Codoy vs Calugay
It was reversed on appeal with the Court of Appeals which granted the
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 pasture permit. 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.
probate.
ISSUE:
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 the matter of Ramon Bonilla
The only question here is whether a holographic will which was lost or cannot
be found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy. Pursuant to Article
811 of the Civil Code, probate of holographic wills is the allowance of the will
by the court after its due execution has been proved. The probate may be
uncontested or not. If un-contested, at least one identifying witness is
required and, if no witness is available, experts may be resorted to. If
contested, at least three identifying witnesses are required. However, if the
holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available, the
will can not be probated because the best and only evidence is the
handwriting of the testator in said will. It is necessary that there be a
comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the
handwritten will. But a photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will
may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings
of the testator. In the case of Gan vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, the Court ruled that
"the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may
not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read
such will. The will itself must be presented; otherwise, it shall produce no
effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity."
But, in Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps it may be proved by
a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon copy;
or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting
of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court."
Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic
will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the
deceased can be determined by the probate court.

Spouses Ajero vs CA
FACTS: The holographic will of Annie San was submitted for probate.
Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the
testaments body nor the signature therein was in decedents handwriting; it
contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by
decedent; and, the will was procured by petitioners through improper
pressure and undue influence.
The petition was also contested by Dr. Ajero with respect to the disposition
in the will of a house and lot. He claimed that said property could not be
conveyed by decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.
However, the trial court still admitted the decedents holographic will to
probate. The trial court held that since it must decide only the question of the
identity of the will, its due execution and the testamentary capacity of the
testatrix, it finds no reason for the disallowance of the will for its failure to
comply with the formalities prescribed by law nor for lack of testamentary
capacity of the testatrix.
On appeal, the CA reversed said Decision holding that the decedent did not
comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the NCC. It found that certain dispositions
in the will were either unsigned or undated, or signed by not dated. It also
found that the erasures, alterations and cancellations made had not been
authenticated by decedent.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in holding that Articles 813 and 814 of the NCC
were not complied with.
HELD:
YES. A reading of Article 813 shows that its requirement affects the validity of
the dispositions contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the
testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result is that these
dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure, however, does not render
the whole testament void.
Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to probate notwithstanding
non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814.
Unless the authenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made
on the date of the holographic will or on testators signature, their presence
does not invalidate the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in
disallowance of such changes.
It is also proper to note that he requirements of authentication of changes
and signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Article 813 and
814) separate from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the
validity of the holographic will (Article 810).
This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only
the requirements of Article 810 of the NCC and not those found in Articles
813 and 814 are essential to the probate of a holographic will.
Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court and Article 839 of the Civil Code
enumerate the grounds for disallowance of wills. These lists are exclusive; no
other grounds can serve to disallow a will.
In a petition to admit a holographic will, the only issues to be resolved are:
1.whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedents last will and
testament;
2.whether said will was executed in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by law;
3.whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time
the will was executed; and
4.whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts of
the decedent.
The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close
the door against bad faith and fraud; accordingly, laws on this subject should
be interpreted to attain these primordial ends.
In the case of holographic wills, what assures authenticity is the requirement
that they be totally authographic or handwritten by the testator himself.
Failure to strictly observe other formalities will no result in the disallowance
of a holographic will that is unquestionable handwritten by the testator.
Rabadilla vs CA
FACTS: In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix
Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein
petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of parcel of land.
The Codicil provides that Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he
dies, every year to give Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, (75) (sic) piculs
of Export sugar and (25) piculs of Domestic sugar, until the said Maria Marlina
Coscolluela y Belleza dies.
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died. Private respondent brought a complaint, to enforce
the provisions of subject Codicil.
ISSUE: WON the obligations of Jorge Rabadilla under the Codicil are inherited
by his heirs.
1. Gregorio Kalaw, the private respondent, claiming to be the sole heir of
sister Natividad, filed a peition for probate of the latter's holographic will in
1968. The will contained 2 alterations: a) Rosa's name, designated as the sole
heir was crossed out and instead "Rosario" was written above it. Such was
not initialed, b) Rosa's name was crossed out as sole executrix and Gregorio's
ma,e was written above it. This alteration was initialed by the testator.
2. Rosa contended that the will as first written should be given effect so that
she would be the sole heir. The lower court denied the probate due to the
unauthenticated alterations and additions.
Issue: Whether or not the will is valid
RULING: No, the will is voided or revoked since nothing remains in the will
which could remain valid as there was only one disposition in it. Such was
altered by the substitution of the original heir with another. To rule that the
first will should be given effect is to disregard the testatrix' change of mind.
However, this change of mind cannot be given effect either as she failed to
authenticate it in accordance with Art. 814, or by affixing her full signature.
Case
Case

HELD: Under Article 776 of the NCC, inheritance includes all the property,
rights and obligations of a person, not extinguished by his death.
Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of subject
Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death. And
since obligations not extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the
decedent; corollarily, the obligations imposed by the Codicil on the deceased
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon
his death.

Kalaw v Relova

Facts: