PROBATE PROCEEDING:

SCENE 1: Court Room

Court Interpreter: All rise (Entry of the Judge)
Special Proceeding no. 123486 , EVANGELINE R. CALUGAY, JOSEPHINE SALCEDO, petitioners, and
UEFEMIA PATIGAS vs EUGENIA RAMONAL CODOY, and MANUEL RAMONAL, respondents, in a petition for probate of the
holographic will of Matilde Seno Vda de Ramonal.

JUDGE: Enter Appearances
LAWYER1: Atty. __________________ for the petitioners your honor.

LAWYER2: Atty. __________________ for the respondents your honor.

JUDGE: Has this case been submitted for mediation?

LAWYER1: Your honor, if I may, this case has been submitted for mediation and a possible amicable settlement but
unfortunately, the parties havent reached an agreement as evidenced by the Pre- trial order issued by the court. We
move for the allowance of the will of the deceased Matilde Seno Vda de Ramonal appointing the petitioners as
devisees and legatees, respectively.

LAWYER2: Your honor, we strongly oppose the allowance of the will on the ground that the same is of
forgery and the handwriting is even illegible.

LAWYER1: In view of the opposition, we will be presenting our witnesses as named in the pre-trial order to prove the
validity of the will made and signed by the deceased herself. Our first witness is Ms. MATILDE RAMONAL BANANAY
who would prove that the handwriting in the will is the handwriting of the deceased.
CI: May we call on Ms. MATILDE RAMONAL BANANAY to the witness stand.
OATH: (Raise your right hand) Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

MATILDE: I do.

LAWYER1: Please state your name.

MATILDE: I am MATILDE RAMONAL BANANAY.

LAWYER1: How are you related to the deceased?

MATILDE: She is my aunt.

LAWYER1: How is she your aunt?

LAWYER2: Irrelevant your honor.

LAWYER1: The question is necessary to establish the real connection of the witness to the deceased.

JUDGE: overruled. Witness, answer the question.

MATILDE: She is the wife of the brother of my father.

LAWYER1: how close are you with the deceased?

MATILDE: After my husband died, I have lived with my aunt in my parents house for 11 years from 1958 to 1969 to be
exact.
LAWYER1: And you said for eleven (11) years Matilde Vda de Ramonal resided with your parents at Pinikitan, Cagayan
de Oro City. Would you tell the court what was your occupation or how did Matilde Vda de Ramonal keep herself busy that
time?

MATILDE: Collecting rentals.

LAWYER1: From where?
MATILDE: From the land rentals and commercial buildings at Pabayo-Gomez streets
LAWYER1: Showing to you the receipt dated 23 October 1979, is this the one you are referring to as one of the
receipts which she issued to them?
MATILDE: Yes, sir.
LAWYER2: Now there is that signature of Matilde vda. De Ramonal, whose signature is that Mrs. Binanay?
MATILDE: Matilde vda. De Ramonal.
LAWYER1: Why do you say that is the signature of Matilde Vda. De Ramonal?
MATILDE: I am familiar with her signature.

LAWYER1: In addition to collection of rentals, posting records of accounts of tenants and deed of sale which you said
what else did you do to acquire familiarity of the signature of Matilde Vda De Ramonal?
MATILDE: Posting records.
LAWYER1: Aside from that?
MATILDE: Carrying letters.
LAWYER1: Letters of whom?
MATILDE: Matilde.
LAWYER1: To whom?
MATILDE: To her creditors.
LAWYER1: Are there any other instances under which you have become familiar with the handwriting and signature of
the deceased?
MATILDE: She left her last will and testament when she died.
LAWYER1: You said she left a will at the time she died. I am showing to you a document with its title "tugon" is this the
document you are referring to?
MATILDE: Yes, sir.
LAWYER1: Showing to you this exhibit "S", there is that handwritten "tugon", whose handwriting is this?
MATILDE: My Aunt.
LAWYER1: Why do you say this is the handwriting of your aunt?
MATILDE: Because I am familiar with her signature.

LAWYER1: No questions anymore your honor.

JUDGE: Counsel of the respondents will you conduct a cross examination?

LAWYER2: We intend to, your honor.
JUDGE: Then proceed.

LAWYER2: Mrs. Bananay, will you please state your name again and how are you related to the deceased?

LAWYER1: Objection your honor, it has already been answered by the witness.
JUDGE: Sustained. Rephrase your question counsel.

LAWYER2: Did you say you are the niece of the deceased?

MATILDE: Yes your honor.

LAWYER2: Mrs. Binanay, when you were asked by counsel for the petitioners if the late Matilde Seno vda de Ramonal
left a will you said, yes?

MATILDE: Yes, sir.
LAWYER2: Who was in possession of that will?
MATILDE: I.
LAWYER2: Since when did you have the possession of the will?
MATILDE: It was in my mother's possession.
LAWYER2: So, it was not in your possession?
MATILDE: Sorry, yes.
LAWYER2: So are you saying youve stolen the will from your mother?

LAWYER1: Objection your honor. Leading. That amounts to a baseless accusation.
JUDGE: Sustained. Revise the questioning counsel.

LAWYER2: And when did you come into possession since as you said this was originally in the possession of your
mother?

MATILDE: 1985.

LAWYER2: Now, Mrs. Binanay was there any particular reason why your mother left that will to you and therefore you
have that in your possession?
MATILDE: It was not given to me by my mother; I took that in the aparador when she died.
LAWYER2: After taking that document you kept it with you?
MATILDE: I presented it to the fiscal.
LAWYER2: For what purpose?
MATILDE: Just to seek advice.
LAWYER2: Advice of what?
MATILDE: About the will.
LAWYER2: Your honor, its very clear that the witness has indeed kept the fact about the will from the petitioners for
motives only the heavens know.
LAWYER1: Objection your honor, leading! These are blatant assumptions that should be stricken off the record.
JUDGE: Sustained. Counsel, avoid making side comments. Proceed.
LAWYER2: My apologies your honor.

LAWUYER2: Now, in 1978 Matilde Seno Vda de Ramonal was not yet a sickly person is that correct?
MATILDE: Yes, sir.
LAWYER2: She was up and about and was still uprightly and she could walk agilely and she could go to her building to
collect rentals, is that correct?
MATILDE: Yes, sir.19
LAWYER2: Now, let us go to the third signature of Matilde Ramonal. Do you know that there are retracings in the
word Vda.?
MATILDE: Yes, a little. The letter L is continuous.
LAWYER2: And also in Matilde the letter L is continued to letter D?
MATILDE: Yes, sir.
LAWYER2: Again the third signature of Matilde Vda de Ramonal the letter L in Matilde is continued towards letter D.
MATILDE: Yes, sir.
LAWYER2: And there is a retracing in the word Vda.?
MATILDE: Yes, sir.

LAWYER2: Now, that was 1979, remember one year after the alleged holographic will. Now, you identified a
document marked as Exhibit R. This is dated January 8, 1978 which is only about eight months from August 30, 1978.
Do you notice that the signature Matilde Vda de Ramonal is beautifully written and legible?
MATILDE: Yes, sir the handwriting shows that she was very exhausted.
LAWYER2: You just say that she was very exhausted while that in 1978 she was healthy was not sickly and she was
agile. Now, you said she was exhausted?
MATILDE: In writing.
LAWYER2: How did you know that she was exhausted when you were not present and you just tried to explain
yourself out because of the apparent inconsistencies?
MATILDE: That was I think. (sic).
LAWYER2: Now, you already observed this signature dated 1978, the same year as the alleged holographic will. In
exhibit I, you will notice that there is no retracing; there is no hesitancy and the signature was written on a fluid
movement. . . . And in fact, the name Eufemia R. Patigas here refers to one of the petitioners?
MATILDE: Yes, sir.
LAWYER2: You will also notice Mrs. Binanay that it is not only with the questioned signature appearing in the alleged
holographic will marked as Exhibit X but in the handwriting themselves, here you will notice the hesitancy and
tremors, do you notice that?
MATILDE: Yes, sir.

LAWYER2: No further questions your honor.

JUDGE: Are there other witnesses of the petitioners?

LAWYER1: Yes, your honor. The Civil code expressly declares that at least 3 witnesses shall expressly declare in open
court as to the validity of the handwriting of the testator in a holographic will. May we call our second witness, Ms.
EVANGELINE CALUGAY who would testify that the signature appearing in the holographic will is the true and genuine
signature of Matilde Seno Vda de Ramonal.
CI: May we call on Ms. EVANGELINE CALUGAY to the witness stand.
OATH: (Raise your right hand) Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

EVA: I do.

LAWYER1: Please state your name.

EVA: I am Evangeline Calugay.

LAWYER1: How do you know the deceased?

EVA: I have known Matilde Vda de Ramonal since I was born, in fact I was adopted by her. I have been living with
her for 22 years already.

LAWYER1: You said that you stayed with the house of the spouses Matilde and Justo Ramonal for the period of 22
years. Could you tell the court the services if any which you rendered to Matilde Ramonal?

EVA: During my stay I used to go with her to the church, to market and then to her transactions.

LAWYER1: What else? What services that you rendered?

EVA: After my college days I assisted her in going to the bank, paying taxes and to her lawyer.

LAWYER1: What was your purpose of going to her lawyer?

EVA: I used to be her personal driver.

LAWYER1: In the course of your stay for 22 years did you acquire familiarity of the handwriting of Matilde Vda de
Ramonal?
EVA: Yes, sir.
LAWYER1: How come that you acquired familiarity?
EVA: Because I lived with her since birth.

LAWYER1: Now, I am showing to you Exhibit S which is captioned "tugon" dated Agosto 30, 1978 there is a signature
here below item No. 1, will you tell this court whose signature is this?

EVA: Yes, sir, that is her signature.
LAWYER1: Why do you say that is her signature?
EVA: I am familiar with her signature.

LAWYER1: No further questions your honor.

JUDGE: Cross.

LAWYER2: Ms. Eva, Can you tell again this court how long have u been living with the spouses?

LAWYER1: Objection your honor. It has already been answered by the witness.

LAWYER2: Your honor, I would like to confirm that fact, since it is very material in establishing the familiarity of the
witness to the signature of the accused.

JUDGE: overruled! Witness, answer the question.

EVA: I have been living with them since birth.

LAWYER2: In your 22 years of existence and being with the deceased, have you in anyway seen the deceased write?

LAWYER1: Objection your honor. The witness have repeatedly said the she is familiar with the handwriting of the
deceased. The question tends to prolong the proceeding.

LAWYER2: Your honor, the witness indeed testified she is familiar with the handwriting of the deceased. But I would
like to know, to the satisfaction of the curiosity our minds, as how she became familiar of the signature of the
deceased. Familiarity and knowing that it is the signature of the deceased are 2 different things.

JUDGE: What are you trying to get out if this counsel?

LAWYER2: I want to know clearly that the witness is familiar of the handwriting of the deceased because she actually
saw her write.

JUDGE: Overruled! Just make sure, you can establish what youre trying to imply. Witness answer the question.

EVA: I have seen her write in her room or in the living room.

LAWYER2: Did you see what she was writing?

EVA: No, your honor.

LAWYER2: Then how can you be familiar with the her handwriting when you didnt even see what she was writing?

LAWYER1: Objection your honor, leading!

JUDGE: Overruled!

EVA: I just know because when I accompany her with her transactions she always has the same handwriting.

LAWYER2: Again, did you see her write personally, did you see what she was writing?

EVA: No, your honor.

LAWYER2: Then how on earth can someone conclude the she is familiar with the handwriting of another person when
she did not even personally see the deceased write nor sign a document. Living with someone for 22 years will not
prove the fact that it she personally knew the handwriting of the person not unless she personally saw that person
sign or write in a document. Familiarity does not prove authenticity and validity. Thats all your honor.

LAWYER1: Your honor, we would like to present our third witness. Fiscal Rodolfo Waga, the City Fiscal of Cagayan de
Oro and the former lawyer of the deceased who would testify as to the handwriting of the deceased.

CI: May we call on FISCAL RODOLFO WAGA to the witness stand.
OATH: (Raise your right hand) Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

WAG: I do.

LAWYER1: Please state your identity.

WAG: Iam Rodolfo Waga, the current City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro.

LAWYER1: How are you related to the deceased?
WAG: Before I was appointed as Fiscal, I have been a practicing lawyer and I handled all pleadings and
documents signed by the deceased in connection with the proceedings of her late husband.

LAWYER1: Apart from that, do you have any personal connection with the deceased?

WAG: Yes, sir I know her because she is my godmother the husband is my godfather. Actually I am
related to the husband by consanguinity.
Q. Can you tell the name of the husband?
A. The late husband is Justo Ramonal.24
x x x x x x x x x
Q. Can you tell this court whether the spouses Justo Ramonal and Matilde Ramonal have legitimate children?
A. As far as I know they have no legitimate children.25
x x x x x x x x x
Q. You said after becoming a lawyer you practice your profession? Where?
A. Here in Cagayan de Oro City.
Q. Do you have services rendered with the deceased Matilde vda de Ramonal?
A. I assisted her in terminating the partition, of properties.
Q. When you said assisted, you acted as her counsel? Any sort of counsel as in what case is that, Fiscal?
A. It is about the project partition to terminate the property, which was under the court before

Q. Now, I am showing to you exhibit S which is titled "tugon", kindly go over this document, Fiscal Waga and tell
the court whether you are familiar with the handwriting contained in that document marked as exhibit "S"?
A. I am not familiar with the handwriting.
Q. This one, Matilde Vda de Ramonal, whose signature is this?
A. I think this signature here it seems to be the signature of Mrs. Matilde vda de Ramonal.
Q. Now, in item No. 2 there is that signature here of Matilde Vda de Ramonal, can you tell the court whose
signature is this?
A. Well, that is similar to that signature appearing in the project of partition.
Q. Also in item no. 3 there is that signature Matilde Vda de Ramonal, can you tell the court whose signature is
that?
A. As I said, this signature also seems to be the signature of Matilde vda de Ramonal.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. Because there is a similarity in the way it is being written.
Q. How about this signature in item no. 4, can you tell the court whose signature is this?
A. The same is true with the signature in item no. 4. It seems that they are similar.

LAWYER1: No other questions your honor.

JUDGE: Cross.

LAWYER2: You said you handled all the pleadings and documents signed by the deceased in connection with
the proceedings with the proceedings of her late husband. Then now you are saying that you think that
the signature of the deceased in the will is indeed her signature. Havent you personally witness the
deceased write and sign some documents when you handled them?

WAG: I did. But the enormity of work has made me oblivious of the handwritings and signature of my
clients.

LAWYER2: So youre are trying to tell this court that indeed you are not really familiar of the handwriting of
the deceased?

WAG: As far as I can remember, they look similar.

LAWYER2: Your honor, the witness is trying to imply that he is not sure that indeed it is the handwriting and
signature of the deceased. Hence his testimony does not in anyway prove the validity of the holographic
will of the deceased. No further questions your honor.

JUDGE: Anymore witnesses on the part of the petitioners.

LAWYER1: