Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Codoy V Calugay, 1999
Codoy V Calugay, 1999
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
Instruction
1. Eufemia Patigas
2. Josefina Salcedo
3. Evangeline Calugay
5. Give the 2,500 Square Meters at Sta. Cruz Ramonal Village in favor of
Evangeline R. Calugay, Helen must continue with the Sta. Cruz, once I am no
longer around.
"August 30,1978
Mama
As can be seen, the law foresees the possibility that no qualified witness may
be found (or what amounts to the same thing, that no competent witness may be
willing to testify to the authenticity of the will), and provides for resort to
expert evidence to supply the deficiency.
It may be true that the rule of this article (requiring that three witnesses be
presented if the will is contested and only one if no contest is had) was derived
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/123486.htm 4/13
9/16/2018 from the rule established
Codoyfor ordinary
vs Calugay testaments
: 123486 (CF
: August 12, Cabang
1999 : J. Pardovs. Delfinado,
: First Division 45
PHIL 291; Tolentino v. Francisco, 57 PHIL 742). But it can not be ignored that
the requirement can be considered mandatory only in case of ordinary
testaments, precisely because the presence of at least three witnesses at the
execution of ordinary wills is made by law essential to their validity (Art. 805).
Where the will is holographic, no witness need be present (art.10), and the
rule requiring production of three witnesses must be deemed merely
permissive if absurd results are to be avoided.
Again, under Art.811, the resort to expert evidence is conditioned by the words
if the court deem it necessary, which reveal that what the law deems essential is
that the court should be convinced of the wills authenticity. Where the
prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the court is convinced by their
testimony that the will is genuine, it may consider it unnecessary to call for
expert evidence. On the other hand, if no competent witness is available, or
none of those produced is convincing, the court may still, and in fact it should
resort to handwriting experts. The duty of the court, in fine, is to exhaust all
available lines of inquiry, for the state is as much interested as the proponent
that the true intention of the testator be carried into effect.
A. Yes, sir.[13]
xxx
Q. Showing to you the receipt dated 23 October 1979, is this the one you are
referring to as one of the receipts which she issued to them?
A. Yes, sir.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/123486.htm 6/13
9/16/2018 Q. Now there is that signature
Codoy of: 123486
vs Calugay Matilde vda.12,
: August De1999
Ramonal,
: J. Pardowhose signature is
: First Division
that Mrs. Binanay?
A. Matilde vda. De Ramonal.
Q. Why do you say that that is a signature of Matilde vda. De Ramonal?
A. I am familiar with her signature.
Q. Now, you tell the court Mrs. Binanay, whether you know Matilde vda de
Ramonal kept records of the accounts of her tenants?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why do you say so?
A. Because we sometimes post a record of accounts in behalf of Matilde Vda. De
Ramonal.
Q. How is this record of accounts made? How is this reflected?
A. In handwritten.[14]
xxx
Q. In addition to collection of rentals, posting records of accounts of tenants and
deed of sale which you said what else did you do to acquire familiarity of the
signature of Matilde Vda De Ramonal?
A. Posting records.
Q. Aside from that?
A. Carrying letters.
Q. Letters of whom?
A. Matilde
Q. To whom?
A. To her creditors.[15]
xxx
Q. You testified that at the time of her death she left a will. I am showing to you a
document with its title tugon is this the document you are referring to?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Showing to you this exhibit S, there is that handwritten tugon, whose
handwriting is this?
A. My aunt.
Q. Why do you say this is the handwriting of your aunt?
A. I.
Q. Since when did you have the possession of the will?
A. It was in my mothers possession.
Q. So, it was not in your possession?
A. Sorry, yes.
Q. And when did you come into possession since as you said this was originally in
the possession of your mother?
A. 1985.[17]
xxx
Q. Now, Mrs. Binanay was there any particular reason why your mother left that
will to you and therefore you have that in your possession?
A. It was not given to me by my mother, I took that in the aparador when she died.
Q. After taking that document you kept it with you?
A. I presented it to the fiscal.
Q. For what purpose?
A. Just to seek advice.
Q. Advice of what?
A. Yes, sir.[19]
xxx
Q. Now, let us go to the third signature of Matilde Ramonal. Do you know that
there are retracings in the word Vda.?
A. Yes, a little. The letter L is continuous.
Q. And also in Matilde the letter L is continued to letter D?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Again the third signature of Matilde Vda de Ramonal the letter L in Matilde is
continued towards letter D.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there is a retracing in the word Vda.?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/123486.htm 8/13
A. Yes, sir.[20]
9/16/2018 Codoy vs Calugay : 123486 : August 12, 1999 : J. Pardo : First Division
xxx
Q. Now, that was 1979, remember one year after the alleged holographic will. Now,
you identified a document marked as Exhibit R. This is dated January 8,1978
which is only about eight months from August 30,1978. Do you notice that the
signature Matilde Vda de Ramonal is beautifully written and legible?
A. Yes, sir the handwriting shows that she was very exhausted.
Q. You just say that she was very exhausted while that in 1978 she was healthy was
not sickly and she was agile. Now, you said she was exhausted?
A. In writing.
Q. How did you know that she was exhausted when you were not present and you
just tried to explain yourself out because of the apparent inconsistencies?
A. That was I think. (sic)
Q. Now, you already observed this signature dated 1978, the same year as the
alleged holographic will. In exhibit I, you will notice that there is no retracing;
there is no hesitancy and the signature was written on a fluid movement. x x x
And in fact , the name Eufemia R. Patigas here refers to one of the petitioners?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You will also notice Mrs. Binanay that it is not only with the questioned
signature appearing in the alleged holographic will marked as Exhibit X but in
the handwriting themselves, here you will notice the hesitancy and tremors, do
you notice that?
A. Yes, sir.[21]
Evangeline Calugay declared that the holographic will was written, dated
and signed in the handwriting of the testator. She testified that:
Q. You testified that you stayed with the house of the spouses Matilde and Justo
Ramonal for the period of 22 years. Could you tell the court the services if any
which you rendered to Matilde Ramonal?
A. During my stay I used to go with her to the church, to the market and then to her
transactions.
Q. What else? What services that you rendered?
A. After my college days I assisted her in going to the bank, paying taxes and to her
lawyer.
Q. What was your purpose of going to her lawyer?
A. I used to be her personal driver.
Q. In the course of your stay for 22 years did you acquire familiarity of the
handwriting of Matilde Vda de Ramonal?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How come that you acquired familiarity?
A. This one here that is the signature of Mrs. Matilde vda de Ramonal.[27]
xxx
Q. Aside from attending as counsel in that Special Proceeding Case No. 427 what
were the other assistance wherein you were rendering professional service to
the deceased Matilde Vda de Ramonal?
A. I can not remember if I have assisted her in other matters but if there are
documents to show that I have assisted then I can recall.[28]
xxx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/123486.htm 10/13
9/16/2018 Q. Now, I am showing
Codoyto
vs you exhibit
Calugay S which
: 123486 : Augustis
12,titled
1999 :tugon,
J. Pardokindly go over this
: First Division
document, Fiscal Waga and tell the court whether you are familiar with the
handwriting contained in that document marked as exhibit S?
A. I am not familiar with the handwriting.
Q. This one, Matilde Vda de Ramonal, whose signature is this?
A. I think this signature here it seems to be the signature of Mrs. Matilde vda de
Ramonal.
Q. Now, in item No. 2 there is that signature here of Matilde Vda de Ramonal, can
you tell the court whose signature is this?
A. Well, that is similar to that signature appearing in the project of partition.
Q. Also in item no. 3 there is that signature Matilde Vda de Ramonal, can you tell
the court whose signature is that?
A. As I said, this signature also seems to be the signature of Matilde vda de
Ramonal.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. Because there is a similarity in the way it is being written.
Q. How about this signature in item no. 4, can you tell the court whose signature is
this?
A. The same is true with the signature in item no. 4. It seems that they are similar.
[29]
xxx
Q. Mr. Prosecutor, I heard you when you said that the signature of Matilde Vda de
Ramonal Appearing in exhibit S seems to be the signature of Matilde vda de
Ramonal?
A. Yes, it is similar to the project of partition.
Q. So you are not definite that this is the signature of Matilde vda de Ramonal.
You are merely supposing that it seems to be her signature because it is
similar to the signature of the project of partition which you have made?
A. That is true.[30]
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,[31] ruling
that the requirement is merely directory and not mandatory.
In the case of Ajero vs. Court of Appeals,[32] 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.
The will was found not in the personal belongings of the deceased but with
one of the respondents, who kept it even before the death of the deceased. In
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/123486.htm 11/13
9/16/2018 the testimony of Ms.Codoy
Binanay, she: 123486
vs Calugay revealed that12,the
: August will
1999 was in
: J. Pardo herDivision
: First possession
as early as 1985, or five years before the death of the deceased.
There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the signature and the
handwriting of the deceased with other documents signed and executed by her
during her lifetime. The only chance at comparison was during the cross-
examination of Ms. Binanay when the lawyer of petitioners asked Ms. Binanay
to compare the documents which contained the signature of the deceased with
that of the holographic will and she is not a handwriting expert. Even the
former lawyer of the deceased expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the
signature in the holographic will.
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,[33]
and the signatures in several documents such as the application letter for
pasture permit dated December 30, 1980,[34] and a letter dated June 16, 1978,
[35] 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 the holographic will was
in the handwriting by the deceased.
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.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
concur.
[1] In CA-G.R. CV No. 31365, promulgated on October 9, 1995, Justice Pedro A. Ramirez,
ponente, Justices Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez and Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., concurring, CA
Rollo, pp. 83-92.
[2] Decision, Court of Appeals Records, pp. 83-93.
[4] Ibid., p. 4.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Pioneer Texturing Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 280 SCRA 806
[1997]; see also Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 276 [1997]; Cecilleville
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/123486.htm 12/13
9/16/2018 Realty and Service Corporation vs. Court
Codoy vs Calugay of Appeals,
: 123486 2781999
: August 12, SCRA 819 :[1997];
: J. Pardo Baranda vs.
First Division
Gustilo, 165 SCRA 757 [1988].
[12] TSN, September 5, 1990, p. 23.
[25] Ibid
[27] Ibid.
[31] Supra.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/123486.htm 13/13