Case Digest (G.R. No. 123486)
Facts:
Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal v. Evangeline R. Calugay, Josephine Salcedo, and Eufemia Patigas, G.R. No. 123486, August 12, 1999, Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.On April 6, 1990, respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, a petition for the probate of a holographic will purportedly executed by Matilde Seno Vda. de Ramonal, who died January 16, 1990. Respondents alleged the testatrix was of sound mind when she executed the will on August 30, 1978, and that there was no fraud or undue influence. The decedent’s estate was valued at about P400,000 at death.
On June 28, 1990, petitioners filed an opposition asserting the holographic will was a forgery and illegible, arguing signs of a “third hand,” improper dating after each disposition, and that the will (even if in the decedent’s handwriting) was procured by undue influence or fraud. At trial, respondents presented six witnesses and documentary evidence; petitioners, instead of presenting witnesses, filed a demurrer to evidence. On November 26, 1990, the RTC granted the demurrer and denied probate for insufficiency of evidence.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On October 9, 1995, the CA reversed the RTC, allowed probate, and relied on Azaola v. Singson (109 Phil. 102) to hold that Article 811 of the Civil Code did not mandate production of three witnesses in every contested holographic-will case; the CA treated the three-witness rule as directory and accepted the lay witnesses’ unrebutted testimony as establishing authenticity.
Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The Court received the records, considered the testimonies (noting that the will was not found among the decedent’s personal effects but in the possession of a respondent before the decedent’s death), and compared the holographic will’s sign...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the three-witness requirement of Article 811 of the Civil Code permissive or mandatory in a contested holographic will?
- Was the ruling in Azaola v. Singson applicable so as to render Article 811’s three-witness rule directory rather than mandatory?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that respondents had presented credible evidence establishing that the date, text, and signatures of the holographic will were entirely in the testatrix’s handwriting?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to analyze the questioned signatures a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)