FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 123486
August 12, 1999
EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL, petitioners,
vs.
EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, and UEFEMIA
PATIGAS, respondents.
PARDO, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision of the Court of Appeals1 and its resolution denying reconsideration,
ruling:
Upon the unrebutted testimony of appellant Evangeline
Calugay and witness Matilde Ramonal Binanay, 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 on demurrer to evidence
on the ground that upon the facts and the law plaintiff has shown no right to
relief, if the motion is granted and the order to dismissal is reversed on
appeal, the movant loses his right to present evidence in his behalf (Sec, 1
Rule 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 Matilde
Seño Vda. de Ramonal.2
The facts are as follows:
On April 6, 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and
Eufemia Patigas, devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased
Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Misamis
Oriental, Branch 18, a petition3 for probate of the holographic will of the
deceased, who died on January 16, 1990.
In the petition, respondents claimed that the deceased
Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, was of sound and disposing mind when she executed
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.4
On June 28, 1990, Eugenia Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal
filed an opposition5 to the petition for probate, alleging that the holographic
will was a forgery and that the same is even illegible. This gives an
impression that a "third hand" of an interested party other than the
"true hand" of Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal executed the holographic
will.
Petitioners argued that the repeated dates incorporated or
appearing on will after every disposition is out of the ordinary. If the
deceased was the one who executed the will, and was not forced, the dates and
the signature should appear at the bottom after the dispositions, as regularly
done and not after every disposition. And assuming that the holographic will is
in the handwriting of the deceased, it was procured by undue and improper
pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries, or through fraud and
trickery.1âwphi1.nêt
Respondents presented six (6) witnesses and various
documentary evidence. Petitioners instead of presenting their evidence, filed a
demurrer6 to evidence, claiming that respondents failed to establish sufficient
factual and legal basis for the probate of the holographic will of the deceased
Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal.
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 Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, is denied for
insufficiency of evidence and lack of merits.7
On December 12, 1990, respondents filed a notice of appeal,8
and in support of their appeal, the respondents once again reiterated the
testimony of the following witnesses, namely: (1) Augusto Neri; (2) Generosa
Senon; (3) Matilde Ramonal Binanay; (4) Teresita Vedad; (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.
Augusto Neri, Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of
Misamis Oriental, where the special proceedings for the probate of the
holographic will of the deceased was filed. He produced and identified the
records of the case. The documents presented bear the signature of the
deceased, Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, for the purpose of laying the basis for
comparison of the handwriting of the testatrix, with the writing treated or
admitted as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered.
Generosa Senon, 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.
Matilde Ramonal Binanay, testified that the deceased Matilde
Seño Vda. de Ramonal was her aunt, and that after the death of Matilde's
husband, 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 (deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal) in collecting
rentals from her various tenants of commercial buildings, and deceased always issued
receipts. In addition to this, she (witness Matilde Binanay) assisted the
deceased in posting the records of the accounts, and carried personal letters
of the deceased to her creditors.
Matilde Ramonal Binanay further testified that at the time
of the death of Matilde Vda. de Ramonal, she left a holographic will dated
August 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.
Fiscal Rodolfo Waga testified that before he was appointed
City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro, he was a practicing lawyer, and handled all the
pleadings and documents signed by the deceased in connection with the
proceedings of her late husband, as a result of which he 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, Matilde Seño Vda. de
Ramonal, but he can not be sure.
The fifth witness presented was Mrs. Teresita Vedad, an
employee of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region 10. She
testified that she processed the application of the deceased for pasture permit
and was familiar with the signature of the deceased, since the signed documents
in her presence, when the latter was applying for pasture permit.
Finally, Evangeline Calugay, one of the respondents,
testified that she had lived with the deceased since birth, and was in fact
adopted by the latter. That after a long period of time she became familiar
with the signature of the deceased. She testified that the signature appearing
in the holographic will is the true and genuine signature of Matilde Seño Vda.
de Ramonal.
The holographic will which was written in Visayan, is
translated in English as follows:
Instruction
August 30, 1978
1. My share at Cogon, Raminal Street, for Evangeline
Calugay.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
2. Josefina Salcedo must be given 1,500 square meters at
Pinikan Street.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
3. My jewelry's shall be divided among:
1. Eufemia Patigas
2. Josefina Salcedo
3. Evangeline Calugay
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
4. I bequeath my one (1) hectare land at Mandumol, Indahag
to Evangeline R. Calugay
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
5. Give the 2,500 Square Meters at Sta. Cruz Ramonal Village
in favor of Evangeline R. Calugay, Helen must continue with the Sta. Cruz, once
I am no longer around.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
6. Bury me where my husband Justo is ever buried.
(Sgd) Matilde Vda de Ramonal
August 30, 1978
Gene and Manuel:
Follow my instruction in order that I will rest peacefully.
Mama
Matilde Vda de Ramonal
On October 9, 1995, the Court of Appeals, rendered decision9
ruling that the appeal was meritorious. Citing the decision in the case of
Azaola vs. Singson, 109 Phil. 102, penned by Mr. Justice J. B. L. Reyes, a
recognized authority in civil law, the Court of Appeals held:
. . . even if the genuineness of the holographic will were
contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 of our present civil 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 the
holographic 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 the testator"
and who can declare (truthfully, of course, even if the law does not express)
"that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the
testator." There may be no available witness acquainted with the
testator's hand; or even if so familiarized, the witness maybe unwilling to give
a positive opinion. Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of article 811 may
thus become an impossibility. That is evidently the reason why the second
paragraph of article 811 prescribes that —
in the absence of any competent witness referred to in the
preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it necessary, expert testimony 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 expert evidence 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
in case of ordinary testaments, precisely because the presence of at least
three witnesses at the execution of ordinary wills is made by law essential to
their validity (Art. 805). Where the will is holographic, no witness need be
present (art. 10), and the 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", which
reveal 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 may consider 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 the testator be carried into effect.
Paraphrasing Azaola vs. Singson, even if the genuineness of
the holographic will were contested, Article 811 of the civil code cannot be
interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to
identify the handwriting of the testator, under penalty of the having the
probate denied. No witness need be present in the execution of the holographic
will. And the rule requiring the production of three witnesses is merely
permissive. What the law deems essential is that the court is convinced of the
authenticity of the will. Its duty is to exhaust all available lines of
inquiry, for the state is as much interested in the proponent that the true
intention of the testator be carried into effect. And because the law leaves it
to the trial court to decide if experts are still needed, no unfavorable
inference can be drawn from a party's failure to offer expert evidence, until
and unless the court expresses dissatisfaction with the testimony of the lay
witnesses.10
According to the Court of Appeals, Evangeline Calugay,
Matilde Ramonal Binanay and other witnesses definitely and in no uncertain
terms 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 Matilde Ramonal Binanay, the Court of Appeals sustained 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 Azaola vs.
Singson, 109 Phil. 102, relied upon by the respondent Court of Appeals, was
applicable to the case.
(2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding
that private respondents had been able to present credible evidence to that the
date, text, and signature on the holographic will written entirely in the hand
of the testatrix.
(3) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not
analyzing the signatures in the holographic will of Matilde Seño Vda. de
Ramonal.
In this petition, the petitioners ask whether the provisions
of Article 811 of the Civil Code are permissive or mandatory. The article
provides, as a requirement for the probate of a contested holographic will,
that at least three witnesses explicitly declare that the signature in the will
is the genuine signature of the testator.1âwphi1.nêt
We are convinced, based on the language used, that Article
811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. 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.11
Laws are enacted to achieve a goal intended and to guide
against an evil or mischief that aims to prevent. In the case at bar, the goal
to achieve 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.
So, we believe that the paramount consideration in the present
petition is to determine the true intent of the deceased. An exhaustive and
objective consideration of the evidence is imperative to establish the true
intent of the testator.
It will be noted that not all the witnesses presented by the
respondents testified explicitly that they were familiar with the handwriting
of testator. In the case of Augusto Neri, clerk of court, Court of First
Instance, Misamis Oriental, he merely identified the record of Special
Proceedings No. 427 before said court. He was not presented to declare
explicitly that the signature appearing in the holographic was that of the
deceased.
Generosa E. Senon, the election registrar of Cagayan de Oro
City, was presented to identify the signature of the deceased in the voter's
affidavit, which was not even produced as it was no longer available.
Matilde Ramonal Binanay, on the other hand, testified that:
Q. And you said for
eleven (11) years Matilde Vda de Ramonal resided with your parents at
Pinikitan, Cagayan de Oro City. Would you tell the court what was your
occupation or how did Matilde Vda de Ramonal keep herself busy that time?
A. Collecting
rentals.
Q. From where?
A. From the land
rentals and commercial buildings at Pabayo-Gomez streets.12
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Who sometime
accompany her?
A. I sometimes
accompany her.
Q. In collecting
rentals does she issue receipts?
A. Yes, sir.13
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Showing to you
the receipt dated 23 October 1979, is this the one you are referring to as one
of the receipts which she issued to them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now there is that
signature of Matilde vda. De Ramonal, whose signature is that Mrs. Binanay?
A. Matilde vda. De
Ramonal.
Q. Why do you say
that is the signature of Matilde Vda. De Ramonal?
A. I am familiar
with her signature.
Q. Now, you tell the
court Mrs. Binanay, whether you know Matilde vda de Ramonal kept records of the
accounts of her tenants?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why do you say
so?
A. Because we
sometimes post a record of accounts in behalf of Matilde Vda. De Ramonal.
Q. How is this
record of accounts made? How is this reflected?
A. In handwritten.14
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. In addition to
collection of rentals, posting records of accounts of tenants and deed of sale
which you said what else did you do to acquire familiarity of the signature of
Matilde Vda De Ramonal?
A. Posting records.
Q. Aside from that?
A. Carrying letters.
Q. Letters of whom?
A. Matilde.
Q. To whom?
A. To her
creditors.15
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. You testified
that at time of her death she left a will. I am showing to you a document with
its title "tugon" is this the document you are referring to?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Showing to you
this exhibit "S", there is that handwritten "tugon", whose
handwriting is this?
A. My Aunt.
Q. Why do you say
this is the handwriting of your aunt?
A. Because I am
familiar with her signature.16
What Ms. Binanay saw were pre-prepared receipts and letters
of the deceased, which she either mailed or gave to her tenants. She did not
declare that she saw the deceased sign a document or write a note.
Further, during the cross-examination, the counsel for
petitioners elicited the fact that the will was not found in the personal
belongings of the deceased but was in the possession of Ms. Binanay. She
testified that:
Q. Mrs. Binanay,
when you were asked by counsel for the petitioners if the late Matilde Seno vda
de Ramonal left a will you said, yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was in
possession of that will?
A. I.
Q. Since when did
you have the possession of the will?
A. It was in my
mother's possession.
Q. So, it was not in
your possession?
A. Sorry, yes.
Q. And when did you
come into possession since as you said this was originally in the possession of
your mother?
A. 1985.17
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Now, Mrs. Binanay
was there any particular reason why your mother left that will to you and
therefore you have that in your possession?
A. It was not given
to me by my mother, I took that in the aparador when she died.
Q. After taking that
document you kept it with you?
A. I presented it to
the fiscal.
Q. For what purpose?
A. Just to seek
advice.
Q. Advice of what?
A. About the will.18
In her testimony it was also evident that Ms. Binanay kept
the fact about the will from petitioners, the legally adopted children of the
deceased. Such actions put in issue her motive of keeping the will a secret to
petitioners and revealing it only after the death of Matilde Seño Vda. de
Ramonal.
In the testimony of Ms. Binanay, the following were
established:
Q. Now, in 1978
Matilde Seno Vda de Ramonal was not yet a sickly person is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. She was up and
about and was still uprightly and she could walk agilely and she could go to
her building to collect rentals, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.19
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Now, let us go to
the third signature of Matilde Ramonal. Do you know that there are retracings
in the word Vda.?
A. Yes, a little.
The letter L is continuous.
Q. And also in
Matilde the letter L is continued to letter D?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Again the third
signature of Matilde Vda de Ramonal the letter L in Matilde is continued
towards letter D.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there is a
retracing in the word Vda.?
A. Yes, sir.20
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Now, that was
1979, remember one year after the alleged holographic will. Now, you identified
a document marked as Exhibit R. This is dated January 8, 1978 which is only
about eight months from August 30, 1978. Do you notice that the signature
Matilde Vda de Ramonal is beautifully written and legible?
A. Yes, sir the
handwriting shows that she was very exhausted.
Q. You just say that
she was very exhausted while that in 1978 she was healthy was not sickly and
she was agile. Now, you said she was exhausted?
A. In writing.
Q. How did you know
that she was exhausted when you were not present and you just tried to explain
yourself out because of the apparent inconsistencies?
A. That was I think.
(sic).
Q. Now, you already
observed this signature dated 1978, the same year as the alleged holographic
will. In exhibit I, you will notice that there is no retracing; there is no
hesitancy and the signature was written on a fluid movement. . . . And in fact,
the name Eufemia R. Patigas here refers to one of the petitioners?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You will also
notice Mrs. Binanay that it is not only with the questioned signature appearing
in the alleged holographic will marked as Exhibit X but in the handwriting
themselves, here you will notice the hesitancy and tremors, do you notice that?
A. Yes, sir.21
Evangeline Calugay declared that the holographic will was
written, dated and signed in the handwriting of the testator. She testified
that:
Q. You testified
that you stayed with the house of the spouses Matilde and Justo Ramonal for the
period of 22 years. Could you tell the court the services if any which you
rendered to Matilde Ramonal?
A. During my stay I
used to go with her to the church, to market and then to her transactions.
Q. What else? What
services that you rendered?
A. After my college
days I assisted her in going to the bank, paying taxes and to her lawyer.
Q. What was your
purpose of going to her lawyer?
A. I used to be her
personal driver.
Q. In the course of
your stay for 22 years did you acquire familiarity of the handwriting of
Matilde Vda de Ramonal?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How come that you
acquired familiarity?
A. Because I lived
with her since birth.22
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Now, I am showing
to you Exhibit S which is captioned "tugon" dated Agosto 30, 1978
there is a signature here below item No. 1, will you tell this court whose
signature is this?
A. Yes, sir, that is
her signature.
Q. Why do you say
that is her signature?
A. I am familiar
with her signature.23
So, the only reason that Evangeline can give as to why she
was familiar with the handwriting of the deceased was because she lived with
her since birth. She never declared that she saw the deceased write a note or
sign a document.
The former lawyer of the deceased, Fiscal Waga, testified
that:
Q. Do you know
Matilde Vda de Ramonal?
A. Yes, sir I know
her because she is my godmother the husband is my godfather. Actually I am
related to the husband by consanguinity.
Q. Can you tell the
name of the husband?
A. The late husband
is Justo Ramonal.24
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Can you tell this
court whether the spouses Justo Ramonal and Matilde Ramonal have legitimate
children?
A. As far as I know
they have no legitimate children.25
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. You said after
becoming a lawyer you practice your profession? Where?
A. Here in Cagayan
de Oro City.
Q. Do you have
services rendered with the deceased Matilde vda de Ramonal?
A. I assisted her in
terminating the partition, of properties.
Q. When you said
assisted, you acted as her counsel? Any sort of counsel as in what case is
that, Fiscal?
A. It is about the
project partition to terminate the property, which was under the court
before.26
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Appearing in
special proceeding no. 427 is the amended inventory which is marked as exhibit
N of the estate of Justo Ramonal and there appears a signature over the type
written word Matilde vda de Ramonal, whose signature is this?
A. That is the
signature of Matilde Vda de Ramonal.
Q. Also in exhibit
n-3, whose signature is this?
A. This one here
that is the signature of Mrs. Matilde vda de Ramonal.27
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Aside from
attending as counsel in that Special Proceeding Case No. 427 what were the
other assistance wherein you were rendering professional service to the deceased
Matilde Vda de Ramonal?
A. I can not
remember if I have assisted her in other matters but if there are documents to
show that I have assisted then I can recall.28
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Now, I am showing
to you exhibit S which is titled "tugon", kindly go over this
document, Fiscal Waga and tell the court whether you are familiar with the
handwriting contained in that document marked as exhibit "S"?
A. I am not familiar
with the handwriting.
Q. This one, Matilde
Vda de Ramonal, whose signature is this?
A. I think this
signature here it seems to be the signature of Mrs. Matilde vda de Ramonal.
Q. Now, in item No.
2 there is that signature here of Matilde Vda de Ramonal, can you tell the
court whose signature is this?
A. Well, that is
similar to that signature appearing in the project of partition.
Q. Also in item no.
3 there is that signature Matilde Vda de Ramonal, can you tell the court whose
signature is that?
A. As I said, this signature also seems to be the
signature of Matilde vda de Ramonal.
Q. Why do you say
that?
A. Because there is
a similarity in the way it is being written.
Q. How about this
signature in item no. 4, can you tell the court whose signature is this?
A. The same is true
with the signature in item no. 4. It seems that they are similar.29
x x x x x
x x x x
Q. Mr. Prosecutor, I
heard you when you said that the signature of Matilde Vda de Ramonal Appearing
in exhibit S seems to be the signature of Matilde vda de Ramonal?
A. Yes, it is
similar to the project of partition.
Q. So you are not
definite that this is the signature of Matilde vda de Ramonal. You are merely
supposing that it seems to be her signature because it is similar to the
signature of the project of partition which you have made?
A. That is true.30
From the testimonies of these witnesses, the Court of
Appeals allowed the will to probate and disregard the requirement of three
witnesses in case of contested holographic will, citing the decision in Azaola
vs. Singson,31 ruling that the requirement is merely directory and not
mandatory.
In the case of Ajero vs. Court of Appeals,32 we said 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. 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 of 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, that law requires three witnesses to declare
that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased.
The will was found not in the personal belongings of the
deceased but with one of the respondents, who kept it even before the death of
the deceased. In the testimony of Ms. Binanay, she revealed that the will was
in her possession as early as 1985, or five years before the death of the
deceased.
There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the
signature and the handwriting of the deceased with other documents signed and
executed by her during her lifetime. The only chance at comparison was during
the cross-examination of Ms. Binanay when the lawyer of petitioners asked Ms.
Binanay to compare the documents which contained the signature of the deceased
with that of the holographic will and she is not a handwriting expert. Even the
former lawyer of the deceased expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the
signature in the holographic will.
A visual examination of the holographic will convince us
that the strokes are different when compared with other documents written by
the testator. The signature of the testator in some of the disposition is not
readable. There were uneven strokes, retracing and erasures on the will.
Comparing the signature in the holographic will dated August
30, 1978,33 and the signatures in several documents such as the application
letter for pasture permit dated December 30, 1980,34 and a letter dated June
16, 1978,35 the strokes are different. In the letters, there are continuous
flows of the strokes, evidencing that there is no hesitation in writing unlike
that of the holographic will. We, therefore, cannot be certain that ruling
holographic will was in the handwriting by the deceased.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE.
The records are ordered remanded to the court of origin with instructions to
allow petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their opposition to the
probate of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño vda. de
Ramonal.1âwphi1.nêt
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
concur.
