[G.R. No. 123486.

August 12, 1999]

EUGENIA
RAMONAL
CODOY,
and
MANUEL
RAMONAL, petitioners, vs. EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE
SALCEDO, and EUFEMIA PATIGAS,respondents.
DECISION

PARDO, J.:
Wills and Succession; Holographic Wills; Statutory Construction; Words and
Phrases; Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory; 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.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.
Same; Same; Same; The goal to be achieved by Article 811 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.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.
Same; Same; Same; The possibility of a false document being adjudged as
the will of the testator cannot be eliminated, 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.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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court

of Appeals[1] and its resolution denying reconsideration, ruling:
Upon the unrebutted testimony of appellant Evangeline Calugay and witness
Matilde Ramonal Binanay, the authenticity of testators holographic will has

been established and the handwriting and signature therein (exhibit S) are
hers, enough to probate said will. Reversal of the judgment appealed from and
the probate of the holographic will in question be called for. The rule is that
after plaintiff has completed presentation of his evidence and the defendant
files a motion for judgment on demurrer to evidence on the ground that upon
the facts and the law plaintiff has shown no right to relief, if the motion is
granted and the order to dismissal is reversed on appeal, the movant loses his
right to present evidence in his behalf (Sec. 1 Rule 35 Revised Rules of
Court). Judgment may, therefore, be rendered for appellant in the instant
case.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is REVERSED and judgment rendered
allowing the probate of the holographic will of the testator Matilde Seo Vda. de
Ramonal.[2]
The facts are as follows:
On April 6, 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia
Patigas, devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde
Seo Vda. de Ramonal, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental,
Branch 18, a petition[3] for probate of the holographic will of the deceased,
who died on January 16, 1990.
In the petition, respondents claimed that the deceased Matilde Seo 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 the will was written voluntarily.
The assessed value of the decedents property, including all real and
personal property was about P400,000.00, at the time of her death.[4]
On June 28, 1990, Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an
opposition[5] to the petition for probate, alleging that the holographic will was
a forgery and that the same is even illegible. This gives an impression that a
third hand of an interested party other than the true hand of Matilde Seo Vda.
de Ramonal executed the holographic will.
Petitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated or appearing on
the will after every disposition is out of the ordinary. If the deceased was the
one who executed the will, and was not forced, the dates and the signature
should appear at the bottom after the dispositions, as regularly done and not
after every disposition. And assuming that the holographic will is in the
handwriting of the deceased, 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[6] to evidence, claiming that respondents failed to establish sufficient
factual and legal basis for the probate of the holographic will of the deceased
Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal.
On November 26, 1990, the lower Court issued an order, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, the Demurrer to Evidence

having being well taken, same is granted, and the petition for probate of the
document (Exhibit S) on the purported Holographic Will of the late Matilde Seo
Vda. de Ramonal, is denied for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merits. [7]
On December 12, 1990, respondents filed a notice of appeal, [8] 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.
To have a clear understanding of the testimonies of the witnesses, we
recite an account of their testimonies.
Augusto Neri, Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Misamis
Oriental, where the special proceedings for the probate of the holographic will
of the deceased was filed. He produced and identified the. records of the
case. The documents presented bear the signature of the deceased, Matilde
Seo Vda. de Ramonal, for the purpose of laying the basis for comparison of
the handwriting of the testatrix, with the writing treated or admitted as
genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered.
Generosa Senon, election registrar of Cagayan de Oro, was presented
to produce and identify the voters affidavit of the decedent. However, the
voters affidavit was not produced for the same was already destroyed and no
longer available.
Matilde Ramonal Binanay, testified that the deceased Matilde Seo Vda.
de Ramonal was her aunt, and that after the death of Matildes husband, the
latter lived with her in her parents house for eleven (11) years, from 1958 to
1969. During those eleven (11) years of close association with the deceased,
she acquired familiarity with her signature and handwriting as she used to
accompany her (deceased Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal) in collecting rentals
from her various tenants of commercial buildings, and the deceased always
issued receipts. In addition to this, she (witness Matilde Binanay) assisted the
deceased in posting the records of the accounts, and carried personal letters
of the deceased to her creditors.
Matilde Ramonal Binanay further testified that at the time of the death
of Matilde Vda. de Ramonal, she left a holographic will dated August 30, 1978,
which was personally and entirely written, dated and signed, by the deceased
and that all the dispositions therein, the dates, and the signatures in said will,
were that of the deceased.
Fiscal Rodolfo Waga testified that before he was appointed City Fiscal
of Cagayan de Oro, he was a practicing lawyer, and handled all the pleadings
and documents signed by the deceased in connection with the intestate
proceedings of her late husband, as a result of which he is familiar with the
handwriting of the latter. He testified that the signature appearing in the
holographic will was similar to that of the deceased, Matilde Seo Vda. de
Ramonal, but he can not be sure.

The fifth witness presented was Mrs. Teresita Vedad, an employee of

the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region 10. She
testified that she processed the application of the deceased for pasture permit
and was familiar with the signature of the deceased, since the deceased
signed documents in her presence, when the latter was applying for pasture
permit.
Finally, Evangeline Calugay, one of the respondents, testified that she
had lived with the deceased since birth, and was in fact adopted by the
latter. That after a long period of time she became familiar with the signature
of the deceased. She testified that the signature appearing in the holographic
will is the true and genuine signature of Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal.
The holographic will which was written in Visayan, is translated in English
as follows:
Instruction
August 30, 1978
1. My share at Cogon, Raminal Street, for Evangeline Calugay.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
2. Josefina Salcedo must be given 1,500 square meters at Pinikitan Street.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
3. My jewelrys shall be divided among:
1. Eufemia Patigas
2. Josefina Salcedo
3. Evangeline Calugay
(Sgd)Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
4. I bequeath my one (1) hectare land at Mandumol, Indahag to Evangeline R.
Calugay
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
"August 30, 1978
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.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
6. Bury me where my husband Justo is ever buried.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
"August 30,1978
Gene and Manuel:
"Follow my instruction in order that I will rest peacefully.
Mama
Matilde Vda de Ramonal
On October 9, 1995, the Court of Appeals, rendered decision [9] ruling that
the appeal was meritorious. Citing the decision in the case of Azaola vs.
Singson, 109 Phil. 102, penned by Mr. Justice J. B. L. Reyes, a recognized
authority in civil law, the Court of Appeals held:

x x x even if the genuineness of the holographic will were

contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 of our present civil code can
not be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three
witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having
the probate denied. Since no witness may have been present at the execution
of the holographic will, none being required by law (art. 810, new civil code),
it becomes obvious that the existence of witnesses possessing the requisite
qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. For it is not
merely a question of finding and producing any three witnesses; they must be
witnesses who know the handwriting and signature of the testator and who
can declare (truthfully, of course, even if the law does not express) that the
will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. There may be no
available witness acquainted with the testators hand; or even if so
familiarized, the witness may be unwilling to give a positive
opinion.Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of article 811 may thus
become an impossibility. That is evidently the reason why the second
paragraph of article 811 prescribes that in the absence of any competent
witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it
necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.
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 from the rule established for ordinary testaments (CF Cabang vs.
Delfinado, 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.
Paraphrasing Azaola vs. Singson, even if the genuineness of the holographic
will were contested, Article 811 of the civil code cannot be interpreted as to

require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the

handwriting of the testator, under penalty of the having the probate
denied. No witness need be present in the execution of the holographic
will. And the rule requiring the production of three witnesses is merely
permissive. What the law deems essential is that the court is convinced of
the authenticity of the will. Its duty is to exhaust all available lines of inquiry,
for the state is as much interested in the proponent that the true intention of
the testator be carried into effect. And because the law leaves it to the trial
court to decide if experts are still needed, no unfavorable inference can be
drawn from a partys failure to offer expert evidence, until and unless the court
expresses dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay witnesses. [10]
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.
Hence, this petition.
The petitioners raise the following issues:
(1) Whether or not the ruling of the case of Azaola vs. Singson, 109
Phil. 102, relied upon by the respondent Court of Appeals, was
applicable to the case.
(2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that private
respondents had been able to present credible evidence to prove
that the date, text, and signature on the holographic will were
written entirely in the hand of the testatrix.
(3) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not analyzing the
signatures in the holographic will of Matilde Seo Vda. de
Ramonal.
In this petition, the petitioners ask whether the provisions of Article 811
of the Civil Code are permissive or mandatory. The article provides, as a
requirement for the probate of a contested holographic will, that at least three
witnesses explicitly declare that the signature in the will is the genuine
signature of the testator.
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.[11]
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.
So, we believe that the paramount consideration in the present petition is
to determine the true intent of the deceased. An exhaustive and objective
consideration of the evidence is imperative to establish the true intent of the
testator.
It will be noted that not all the witnesses presented by the respondents
testified explicitly that they were familiar with the handwriting of the
testator. In the case of Augusto Neri, clerk of court, Court of First Instance,
Misamis Oriental, he merely identified the record of Special Proceedings No.
427 before said court. He was not presented to declare explicitly that the
signature appearing in the holographic was that of the deceased.
Generosa E. Senon, the election registrar of Cagayan de Oro City, was
presented to identify the signature of the deceased in the voters affidavit,
which was not even produced as it was no longer available.
Matilde Ramonal Binanay, on the other hand, testified that:
Q. And you said for eleven (11) years Matilde Vda de Ramonal resided with
your parents at Pinikitan, Cagayan de Oro City. Would you tell the
court what was your occupation or how did Matilde Vda de Ramonal
keep herself busy that time?
A. Collecting rentals.
Q. From where?
A. From the land rentals and commercial buildings at Pabayo-Gomez
streets.[12]
xxx
Q. Who sometime accompany her?
A. I sometimes accompany her
Q. In collecting rentals does she issue receipts?
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.
Q. Now there is that signature of Matilde vda. De Ramonal, whose
signature is 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. Because I am familiar with her signature.[16]
What Ms. Binanay saw were pre-prepared receipts and letters of the
deceased, which she either mailed or gave to her tenants. She did not declare
that she saw the deceased sign a document or write a note.
Further, during the cross-examination, the counsel for petitioners elicited
the fact that the will was not found in the personal belongings of the deceased
but was in the possession of Ms. Binanay. She testified that:
Q. Mrs. Binanay, when you were asked by counsel for the petitioners if the
late Matilde Seno vda de Ramonal left a will you said, yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was in possession of that will?
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. About the will.[18]
In her testimony it was also evident that Ms. Binanay kept the fact about
the will from petitioners, the legally adopted children of the deceased. Such

actions put in issue her motive of keeping the will a secret to petitioners and
revealing it only after the death of Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal.
In the testimony of Ms. Binanay, the following were established:
Q. Now, in 1978 Matilde Seno Vda de Ramonal was not yet a sickly person
is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. She was up and about and was still uprightly and she could walk agilely
and she could go to her building to collect rentals, is that correct?
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.?
A. Yes, sir.[20]
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. Because I lived with her since birth.[22]
xxx
Q. Now, I am showing to you Exhibit S which is captioned tugon dated
Agosto 30, 1978 there is a signature here below item No. 1, will you
tell this court whose signature is this?
A. Yes, sir, that is her signature.
Q. Why do you say that is her signature?
A. I am familiar with her signature.[23]
So, the only reason that Evangeline can give as to why she was familiar
with the handwriting of the deceased was because she lived with her since
birth. She never declared that she saw the deceased write a note or sign a
document.
The former lawyer of the deceased, Fiscal Waga, testified that:
Q. Do you know Matilde Vda de Ramonal?
A. Yes, sir I know her because she is my godmother the husband is my
godfather. Actually I am related to the husband by consanguinity.
Q. Can you tell the name of the husband?
A. The late husband is Justo Ramonal.[24]
xxx
Q. Can you tell this court whether the spouses Justo Ramonal and Matilde
Ramonal have legitimate children?
A. As far as I know they have no legitimate children.[25]
xxx
Q. You said after becoming a lawyer you practice your profession? Where?
A. Here in Cagayan de Oro City.
Q. Do you have services rendered with the deceased Matilde vda de
Ramonal?
A. I assisted her in terminating the partition, of properties.
Q. When you said assisted, you acted as her counsel? Any sort of counsel
as in what case is that, Fiscal?
A. It is about the project partition to terminate the property, which was
under the court before.[26]
xxx
Q. Appearing in special proceeding no. 427 is the amended inventory which
is marked as exhibit N of the estate of Justo Ramonal and there
appears a signature over the type written word Matilde vda de
Ramonal, whose signature is this?
A. That is the signature of Matilde Vda de Ramonal.
Q. Also in exhibit n-3, whose signature is this?
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
Q. Now, I am showing to you exhibit S which is titled tugon, kindly go over
this 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 the testimony of Ms. Binanay, she revealed that the will was in
her 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 crossexamination 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,
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.
[33]

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.

result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionably

handwritten by the testator.

G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994

SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, respondents.
PUNO, J.:
Succession; Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate Proceedings; The grounds
enumerated in the Civil Code and Rules of Court for the disallowance of wills
are exclusive; Issues in a petition to admit a holographic will to probate.
Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court provides the cases in which wills shall
be disallowed. In the same vein, Article 839 of the New Civil Code enumerates
the grounds for disallowance of wills. These lists are exclusive; no other
grounds can serve to disallow a will. Thus, in a petition to admit a holographic
will to probate, 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 bylaw; (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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutory Construction; 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.We reiterate what we held in Abangan vs.
Abangan, 40 Phil. 476, 479 (1919), 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. So when an
interpretation already given assures such ends, any other interpretation
whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely
unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the testators last will, must be
disregarded. For purposes of probating non-holographic wills, these formal
solemnities include the subscription, attestation, and acknowledgment
requirements under Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Failure to strictly observe other formalities will
not result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionably
handwritten by the testator.In the case of holographic wills, on the other
hand, what assures authenticity is the requirement that they be totally
autographic or handwritten by the testator himself, as provided under Article
810 of the New Civil Code. Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not

Same; Same; Same; Same; The requirement of Article 813 of the New Civil
Code affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic will,
but not its probate.A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or
insertions do not invalidate a holographic will, unless they were made on the
date or on testators signature.Likewise, a holographic will can still be
admitted to probate, notwithstanding noncompliance with the provisions of
Article 814. Thus, unless the unauthenticated 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Only the requirements of Article 810 of the New
Civil Codeand not those found in Articles 813 and 814are essential to the
probate of a holographic will.It is also proper to note that the requirements
of authentication of changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in
provisions (Articles 813 and 814) separate from that which provides for the
necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810). The
distinction can be traced to Articles 678 and 688 of the Spanish Civil Code,
from which the present provisions covering holographic wills are taken. This
separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the
requirements of Article 810 of the New Civil Codeand not those found in
Article 813 and 814 of the same Codeare essential to the probate of a
holographic will.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Probate Courts; While courts in probate
proceedings are generally limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the
will sought to be probated, in exceptional cases, courts are not powerless to
do what the situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions
of the will.As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to
pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated.
However, in exceptional instances, courts are not powerless to do what the
situation constrains them to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the will.
In the case at bench, decedent herself indubitably stated in her holographic
will that the Cabadbaran property is in the name of her late father, John H.
Sand (which led oppositor Dr. Jose Ajero to question her conveyance of the
same in its entirety). Thus, as correctly held by respondent court, she cannot
validly dispose of the whole property, which she shares with her fathers other
heirs.
This is an appeal by certiorari from the Decision of the Court of
Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, dated March 30, 1992, the dispositive
portion of which reads;

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the questioned decision of

November 19, 1988 of the trial court is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE, and the petition for probate is hereby
DISMISSED. No costs.

be accepted, i.e., the will submitted in Court must be deemed to be

the will actually executed by the testatrix.

The earlier Decision was rendered by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch
94, 2 in Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, and the instrument submitted for
probate is the holographic will of the late Annie Sand, who died on
November 25, 1982.

While the fact that it was entirely written, dated and signed in the
handwriting of the testatrix has been disputed, the petitioners,
however, have satisfactorily shown in Court that the holographic will
in question was indeed written entirely, dated and signed in the
handwriting of the testatrix. Three (3) witnesses who have
convincingly shown knowledge of the handwriting of the testatrix
have been presented and have explicitly and categorically identified
the handwriting with which the holographic will in question was
written to be the genuine handwriting and signature of the testatrix.
Given then the aforesaid evidence, the requirement of the law that
the holographic will be entirely written, dated and signed in the
handwriting of the testatrix has been complied with.

In the will, decedent named as devisees, the following: petitioners Roberto

and Thelma Ajero, private respondent Clemente Sand, Meriam S. Arong, Leah
Sand, Lilia Sand, Edgar Sand, Fe Sand, Lisa S. Sand, and Dr. Jose Ajero, Sr.,
and their children.
On January 20, 1983, petitioners instituted Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, for
allowance of decedent's holographic will. They alleged that at the time of its
execution, she was of sound and disposing mind, not acting under duress,
fraud or undue influence, and was in every respect capacitated to dispose of
her estate by will.
Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the
testament's body nor the signature therein was in decedent's 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 likewise opposed by Dr. Jose Ajero. He
contested the disposition in the will of a house and lot located in Cabadbaran,
Agusan Del Norte. He claimed that said property could not be conveyed by
decedent in its entirety, as she was not its sole owner.
Notwithstanding the oppositions, the trial court admitted the decedent's
holographic will to probate. It found, inter alia:
Considering then that the probate proceedings herein must decide
only the question of identity of the will, its due execution and the
testamentary capacity of the testatrix, this probate court finds no
reason at all 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.
For one, no evidence was presented to show that the will in question
is different from the will actually executed by the testatrix. The only
objections raised by the oppositors . . . are that the will was not
written in the handwriting of the testatrix which properly refers to the
question of its due execution, and not to the question of identity of
will. No other will was alleged to have been executed by the testatrix
other than the will herein presented. Hence, in the light of the
evidence adduced, the identity of the will presented for probate must

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

As to the question of the testamentary capacity of the testratix,
(private respondent) Clemente Sand himself has testified in Court
that the testatrix was completely in her sound mind when he visited
her during her birthday celebration in 1981, at or around which time
the holographic will in question was executed by the testatrix. To be
of sound mind, it is sufficient that the testatrix, at the time of making
the will, knew the value of the estate to be disposed of, the
proper object of her bounty, and thecharacter of the testamentary act
. . . The will itself shows that the testatrix even had detailed
knowledge of the nature of her estate. She even identified the lot
number and square meters of the lots she had conveyed by will. The
objects of her bounty were likewise identified explicitly. And
considering that she had even written a nursing book which contained
the law and jurisprudence on will and succession, there is more than
sufficient showing that she knows the character of the testamentary
act.
In this wise, the question of identity of the will, its due execution and
the testamentary capacity of the testatrix has to be resolved in favor
of the allowance of probate of the will submitted herein.
Likewise, no evidence was presented to show sufficient reason for the
disallowance of herein holographic will. While it was alleged that the
said will was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence
on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person, the evidence
adduced have not shown any instance where improper pressure or
influence was exerted on the testatrix. (Private respondent) Clemente
Sand has testified that the testatrix was still alert at the time of the
execution of the will, i.e., at or around the time of her birth
anniversary celebration in 1981. It was also established that she is a

very intelligent person and has a mind of her own. Her independence
of character and to some extent, her sense of superiority, which has
been testified to in Court, all show the unlikelihood of her being
unduly influenced or improperly pressured to make the aforesaid will.
It must be noted that the undue influence or improper pressure in
question herein only refer to the making of a will and not as to the
specific testamentary provisions therein which is the proper subject of
another proceeding. Hence, under the circumstances, this Court
cannot find convincing reason for the disallowance of the will herein.

(d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence,

on the part of the beneficiary, or of some other person for his benefit;

Considering then that it is a well-established doctrine in the law on

succession that in case of doubt, testate succession should be
preferred over intestate succession, and the fact that no convincing
grounds were presented and proven for the disallowance of the
holographic will of the late Annie Sand, the aforesaid will submitted
herein must be admitted to probate. 3 (Citations omitted.)

Art. 839: The will shall be disallowed in any of the following

cases;

On appeal, said Decision was reversed, and the petition for probate of
decedent's will was dismissed. The Court of Appeals found that, "the
holographic will fails to meet the requirements for its validity." 4 It held that
the decedent did not comply with Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code,
which read, as follows:
Art. 813: When a number of dispositions appearing in a holographic
will are signed without being dated, and the last disposition has a
signature and date, such date validates the dispositions preceding it,
whatever be the time of prior dispositions.
Art. 814: In case of insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a
holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by his full
signature.
It alluded to certain dispositions in the will which were either unsigned and
undated, or signed but not dated. It also found that the erasures, alterations
and cancellations made thereon had not been authenticated by decedent.
Thus, this appeal which is impressed with merit.
Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court provides that will shall be disallowed
in any of the following cases:

(e) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, and
he did not intend that the instrument should be his will at the time of
fixing his signature thereto.
In the same vein, Article 839 of the New Civil Code reads:

(1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;
(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of
making a will, at the time of its execution;
(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence
of fear, or threats;
(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence,
on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person;
(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;
(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the
instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his
signature thereto.
These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can serve to disallow a will. 5 Thus,
in a petition to admit a holographic will to probate, the only issues to be
resolved are: (1) whether the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent's
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. 6

(a) If not executed and attested as required by law;

In the case at bench, respondent court held that the holographic will of Anne
Sand was not executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. It
held that Articles 813 and 814 of the New Civil Code, ante, were not complied
with, hence, it disallowed the probate of said will. This is erroneous.

(b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to

make a will, at the time of its execution;

We reiterate what we held in Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil. 476, 479

(1919), that:

(c) If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or

threats;

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. So
when an interpretation already given assures such ends, any other
interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing but demands more
requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of the
testator's last will, must be disregarded.
For purposes of probating non-holographic wills, these formal solemnities
include the subscription, attestation, and acknowledgment requirements under
Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code.
In the case of holographic wills, on the other hand, what assures authenticity
is the requirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the
testator himself, 7 as provided under Article 810 of the New Civil Code, thus:
A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely
written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is
subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the
Philippines, and need not be witnessed. (Emphasis supplied.)
Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the
disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten
by the testator.
A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code 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. In the case of Kalaw
vs. Relova 132 SCRA 237 242 (1984), this Court held:
Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and
interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will have not
been noted under his signature, . . . the Will is not thereby invalidated
as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular words erased,
corrected or interlined. Manresa gave an identical commentary when
he said "la omission de la salvedad no anula el testamento, segun la
regla de jurisprudencia establecida en la sentencia de 4 de Abril de
1985." 8 (Citations omitted.)
Thus, unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were
made on the date of the holographic will or on testator's signature, 9 their

presence does not invalidate the will itself.

only result in disallowance of such changes.

10

The lack of authentication will

It is also proper to note that the requirements of authentication of changes

and signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and
814) separate from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the
validity of the holographic will (Article 810). The distinction can be traced to
Articles 678 and 688 of the Spanish Civil Code, from which the present
provisions covering holographic wills are taken. They read as follows:
Art. 678: A will is called holographic when the testator writes it
himself in the form and with the requisites required in Article 688.
Art. 688: Holographic wills may be executed only by persons of full
age.
In order that the will be valid it must be drawn on stamped paper
corresponding to the year of its execution, written in its entirety by
the testator and signed by him, and must contain a statement of the
year, month and day of its execution.
If it should contain any erased, corrected, or interlined words, the
testator must identify them over his signature.
Foreigners may execute holographic wills in their own language.
This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the
requirements of Article 810 of the New Civil Code and not those found in
Articles 813 and 814 of the same Code are essential to the probate of a
holographic will.
The Court of Appeals further held that decedent Annie Sand could not validly
dispose of the house and lot located in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, in its
entirety. This is correct and must be affirmed.
As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon
the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated. However, in exceptional
instances, courts are not powerless to do what the situation constrains them
to do, and pass upon certain provisions of the will. 11 In the case at bench,
decedent herself indubitably stated in her holographic will that the
Cabadbaran property is in the name of her late father, John H. Sand (which
led oppositor Dr. Jose Ajero to question her conveyance of the same in its
entirety). Thus, as correctly held by respondent court, she cannot validly
dispose of the whole property, which she shares with her father's other heirs.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 22840, dated March 30, 1992, is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE, except with respect to the invalidity of the disposition of the entire

house and lot in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte. The Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94 in Sp. Proc. No. Q-37171, dated
November 19, 1988, admitting to probate the holographic will of decedent
Annie Sand, is hereby REINSTATED, with the above qualification as regards
the Cabadbaran property. No costs. SO ORDERED.