FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 123486 August 12, 1999

EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL, petitioners,
vs.
EANGELINE R. CALUGAY, !O"E#$INE "ALCEDO, and UE%EMIA #A&IGA", respondents.
#ARDO, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeas
!
and its
resoution den"in# reconsideration, ruin#$
%pon the unre&utted testi'on" of appeant (van#eine Cau#a" and witness )atide
Ra'ona Binana", the authenticit" of testators hoo#raphic wi has &een esta&ished and the
handwritin# and si#nature therein *e+hi&it S, are hers, enou#h to pro&ate said wi. Reversa
of the -ud#'ent appeaed fro' and the pro&ate of the hoo#raphic wi in .uestion &e caed
for. The rue is that after paintiff has co'peted presentation of his evidence and the
defendant fies a 'otion for -ud#'ent on de'urrer to evidence on the #round that upon the
facts and the aw paintiff has shown no ri#ht to reief, if the 'otion is #ranted and the order
to dis'issa is reversed on appea, the 'ovant oses his ri#ht to present evidence in his
&ehaf *Sec, ! Rue /0 Revised Rues of Court,. 1ud#'ent 'a", therefore, &e rendered for
appeant in the instant case.
2herefore, the order appeaed fro' is R(V(RS(D and -ud#'ent rendered aowin# the
pro&ate of the hoo#raphic wi of the testator )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona.
4
The facts are as foows$
On Apri 5, !667, (van#eine Cau#a", 1osephine Sacedo and (ufe'ia 8ati#as, devisees and
e#atees of the hoo#raphic wi of the deceased )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona, fied with the
Re#iona Tria Court, )isa'is Orienta, Branch !9, a petition
/
for pro&ate of the hoo#raphic wi of
the deceased, who died on 1anuar" !5, !667.
In the petition, respondents cai'ed that the deceased )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona, was of
sound and disposin# 'ind when she e+ecuted the wi on Au#ust /7, !6:9, that there was no
fraud, undue infuence, and duress e'po"ed in the person of the testator, and wi was written
vountari".
The assessed vaue of the decedent;s propert", incudin# a rea and persona propert" was a&out
8<77,777.77, at the ti'e of her death.
<
On 1une 49, !667, (u#enia Ra'ona Codo" and )anue Ra'ona fied an opposition
0
to the
petition for pro&ate, ae#in# that the hoo#raphic wi was a for#er" and that the sa'e is even
ie#i&e. This #ives an i'pression that a =third hand= of an interested part" other than the =true
hand= of )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona e+ecuted the hoo#raphic wi.
8etitioners ar#ued that the repeated dates incorporated or appearin# on wi after ever"
disposition is out of the ordinar". If the deceased was the one who e+ecuted the wi, and was not
forced, the dates and the si#nature shoud appear at the &otto' after the dispositions, as
re#uar" done and not after ever" disposition. And assu'in# that the hoo#raphic wi is in the
handwritin# of the deceased, it was procured &" undue and i'proper pressure and infuence on
the part of the &eneficiaries, or throu#h fraud and tric>er".1wphi1.nt
Respondents presented si+ *5, witnesses and various docu'entar" evidence. 8etitioners instead
of presentin# their evidence, fied a de'urrer
5
to evidence, cai'in# that respondents faied to
esta&ish sufficient factua and e#a &asis for the pro&ate of the hoo#raphic wi of the deceased
)atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona.
On Nove'&er 45, !667, the ower Court issued an order, the dispositive portion of which reads$
2?(R(FOR(, in view of the fore#oin# consideration, the De'urrer to (vidence havin#
&ein# we ta>en, sa'e is #ranted, and the petition for pro&ate of the docu'ent *(+hi&it =S=,
on the purported ?oo#raphic 2i of the ate )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona, is denied for
insufficienc" of evidence and ac> of 'erits.
:
On Dece'&er !4, !667, respondents fied a notice of appea,
9
and in support of their appea, the
respondents once a#ain reiterated the testi'on" of the foowin# witnesses, na'e"$ *!, Au#usto
Neri@ *4, Aenerosa Senon@ */, )atide Ra'ona Binana"@ *<, Teresita Vedad@ *0, Fisca Rodofo
2a#a@ and *5, (van#eine Cau#a".
To have a cear understandin# of the testi'onies of the witnesses, we recite an account of their
testi'onies.
Augusto Neri, Cer> of Court, Court of First Instance of )isa'is Orienta, where the specia
proceedin#s for the pro&ate of the hoo#raphic wi of the deceased was fied. ?e produced and
identified the records of the case. The docu'ents presented &ear the si#nature of the deceased,
)atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona, for the purpose of a"in# the &asis for co'parison of the
handwritin# of the testatri+, with the writin# treated or ad'itted as #enuine &" the part" a#ainst
who' the evidence is offered.
Generosa Senon, eection re#istrar of Ca#a"an de Oro, was presented to produced and identif"
the voter;s affidavit of the decedent. ?owever, the voters; affidavit was not produced for the sa'e
was aread" destro"ed and no on#er avaia&e.
Matilde Ramonal Binanay, testified that the deceased )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona was her
aunt, and that after the death of )atide;s hus&and, the atter ived with her in her parent;s house
for eeven *!!, "ears fro' !609 to !656. Durin# those eeven *!!, "ears of cose association the
deceased, she ac.uired fa'iiarit" with her si#nature and handwritin# as she used to acco'pan"
her *deceased )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona, in coectin# rentas fro' her various tenants of
co''ercia &uidin#s, and deceased awa"s issued receipts. In addition to this, she *witness
)atide Binana", assisted the deceased in postin# the records of the accounts, and carried
persona etters of the deceased to her creditors.
Matilde Ramonal Binanayfurther testified that at the ti'e of the death of )atide Vda. de
Ra'ona, she eft a hoo#raphic wi dated Au#ust /7, !6:9, which was persona" and entire"
written, dated and si#ned, &" the deceased and that a the dispositions therein, the dates, and
the si#natures in said wi, were that of the deceased.
Fiscal Rodolo !agatestified that &efore he was appointed Cit" Fisca of Ca#a"an de Oro, he was
a practicin# aw"er, and handed a the peadin#s and docu'ents si#ned &" the deceased in
connection with the proceedin#s of her ate hus&and, as a resut of which he is fa'iiar with the
handwritin# of the atter. ?e testified that the si#nature appearin# in the hoo#raphic wi was
si'iar to that of the deceased, )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona, &ut he can not &e sure.
The fifth witness presented was Mrs. "eresita #edad, an e'po"ee of the Depart'ent of
(nviron'ent and Natura Resources, Re#ion !7. She testified that she processed the appication
of the deceased for pasture per'it and was fa'iiar with the si#nature of the deceased, since the
si#ned docu'ents in her presence, when the atter was app"in# for pasture per'it.
Fina", $%angeline &alugay, one of the respondents, testified that she had ived with the
deceased since &irth, and was in fact adopted &" the atter. That after a on# period of ti'e she
&eca'e fa'iiar with the si#nature of the deceased. She testified that the si#nature appearin# in
the hoo#raphic wi is the true and #enuine si#nature of )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona.
The hoo#raphic wi which was written in Visa"an, is transated in (n#ish as foows$
Instruction
Au#ust /7, !6:9
!. )" share at Co#on, Ra'ina Street, for (van#eine Cau#a".
*S#d, )atide Vda de Ra'ona
Au#ust /7, !6:9
4. 1osefina Sacedo 'ust &e #iven !,077 s.uare 'eters at 8ini>an Street.
*S#d, )atide Vda de Ra'ona
Au#ust /7, !6:9
/. )" -ewer";s sha &e divided a'on#$
!. (ufe'ia 8ati#as
4. 1osefina Sacedo
/. (van#eine Cau#a"
*S#d, )atide Vda de Ra'ona
Au#ust /7, !6:9
<. I &e.ueath '" one *!, hectare and at )andu'o, Indaha# to (van#eine R. Cau#a"
*S#d, )atide Vda de Ra'ona
Au#ust /7, !6:9
0. Aive the 4,077 S.uare )eters at Sta. CruB Ra'ona Via#e in favor of (van#eine R.
Cau#a", ?een 'ust continue with the Sta. CruB, once I a' no on#er around.
*S#d, )atide Vda de Ra'ona
Au#ust /7, !6:9
5. Bur" 'e where '" hus&and 1usto is ever &uried.
*S#d, )atide Vda de Ra'ona
Au#ust /7, !6:9
Aene and )anue$
Foow '" instruction in order that I wi rest peacefu".
)a'a
)atide Vda de Ra'ona
On Octo&er 6, !660, the Court of Appeas, rendered decision
6
ruin# that the appea was
'eritorious. Citin# the decision in the case of A'aola %s. Singson, !76 8hi. !74, penned &" )r.
1ustice 1. B. C. Re"es, a reco#niBed authorit" in civi aw, the Court of Appeas hed$
. . . even if the #enuineness of the hoo#raphic wi were contested, we are of the opinion that
Artice 9!! of our present civi code can not &e interpreted as to re.uire the co'pusor"
presentation of three witnesses to identif" the handwritin# of the testator, under penat" of
havin# the pro&ate denied. Since no witness 'a" have &een present at the e+ecution of the
hoo#raphic wi, none &ein# re.uired &" aw *art. 9!7, new civi code,, it &eco'es o&vious
that the e+istence of witnesses possessin# the re.uisite .uaifications is a 'atter &e"ond the
contro of the proponent. For it is not 'ere" a .uestion of findin# and producin# an" three
witnesses@ the" 'ust &e witnesses =who >now the handwritin# and si#nature of the testator=
and who can decare *truthfu", of course, even if the aw does not e+press, =that the wi and
the si#nature are in the handwritin# of the testator.= There 'a" &e no avaia&e witness
ac.uainted with the testator;s hand@ or even if so fa'iiariBed, the witness 'a"&e unwiin# to
#ive a positive opinion. Co'piance with the rue of para#raph ! of artice 9!! 'a" thus
&eco'e an i'possi&iit". That is evident" the reason wh" the second para#raph of artice
9!! prescri&es that D
in the a&sence of an" co'petent witness referred to in the precedin# para#raph, and if the
court dee's it necessar", e+pert testi'on" 'a" &e resorted to.
As can &e see, the aw foresees, the possi&iit" that no .uaified witness 'a &e found *or
what a'ounts to the sa'e thin#, that no co'petent witness 'a" &e wiin# to testif" to the
authenticit" of the wi,, and provides for resort to e+pert evidence to supp" the deficienc".
It 'a" &e true that the rue of this artice *re.uirin# that three witnesses &e presented if the
wi is contested and on" one if no contest is had, was derived fro' the rue esta&ished for
ordinar" testa'ents *CF Ca&an# vs. Defianado, <0 8?IC 46!@ Toentino v. Francisco, 0:
8?IC :<4,. But it can not &e i#nored that the re.uire'ent can &e considered 'andator" on"
in case of ordinar" testa'ents, precise" &ecause the presence of at east three witnesses at
the e+ecution of ordinar" wis is 'ade &" aw essentia to their vaidit" *Art. 970,. 2here the
wi is hoo#raphic, no witness need &e present *art. !7,, and the rue re.uirin# production of
three witnesses 'ust &e dee'ed 'ere" per'issive if a&surd resuts are to &e avoided.
A#ain, under Art. 9!!, the resort to e+pert evidence is conditioned &" the words =if the court
dee' it necessar"=, which revea that what the aw dee's essentia is that the court shoud
&e convinced of the wi;s authenticit". 2here the prescri&ed nu'&er of witnesses is
produced and the court is convinced &" their testi'on" that the wi is #enuine, it 'a"
consider it unnecessar" to ca for e+pert evidence. On the other hand, if no co'petent
witness is avaia&e, or none of those produced is convincin#, the court 'a" sti, and in fact it
shoud resort to handwritin# e+perts. The dut" of the court, in fine, is to e+haust a avaia&e
ines of in.uir", for the state is as 'uch interested as the proponent that the true intention of
the testator &e carried into effect.
8araphrasin# A'aola %s. Singson, even if the #enuineness of the hoo#raphic wi were
contested, Artice 9!! of the civi code cannot &e interpreted as to re.uire the co'pusor"
presentation of three witnesses to identif" the handwritin# of the testator, under penat" of
the havin# the pro&ate denied. No witness need &e present in the e+ecution of the
hoo#raphic wi. And the rue re.uirin# the production of three witnesses is 'ere"
per'issive. 2hat the aw dee's essentia is that the court is convinced of the authenticit" of
the wi. Its dut" is to e+haust a avaia&e ines of in.uir", for the state is as 'uch interested
in the proponent that the true intention of the testator &e carried into effect. And &ecause the
aw eaves it to the tria court to decide if e+perts are sti needed, no unfavora&e inference
can &e drawn fro' a part";s faiure to offer e+pert evidence, unti and uness the court
e+presses dissatisfaction with the testi'on" of the a" witnesses.
!7
Accordin# to the Court of Appeas, (van#eine Cau#a", )atide Ra'ona Binana" and other
witnesses definite" and in no uncertain ter's testified that the handwritin# and si#nature in the
hoo#raphic wi were those of the testator hersef.
Thus, upon the unre&utted testi'on" of appeant (van#eine Cau#a" and witness )atide
Ra'ona Binana", the Court of Appeas sustained the authenticit" of the hoo#raphic wi and the
handwritin# and si#nature therein, and aowed the wi to pro&ate.
?ence, this petition.
The petitioners raise the foowin# issues$
*!, 2hether or not the ruin# of the case of A'aola %s. Singson, !76 8hi. !74, reied upon &"
the respondent Court of Appeas, was appica&e to the case.
*4, 2hether or not the Court of Appeas erred in hodin# that private respondents had &een
a&e to present credi&e evidence to that the date, te+t, and si#nature on the hoo#raphic wi
written entire" in the hand of the testatri+.
*/, 2hether or not the Court of Appeas erred in not ana"Bin# the si#natures in the
hoo#raphic wi of )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona.
In this petition, the petitioners as> whether the provisions of Artice 9!! of the Civi Code are
per'issive or 'andator". The artice provides, as a re.uire'ent for the pro&ate of a contested
hoo#raphic wi, that at east three witnesses e+picit" decare that the si#nature in the wi is the
#enuine si#nature of the testator.1wphi1.nt
2e are convinced, &ased on the an#ua#e used, that Artice 9!! of the Civi Code is 'andator".
The word =sha= connotes a 'andator" order. 2e have rued that =sha= in a statute co''on"
denotes an i'perative o&i#ation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the
presu'ption is that the word =sha,= when used in a statute is 'andator".
!!
Caws are enacted to achieve a #oa intended and to #uide a#ainst an evi or 'ischief that ai's to
prevent. In the case at &ar, the #oa to achieve is to #ive effect to the wishes of the deceased and
the evi to &e prevented is the possi&iit" that unscrupuous individuas who for their &enefit wi
e'po" 'eans to defeat the wishes of the testator.
So, we &eieve that the para'ount consideration in the present petition is to deter'ine the true
intent of the deceased. An e+haustive and o&-ective consideration of the evidence is i'perative to
esta&ish the true intent of the testator.
It wi &e noted that not a the witnesses presented &" the respondents testified e+picit" that the"
were fa'iiar with the handwritin# of testator. In the case of Au#usto Neri, cer> of court, Court of
First Instance, )isa'is Orienta, he 'ere" identified the record of Specia 8roceedin#s No. <4:
&efore said court. ?e was not presented to decare e+picit" that the si#nature appearin# in the
hoo#raphic was that of the deceased.
Generosa $. Senon, the eection re#istrar of Ca#a"an de Oro Cit", was presented to identif" the
si#nature of the deceased in the voter;s affidavit, which was not even produced as it was no
on#er avaia&e.
Matilde Ramonal Binanay, on the other hand, testified that$
E. And "ou said for eeven *!!, "ears )atide Vda de Ra'ona resided with "our parents at
8ini>itan, Ca#a"an de Oro Cit". 2oud "ou te the court what was "our occupation or how
did )atide Vda de Ra'ona >eep hersef &us" that ti'eF
A. Coectin# rentas.
E. Fro' whereF
A. Fro' the and rentas and co''ercia &uidin#s at 8a&a"oGAo'eB streets.
!4
+ + + + + + + + +
E. 2ho so'eti'e acco'pan" herF
A. I so'eti'es acco'pan" her.
E. In coectin# rentas does she issue receiptsF
A. Hes, sir.
!/
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Showin# to "ou the receipt dated 4/ Octo&er !6:6, is this the one "ou are referrin# to as
one of the receipts which she issued to the'F
A. Hes, sir.
E. Now there is that si#nature of )atide vda. De Ra'ona, whose si#nature is that )rs.
Binana"F
A. )atide vda. De Ra'ona.
E. 2h" do "ou sa" that is the si#nature of )atide Vda. De Ra'onaF
A. I a' fa'iiar with her si#nature.
E. Now, "ou te the court )rs. Binana", whether "ou >now )atide vda de Ra'ona >ept
records of the accounts of her tenantsF
A. Hes, sir.
E. 2h" do "ou sa" soF
A. Because we so'eti'es post a record of accounts in &ehaf of )atide Vda. De Ra'ona.
E. ?ow is this record of accounts 'adeF ?ow is this refectedF
A. In handwritten.
!<
+ + + + + + + + +
E. In addition to coection of rentas, postin# records of accounts of tenants and deed of
sae which "ou said what ese did "ou do to ac.uire fa'iiarit" of the si#nature of )atide Vda
De Ra'onaF
A. 8ostin# records.
E. Aside fro' thatF
A. Carr"in# etters.
E. Cetters of who'F
A. )atide.
E. To who'F
A. To her creditors.
!0
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Hou testified that at ti'e of her death she eft a wi. I a' showin# to "ou a docu'ent with
its tite =tu#on= is this the docu'ent "ou are referrin# toF
A. Hes, sir.
E. Showin# to "ou this e+hi&it =S=, there is that handwritten =tu#on=, whose handwritin# is
thisF
A. )" Aunt.
E. 2h" do "ou sa" this is the handwritin# of "our auntF
A. Because I a' fa'iiar with her si#nature.
!5
2hat )s. Binana" saw were preGprepared receipts and etters of the deceased, which she either
'aied or #ave to her tenants. She did not decare that she saw the deceased si#n a docu'ent or
write a note.
Further, durin# the crossGe+a'ination, the counse for petitioners eicited the fact that the wi was
not found in the persona &eon#in#s of the deceased &ut was in the possession of )s. Binana".
She testified that$
E. )rs. Binana", when "ou were as>ed &" counse for the petitioners if the ate )atide
Seno vda de Ra'ona eft a wi "ou said, "esF
A. Hes, sir.
E. 2ho was in possession of that wiF
A. I.
E. Since when did "ou have the possession of the wiF
A. It was in '" 'other;s possession.
E. So, it was not in "our possessionF
A. Sorr", "es.
E. And when did "ou co'e into possession since as "ou said this was ori#ina" in the
possession of "our 'otherF
A. !690.
!:
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Now, )rs. Binana" was there an" particuar reason wh" "our 'other eft that wi to "ou
and therefore "ou have that in "our possessionF
A. It was not #iven to 'e &" '" 'other, I too> that in the aparador when she died.
E. After ta>in# that docu'ent "ou >ept it with "ouF
A. I presented it to the fisca.
E. For what purposeF
A. 1ust to see> advice.
E. Advice of whatF
A. A&out the wi.
!9
In her testi'on" it was aso evident that )s. Binana" >ept the fact a&out the wi fro' petitioners,
the e#a" adopted chidren of the deceased. Such actions put in issue her 'otive of >eepin# the
wi a secret to petitioners and reveain# it on" after the death of )atide Se3o Vda. de Ra'ona.
In the testi'on" of )s. Binana", the foowin# were esta&ished$
E. Now, in !6:9 )atide Seno Vda de Ra'ona was not "et a sic>" person is that correctF
A. Hes, sir.
E. She was up and a&out and was sti upri#ht" and she coud wa> a#ie" and she coud
#o to her &uidin# to coect rentas, is that correctF
A. Hes, sir.
!6
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Now, et us #o to the third si#nature of )atide Ra'ona. Do "ou >now that there are
retracin#s in the word Vda.F
A. Hes, a itte. The etter C is continuous.
E. And aso in )atide the etter C is continued to etter DF
A. Hes, sir.
E. A#ain the third si#nature of )atide Vda de Ra'ona the etter C in )atide is continued
towards etter D.
A. Hes, sir.
E. And there is a retracin# in the word Vda.F
A. Hes, sir.
47
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Now, that was !6:6, re'e'&er one "ear after the ae#ed hoo#raphic wi. Now, "ou
identified a docu'ent 'ar>ed as (+hi&it R. This is dated 1anuar" 9, !6:9 which is on" a&out
ei#ht 'onths fro' Au#ust /7, !6:9. Do "ou notice that the si#nature )atide Vda de
Ra'ona is &eautifu" written and e#i&eF
A. Hes, sir the handwritin# shows that she was ver" e+hausted.
E. Hou -ust sa" that she was ver" e+hausted whie that in !6:9 she was heath" was not
sic>" and she was a#ie. Now, "ou said she was e+haustedF
A. In writin#.
E. ?ow did "ou >now that she was e+hausted when "ou were not present and "ou -ust tried
to e+pain "oursef out &ecause of the apparent inconsistenciesF
A. That was I thin>. *sic,.
E. Now, "ou aread" o&served this si#nature dated !6:9, the sa'e "ear as the ae#ed
hoo#raphic wi. In e+hi&it I, "ou wi notice that there is no retracin#@ there is no hesitanc"
and the si#nature was written on a fuid 'ove'ent. . . . And in fact, the na'e (ufe'ia R.
8ati#as here refers to one of the petitionersF
A. Hes, sir.
E. Hou wi aso notice )rs. Binana" that it is not on" with the .uestioned si#nature
appearin# in the ae#ed hoo#raphic wi 'ar>ed as (+hi&it I &ut in the handwritin#
the'seves, here "ou wi notice the hesitanc" and tre'ors, do "ou notice thatF
A. Hes, sir.
4!
(van#eine Cau#a" decared that the hoo#raphic wi was written, dated and si#ned in the
handwritin# of the testator. She testified that$
E. Hou testified that "ou sta"ed with the house of the spouses )atide and 1usto Ra'ona
for the period of 44 "ears. Coud "ou te the court the services if an" which "ou rendered to
)atide Ra'onaF
A. Durin# '" sta" I used to #o with her to the church, to 'ar>et and then to her
transactions.
E. 2hat eseF 2hat services that "ou renderedF
A. After '" coe#e da"s I assisted her in #oin# to the &an>, pa"in# ta+es and to her aw"er.
E. 2hat was "our purpose of #oin# to her aw"erF
A. I used to &e her persona driver.
E. In the course of "our sta" for 44 "ears did "ou ac.uire fa'iiarit" of the handwritin# of
)atide Vda de Ra'onaF
A. Hes, sir.
E. ?ow co'e that "ou ac.uired fa'iiarit"F
A. Because I ived with her since &irth.
44
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Now, I a' showin# to "ou (+hi&it S which is captioned =tu#on= dated A#osto /7, !6:9
there is a si#nature here &eow ite' No. !, wi "ou te this court whose si#nature is thisF
A. Hes, sir, that is her si#nature.
E. 2h" do "ou sa" that is her si#natureF
A. I a' fa'iiar with her si#nature.
4/
So, the on" reason that (van#eine can #ive as to wh" she was fa'iiar with the handwritin# of
the deceased was &ecause she ived with her since &irth. She never decared that she saw the
deceased write a note or si#n a docu'ent.
The for'er aw"er of the deceased, Fisca 2a#a, testified that$
E. Do "ou >now )atide Vda de Ra'onaF
A. Hes, sir I >now her &ecause she is '" #od'other the hus&and is '" #odfather. Actua" I
a' reated to the hus&and &" consan#uinit".
E. Can "ou te the na'e of the hus&andF
A. The ate hus&and is 1usto Ra'ona.
4<
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Can "ou te this court whether the spouses 1usto Ra'ona and )atide Ra'ona have
e#iti'ate chidrenF
A. As far as I >now the" have no e#iti'ate chidren.
40
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Hou said after &eco'in# a aw"er "ou practice "our professionF 2hereF
A. ?ere in Ca#a"an de Oro Cit".
E. Do "ou have services rendered with the deceased )atide vda de Ra'onaF
A. I assisted her in ter'inatin# the partition, of properties.
E. 2hen "ou said assisted, "ou acted as her counseF An" sort of counse as in what case
is that, FiscaF
A. It is a&out the pro-ect partition to ter'inate the propert", which was under the court
&efore.
45
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Appearin# in specia proceedin# no. <4: is the a'ended inventor" which is 'ar>ed as
e+hi&it N of the estate of 1usto Ra'ona and there appears a si#nature over the t"pe written
word )atide vda de Ra'ona, whose si#nature is thisF
A. That is the si#nature of )atide Vda de Ra'ona.
E. Aso in e+hi&it nG/, whose si#nature is thisF
A. This one here that is the si#nature of )rs. )atide vda de Ra'ona.
4:
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Aside fro' attendin# as counse in that Specia 8roceedin# Case No. <4: what were the
other assistance wherein "ou were renderin# professiona service to the deceased )atide
Vda de Ra'onaF
A. I can not re'e'&er if I have assisted her in other 'atters &ut if there are docu'ents to
show that I have assisted then I can reca.
49
+ + + + + + + + +
E. Now, I a' showin# to "ou e+hi&it S which is tited =tu#on=, >ind" #o over this docu'ent,
Fisca 2a#a and te the court whether "ou are fa'iiar with the handwritin# contained in that
docu'ent 'ar>ed as e+hi&it =S=F
A. I a' not fa'iiar with the handwritin#.
E. This one, )atide Vda de Ra'ona, whose si#nature is thisF
A. I thin> this si#nature here it see's to &e the si#nature of )rs. )atide vda de Ra'ona.
E. Now, in ite' No. 4 there is that si#nature here of )atide Vda de Ra'ona, can "ou te
the court whose si#nature is thisF
A. 2e, that is si'iar to that si#nature appearin# in the pro-ect of partition.
E. Aso in ite' no. / there is that si#nature )atide Vda de Ra'ona, can "ou te the court
whose si#nature is thatF
A. As I said, this si#nature aso see's to &e the si#nature of )atide vda de Ra'ona.
E. 2h" do "ou sa" thatF
A. Because there is a si'iarit" in the wa" it is &ein# written.
E. ?ow a&out this si#nature in ite' no. <, can "ou te the court whose si#nature is thisF
A. The sa'e is true with the si#nature in ite' no. <. It see's that the" are si'iar.
46
+ + + + + + + + +
E. )r. 8rosecutor, I heard "ou when "ou said that the si#nature of )atide Vda de Ra'ona
Appearin# in e+hi&it S see's to &e the si#nature of )atide vda de Ra'onaF
A. Hes, it is si'iar to the pro-ect of partition.
E. So "ou are not definite that this is the si#nature of )atide vda de Ra'ona. Hou are
'ere" supposin# that it see's to &e her si#nature &ecause it is si'iar to the si#nature of
the pro-ect of partition which "ou have 'adeF
A. That is true.
/7
Fro' the testi'onies of these witnesses, the Court of Appeas aowed the wi to pro&ate and
disre#ard the re.uire'ent of three witnesses in case of contested hoo#raphic wi, citin# the
decision in A'aola %s. Singson,
/!
ruin# that the re.uire'ent is 'ere" director" and not
'andator".
In the case of A(ero %s. &ourt o Appeals,
/4
we said that =the o&-ect of the soe'nities surroundin#
the e+ecution of wis is to cose the door a#ainst &ad faith and fraud, to avoid su&stitution of wis
and testa'ents and to #uarant" their truth and authenticit". Therefore, the aws on this su&-ect
shoud &e interpreted in such a wa" as to attain these pri'ordia ends. But on the other hand,
aso one 'ust not ose si#ht of the fact that it is not the o&-ect of the aw to restrain and curtai the
e+ercise of the ri#ht to 'a>e a wi.
?owever, we cannot ei'inate the possi&iit" of a fase docu'ent &ein# ad-ud#ed as the wi of the
testator, which is wh" if the hoo#raphic wi is contested, that aw re.uires three witnesses to
decare that the wi was in the handwritin# of the deceased.
The wi was found not in the persona &eon#in#s of the deceased &ut with one of the
respondents, who >ept it even &efore the death of the deceased. In the testi'on" of )s. Binana",
she reveaed that the wi was in her possession as ear" as !690, or five "ears &efore the death
of the deceased.
There was no opportunit" for an e+pert to co'pare the si#nature and the handwritin# of the
deceased with other docu'ents si#ned and e+ecuted &" her durin# her ifeti'e. The on" chance
at co'parison was durin# the crossGe+a'ination of )s. Binana" when the aw"er of petitioners
as>ed )s. Binana" to co'pare the docu'ents which contained the si#nature of the deceased
with that of the hoo#raphic wi and she is not a handwritin# e+pert. (ven the for'er aw"er of the
deceased e+pressed dou&ts as to the authenticit" of the si#nature in the hoo#raphic wi.
A visua e+a'ination of the hoo#raphic wi convince us that the stro>es are different when
co'pared with other docu'ents written &" the testator. The si#nature of the testator in so'e of
the disposition is not reada&e. There were uneven stro>es, retracin# and erasures on the wi.
Co'parin# the si#nature in the hoo#raphic wi dated Au#ust /7, !6:9,
//
and the si#natures in
severa docu'ents such as the appication etter for pasture per'it dated Dece'&er /7, !697,
/<
and a etter dated 1une !5, !6:9,
/0
the stro>es are different. In the etters, there are continuous
fows of the stro>es, evidencin# that there is no hesitation in writin# uni>e that of the hoo#raphic
wi. 2e, therefore, cannot &e certain that ruin# hoo#raphic wi was in the handwritin# &" the
deceased.
IN VI(2 2?(R(OF, the decision appeaed fro' is S(T ASID(. The records are ordered
re'anded to the court of ori#in with instructions to aow petitioners to adduce evidence in support
of their opposition to the pro&ate of the hoo#raphic wi of the deceased )atide Se3o vda. de
Ra'ona.1wphi1.nt
No costs.
SO ORD(R(D.