Codoy vs. Calugay Case Digest G.R. No. 123486 August 12, 1999 312 SCRA 333

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.