To clarify further the option to require expert

- 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.