Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36647376/Codoy-v-Calugay
Timestamp: 2015-03-03 20:47:30
Document Index: 391130417

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 810', 'Art. 805', 'art. 10', 'Art.811', 'in fine', 'UKSC ']

P. 1Codoy v. CalugayCodoy v. CalugayRatings: (0)|Views: 63|Likes: 2Published by rocket_blueMore info:Published by: rocket_blue on Aug 31, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/36647376/Codoy-v-Calugay12/29/2010pdftextoriginal 1
ManilaFIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 123486 August 12, 1999EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL,
EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, and UEFEMIA PATIGAS,
of the decision of the Court of Appeals
and its resolution denying reconsideration,ruling:Upon the unrebutted testimony of appellant Evangeline Calugay and witness MatildeRamonalBinanay, 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 ondemurrer to evidence on the ground that upon the facts and the law plaintiff has shown no right to relief, if the motion isgranted and the order to dismissal is reversed on appeal, the movant loses his right to present evidence in his behalf (Sec, 1Rule 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 MatildeSeñoVda. de Ramonal.
The facts are as follows:On April 6, 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and EufemiaPatigas, devisees and legatees of the holographic will of thedeceased MatildeSeñoVda. deRamonal, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, a petition
for probate of the holographic will of the deceased, who died on January 16, 1990.In the petition, respondents claimed that the deceased MatildeSeñoVda. deRamonal, was of sound and disposing mind when sheexecuted the will on August 30, 1978, that there was no fraud, undue influence, and duress employed in the person of the testator,and will was written voluntarily.The assessed value of the decedent's property, including all real and personal property was about P400,000.00, at the time of her death.
On June 28, 1990, Eugenia RamonalCodoy and Manuel Ramonal filed an opposition
to the petition for probate, alleging that theholographic will was a forgery and that the same is even illegible. This gives an impression that a "third hand" of an interested partyother than the "true hand" of MatildeSeñoVda. deRamonal executed the holographic will.Petitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated or appearing on will after every disposition is out of the ordinary. If thedeceased was the one who executed the will, and was not forced, the dates and the signature should appear at the bottom after thedispositions, as regularly done and not after every disposition. And assuming that the holographic will is in the handwriting of thedeceased, it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries, or through fraud andtrickery.Respondents presented six (6) witnesses and various documentary evidence. Petitioners instead of presenting their evidence, filed ademurrer 6
to evidence, claiming that respondents failed to establish sufficient factual and legal basis for the probate of theholographic will of the deceased MatildeSeñoVda. deRamonal.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 MatildeSeñoVda.deRamonal, is denied for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merits.
On December 12, 1990, respondents filed a notice of appeal,
and in support of their appeal, the respondents once again reiteratedthe testimony of the following witnesses, namely: (1) Augusto Neri; (2) GenerosaSenon; (3) MatildeRamonalBinanay; (4)TeresitaVedad; (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.
, Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, where the special proceedings for the probate of theholographic will of the deceased was filed. He produced and identified the records of the case. The documents presented bear thesignature of the deceased, MatildeSeñoVda. deRamonal, for the purpose of laying the basis for comparison of the handwriting of thetestatrix, with the writing treated or admitted as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered.
, election registrar of Cagayan de Oro, was presented to produced and identify the voter's affidavit of the decedent.However, the voters' affidavit was not produced for the same was already destroyed and no longer available.
MatildeRamonalBinanay
, testified that the deceased MatildeSeñoVda. deRamonal was her aunt, and that after the death of Matilde'shusband, the latter lived with her in her parent's house for eleven (11) years from 1958 to 1969. During those eleven (11) years of close association the deceased, she acquired familiarity with her signature and handwriting as she used to accompany her (deceasedMatildeSeñoVda. de Ramonal) in collecting rentals from her various tenants of commercial buildings, and deceased always issuedreceipts. In addition to this, she (witness MatildeBinanay) assisted the deceased in posting the records of the accounts, and carried personal letters of the deceased to her creditors.
further testified that at the time of the death of MatildeVda. de Ramonal, she left a holographic will datedAugust 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.
cal Rodolfo Wa
testified that before he was appointed City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro, he was a practicing lawyer, and handledall the pleadings and documents signed by the deceased in connection with the proceedings of her late husband, as a result of whichhe 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, MatildeSeñoVda. deRamonal, but he can not be sure.The fifth witness presented was
itaVedad , an employee of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region10. She testified that she processed the application of the deceased for pasture permit and was familiar with the signature of thedeceased, since the signed documents in her presence, when the latter was applying for pasture permit.Finally,
g eline Cal ug ay
, one of the respondents, testified that she had lived with the deceased since birth, and was in factadopted by the latter. That after a long period of time she became familiar with the signature of the deceased. She testified that thesignature appearing in the holographic will is the true and genuine signature of MatildeSeñoVda. deRamonal.The holographic will which was written in Visayan, is translated in English as follows:InstructionAugust 30, 19781. My share at Cogon, Raminal Street, for Evangeline Calugay.(Sgd) MatildeVda de RamonalAugust 30, 19782. Josefina Salcedomust be given 1,500 square meters at Pinikan Street.(Sgd) MatildeVda de RamonalAugust 30, 19783. My jewelry'sshall be divided among:1. EufemiaPatigas2. Josefina Salcedo3. Evangeline Calugay(Sgd) MatildeVda de RamonalAugust 30, 19784. I bequeath my one (1) hectare land at Mandumol, Indahag to Evangeline R. Calugay(Sgd) MatildeVda de RamonalAugust 30, 19785. Give the 2,500 Square Meters at Sta. Cruz Ramonal Village in favor of Evangeline R. Calugay, Helen must continuewith the Sta. Cruz, once I am no longer around.(Sgd) MatildeVda de RamonalAugust 30, 19786. Bury me where my husband Justo is ever buried.
(Sgd) MatildeVda de RamonalAugust 30, 1978Gene and Manuel:Follow my instruction in order that I will rest peacefully.MamaMatildeVda de RamonalOn October 9, 1995, the Court of Appeals, rendered decision
ruling that the appeal was meritorious. Citing the decision in the caseof Az aola v
, 109 Phil. 102, penned by Mr. Justice J. B. L. Reyes, a recognized authority in civil law, the Court of Appealsheld:. . . even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 of our presentcivil 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 theholographic 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 thetestator" and who can declare (truthfully, of course, even if the law does not express) "that the will and the signature are inthe handwriting of the testator." There may be no available witness acquainted with the testator's hand; or even if sofamiliarized, the witness maybe unwilling to give a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of article 811may thus become an impossibility. That is evidently the reason why the second paragraph of article 811 prescribes that ² in the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it necessary, experttestimony may be resorted to.As can be see, the law foresees, the possibility that no qualified witness ma 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 expertevidence 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. Delfianado, 45 PHIL 291;Tolentino v. Francisco, 57 PHIL 742). But it can not be ignored that the requirement can be considered mandatory only incase of ordinary testaments, precisely because the presence of at least three witnesses at the execution of ordinary wills ismade by law essential to their validity (Art. 805). Where the will is holographic, no witness need be present (art. 10), andthe 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", whichreveal that what the law deems essential is that the court should be convinced of the will's authenticity. Where the prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the court is convinced by their testimony that the will is genuine, it mayconsider 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 thetestator be carried into effect.Paraphrasing
Az aola v
, even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested, Article 811 of the civilcode cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of thetestator, under penalty of the having the probate denied. No witness need be present in the execution of the holographicwill. And the rule requiring the production of three witnesses is merely permissive. What the law deems essential is that thecourt is convinced of the authenticity of the will. Its duty is to exhaust all available lines of inquiry, for the state is as muchinterested in the proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried into effect. And because the law leaves it to thetrial court to decide if experts are still needed, no unfavorable inference can be drawn from a party's failure to offer expertevidence, until and unless the court expresses dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay witnesses.
According to the Court of Appeals, Evangeline Calugay, MatildeRamonalBinanay and other witnesses definitely and in no uncertainterms 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 MatildeRamonalBinanay, the Court of Appealssustained 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 Az aola v
, 109 Phil. 102, relied upon by the respondent Court of Appeals, was applicable to the case.
Activity (2)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred readsylainedv liked thisLoad more
Similar to Codoy v. CalugayDorotheo vs CAiicaiiSucc CaseszvatanacioMolo vs Molo (Correcr)nikkaremulla46503538-Jen-Succession-Reviewer.docPaula GasparDe La Cerna vs PototHannah TolentinoSpecpro-Guevara v GuevarajellypatMolo v Molo Digestviva_3304 Dela Cerna vs PototJerommel GabrielDe Molo v. Molo Gr No. L-2538 Sept 21, 1051Cherry ChaoGago-vs-MamuyacElmer Saba EreñoGallanosa v. ArcangelPasian Brent
More From This UserDigital Booklet - Chapman Square Chapter IIrocket_blueUKSC StoryPanel 9 1100hx800w v6rocket_blueAndroid Quick Start Guiderocket_blueA.M. No. 10-3-7-SC (Rules on Electronic Filing)rocket_blueA.M. No. 12-12-11-SC (Financial Rehabilitation Rules of P...rocket_blueLegal Finess-Financial and Insolvency Rehabilitation Actrocket_blueNotification and Statement of Claim on West Philippine Searocket_blueFRIArocket_blueIns Ti Convergence Frameworkrocket_blueMicrosoft Office 2010 Product Guiderocket_blueLand Titles and Deeds01rocket_blueSarsaba v. De Te; PArocket_blueSoriamont v. CA; PArocket_blueCuenco v. Court of Appealsrocket_blueReadmerocket_blue
RecommendedDorotheo vs CAiicaiiggSucc CaseszvatanacioMolo vs Molo (Correcr)nikkaremulla46503538-Jen-Succession-Reviewer.docPaula GasparDe La Cerna vs PototHannah TolentinoSpecpro-Guevara v GuevarajellypatMolo v Molo Digestviva_33Succession case digest04 Dela Cerna vs PototJerommel GabrielsuccessionDe Molo v. Molo Gr No. L-2538 Sept 21...Cherry ChaoGago-vs-MamuyacElmer Saba EreñoGR. No. 26317 January 29, 1927Gallanosa v. ArcangelPasian BrentPrevious|NextPage 1 of 3