G.R. No.
123486 August 12, 1999
EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL, petitioners,
vs.
EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, and UEFEMIA PATIGAS, respondents.
PARDO, J.:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
The case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution
denying reconsideration in allowing the probate of the holographic will of the testator Matilde Seño Vda. de
Ramonal.
FACTS:
On April 6, 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees and legatees of the
holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Misamis
Oriental, Branch 18, a petition for probate of the holographic will of the deceased, who died on January 16,
1990;
In the petition, respondents claimed that the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, was of sound and
disposing mind when she executed the will on August 30, 1978, that there was no fraud, undue influence,
and duress employed in the person of the testator, and will was written voluntarily;
On June 28, 1990, Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an opposition to the petition for
probate, alleging that the holographic will was a forgery and that the same is even illegible and the same it
was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries, or through
fraud and trickery;
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;
On November 26, 1990, the lower Court issued an order granting the Demurrer to Evidence;
On December 12, 1990, respondents filed a notice of appeal, and in support of their appeal, the
respondents once again reiterated the testimony of the following witnesses, namely: (1) Augusto Neri; (2)
Generosa Senon; (3) Matilde Ramonal Binanay; (4) Teresita Vedad; (5) Fiscal Rodolfo Waga; and (6)
Evangeline Calugay;
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision ruling that the appeal was meritorious. According to the Court of
Appeals, Evangeline Calugay, Matilde Ramonal Binanay and other witnesses definitely and in no uncertain
terms testified that the handwriting and signature in the holographic will were those of the testator herself.
Thus, upon the unrebutted testimony of appellant Evangeline Calugay and witness Matilde Ramonal
Binanay, the Court of Appeals sustained the authenticity of the holographic will and the handwriting and
signature therein, and allowed the will to probate.
ISSUE:
Whether the provisions of Article 811 of the Civil Code, requiring at least three witnesses to explicitly declare
that the signature in the will is the genuine signature of the testator, are mandatory. (YES)
RULING:
We are convinced, based on the language used, that Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The word
"shall" connotes a mandatory order. We have ruled that "shall" in a statute commonly denotes 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.
From the testimonies of these witnesses, the Court of Appeals allowed the will to probate and disregard the
requirement of three witnesses in case of contested holographic will, citing the decision in Azaola
vs. Singson, ruling that the requirement is merely directory and not mandatory.
In the case of Ajero vs. Court of Appeals, we said that "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. 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 of 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, that law requires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased . 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.
A visual examination of the holographic will convince us that the strokes are different when compared with
other documents written by the testator. The signature of the testator in some of the disposition is not readable.
There were uneven strokes, retracing and erasures on the will. Comparing the signature in the holographic will dated
August 30, 1978, and the signatures in several documents such as the application letter for pasture permit dated
December 30, 1980, and a letter dated June 16, 1978, the strokes are different. In the letters, there are continuous
flows of the strokes, evidencing that there is no hesitation in writing unlike that of the holographic will. We,
therefore, cannot be certain that ruling holographic will was in the handwriting by the deceased.
DISPOSITION:
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 Seño vda. de Ramonal.
