Succession cases

Garcia v. Lacuesta Digest

Garcia v. Lacuesta
G.R. L-4067 November 29, 1951
Ponente: Paras, C.J.

Facts:
1. The CA disallowed the probate of the will of Antero Mercado dated Jan 1943. The said will was written in Ilocano dialect.

2. The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who wrote the name of the testator followed below by 'A ruego del testador' and the name of
Florentino Javier. In effect, it was signed by another although under the express direction of the testator. This fact however was not recited in the attestation
clause. Mercado also affixed a cross on the will.

3. The lower court admitted the will to probate but this order was reversed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the attestation failed to recite the facts
surrounding the signing of the testator and the witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not the attestation clause in the will is valid

HELD: NO the attestation is fatally defective for its failure to state that Antero or the testator caused Atty. Javier to write the former's name under his express
direction as required by Sec. 618 of the Civil Procedure. Finally, on the cross affixed on the will by the testator, the Court held that it is not prepared to liken the
mere sign of a cross to a thumbmark for obvious reasons- the cross does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark so it is not considered as a valid
signature.

Balonan vs. Abellana GR No. L-15153, August 31, 1960

Facts: A 2-page Will and Testament by the testatrix Anacleta Abellana was sought to be probated at rhe CFI of Zamboanga City. ON the second page, which is
the last page of the Will, on the left margin appears the signature of Juan Bello under whose name appears handwritten the following phrase 'Por la Testadora
Anacleta Abellana' (for the tetattrix Anacleta Abellana). (The CFI admitted the probate of the will. Hence, this appeal, the petitioner contending that the signature
of Juan A. Abello on top of the phrase 'por la tetadora Anacleta Abellana did not comply with the requirements of the law prescribing the manner in which it ill be
executed.)
ISSUE: Does the signature of Dr. Juan A. Abello above the typewritten statement "Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana . . ., Ciudad de Zamboanga," comply with
the requirements of the law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be executed?
HELD: The present law, Article 805 of the Civil Code, in part provides as follows:
"Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in
his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one
another." (Italics supplied.)
In the case of Barut vs. Cabacungan, 21 Phil., 461, we held that the important thing is that it clearly appears that the name of the testatrix was signed at her
express direction; it is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of the testatrix signs his own or not. Cases of the same import are as follows: (Ex
Parte Juan Ondevilla, 13 Phil., 479, Caluya vs. Domingo, 27 Phil., 330; Garcia vs. Lacuesta, 90 Phil., 489).

In the case at bar the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written under the will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan Abello. There is,
therefore, a failure to comply with the express requirement in the law that the testator must himself sign the will, or that his name be affixed thereto by Some
other person in his presence and by his express direction.
It appearing that the above provision of the law has not been complied with, we are constrained to declare that the said will of the deceased Anacleta Abellana
may not be admitted to probate.

NERA v. RIMANDO

SUMMARY: There were two rooms (an inner room and outer room) separated by a curtain. It was alleged in the trial court that the document was signed in the
inner room while the witness was in the outer room.

Had the witnesses been proven to be in the outer room while the testator and the witnesses signed the will in the inner room, the will would have been invalid
because the singing had not been done in the presence of the witnesses in the outer room. The line of vision of the witness to the testator and other witnesses
was blocked by the curtain separating the rooms.

The position of the parties must be such that with relation to each other at the moment of the attaching the signatures, they may see each other sign if they
chose to.

Taboada v. Rosal, G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982.

14
AUG
[GUTIERREZ, JR., J.]

FACTS
In the petition for probate filed with the respondent court, the petitioner attached the alleged last will and testament of the late Dorotea Perez. Written in the
Cebuano-Visayan dialect, the will consists of two pages. The first page contains the entire testamentary dispositions and is signed at the end or bottom of the
page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the three (3) instrumental witnesses. The second page which contains the attestation clause and the
acknowledgment is signed at the end of the attestation clause by the three (3) attesting witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix.

ISSUE
Whether or not the will is void for failure to state the number of pages used in writing the will.

RULING
NO. This would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that, in this case, it is discernible from the entire will that it is really and actually composed of
only two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses. [T]he first page which contains the entirety of the testamentary dispositions is
signed by the testatrix at the end or at the bottom while the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin. The other page which is marked as “Pagina dos”
comprises the attestation clause and the acknowledgment. The acknowledgment itself states that “This Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including
this page”.

GR No. 192916 Echavez vs Dozen

FACTS: Vicente Echavez (Vicente) was the absolute owner of several lots in Cebu City, which includes Lot No. 1956-A and Lot No. 1959 (subject lots). On
September 7, 1985, Vicente donated the subject lots to petitioner Manuel Echavez (Manuel) through a Deed of Donation Mortis Causa. Manuel accepted the
donation.
In March 1986, Vicente executed a Contract to Sell over the same lots in favor of Dozen Construction and Development Corporation (Dozen Corporation). In
October 1986, they executed two Deeds of Absolute Sale over the same properties covered by the previous Contract to Sell.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will is valid.
Held: No. Donation mortis causa must comply with the formalities prescribed by law for the validity of wills, “otherwise, the donation is void and would produce
no effect.” The Acknowledgment portion does not contain the number of pages on which the deed was written. Also, there was no attestation clause in the will.
That the requirements of attestation and acknowledgment are embodied in two separate provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 805 and 806, respectively)
indicates that the law contemplates two distinct acts that serve different purposes. An attestation must state all the details the third paragraph of Article 805
requires. An acknowledgment is made by one executing a deed, declaring before a competent officer or court that the deed or act is his own. On the other hand,
the attestation of a will refers to the act of the instrumental witnesses themselves who certify to the execution of the instrument before them and to the manner
of its execution. In the absence of the required avowal by the witnesses themselves, no attestation clause can be deemed embodied in the Acknowledgement of
the Deed of Donation Mortis Causa.

IN RE WILL OF LOPEZ v. LOPEZ SUMMARY: Enrique Lopez died leaving his widow and four legitimate children. He made Richard, herein petitioner as his executor
and administrator. Richard filed for the probate of the will and testament with prayer for the issuance of letters testamentary in his favor. His sisters opposed
invoking that the will and testament is not executed and attested as required by law. It was discovered that in the acknowledgement portion, it was stated that
the will consists of 7 pages when in fact it has.

ATTY. T: For substantial compliance under Article 809 of the NCC to apply, these two rules must be complied: 1) No bad faith, fraud, forgery, or undue and
improper influence; and 2) No introduction of evidence aliunde or extrinsic evidence. In other words, the mere examination of the four corners of the will should
establish that there is indeed substantial compliance. If you need to present extrinsic evidence/ evidence aliunde, then cannot claim substantial compliance.

Icasiano v. Icasiano Digest

Icasiano vs. Icasiano
G.R. No. L-18979 June 30, 1964

Facts:
1. Celso Icasiano, filed a petition for the probate of the will of Josefa Villacorte and for his appointment as executor thereof. It appears from the evidence that the
testatrix died on September 12, 1958. She executed a will in Tagalog, and through the help of her lawyer, it was prepared in duplicates, an original and a carbon
copy.
2. On the day that it was subscribed and attested, the lawyer only brought the original copy of the will while the carbon duplicate (unsigned) was left in Bulacan.
One of the witnesses failed to sign one of the pages in the original copy but admitted he may have lifted 2 pages simultaneously instead when he signed the will.
Nevertheless, he affirmed that the will was signed by the testator and other witnesses in his presence.

Issue: Whether or not the failure of one of the subscribing witnesses to affix his signature to a page is sufficient to deny probate of the will

RULING: No, the failure to sign was entirely through pure oversight or mere inadvertence. Since the duplicated bore the required signatures, this proves that the
omission was not intentional. Even if the original is in existence, a duplicate may still be admitted to probate since the original is deemed to be defective, then in
law, there is no other will bu the duly signed carbon duplicate and the same can be probated.

The law should not be strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she has
no control of. Where the purpose of the law is to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages, and there is no intentional or deliberate
deviation existed.

Note that this ruling should not be taken as a departure from the rules that the will should be signed by the witnesses on every page. The carbon copy duplicate
was regular in all respects.

CRUZ v. VILLASOR

SUMMARY: Agapita Cruz questioned the probate of the will of his husband Valente Cruz on the ground among others that it was not executed in accordance with
the law as one of the witnesses is the Notary Public (NP) before whom the will was acknowledge.

The Court that there was no substantial compliance with law specifically under Article 805 and 806. A NP before whom the will was is acknowledge cannot be
one of the 3 witnesses since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. To allow the NP to act as third witness, or one of the attesting and
acknowledging witnesses, would have an effect of having two attesting witnesses which is such case will not be compliant with the 3 required witnesses under
Article 806.

ATTY T. First, it is physically impossible for the NP to avow before himself. Second, you should have a NP who is disinterested on whether or not the will is valid.
If the NP becomes a witness meaning to say that he has other participation other than notarizing the will then he would be interested in sustaining the validity of
the will precisely because he is one of witnesses of the will.

*Di pwede mamangka sa dalawang ilog ang Notaryo Publiko

Gabucan v. Judge Manta, G.R. No. L-51546, January 28, 1980.

14 Aug
[AQUINO, J.]
FACTS
The Court of First Instance of Camiguin in its “decision” for the probate of the will of the late Rogaciano Gabucan, dismissed the proceeding because the
requisite documentary stamp was not affixed to the notarial acknowledgment in the will and, hence, according to respondent Judge, it was not admissible in
evidence, citing section 238 of the Tax Code, now section 250 of the 1977 Tax Code.
ISSUE
Whether or not the probate of a notarial will should be denied on the ground that it does not bear a thirty-centavo documentary stamp.
RULING
NO. What the probate court should have done was to require the petitioner or proponent to affix the requisite thirty-centavo documentary stamp to the notarial
acknowledgment of the will which is the taxable portion of that document. That procedure may be implied from the provision of section 238 that the non-
admissibility of the document, which does not bear the requisite documentary stamp, subsists only “until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed
thereto and cancelled.” Thus, it was held that the documentary stamp may be affixed at the time the taxable document is presented in evidence. That the lack of
the documentary stamp on a document does not invalidate such document.

Javellana v. Ledesma Digest

Javellana vs. Ledesma
G.R. No. L-7179

Facts:
1. The CFI of Iloilo admitted to probate a will and codicil executed by the deceased Apolinaria Ledesma in July 1953. This testament was deemed executed on
May 1950 and May 1952. The contestant was the sister and nearest surviving relative of the deceased. She appealed from this decision alleging that the will
were not executed in accordance with law.

2. The testament was executed at the house of the testatrix. One the other hand, the codicil was executed after the enactment of the New Civil Code (NCC), and
therefore had to be acknowledged before a notary public. Now, the contestant, who happens to be one of the instrumental witnesses asserted that after the
codicil was signed and attested at the San Pablo hospital, that Gimotea (the notary) signed and sealed it on the same occasion. Gimotea, however, said that he
did not do so, and that the act of signing and sealing was done afterwards.

2. One of the allegations was that the certificate of acknowledgement to the codicil was signed somewhere else or in the office of the notary. The ix and the
witnesses at the hospital, was signed and sealed by the notary only when he brought it in his office.

Issue: Whether or not the signing and sealing of the will or codicil in the absence of the testator and witnesses affects the validity of the will

RULING: NO. Unlike in the Old Civil Code of 1899, the NCC does not require that the signing of the testator, the witnesses and the notary be accomplished in one
single act. All that is required is that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and witnesses. The subsequent signing and sealing
is not part of the acknowledgement itself nor of the testamentary act. Their separate execution out of the presence of the testator and the witnesses cannot be a
violation of the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption.

Garcia v. Vasquez Digest

Garcia v. Vasquez
G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969
Fernando, J (Ponente)

Facts:
1. Gliceria del Rosario executed 2 wills, one in June 1956, written in Spanish, a language she knew an spoke. The other will was executed in December 1960
consisting of only one page, and written in Tagalog. The witnesses to the 1960 will declared that the will was first read 'silently' by the testatrix before signing it.
The probate court admitted the will.

2. The oppositors alleged that the as of December 1960, the eyesight of the deceased was so poor and defective that she could not have read the provisions
contrary to the testimony of the witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not the will is valid

RULING: The will is not valid. If the testator is blind, Art. 808 of the New Civil Code (NCC) should apply.If the testator is blind or incapable of reading, he must be
apprised of the contents of the will for him to be able to have the opportunityto object if the provisions therein are not in accordance with his wishes.

The testimony of her opthalmologist established that notwithstanding an operation to remove her cataract and being fitted with the lenses, this did not improve
her vision. Her vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading. There was no evidence that her vision improved at the time of the
execution of the 2nd will. Hence, she was incapable of reading her own will. The admission of the will to probate is therefor erroneous.

Roxas v. De Jesus (134 SCRA 245)

paul
Roxas v. De Jesus
134 SCRA 245
FACTS:
Bibiane Roxas died. Her brother, Simeon Roxas, filed a spec. pro. for partition of the estate of the deceased and also delivered the holographic will of the
deceased. Simeon stated that he found a notebook belonging to deceased, which contained a “letter-will” entirely written and signed in deceased’s handwriting.
The will is dated “FEB./61 ” and states: “This is my will which I want to be respected although it is not written by a lawyer. Roxas relatives corroborated the fact
that the same is a holographic will of deceased, identifying her handwriting and signature. Respondent opposed probate on the ground that it such does not
comply with Article 810 of the CC because the date contained in a holographic will must signify the year, month, and day.
ISSUE:
W/N 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.
HELD:
Valid date.
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. The
underlying and fundamental objectives permeating the provisions of the law wills 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 sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the
exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. 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 Will should be admitted to probate (Rey v. Cartagena 56 Phil. 282).
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. In Abangan v. Abanga 40 Phil. 476, 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.

KALAW v. RELOVA

SUMMARY: This is about a holographic will which contains only one substantial provision. The parties are contesting whether the will should be void because the
alterations were not accordingly signed. The SC ruled that the entire will was considered void even though it is only the alterations that were not signed because
there is only one substantial provision. The Court has no choice but to invalidate the whole will.

ATTY.T: It does not make sense to validate a will which only contains one substantial provision. This ICEA were not properly signed.

Gago v. Mamuyac Digest

Gago vs. Mamuyac
G.R. No. L-26317 January 29, 1927
Johnson, J. (Ponente)

Facts:
1. Previously, Francisco Gago filed a petition for the probate of a will of Miguel Mamuyac executed on July 27, 1918. The oppositors alleged that the said will was
already annulled and revoked. It appeared that on April 16, 1919, the deceased executed another will. The lower court denied the probate of the first will on the
ground of the existence of the second will.

2. Another petition was filed to seek the probate of the second will. The oppositors alleged that the second will presented was merely a copy. According to the
witnesses, the said will was allegedly revoked as per the testimony of Jose Tenoy, one of the witnesses who typed the document. Another witness testified that
on December 1920 the original will was actually cancelled by the testator.
3. The lower court denied the probate and held that the same has been annulled and revoked.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid revocation of the will

RULING: Yes. The will was already cancelled in 1920. This was inferred when after due search, the original will cannot be found. When the will which cannot be
found in shown to be in the possession of the testator when last seen, the presumption is that in the absence of other competent evidence, the same was
deemed cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption applies when it is shown that the testator has ready access to the will and it can no longer be found after
his death.

Casiano v. CA
158 SCRA 451
FACTS:
On October 20, 1963, Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the petitioners Aldina Maloto-Casiano and Constancio, Maloto, and the
private respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto. Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament, these four heirs commenced on
November 4, 1963 an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt’s estate in the CFI of Iloilo. While the case was still pending the parties — Aldina,
Constancio, Panfilo, and Felino — executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana’s estate. The agreement provided for the division of the estate
into four equal parts among the parties. The Malotos then presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to the trial court for approval which the court did on
March 21, 1964.
3 years later, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a former associate of Adriana’s counsel, the late Atty. Eliseo Hervas, discovered a document entitled “KATAPUSAN NGA
PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento),” dated January 3,1940, and purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. Atty. Palma claimed to have found the
testament, the original copy, while he was going through some materials inside the cabinet drawer formerly used by Atty. Hervas. The document was submitted
to the clerk of court of the Iloilo CFI. Incidentally, while Panfilo and Felino are still named as heirs in the said will, Aldina and Constancio are bequeathed much
bigger and more valuable shares in the estate of Adriana than what they received by virtue of the agreement of extrajudicial settlement they had earlier signed.
The will likewise gives devises and legacies to other parties, among them being the petitioners Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and
Purificacion Miraflor.
Aldina and Constancio, joined by the other devisees and legatees named in the will, filed in the same court which approved the EJ settelement a motion for
reconsideration and annulment of the proceedings therein and for the allowance of the will which was denied by the CFI. Upon petition to the SC for certiorari
and mandamus, the SC dismissed that petition and advised that a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will would be the appropriate vehicle to
thresh out the matters raised by the petitioners. The CFI and CA found that the will to be probated had been revoked by the burning thereof by the housemaid
upon instruction of the testatrix.
ISSUE:
W/N the will was revoked by Adriana.
HELD:
No. The provisions of the new Civil Code pertinent to the issue can be found in Article 830.
The physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled with
animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by another
person but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator. Of course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself.
“Animus revocandi” is only one of the necessary elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament. The intention to revoke must be accompanied
by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his
express direction.
There is paucity of evidence to show compliance with these requirements. For one, the document or papers burned by Adriana’s maid, Guadalupe, was not
satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana Maloto. For another, the burning was not proven to have been done under the express
direction of Adriana. And then, the burning was not in her presence. Both witnesses, Guadalupe and Eladio, were one in stating that they were the only ones
present at the place where the stove (presumably in the kitchen) was located in which the papers proffered as a will were burned.
The two witnesses were illiterate and does not appear to be unequivocably positive that the document burned was indeed Adriana’s will. Guadalupe believed that
the papers she destroyed was the will only because, according to her, Adriana told her so. Eladio, on the other hand, obtained his information that the burned
document was the will because Guadalupe told him so, thus, his testimony on this point is double hearsay.
It is an important matter of public interest that a purported win is not denied legalization on dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary
succession will be shaken to its very foundations.

MOLO VS MOLO

Atty T: This case introduced us the Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation. What is this doctrine all about?

A: It is where the testator cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument intended to revoke a will with a present intention to make a new testamentary
disposition as a substitute for the old, and the new disposition is not made or, if made, fails of effect for same reason. The earlier will can still be admitted to
probate under the principle of "dependent relative revocation.

Atty T: In this principle, you can apply the rule that the law favors testacy over intestacy.

Azaola vs. Singson

FEDERICO AZAOLA vs.
CESARIO SINGSON
G.R. No. L-14003
August 5, 1960

Testator: Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance

Petitioner: Francisco Azaola
Oppositor: Cesario Singson

FACTS:

Francisco Azaola submitted the will of Fortunata S. Vda. de Yance for probate.
Azaola testified on the authenticity of the will. The probate was denied on the ground
that under Article 811 of the Civil Code, the proponent must present three witnesses
who could declare that the will and the signature are in the writing of the testatrix,
the probate being contested; and because the lone witness presented by the proponent
"did not prove sufficiently that the body of the will was written in the handwriting of
the testatrix."

The proponent appealed, urging: first, that he was not bound to produce more than one
witness because the will's authenticity was not questioned; and second, that Article 811
does not mandatorily require the production of three witnesses to identify the handwriting
and signature of a holographic will, even if its authenticity should be denied by the adverse
party.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the requirement of three witnesses for the probate of a holographic will is
directory or mandatory.

RULING:

No. The SC held that since the authenticity of the will was not contested, he was
not required to produce more than one witness; but even if the genuineness of the
holographic will were contested, the SC opined that Article 811 of our present
Civil Code cannot 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.

Article 811 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to the following effect:

ART. 811. 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.

In the absence of any competent witnesses referred to in the preceding paragraph,

and if thecourt deems it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. Considering,
however, that it was the first occasion in which the Supreme Court has been called
upon to construe the import of said article, the records were ordered remanded to the
Court of origin.

Codoy vs. Calugay Case Digest

G.R. No. 123486 ; August 12, 1999 ; 312 SCRA 333
PRINCIPLE/S:
a) Art. 811 of the Civil Code is MANDATORY if the HOLOGRAPHIC will is CONTESTED
Reason: The possibility of a false document being adjudged as the Will of the testator cannot be eliminated

b) Azaola vs. Singson case vis-a-vis Codoy vs. Calugay case

1. Azaola case - will was not contested.
Effect: Article 811 if permissive
- Witnesses may not be needed for probate of the holographic will
2. Codoy case - will was contested (ground: forgery)
Effect: Article 811 if mandatory
- At least 3 witnesses needed for probate of the holographic will

Holographic will is NOT contested = Art. 811 permissive (Azaola case)

Holographic will is contested = Art. 811 mandatory (Codoy case)

FACTS: Respondent Calugay et al., devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde, filed a petition for probate of the said will with the
RTC. They attested to the genuineness and due execution of the will. Petitioner Codoy et al. filed an opposition claiming that the will was a forgery and illegible.
Calugay presented 6 witnesses and various documentary evidence. Petitioners instead of presenting their evidence, filed a demurrer to evidence. RTC granted
the Demurrer to evidence and denied the petition for probate of respondents. CA reversed the RTC’s ruling citing the decision in the case of Azaola vs. Singson
which essentially states that witnesses are not needed in probate of holographic wills.

ISSUE/S: WON Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory or directory for probate of a holographic will.

HELD: Mandatory if the holographic will is contested. Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory since the word “shall” connotes a mandatory order. We have
ruled that "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 reason is that 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.