Codoy vs Calugay

Facts: The deceased Matilde Seno Vda de Ramonal executed a holographic will on August 30, 1978.
Herein respondents Eugenia Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas are devisees and legatees
of the holographic will of the deceased. They filed with the RTC of Misamis a petition for probate of the
holographic will of Matilde who died on 16 January 1990. Petitioners Eugenia Codoy and Manuel Ramonal
filed an opposition to the probate stating that the holographic will was a forgery and the same was illegible.
Respondents however contend that the deceased was of sound and disposing mind when she executed the
will and that no fraud or undue influence and duress happened and that the will was written voluntarily. They
presented six witnesses with various documentary evidence. Petitioners on their part filed a demurrer to
evidence claiming that respondents failed to establish to establish sufficient factual and legal basis for the
probate of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal. All the 6 witnesses that
respondents presented expressed familiarity with the deceased’s signature. But there was no mention of the
fact that there were witnesses at the time Matilde executed the will. The lower court denied the probate. On
appeal, respondents again reiterated the testimony of the witnesses Augusto, Generosa, Matilde Binanay,
Teresita, Fiscal Waga, and Evangeline. The CA sustained the authenticity of the holographic will and
allowed the probate. Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the provisions of Article 811 of the Civil Code are permissive or mandatory

Held. The Court ruled that it is 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. 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.” Fiscal Waga one of the
witnesses expressed doubts as to the signature of the deceased. Evangeline, on her part, testified that 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. In Matilde’s testimony, she saw
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. Furthermore, 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. The will was also not found in the possession of the deceased when she died. 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. 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 the holographic will was in the handwriting by the deceased.