the latter will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal. No costs. SO ORDERED.
since her birth and, as such, became familiar with the deceased’s signature.
 After presentation of witnesses and various documentary evidence by the
petitioners and instead of presenting their own, the petitioners filed a demurrer,
which was granted. Upon appeal, the decision was reversed. The CA cited Azaola
v. Singson, penned by Justice JBL Reyes, which held that “even if the genuineness
of the holographic will were contested xxx Article 811 cannot be interpreted as to
require the compulsory presentation of three witness to identify the handwriting
xxx [t]he law foresees the possibility that no qualified witness may be found xxx”
The CA likewise found that the witnesses definitely and in no uncertain terms
testified that the handwriting and signature in the holographic will were those of
the testator herself. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES and RULING: DECISION SET ASIDE and records remanded.

 WON the requirement in Article 811, CC was mandatory – YES
o See Summary and Doctrine.
o The word “shall” denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with
the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the aforesaid word,
when used in a statute, is mandatory.
o The SC’s comments on the witnesses:
 Augusto Neri merely identified the record of Special Proceedings No.
427.
 Generosa Senon was presented to identify the signature of the deceased
in the voters’ affidavit but said affidavit was not produced.
 Matilde Binanay saw pre-prepared receipts and letters, which she
mailed or gave to the tenants. She did not declare that she saw the
deceased sign a document or write a note. She also kept the fact about the
will from the petitioners, which put in issue her motive of keeping the
will secret and revealing it only after the death of the deceased.
 Evangeline Calugay, like Binanay, never declared that she saw the
deceased write a note or sign a document.
 Fiscal Rodolfo Waga testified that the signature was similar but he
cannot be sure of its authenticity.