(p

..

~~

i\.tpublit of tbt tlbflippint~

&uprtmt Court
:flanila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution

dated March 11, 2015, which reads as follows:

G.R. No.129358 - FLORDELIZA STA. ROMANA,

Petitioner, v. WILHELMINA C. TAPALLA, Respondent.

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the May 19, 1997
Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50405, entitled
"Wilhelmina C. Tapalla v. Flordeliza Sta. Romana," which affirmed the
November 4, 1994 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
32, Manila (Manila RTC), acting as a probate court, in Special Proceeding
(Sp. Proc.) No. 94-68888, entitled "In re: In the matter for the approval of
the Holographic Last Will and Testament of the late Severino C. Sta.
Romana a.k.a. J. Antonio Diaz and for Letters Testamentary and
Administration, Wilhelmina C. Tapalla, petitioner."

The salient facts, as culled from the records of the case, are as
follows:

On January 11, 1994, Wilhelmina C. Tapalla (Tapalla) filed a

petition before the Manila RTC for the Allowance of the Holographic Last
Will and Testament of Severino G. Sta. Romana (Sta. Romana), allegedly
also known as "J. Antonio Diaz," and the issuance of letters testamentary
and administration in her favor, as the person nominated by Luz Rambano

Rollo, pp. 46-61; penned by Associate Justice Salome A. Montoya with Associate Justices
Eugenio S. Labitoria and Omar U. Amin, concurring.
2

~
CA rollo, pp. 38-56.

-over- (15 pages)

255
 RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

(Rambano ), the alleged spouse of Sta. Romana, to act for the benefit of the
heirs and legatees in the will.

~Jl'i~::: ~~i; ~:i:,.~~~i)l.~fon was opposed by the children of Sta. Romana, Flordeliza
;fi'i"lp1ir"'¥t£'~~·(flordeliza) and Roy Sta. Romana (Roy), who alleged that
! Ii: ; ~~~pl;!Ua~f.fl ii<\IJegal personality to file the petition not only because she
,\)~ V • 0~ b b
\~J ~:·\_..,. ~~.g.~ ~Jt?X~S JR ~ta. Romana's e~tat_e, ut more so ecause she could not
1
11
f ' /·• ·

--=~-.-Acf!!f~ii!1t:~nty from her pnnc1pal, Rambano, as the latter was not

--··---··legally--maIT~etr-··to Sta. Romana. The oppositors, Flordeliza and Roy,
claimed that Sta. Romana, their father, was married to their mother, Salud
Tan, who was still alive and residing in Cabanatuan at that time. They also
accused Tapalla of forum shopping as Rambano had already filed two
petitions involving the estate of Sta. Romana: one in a Manila Court of
First Instance (Manila CFI) for the settlement of Sta. Romana's intestate
estate; and another one in the RTC of Makati (Makati RTC) for the
allowance of the same holographic will subject of Tapalla's petition in the
Manila RTC. The oppositors averred that the holographic will was
spurious and fake for having been executed after the death of Sta. Romana,
and for having been signed in a different name, i.e., J. Antonio Diaz. They
also contended that if Sta. Romana had really wanted to write a will, he
would have sought the help of his brother, who was a judge at that time.
Moreover, the oppositors said, if there were really a holographic will, it
should have been submitted to the R TC of Cabanatuan (Cabanatuan R TC),
where intestate proceedings for the settlement of Sta. Romana' s estate had
already begun, and, which venue was proper, as Sta. Romana was a
resident of Cabanatuan City. Finally, the oppositors argued that the Manila
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for being legally
defective and because under Republic Act No. 7691, jurisdiction for the
probate of Sta. Romana's estate, which Tapalla estimated to be at
Pl 00,000.00, should have been with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial
Court.

In her pleadings before the ManilaRTC, Tapalla alleged that she was
a person of good reputation and high morals and that she was nominated by
the wife of Sta. Romana, Luz Rambano, and the other heirs and legatees to
be the Executrix/Administratrix of Sta. Romana' s estate. Tapalla alleged
that Sta. Romana was a resident of Manila as he was living there before he
fell ill, and that he died in Cabanatuan City, only because he was
transferred to a hospital there, from a hospital in Manila, right before he
died. She clarified that it was in 1975 when Rambano had filed with the
Manila CFI a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Sta.
Romana, as the will was not in Rambano' s possession then; the Manila CFI
appointed Rambano as Administratrix and Flordeliza as Co-Administratrix

~
255
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

before the petition was dismissed in 1985 for failure to prosecute for an
unreasonable length of time. Tapalla added that in that petition, Flordeliza
never raised as an issue the residence of her father. Tapalla said that
Rambano, who was holding the biggest interest over the testate estate of
Sta. Romana, nominated her to act for the benefit of the heirs and legatees
in the will, thus, she had already spent a considerable amount of money in
ascertaining, checking, and determining the assets left by Sta. Romana.
She asseverated that the oppositors' allegations that their mother, Salud
Tan, was the legal wife and not Rambano should have been supported by
evidence. Tapalla also argued that the rule on forum shopping did not
apply as neither she nor Rambano was a party to the proceedings in the
Makati RTC.

On March 8, 1994, the Manila RTC granted Tapalla's urgent ex

parte motion for Special Raffle and for her appointment as Special
Administratrix, which was filed on the grounds that some of Sta. Romana's
deposits in banks outside the Philippines were in danger of being escheated
for having been idle for over twenty years.

At the hearing for the allowance of the will, Alfeo Barinki, a

supposed business associate of Sta. Romana, was presented to testify how
he accompanied Sta. Romana to the hospital in Manila, how Sta. Romana
wrote the will in front of him, and how Sta. Romana handed him the will
after for safekeeping. Tarciana Rodriguez was also presented by Tapalla,
as she had witnessed Sta. Romana write the will in his hospital room.

On November 4, 1994, the Manila RTC issued its Decision,

admitting, approving, and allowing the holographic last will and testament
of Severino G. Sta. Romana as his last will and testament. The Manila
RTC found the discrepancy in the date to be a mere error, which did not
affect the validity of the will. The Manila R TC also held that the fact that
Sta. Romana signed in his alias, "J. Antonio Diaz," does not render the will
invalid. The Manila RTC found Alfeo Barinki and Tarciana Rodriguez to
be competent witnesses who saw and knew the handwriting and signature
of Sta. Romana.

Thefallo of the Manila RTC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, this Court hereby ADMITS, APPROVES, and

ALLOWS the HOLOGRAPHIC LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT of
SEVERINO G. STA. ROMANA (Exhibits "C" and "C-1" to "C-5") as
his LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT. 3

Id. at 56. ~
255
 RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

On November 29, 1994, the oppositors filed a Notice of Appeal to

the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, on May 19, 1997, affirmed the decision of the
Manila RTC. The dispositive portion of the decision states:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision

of the Probate Court dated November 4, 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED.

4
Costs against the oppositor-appellant.

In the meantime, Rambano was found, declared, and instituted as an

heir of and to the Testate Estate of Sta. Romana in an Order5 dated May 16,
1997 of the Manila RTC.

Undaunted, Flordeliza is now before this Court via a petition for

review on certiorari, raising the following issues:

I.

THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ADMITTING THE

HOLOGRAPHIC WILL

II.

THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE

VENUE AND JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER COURT

III.

THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS GROSSLY ERRED WHEN IT

UPHELD THE RIGHT OF RESPONDENT WILHELMINA TAPALLA
TO FILE THE PETITION, AND HER APPOINTMENT AS
ADMINISTRATRIX

IV.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO INVALIDATE

THE INSTITUTION OF HEIRS

4
Rollo, p. 60.
Id. at 86-89. 255
~
RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

v.
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO
CONSIDER THE VIOLATION ON THE RULE OF "FORUM
SHOPPING"6

Flordeliza insists that the holographic will Tapalla presented to the

Manila RTC for probate is spurious and fake for being dated after her
father's death; and signed in a name other than her father's legal and true
name. Further, she reasons that if there was really a holographic will, it
should have been submitted to the Cabanatuan RTC, the proper venue, and
where intestate proceedings have already started. Flordeliza also faults
Tapalla of forum shopping because the holographic will subject of this
case, has been submitted to other courts before for probate.

Tapalla, on the other hand, contends that this petition should be

dismissed as Flordeliza raised only questions of fact. Moreover, Tapalla
claims that Flordeliza's arguments are a mere rehash of what she has
already posited before the Court of Appeals, with no new substantial
matters. 7

The Court's Ruling

Venue and Jurisdiction of the

ManilaRTC

Flordeliza argues that the petition for probate should have been filed
in Cabanatuan City, which was Sta. Romana's residence, where the
intestate proceedings for his estate had already begun; and that according to
Republic Act No. 7691, entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts, Amending For The Purpose Batas Pambansa Big. 129,
Otherwise Known As The 'Judiciary Reorganization Act Of 1980,"'
particularly Section 1 thereof, the RTC is vested with jurisdiction over
probate matters in Metro Manila, wherein the gross value exceeds Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (;p200,000.00). 8

6
Id. at 26-40.
7
Id. at 118-120.
Republic Act No. 7691, Section 1, amending Section 19(4) of Batas Pambansa Big 129, to wit:
Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Big. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980," is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
xx xx
~
255
RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

The Manila RTC and the Court of Appeals are one in finding that
Sta. Romana was a resident of Manila at the time of his death as most of
his businesses were there. Such factual finding, absent a showing that it is
totally devoid of support or is glaringly erroneous, will not be analyzed,
weighed, or disturbed by this Court. 9

With regard to whether or not the Cabanatuan RTC has preference

over the settlement of Sta. Romana's estate having taken first cognizance
over it, it is a settled rule that for the settlement of the estate of a deceased
person, testate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings,
even if at that stage, an administrator had already been appointed. This,
however, is without prejudice to the continuance of the proceeding as an
intestacy, should the alleged last will be rejected or disapproved. Simply
put, proceedings for the probate of a will enjoy priority over intestate
proceedings. 10 Given the foregoing, the Cabanatuan RTC should hold its
intestate proceedings in abeyance to give way to the probate proceedings in
the Manila RTC.

As to the jurisdictional amounts 11 indicated in Republic Act No.

7691, suffice it to say that the law, which was approved on March 25,
1994, only took effect on April 15, 1994, 12 or after the Manila RTC had
already taken cognizance ofTapalla's petition for probate of Sta. Romana's
will. Moreover, Tapalla had already been appointed as Special
Administratrix in March 1994 when the law took effect in April 1994.
Thus, the jurisdiction over the probate of the subject holographic will
remains with the Manila RTC.

Tapalla 's Appointment as

Administratrix

The fact that Tapalla is not an heir to the estate of Sta. Romana
should not prevent her from being qualified as one.

"(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value
of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (Pl00,000.00) or, in probate
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00)[.]
9
Nittscher v. Dr. Nittscher, 563 Phil. 254, 260 (2007).
10
Uriarte v. The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (12 1h Judicial District), 144 Phil.
205, 213 (1970).
11
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate
exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (PI00,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such
rzoss value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (12200,000.00)[.]
2
After publication in the March 30, 1994 issues of the Philippine Journal and Malaya (Office of
the Court Administrator Circular No. 21-99).

~
255
RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

The appointment of a special administrator lies entirely in the sound

discretion of the court. 13 Sections 1 and 2, Rule 80 of the Rules of Court,
dictates:

SECTION 1. Appointment ofspecial administrator.-When there

is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by any cause
including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will, the
court may appoint a special administrator to take possession and charge
of the estate of the deceased until the questions causing the delay are
decided and executors or administrators appointed.

SEC. 2. Powers and duties of special administrator.-Such

special administrator shall take possession and charge of the goods,
chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased and preserve the same
for the executor or administrator afterwards appointed, and for that
purpose may commence and maintain suits as administrator. He may sell
only such perishable and other property as the court orders sold. A
special administrator shall not be liable to pay any debts of the deceased
unless so ordered by the court.

For purposes of. the specific and limited powers of a special

administrator, the selection of whom is left to the sound discretion of the
court, the need to first pass upon and resolve the issue of fitness or
unfitness as would be proper in the case of a regular administrator, does not
obtain. 14

As this Court held in Heirs ofBelinda Dahlia A. Castillo v. Lacuata-

Gabrie/15:

[T]he appointment of a special administrator lies in the sound discretion

of the probate court. A special administrator is a representative of a
decedent appointed by the probate court to care for and preserve his
estate until an executor or general administrator is appointed. When
appointed, a special administrator is regarded not as a representative of
the agent of the parties suggesting the appointment, but as the
administrator in charge of the estate, and, in fact, as an officer of the
court. As such officer, he is subject to the supervision and control of the
probate court and is expected to work for the best interests of the entire
estate, especially its smooth administration and earliest settlement. The
principal object of appointment of temporary administrator is to preserve
the estate until it can pass into hands of person fully authorized to
administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs. In many instances, the
appointment of administrators for the estates of decedents frequently

13
De Gala v. Gonzales, 53 Phil. 104, 106 (1929).
14
Rivera v. Santos, 124 Phil. 1557, 1561 (1966).

~
15
511 Phil. 371, 380-382 (2005).

255
 RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

become involved in protracted litigations, thereby exposing such estates

to great waste and losses unless an authorized agent to collect the debts
and preserve the assets in the interim is appointed. The occasion for such
an appointment, likewise, arises where, for some cause, such as a
pendency of a suit concerning the proof of the will, regular
administration is delayed.

Section 1, Rule 80 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Appointment of Special Administrator.

- When there is delay in granting letters testamentary or
of administration by any cause including an appeal from
the allowance or disallowance of a will, the court may
appoint a special administrator to take possession and
charge of the estate of the deceased until the questions
causing the delay are decided and executors or
administrators appointed.

The new Rules have broadened the basis for the appointment of
an administrator, and such appointment is allowed when there is delay in
granting letters testamentary or administration by any cause, e.g., parties
cannot agree among themselves. Nevertheless, the discretion to appoint
a special administrator or not lies in the probate court.

And likewise in Ocampo v. Ocampo, 16 this Court reiterated that:

While the RTC considered that respondents were the nearest of

kin to their deceased parents in their appointment as joint special
administrators, this is not a mandatory requirement for the appointment.
It has long been settled that the selection or removal of special
administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the selection or
removal of regular administrators. The probate court may appoint or
remove special administrators based on grounds other than those
enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, such that the need to first pass
upon and resolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the application of
the order of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78, as would be proper in
the case of a regular administrator, do not obtain. As long as the
discretion is exercised without grave abuse, and is based on reason,
equity, justice, and legal principles, interference by higher courts is
unwarranted. x x x.

But Manungas v. Loreto and Parreno 17 cautions that:

While the trial court has the discretion to appoint anyone as a

special administrator of the estate, such discretion must be exercised
with reason, guided by the directives of equity, justice and legal

16
637 Phil. 545, 556-557(2010).
17
G.R. No. 193161,August22,2011,655 SCRA 734, 746.

255 . ~
RESOLUTION 9 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

principles. It may, therefore, not be remiss to reiterate that the role of a

special administrator is to preserve the estate until a regular administrator
is appointed x x x.

xx xx

Given this duty on the part of the special administrator, it would,

therefore, be prudent and reasonable to appoint someone interested in
preserving the estate for its eventual distribution to the heirs. Such choice
would ensure that such person would not expose the estate to losses that
would effectively diminish his or her share. While the court may use its
discretion and depart from such reasoning, still, there is no logical reason
to appoint a person who is a debtor of the estate and otherwise a stranger
to the deceased. To do so would be tantamount to grave abuse of
discretion.

Herein, Tapalla, in representation of Rambano, was the one who

submitted Sta. Romana's will for allowance, and the Manila RTC deemed
it urgent to appoint her as Special Adminsitratrix to avoid escheat
proceedings against some of Sta. Romana's foreign bank deposits.

But note, however, that on September 6, 1995, while the case was on
appeal to the Court of Appeals, Tapalla's appointment as Rambano's
representative had been supposedly revoked by the latter. 18 If this fact is
true, it would be erroneous for this Court to affirm the appointment of
Tapalla as Special Administratrix given that from that moment, she was not
just a stranger to the deceased, but now to the parties as well.

Institution ofHeirs

With respect to the Order of the Manila RTC instituting Rambano as

an heir of Sta. Romana, point must be made of the fact that it was issued
only three days prior to the promulgation of the assailed decision of the
Court of Appeals. As such, it was not an issue raised in the petition to be
resolved by the appellate court. Hence, no reversible error was committed
by the latter when it did not tackle the propriety of the subject Order.

Date and Signature in Subject

Holographic Will

Flordeliza insists that the subject holographic will is fake and

spurious as it was dated a month after his father's death and signed in a
name other than his legal name.

18
Rollo, p. 79.

~
255
 RESOLUTION 10 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

Neither the erroneous date nor the alias name used is enough to
invalidate the subject holographic will. Under Article 810 of the Civil
Code, viz:

Art. 810. A person may execute a holographic will which must be

entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It
is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines,
and need not be witnessed.

As this Court held:

If the testator, in executing his Will, attempts to comply with all the
requisites, although compliance is not literal, it is sufficient if the
objective or purpose sought to be accomplished by such requisite is
actually attained by the form followed by the testator.

The purpose of the solemnities surrounding the execution of

Wills has been expounded by this Court in Abangan v. Abangan, 40 Phil.
476, where we ruled that:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the

execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith
and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments
and to guaranty their truth and authenticity. xx x. 19

In this case, both the trial and appellate courts were satisfied that the
erroneous date on the subject holographic will was a mere error by the
testator as testified to by Alfeo Barinki and Tarciana Rodriguez. The two
witnesses assert that they saw Sta. Romana write the subject holographic
will on September 21, 1974. Moreover, both courts agreed that the day,
i.e., Saturday, as indicated in the subject holographic will, coincided with
the date September 21, 1974, and not October 21, 197 4.

Per In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. de Jesus and

Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, Simeon R. Roxas & Pedro Roxas de Jesus v. De
Jesus, Jr. ,20 this Court allowed the probate of the letter-holographic will of
Bibiana Roxas de Jesus even though it was dated only as "FEB./61." The
Court therein ratiocinated that -

This will not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict
and literal application of the statutory requirements regarding the due

19
In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus, Simeon
R. Roxas & Pedro Roxas de Jesus v. De Jesus, Jr., G.R. No. L-38338, January 28, 1985, 134 SCRA 245,
250-251.
20
Id. at 249-250.

~
255
RESOLUTION 11 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

execution of Wills. We should not overlook the liberal trend of the Civil
Code in the manner of execution of Wills, the purpose of which, in case
of doubt is to prevent intestacy -

The underlying and fundamental objectives

permeating the provisions of the law on wills in this
Project consists in the liberalization of the manner of their
execution with the end in view of giving the testator more
freedom in expressing his last wishes, but with sufficient
safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of
fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure
and influence upon the testator.

This objective is in accord with the modem

tendency with respect to the formalities in the execution
of wills. (Report of the Code Commission, p. 103)

In Justice Capistrano's concurring opinion in Heirs of Raymundo

Castro v. Bustos (27 SCRA 327) he emphasized that:

xx xx

x x x The law has a tender regard for the will of the

testator expressed in his last will and testament on the
ground that any disposition made by the testator is better
than that which the law can make. For this reason,
intestate succession is nothing more than a disposition
based upon the presumed will of the decedent.

Thus, the prevailing policy is to require satisfaction of the legal

requirements in order to guard against fraud and bad faith but without
undue or unnecessary curtailment of testamentary privilege (Jcasiano v.
Jcasiano, 11 SCRA 422). If a Will has been executed in substantial
compliance with the formalities of the .law, and the possibility of bad
faith and fraud in the exercise thereof is obviated, said Will should be
admitted to probate (Rey v. Cartagena, 56 Phil. 282). Thus,

xx xx

x x x More than anything else, the facts and

circumstances of record are to be considered in the
application of any given rule. If the surrounding
circumstances point to a regular execution of the will, and
the instrument appears to have been executed
substantially in accordance with the requirements of the
law, the inclination should, in the absence of any
suggestion of bad faith, forgery or fraud, lean towards its
admission to probate, although the document may suffer
from some imperfection of language, or other non-
essential defect.xx x. (Leynez v. Leynez, 68 Phil. 745).

·~
255
 RESOLUTION 12 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

As to the name "J. Antonio Diaz" supposedly signed by Sta. Romana

in said will, the law only requires that such is to be done by the hand of the
testator himself and nothing more. This Court agrees with the Court of
Appeals when it explained succinctly that -

It is accepted that the testator may do anything on his will as long

as his intentions are made clear. In this case, Severino Sta. Romana
signed "J. Antonio Diaz", one of his several aliases and business names.
It appears that many of his associates knew him as J. Antonio Diaz, and
therefore, there was a perfectly legitimate explanation why he signed his
will as such. Notably, his will contained instructions about his business
ventures, therefore, in order to be understood and to eliminate confusion,
he used his business name. Having done so did not affect the validity of
the will. 21

But the above notwithstanding, and the fact that while Flordeliza
questions the subject signature for not having been her father's legal name,
i.e., Severino Sta. Romana, she does not dispute that her father would at
times use the alias "J. Antonio Diaz." This Court is of the opinion that the
testimonies of Alfeo Barinki and Tarciana Rodriguez to the effect that they
both saw Sta. Romana writing the subject will and that Sta. Romana would
at times, especially in his business dealings, use the alias "J. Antonio Diaz,"
are insufficient to definitively establish that Sta. Romana and "J. Antonio
Diaz" are, indeed, one and the same person. Especially so that they are both
interested in the estate of the late Sta. Romana, both being legatees in the
herein contested holographic will. Additional proof, both documentary and
testimonial, must be presented in court to establish the allegation that Sta.
Romana used and signed in documents the alias "J. Antonio Diaz."

Since a signature may be defined as an identifying mark or feature, 22

Sta. Romana's act of placing his signature, by his hand, in the subject
holographic will, albeit in the form of "J. Antonio Diaz," is enough to serve
the purpose of authenticating such will, but only if it is proven that he
habitually used such signature to authenticate and mark other documents.

Authenticity of the Will

This Court disagrees with both the trial and appellate courts' holding
that the rule on the number of witnesses to attest to the authenticity or
genuineness of Sta. Romana's holographic will had been satisfied as the

21
Rollo, p. 59.
22
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1993).

255
~
RESOLUTION 13 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

rule on the nmnber of witnesses differs depending on whether the

holographic will is contested or not.

The Civil Code provides:

Art. 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be

necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and
signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature
are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at least
three of such witnesses shall be required.

In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the

preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony
may be resorted to. (Emphasis supplied.)

Rule 76 of the Rules of Court separated in two sections the rules on

uncontested and contested wills, to wit:

Sec. 5. Proof at hearing. What sufficient in absence of contest. -

At the hearing compliance with the provisions of the last two preceding
sections must be shown before the introduction of testimony in support
of the will. All such testimony shall be taken under oath and reduced to
writing. If no person appears to contest the allowance of the will, the
court may grant allowance thereof on the testimony of one of the
subscribing witnesses only, if such witness testify that the will was
executed as is required by law.

In the case of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least

one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator
explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of
the testator. In the absence of any such competent witness, and if the
court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.

xx xx

Sec. 11. Subscribing witnesses produced or accounted for where

will contested - If the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and
the notary in the case of wills executed under. the Civil Code of the
Philippines, if present in the Philippines and not insane, must be
produced and examined, and the death, absence, or insanity of any of
them must be satisfactorily shown to the court. If all or some of such
witnesses are present in the Philippines but outside the province where
the will has been filed, their deposition must be taken. If any or all of
them testify against the due execution of the will, or do not remember
having attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful credibility, the will
may, nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimony
of other witnesses and from all the evidence presented that the will was
executed and attested in the manner required by law.

~
255
 RESOLUTION 14 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

If a holographic will is contested, the same shall be allowed if

at least three (3) witnesses who know the handwriting of the testator
explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the
handwriting of the testator; in the absence of any competent witness,
and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted
to. (Emphasis supplied.)

It cannot be denied that Flordeliza has, time and again, contested the
genuineness of Sta. Romana's holographic will. As such, this Court's
interpretation of the above provision in Coday v. Calugay23 applies:

We are convinced, based on the language used, that Article 811

of the Civil Code is mandatory. 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.

Laws are enacted to achieve a goal intended and to guide against

an evil or mischief that aims to prevent. In the case at bar, the goal to
achieve is to give effect to the wishes of the deceased and the evil to be
prevented is the possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for their
benefit will employ means to defeat the wishes of the testator.

The Court is aware that in interpreting the laws on the solemnities

surrounding the execution of wills, it must not lose sight of the fact that it is
not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to
make a will, but only to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of wills and testaments, and to guaranty their truth and
. . 24
authentic1ty.

However, the possibility of a false document being adjudged as the

will of a testator cannot be eliminated, 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. 25

The fact that the will was presented for probate years after Sta.
Romana's death, has not escaped this Court's notice; especially the fact
that Rambano's first attempt at settling Sta. Romana's estate, in 1975,
involved intestate proceedings, despite Barinki's testimony that he gave the
will to her soon after receiving it. Also, it will be noted that the two

23
371Phil.260, 270 (1999).
24
Id. at 278-279, citing Ajero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106720, September 15, 1994, 236
SCRA 489, 495.

~
25
Id. at 279.

255
 RESOLUTION 15 G.R. No. 129358
March 11, 2015

witnesses presented by Tapalla are both legatees in the subject holographic

will; thus, it would be to their advantage if the subject will is admitted to
probate. Both courts a quo admitted the subject will to probate on the mere
testimonies of Barinki and Rodriguez, without admitting evidence as to the
authenticity of Sta. Romana's signature, and if he even indeed used the
alias J. Antonio Diaz.

As in Coday, this Court believes that the paramount consideration in

this petition is to determine the true intent of the deceased. Given the
foregoing premises, there is a need to remand this case to the court of
origin for reception of more evidence on Sta. Romana's handwriting, and
his use of the alias "J. Antonio Diaz," including the propriety of the
appointment of Tapalla as Special Administratrix in view of the alleged
revocation of latter's representation of her principal, Rambano.

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is SET ASIDE. The

records are ordered REMANDED to the court of origin to allow the
reception of additional evidence in support of the allowance or opposition
of the holographic will of the deceased Severino G. Sta. Romana. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LIB~BUENA
Deputy Division Clerk of C~\!11
255
QUIRANTE & ASSOCIATES Court of Appeals (x)
Counsel for Petitioner Manila
70, 6th St., New Manila (C.A. G.R. CV No. 50405)
1100 Quezon City
The Presiding Judge
Public Information Office (x) Regional Trial Court, Br. 32
The Library (x) 1000 Manila
Supreme Court (Spl: Proceeding No. 94-68888)
(For uploading pursuant to
A.M. No. 12-7-1-SC) Atty. Arnulfo V. Pelagio
Counsel for Respondent
Judgment Division (x) S702 Federal Tower Center
Supreme Court Dasmarifias St., Binondo
1006 Manila
(SR)

·: ~ •. } •' ' ' ~ '1 i't