To clarify further the option to require expert evidence depends on the

To clarify further the option to require expert

This preview shows page 35 - 36 out of 162 pages.

- To clarify further, the option to require expert evidence depends on the discretion of the court. If the court is convinced by the testimony of the witnesses, it may no longer ask for expert evidence. However, if there is no competent witness or if those produced were not convincing, the court may accordingly call for expert evidence. - Thus, the case is remanded to allow the parties to adduce additional evidence including expert testimony. - Art 811 requiring three witnesses in the probate of a contested holographic will is merely directive and not mandatory. Codoy v. Calugay - On 6 April 1990, Evangeline Calugay, Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas, devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda. de Ramonal, filed a petition for probate of the said will. - They attested to the genuineness and due execution of the will on 30 August 1978. - Eugenio Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed their opposition claiming that the will was a forgery and that the same is even illegible. - They raised doubts as regards the repeated appearing on the will after every disposition, calling the same out of the ordinary. - If the will was in the handwriting of the deceased, it was improperly procured. - Evangeline Calugay, etc. presented 6 witnesses and various documentary evidence. - The first witness was the clerk of court of the probate court who produced and identified the records of the case bearing the signature of the deceased. - The second witness was election registrar who was made to produce and identify the voter’s affidavit, but failed to as the same was already destroyed and no longer available. - The third, the deceased’s niece , claimed that she had acquired familiarity with the deceased’s signature and handwriting as she used to accompany her in collecting rentals from her various tenants of commercial buildings and the deceased always issued receipts. - The niece also testified that the deceased left a holographic will entirely written, dated and signed by said deceased. - The fourth witness was a former lawyer for the deceased in the intestate proceedings of her late husband, who said that the signature on the will was similar to that of the deceased but that he can not be sure. - The fifth was an employee of the DENR who testified that she was familiar with the signature of the deceased which appeared in the latter’s application for pasture permit. - The fifth, respondent Evangeline Calugay , claimed that she had lived with the deceased since birth where she had become familiar with her signature and that the one appearing on the will was genuine. - Codoy and Ramonal’s demurrer to evidence was granted by the lower court. It was reversed on appeal with the Court of Appeals which granted the probate.
Image of page 35
Image of page 36

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 162 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture