G.R. No. L-38338 January 28, 1985
The order of August 24,
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANDRES G. DE
JESUS AND BIBIANA ROXAS DE JESUS, SIMEON R. ROXAS &
PEDRO ROXAS DE JESUS, petitioners,
vs.
ANDRES R. DE JESUS, JR., respondent.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order of respondent Hon.
Jose C. Colayco, Presiding Judge Court of First Instance of Manila,
Branch XXI disallowing the probate of the holographic Will of the
deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus.
The antecedent facts which led to the filing of this petition are
undisputed.
After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de
Jesus, Special Proceeding No. 81503 entitled "In the Matter of the
Intestate Estate of Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus"
was filed by petitioner Simeon R. Roxas, the brother of the deceased
Bibiana Roxas de Jesus.
On March 26, 1973, petitioner Simeon R. Roxas was appointed
administrator. After Letters of Administration had been granted to the
petitioner, he delivered to the lower court a document purporting to be
the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus. On May
26, 1973, respondent Judge Jose Colayco set the hearing of the
probate of the holographic Win on July 21, 1973.
Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas testified that after his appointment as
administrator, he found a notebook belonging to the deceased Bibiana
R. de Jesus and that on pages 21, 22, 23 and 24 thereof, a letter-win
addressed to her children and entirely written and signed in the
handwriting of the deceased Bibiana R. de Jesus was found. The will
is dated "FEB./61 " and states: "This is my win which I want to be
respected although it is not written by a lawyer. ...
The testimony of Simeon R. Roxas was corroborated by the
testimonies of Pedro Roxas de Jesus and Manuel Roxas de Jesus
who likewise testified that the letter dated "FEB./61 " is the holographic
Will of their deceased mother, Bibiana R. de Jesus. Both recognized
the handwriting of their mother and positively Identified her signature.
They further testified that their deceased mother understood English,
the language in which the holographic Will is written, and that the date
"FEB./61 " was the date when said Will was executed by their mother.
Respondent Luz R. Henson, another compulsory heir filed an
"opposition to probate" assailing the purported holographic Will of
Bibiana R. de Jesus because a it was not executed in accordance with
law, (b) it was executed through force, intimidation and/or under
duress, undue influence and improper pressure, and (c) the alleged
testatrix acted by mistake and/or did not intend, nor could have
intended the said Will to be her last Will and testament at the time of its
execution.
On August 24, 1973, respondent Judge Jose C. Colayco issued an
order allowing the probate of the holographic Will which he found to
have been duly executed in accordance with law.
Respondent Luz Roxas de Jesus filed a motion for reconsideration
alleging inter alia that the alleged holographic Will of the deceased
Bibiana R. de Jesus was not dated as required by Article 810 of the
Civil Code. She contends that the law requires that the Will should
contain the day, month and year of its execution and that this should
be strictly complied with.
On December 10, 1973, respondent Judge Colayco reconsidered his
earlier order and disallowed the probate of the holographic Will on the
ground that the word "dated" has generally been held to include the
month, day, and year. The dispositive portion of the order reads:
WHEREFORE, the document purporting to be the
holographic Will of Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, is
hereby disallowed for not having been executed
as required by the law.
1973 is hereby set aside.
The only issue is whether or not the date "FEB./61 " appearing on the
holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid
compliance with the Article 810 of the Civil Code which reads:
ART. 810. 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.
The petitioners contend that while Article 685 of the Spanish Civil
Code and Article 688 of the Old Civil Code require the testator to state
in his holographic Win the "year, month, and day of its execution," the
present Civil Code omitted the phrase Ao mes y dia and simply
requires that the holographic Will should be dated. The petitioners
submit that the liberal construction of the holographic Will should
prevail.
Respondent Luz Henson on the other hand submits that the purported
holographic Will is void for non-compliance with Article 810 of the New
Civil Code in that the date must contain the year, month, and day of its
execution. The respondent contends that Article 810 of the Civil Code
was patterned after Section 1277 of the California Code and Section
1588 of the Louisiana Code whose Supreme Courts had consistently
ruled that the required date includes the year, month, and day, and
that if any of these is wanting, the holographic Will is invalid. The
respondent further contends that the petitioner cannot plead liberal
construction of Article 810 of the Civil Code because statutes
prescribing the formalities to be observed in the execution of
holographic Wills are strictly construed.
We agree with the petitioner.
This will not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict and
literal application of the statutory requirements regarding the due
execution of Wills. We should not overlook the liberal trend of the Civil
Code in the manner of execution of Wills, the purpose of which, in
case of doubt is to prevent intestacy
The underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the
provisions of the law on wigs in this Project consists in the
liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view
of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes,
but with sufficien safeguards and restrictions to prevent the
commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper
pressure and influence upon the testator.
This objective is in accord with the modem tendency with respect
to the formalities in the execution of wills. (Report of the Code
Commission, p. 103)
In Justice Capistrano's concurring opinion in Heirs of Raymundo
Castro v. Bustos (27 SCRA 327) he emphasized that:
xxx xxx xxx
... The law has a tender regard for the will of the testator expressed
in his last will and testament on the ground that any disposition made
by the testator is better than that which the law can make. For this
reason, intestate succession is nothing more than a disposition
based upon the presumed will of the decedent.
Thus, the prevailing policy is to require satisfaction of the legal
requirements in order to guard against fraud and bad faith but without
undue or unnecessary curtailment of testamentary privilege Icasiano v.
Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422). If a Will has been executed in substantial
compliance with the formalities of the law, and the possibility of bad
faith and fraud in the exercise thereof is obviated, said Win should be
admitted to probate (Rey v. Cartagena 56 Phil. 282). Thus,
xxx xxx xxx
... More than anything else, the facts and
circumstances of record are to be considered in the application
 of any given rule. If the surrounding circumstances point to a
regular execution of the wilt and the instrument appears to have
been executed substantially in accordance with the requirements
of the law, the inclination should, in the absence of any
suggestion of bad faith, forgery or fraud, lean towards its
admission to probate, although the document may suffer from
some imperfection of language, or other non-essential defect. ...
(Leynez v. Leynez 68 Phil. 745).
If the testator, in executing his Will, attempts to comply with all the
requisites, although compliance is not literal, it is sufficient if the
objective or purpose sought to be accomplished by such requisite is
actually attained by the form followed by the testator.
The purpose of the solemnities surrounding the execution of Wills has
been expounded by this Court in Abangan v. Abanga 40 Phil. 476,
where we ruled 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. ...
In particular, a complete date is required to provide against such
contingencies as that of two competing Wills executed on the same
day, or of a testator becoming insane on the day on which a Will was
executed (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720). There is no such
contingency in this case.
We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no
evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there any
substitution of Wins and Testaments. There is no question that the
holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus was entirely
written, dated, and signed by the testatrix herself and in a language
known to her. There is also no question as to its genuineness and due
execution. All the children of the testatrix agree on the genuineness of
the holographic Will of their mother and that she had the testamentary
capacity at the time of the execution of said Will. The objection
interposed by the oppositor-respondent Luz Henson is that the
holographic Will is fatally defective because the date "FEB./61 "
appearing on the holographic Will is not sufficient compliance with
Article 810 of the Civil Code. This objection is too technical to be
entertained.
As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will should include the
day, month, and year of its execution. However, when as in the case at
bar, there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and
pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only
issue is whether or not the date "FEB./61" appearing on the
holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article 810 of the Civil
Code, probate of the holographic Will should be allowed under the
principle of substantial compliance.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The order appealed
from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the order allowing the
probate of the holographic Will of the deceased Bibiana Roxas de
Jesus is reinstated.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF
MELECIO LABRADOR. SAGRADO LABRADOR (Deceased),
substituted by ROSITA LABRADOR, ENRICA LABRADOR, and
CRISTOBAL LABRADOR, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, 1 GAUDENCIO LABRADOR, and JESUS
LABRADOR, respondents-appellees.
PARAS, J.:
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the alleged holographic
will of one Melecio Labrador is dated, as provided for in Article 8102 of
the New Civil Code.
The antecedent and relevant facts are as follows: On June 10, 1972,
Melecio Labrador died in the Municipality of Iba, province of Zambales,
where he was residing, leaving behind a parcel of land designated as
Lot No. 1916 under Original Certificate of Title No. P-1652, and the
following heirs, namely: Sagrado, Enrica, Cristobal, Jesus, Gaudencio,
Josefina, Juliana, Hilaria and Jovita, all surnamed Labrador, and a
holographic will.
On July 28, 1975, Sagrado Labrador (now deceased but substituted by
his heirs), Enrica Labrador and Cristobal Labrador, filed in the court a
quo a petition for the probate docketed as Special Proceeding No.
922-I of the alleged holographic will of the late Melecio Labrador.
Subsequently, on September 30, 1975, Jesus Labrador (now
deceased but substituted by his heirs), and Gaudencio Labrador filed
an opposition to the petition on the ground that the will has been
extinguished or revoked by implication of law, alleging therein that on
September 30, 1971, that is, before Melecio's death, for the
consideration of Six Thousand (P6,000) Pesos, testator Melecio
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling, transferring and conveying
in favor of oppositors Jesus and Gaudencio Lot No. 1916 and that as a
matter of fact, O.C.T. No. P-1652 had been cancelled by T.C.T. No. T-
21178. Earlier however, in 1973, Jesus Labrador sold said parcel of
land to Navat for only Five Thousand (P5,000) Pesos. (Rollo, p. 37)
Sagrado thereupon filed, on November 28, 1975, against his brothers,
Gaudencio and Jesus, for the annulment of said purported Deed of
Absolute Sale over a parcel of land which Sagrado allegedly had
already acquired by devise from their father Melecio Labrador under a
holographic will executed on March 17, 1968, the complaint for
annulment docketed as Civil Case No. 934-I, being premised on the
fact that the aforesaid Deed of Absolute Sale is fictitious.
After both parties had rested and submitted their respective evidence,
the trial court rendered a joint decision dated February 28, 1985,
allowing the probate of the holographic will and declaring null and void
the Deed of Absolute sale. The court a quo had also directed the
respondents (the defendants in Civil Case No. 934-I) to reimburse to
the petitioners the sum of P5,000.00 representing the redemption price
for the property paid by the plaintiff-petitioner Sagrado with legal
interest thereon from December 20, 1976, when it was paid to
vendee a retro.
Respondents appealed the joint decision to the Court of Appeals,
which on March 10, 1988 modified said joint decision of the court a
quo by denying the allowance of the probate of the will for being
undated and reversing the order of reimbursement. Petitioners' Motion
for Reconsideration of the aforesaid decision was denied by the Court
of Appeals, in the resolution of June 13, 1988. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners now assign the following errors committed by respondent
court, to wit:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING AND
APPROVING THE PROBATE OF THE HOLOGRAPHIC WILL OF
THE TESTATOR MELECIO LABRADOR; and
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
ORDER OF THE LOWER COURT DIRECTING THE
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
REPRESENTING THE REDEMPTION PRICE WAS
ERRONEOUS.
The alleged undated holographic will written in Ilocano translated into
English, is quoted as follows:
ENGLISH INTERPRETATION OF THE WILL OF THE
LATE MELECIO LABRADOR WRITTEN IN ILOCANO
BY ATTY. FIDENCIO L. FERNANDEZ
I First Page
 This is also where it appears in writing of the place which is
assigned and shared or the partition in favor of SAGRADO
LABRADOR which is the fishpond located and known place as
Tagale.
And this place that is given as the share to him, there is a
measurement of more or less one hectare, and the boundary at
the South is the property and assignment share of ENRICA
LABRADOR, also their sister, and the boundary in the West is the
sea, known as the SEA as it is, and the boundary on the NORTH
is assignment belonging to CRISTOBAL LABRADOR, who
likewise is also their brother. That because it is now the time for
me being now ninety three (93) years, then I feel it is the right time
for me to partition the fishponds which were and had been bought
or acquired by us, meaning with their two mothers, hence there
shall be no differences among themselves, those among brothers
and sisters, for it is I myself their father who am making the
apportionment and delivering to each and everyone of them the
said portion and assignment so that there shall not be any cause
of troubles or differences among the brothers and sisters.
II Second Page
And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making the
partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of the said
fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th day, in the
year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of mine is the
matter to be followed. And the one who made this writing is no
other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father.
Now, this is the final disposition that I am making in writing and it is
this that should be followed and complied with in order that any
differences or troubles may be forestalled and nothing will happen
along these troubles among my children, and that they will be in
good relations among themselves, brothers and sisters;
will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. These requirements
are present in the subject will.
Respondents claim that the date 17 March 1968 in the will was when
the testator and his beneficiaries entered into an agreement among
themselves about "the partitioning and assigning the respective
assignments of the said fishpond," and was not the date of execution
of the holographic will; hence, the will is more of an "agreement"
between the testator and the beneficiaries thereof to the prejudice of
other compulsory heirs like the respondents. This was thus a failure to
comply with Article 783 which defines a will as "an act whereby a
person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to
a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect after his
death."
Respondents are in error. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the
date of the execution of the will is plain from the tenor of the
succeeding words of the paragraph. As aptly put by petitioner, the will
was not an agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador who
plainly knew that what he was executing was a will. The act of
partitioning and the declaration that such partitioning as the testator's
instruction or decision to be followed reveal that Melecio Labrador was
fully aware of the nature of the estate property to be disposed of and of
the character of the testamentary act as a means to control the
disposition of his estate.
Anent the second issue of finding the reimbursement of the P5,000
representing the redemption price as erroneous, respondent court's
conclusion is incorrect. When private respondents sold the property
(fishpond) with right to repurchase to Navat for P5,000, they were
actually selling property belonging to another and which they had no
authority to sell, rendering such sale null and void. Petitioners, thus
"redeemed" the property from Navat for P5,000, to immediately regain
possession of the property for its disposition in accordance with the
will. Petitioners therefore deserve to be reimbursed the P5,000.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated

And those improvements and fruits of the land; mangoes,
March 10, 1988 is hereby REVERSED. The holographic will of Melecio
bamboos and all coconut trees and all others like the other kind of
Labrador is APPROVED and ALLOWED probate. The private
bamboo by name of Bayog, it is their right to get if they so need, in
respondents are directed to REIMBURSE the petitioners the sum of
order that there shall be nothing that anyone of them shall
Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
complain against the other, and against anyone of the brothers
and sisters.
SO ORDERED.
III THIRD PAGE
Rodelas v. Aranza
119 SCRA 16
And that referring to the other places of property, where the said
property is located, the same being the fruits of our earnings of the
two mothers of my children, there shall be equal portion of each FACTS:
share among themselves, and or to be benefitted with all those
property, which property we have been able to acquire.
Rodelas filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal for the probate of the
holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the issuance of letters
That in order that there shall be basis of the truth of this writing testamentary in her favor.
(WILL) which I am here hereof manifesting of the truth and of the Aranza, et al. filed a MTD on the grounds of:
fruits of our labor which their two mothers, I am signing my
signature below hereof, and that this is what should be complied
1.Rodelas was estopped from claiming that the deceased left a will by
with, by all the brothers and sisters, the children of their two
failing to produce the will within twenty days of the death of the testator
mothers JULIANA QUINTERO PILARISA and CASIANA
as required by Rule 75, section 2 of the Rules of Court;
AQUINO VILLANUEVA Your father who made this writing (WILL),
and he is, MELECIO LABRADOR y RALUTIN (p. 46, Rollo)
2.the copy of the alleged holographic will did not contain a disposition
of property after death and was not intended to take effect after death,
The petition, which principally alleges that the holographic will is really
and therefore it was not a will, it was merely an instruction as to the
dated, although the date is not in its usual place, is impressed with
management and improvement of the schools and colleges founded by
merit.
the decedent;

The will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect
3.the hollographic will itself, and not an alleged copy thereof, must be
compliance with Article 810.1wphi1 It is worthy of note to quote the
produced, otherwise it would produce no effect because lost or
first paragraph of the second page of the holographic will, viz:
destroyed holographic wills cannot be proved by secondary evidence
unlike ordinary wills.
And this is the day in which we agreed that we are making
the partitioning and assigning the respective assignment of
4.the deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise,
the said fishpond, and this being in the month of March, 17th
executed and attested as required by law.
day, in the year 1968, and this decision and or instruction of
mine is the matter to be followed. And the one who made
this writing is no other than MELECIO LABRADOR, their MTD was denied. Aranza et al. filed an MR, Rodelas filed an
father. (emphasis supplied) (p. 46, Rollo) opposition.

The law does not specify a particular location where the date should The CFI set aside its order and dismissed the petition for the probate
be placed in the will. The only requirements are that the date be in the of the will stating that in the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, 522,
the Supreme Court held that in the matter of holographic wills the law,
it is reasonable to suppose, regards the document itself as the material
proof of authenticity of said wills.
And that the alleged holographic will was executed on January 25,
1962 while Ricardo B. Bonilla died on May 13, 1976. The lapse of
more than 14 years from the time of the execution of the will to the
death of the decedent and the fact that the original of the will could not
be located shows to that the decedent had discarded the alleged
holographic will before his death.
Rodelas filed an MR which was denied. Rodelas appealed to the CA.
Aranza et al. moved to forward the case to the SC as it involves a
question of law not of fact.
ISSUE:
W/N a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be
proved by means of a photostatic copy.
HELD:
If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is
available, the will cannot 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 by the probate court with
the standard writings of the testator. The probate court would be able
to determine the authenticity of the handwriting of the testator.
In the case of Gam 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,
EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL
RAMONAL, petitioners, vs. EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY,
JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, and EUFEMIA
PATIGAS, respondents.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
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 A. From the land rentals and commercial buildings at Pabayo-
will. Its duty is to exhaust all available lines of inquiry, for the state is as Gomez streets.[12]
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 xxx
decide if experts are still needed, no unfavorable inference can be
Q. Who sometime accompany her?
drawn from a partys failure to offer expert evidence, until and unless
the court expresses dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay A. I sometimes accompany her
witnesses.[10]
Q. In collecting rentals does she issue receipts?
According to the Court of Appeals, Evangeline Calugay, Matilde A. Yes, sir.[13]
Ramonal Binanay and other witnesses definitely and in no uncertain
terms testified that the handwriting and signature in the holographic will xxx
were those of the testator herself.
Q. Showing to you the receipt dated 23 October 1979, is this the
Thus, upon the unrebutted testimony of appellant Evangeline one you are referring to as one of the receipts which she
Calugay and witness Matilde Ramonal Binanay, the Court of Appeals issued to them?
sustained the authenticity of the holographic will and the handwriting
and signature therein, and allowed the will to probate. A. Yes, sir.

Hence, this petition. Q. Now there is that signature of Matilde vda. De Ramonal,
whose signature is that Mrs. Binanay?
The petitioners raise the following issues:
A. Matilde vda. De Ramonal.
(1) Whether or not the ruling of the case of Azaola vs.
Singson, 109 Phil. 102, relied upon by the respondent Q. Why do you say that that is a signature of Matilde vda. De
Court of Appeals, was applicable to the case. Ramonal?

(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.
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?

(3) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not A. Yes, sir.
analyzing the signatures in the holographic will of
Q. Why do you say so?
Matilde Seo Vda. de Ramonal.
A. Because we sometimes post a record of accounts in behalf of
In this petition, the petitioners ask whether the provisions of
Matilde Vda. De Ramonal.
Article 811 of the Civil Code are permissive or mandatory. The article
provides, as a requirement for the probate of a contested holographic Q. How is this record of accounts made? How is this reflected?
will, that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the signature in
the will is the genuine signature of the testator. A. In handwritten.[14]
We are convinced, based on the language used, that Article 811 xxx
of the Civil Code is mandatory. The word shall connotes a mandatory
order. We have ruled that shall in a statute commonly denotes an Q. In addition to collection of rentals, posting records of accounts
imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and of tenants and deed of sale which you said what else did you
that the presumption is that the word shall, when used in a statute is do to acquire familiarity of the signature of Matilde Vda De
mandatory.[11] Ramonal?

Laws are enacted to achieve a goal intended and to guide A. Posting records.
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 Q. Aside from that?
evil to be prevented is the possibility that unscrupulous individuals who
A. Carrying letters.
for their benefit will employ means to defeat the wishes of the testator.
Q. Letters of whom?
So, we believe that the paramount consideration in the present
petition is to determine the true intent of the deceased. An exhaustive A. Matilde
and objective consideration of the evidence is imperative to establish
the true intent of the testator. Q. To whom?

It will be noted that not all the witnesses presented by the A. To her creditors.[15]
respondents testified explicitly that they were familiar with the
handwriting of the testator. In the case of Augusto Neri, clerk of court, xxx
Court of First Instance, Misamis Oriental, he merely identified the
record of Special Proceedings No. 427 before said court. He was not 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
presented to declare explicitly that the signature appearing in the
holographic was that of the deceased. document you are referring to?

Generosa E. Senon, the election registrar of Cagayan de Oro A. Yes, sir.

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?
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 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.