CODOY v.
CALUGAY
EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY and MANUEL RAMONAL, petitioners, vs.
EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO and EUFEMIA
PATIGAS, respondents.
G.R. No. 123486 August 12, 1999
DOCTRINES:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
FACTS:
1. On 6 April 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees
and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, filed
a petition for probate of the said will. They attested to the genuineness and due execution
of the will on 30 August 1978.
2. Eugenio Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed their opposition claiming that the
will was a forgery and that the same is even illegible. They raised doubts as regards the
repeated appearing on the will after every disposition, calling the same out of the
ordinary. If the will was in the handwriting of the deceased, it was improperly procured.
3. Evangeline Calugay, etc. presented 6 witnesses and various documentary evidence.
The first witness was the clerk of court of the probate court who produced and identified
the records of the case bearing the signature of the deceased.
The second witness was election registrar who was made to produce and identify the
voter’s affidavit, but failed to as the same was already destroyed and no longer available.
4. The third, the deceased’s niece, claimed that she had acquired familiarity with the
deceased’s signature and handwriting as she used to accompany her in collecting rentals
from her various tenants of commercial buildings and the deceased always issued
receipts. The niece also testified that the deceased left a holographic will entirely written,
dated and signed by said deceased.
5. The fourth witness was a former lawyer for the deceased in the intestate proceedings of
her late husband, who said that the signature on the will was similar to that of the
deceased but that he cannot be sure.
CODOY v. CALUGAY
6. The fifth was an employee of the DENR who testified that she was familiar with the
signature of the deceased which appeared in the latter’s application for pasture permit.
The fifth, respondent Evangeline Calugay, claimed that she had lived with the deceased
since birth where she had become familiar with her signature and that the one appearing
on the will was genuine.
7. Codoy and Ramonal’s demurrer to evidence was granted by the lower court. It was
reversed on appeal with the Court of Appeals which granted the probate.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Article 811 of the Civil Code, providing that at least three witnesses explicitly declare
the signature in a contested will as the genuine signature of the testator, is mandatory or
directory.
2. Whether or not the witnesses sufficiently establish the authenticity and due execution of the
deceased’s holographic will.
HELD:
1. YES. The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order, 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.
In the case at bar, the goal to be achieved by the law, 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.
The paramount consideration in the present petition is to determine the true intent of the
deceased.
2. NO. The Court was not convinced that the holographic will was in the handwriting of the
deceased.
A visual examination of the holographic will convinces that the strokes are different when
compared with other documents written by the testator.
The records are remanded to allow the oppositors to adduce evidence in support of their
opposition.
The object of 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 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, the law requires three witnesses to
declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.
CODOY v. CALUGAY
Article 811, paragraph 1. provides: “In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be necessary
that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly
declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is
contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required.”
The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order, 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.
