Case Summary (G.R. No. 123486)
Proceedings Below: Trial Court Ruling
Respondents presented six lay witnesses claiming familiarity with the testatrix’s handwriting and signature. Petitioners rested without offering evidence, moving for judgment on demurrer to evidence. The RTC granted the demurrer, finding insufficient proof of authenticity, and denied probate.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On appeal, the CA reversed. Citing Azaola v. Singson, it held that Article 811’s three-witness rule for contested holographic wills is directory, not mandatory. The CA deemed the uncontradicted testimony of two witnesses sufficient to establish the will’s genuineness and ordered its probate.
Issues on Certiorari
The petition raised three issues:
- Applicability of Azaola v. Singson to contested holographic wills.
- Sufficiency and credibility of lay evidence on handwriting authenticity.
- Failure of the CA to analyze the signatures comparatively.
Supreme Court Analysis on Article 811
The Court construed Article 811 as mandatory. The use of “shall” indicates an imperative obligation requiring at least three competent witnesses to declare the handwriting genuine when a holographic will is contested. This requirement safeguards against fraud, ensures authenticity, and reflects the testator’s true intent.
Assessment of Lay Witness Testimony
The SC examined each lay witness:
- One clerk merely identified court records.
- The election registrar could not produce a destroyed affidavit.
- Witnesses Binanay and Calugay claimed familiarity but never observed the testatrix sign. Binanay kept the will secret from petitioners since 1985 and exhibited knowledge of signatures only by handling pre-prepared receipts and letters.
- The former lawyer (Fisc al Waga) equivocated, calling signatures “similar” but not definitive.
None of the respondents produced three disinterested witnesses who unequivocally testified to the testatrix’s handwriting.
Signature Authenticity and Expert Evidence
The SC noted visual discrepancies—hesitations, retracings, uneven strokes—between the will and contemporaneous documents. Because the will was withheld and no expert comparison occurred a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 123486)
Facts
- Matilde SeAo Vda. de Ramonal died on January 16, 1990, leaving alleged holographic will dated August 30, 1978.
- Respondents (Calugay, Salcedo, Patigas) petitioned the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, for probate of that will, alleging testatrix was of sound mind, acted voluntarily, and free from fraud or undue influence.
- Petitioners (Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal), legally adopted children of testatrix, opposed, contending the will was illegible, suspicious due to repeated dates after each disposition, and possibly forged or procured by undue influence.
- Respondents presented six witnesses and documentary evidence; petitioners filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing insufficiency of proof.
- On November 26, 1990, RTC granted the demurrer and denied probate for lack of merits and insufficient evidence.
Procedural History
- December 12, 1990: Respondents appealed RTC’s denial to the Court of Appeals (CA).
- CA heard re-testimony of six witnesses: Clerk of Court Augusto Neri; election registrar Generosa Senon; niece Matilde Ramonal Binanay; former counsel Fiscal Rodolfo Waga; DENR employee Teresita Vedad; and Evangeline Calugay.
- October 9, 1995: CA reversed RTC, ruling authenticity of handwriting and signature was established by unrebutted testimony of Calugay and Binanay; probate was ordered.
- Petitioners elevated the case by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, raising issues on the mandatory nature of Civil Code Article 811 and the sufficiency of handwriting evidence.
Issues
- Whether Article 811 of the Civil Code, requiring at least three witnesses to identify handwriting in contested holographic wills, is mandatory or merely directory.
- Whether the CA erred in holding that respondents proved, by credible evidence, that the will’s text, date, and signature were entirely in the testatrix’s hand.
- Whether the CA failed to analyze properly the signature in the hologr