Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Leonidas
GENERAL RULE: Limited jurisdiction of the probate court
EXCEPTION: Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before
FACTS:
Lourdes Lukban and Francisco Chuidian got married in 1933 and after a violent quarrel he left Lukban and has not been heard
of since then. She diligently looked for him asking the parents and friends but no one knew his whereabouts. She believes
that husband is already dead since he was absent for more than 20 years and because she intends to marry again, she
desires to have her civil status put in order to be relieved on any liability under the law.
ISSUE: Whether Lukban needs to secure declaration of presumptive death before she can remarry.
HELD:
The court ruled that Lukban does not need to secure declaration of presumptive death of her husband because Civil Code
prevails during their marriage in 1933. It provides that for the purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have
the former spouse judicially declared an absentee. The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the
Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the
absentee. For the celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that the former spouse has been absent for
seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse
to be living, that each former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believes at the time of the
celebration of the marriage.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and a writ issued, setting aside the Orders issued by the respondent Judge on 7 December 1975 and
24 December 1975, in Civil Case No. 231-R of the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. Without costs.
SO ORDERED.
brought him to the Philippines from Amoy, and that delivery took place in November 1934 (p. 273, t. s. n., Id.), then the testimony of Ana Suntay
that she saw and heard her brother Apolonio Suntay read the will sometime in September 1934 (p. 524, t. s. n., hearing of 24 February 1948),
must not be true.
Although Ana Suntay would be a good witness because she was testifying against her own interest, still the fact remains that she did not read
the whole will but only the adjudication (pp. 526-8, 530-1, 542, t. s. n., Id.) and saw only the signature, of her father and of the witnesses Go
Toh, Manuel Lopez and Alberto Barretto (p. 546, t. s. n.,Id.). But her testimony on cross-examination that she read the part of the will on
adjudication is inconsistent with her testimony in chief that after Apolonio had read that part of the will he turned over or handed the document
to Manuel who went away (p. 528, t. s. n., Id.).
If it is true that Go Toh saw the draft Exhibit B in the office of Alberto Barretto in November 1929 when the will was signed, then the part of his
testimony that Alberto Barretto handed the draft to Jose B. Suntay to whom he said: "You had better see if you want any correction" and that
"after checking Jose B. Suntay put the "Exhibit B" in his pocket and had the original signed and executed" cannot be true, for it was not the time
for correcting the draft of the will, because it must have been corrected before and all corrections and additions written in lead pencil must have
been inserted and copied in the final draft of the will which was signed on that occasion. The bringing in for the draft (Exhibit B) on that occasion
is just to fit it within the framework of the appellant's theory. At any rate, all of Go Toh's testimony by deposition on the provisions of the alleged
lost will is hearsay, because he came to know or he learned to them from information given him by Jose B. Suntay and from reading the
translation of the draft (Exhibit B) into Chinese.
Much stress is laid upon the testimony of Federico C. Suntay who testifies that he read the supposed will or the alleged will of his father and
that the share of the surviving widow, according to the will, is two-thirds of the estate (p. 229, t. s. n., hearing of 24 October 1947). But this
witness testified to oppose the appointment of a co-administrator of the estate, for the reason that he had acquired the interest of the surviving
widow not only in the estate of her deceased husband but also in the conjugal property (pp. 148, 205, 228, 229, 231, t. s. n., Id.) Whether he
read the original will or just the copy thereof (Exhibit B) is not clear. For him the important point was that he had acquired all the share,
participation and interest of the surviving widow and of the only child by the second marriage in the estate of his deceased father. Be that as it
may, his testimony that under the will the surviving widow would take two-thirds of the estate of the late Jose B. Suntay is at variance with
Exhibit B and the testimony of Anastacio Teodoro. According to the latter, the third for strict legitime is for the ten children; the third for
betterment is for Silvino, Apolonio, Concepcion and Jose Jr.; and the third for free disposal is for the surviving widow and her child Silvino.
Hence, granting that there was a will duly executed by Jose B. Suntay placed in the envelope (Exhibit A) and that it was in existence at the time
of, and not revoked before, his death, still the testimony of Anastacio Teodoro alone falls short of the legal requirement that the provisions of the
lost will must be "clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses." Credible witnesses mean competent witnesses and those
who testify to facts from or upon hearsay are neither competent nor credible witnesses.
On the other hand, Alberto Barretto testifies that in the early part of 1929 he prepared or drew up two mills for Jose B. Suntay at the latter's
request, the rough draft of the first will was in his own handwriting, given to Manuel Lopez for the final draft or typing and returned to him; that
after checking up the final with the rough draft he tore it and returned the final draft to Manuel Lopez; that this draft was in favor of all the
children and the widow (pp. 392-4, 449, t. s. n., hearing of 21 February 1948); that two months later Jose B. Suntay and Manuel Lopez called
on him and the former asked him to draw up another will favoring more his wife and child Silvino; that he had the rough draft of the second will
typed (pp. 395, 449 t. s. n., Id.) and gave it to Manuel Lopez (p. 396, t. s. n., Id.); that he did not sign as witness the second will of Jose B.
Suntay copied from the typewritten draft [Exhibit B] (p. 420, t. s. n., Id.); that the handwritten insertions or additions in lead pencil to Exhibit B
are not his (pp. 415-7 435-6, 457, t. s. n., Id.); that the final draft of the first will made up of four or five pages (p. 400, t. s. n., Id.) was signed
and executed, two or three months after Suntay and Lopez had called on him (pp. 397-8, 403, 449, t. s. n., Id.) in his office at the Cebu Portland
Cement in the China Banking Building on Dasmarias street by Jose B. Suntay, Manuel Lopez and a Chinaman who had all come from
Hagonoy (p. 398, t. s. n., Id.); that on that occasion they brought an envelope (Exhibit A) where the following words were written: "Testamento
de Jose B. Suntay" (pp. 399, 404, t. s. n., Id.); that after the signing of the will it was placed inside the envelope (Exhibit A) together with an
inventory of the properties of Jose B. Suntay and the envelope was sealed by the signatures of the testator and the attesting witnesses (pp.
398, 401, 441, 443, 461, t. s. n., Id.); that he again saw the envelope (Exhibit A) in his house one Saturday in the later part of August 1934,
brought by Go Toh and it was then in perfect condition (pp. 405-6, 411, 440-2, t. s. n., Id.); that on the following Monday Go Toh went to his law
office bringing along with him the envelope (Exhibit A) in the same condition; that he told Go Toh that he would charge P25,000 as fee for
probating the will (pp. 406, 440-2, Id.); that Go Toh did not leave the envelope (Exhibit A) either in his house or in his law office (p. 407, t. s.
n., Id.); that Go Toh said he wanted to keep it and on no occasion did Go Toh leave it to him (pp. 409, 410, t. s. n., Id.).
The testimony of Go Toh taken and heard by Assistant Fiscal F. B. Albert in connection with the complaint for estafa filed against Manuel Suntay
for the alleged snatching of the envelope (Exhibit A), corroborates the testimony of Alberto Barretto to the effect that only one will was signed by
Jose B. Suntay at his office in which he (Alberto Barretto), Manuel Lopez and Go Toh took part as attesting witnesses (p. 15, t. s. n., Exhibit 6).
Go Toh testified before the same assistant fiscal that he did not leave the will in the hands of Anastacio Teodoro (p. 26, t. s. n., Exhibit 6). He
said, quoting his own words, "Because I can not give him this envelope even though the contract (on fees) was signed. I have to bring that
document to court or to anywhere else myself." (p. 27, t. s. n., Exhibit 6).
As to the will claimed to have been executed on 4 January 1931 in Amoy, China, the law on the point in Rule 78. Section 1 of the rule provides:
Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed, and recorded by the proper
Court of First Instance in the Philippines.
Section 2 provides:
When a copy of such will and the allowance thereof, duly authenticated, is filed with a petition for allowance in the Philippines, by the
executor or other person interested, in the court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and place for the hearing, and cause
notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance.
Section 3 provides:
If it appears at the hearing that the will should be allowed in the Philippines, the court shall so allow it, and a certificate of its
allowance, signed by the Judge, and attested by the seal of the courts, to which shall be attached a copy of the will, shall be filed and
recorded by the clerk, and the will shall have the same effect as if originally proved and allowed in such court.
The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, China, is a probate court must be proved. The law of China on procedure in the probate or
allowance of wills must also be proved. The legal requirements for the execution of a valid will in China in 1931 should also be established by
competent evidence. There is no proof on these points. The unverified answers to the questions propounded by counsel for the appellant to the
Consul General of the Republic of China set forth in Exhibits R-1 and R-2, objected to by counsel for the appellee, are inadmissible, because
apart from the fact that the office of Consul General does not qualify and make the person who holds it an expert on the Chinese law on
procedure in probate matters, if the same be admitted, the adverse party would be deprived of his right to confront and cross-examine the
witness. Consuls are appointed to attend to trade matters. Moreover, it appears that all the proceedings had in the municipal district court of
Amoy were for the purpose of taking the testimony of two attesting witnesses to the will and that the order of the municipal district court of Amoy
does not purport to probate the will. In the absence of proof that the municipal district court of Amoy is a probate court and on the Chinese law
of procedure in probate matters, it may be presumed that the proceedings in the matter of probating or allowing a will in the Chinese courts are
the a deposition or to a perpetuation of testimony, and even if it were so it does not measure same as those provided for in our laws on the
subject. It is a proceedings in rem and for the validity of such proceedings personal notice or by publication or both to all interested parties must
be made. The interested parties in the case were known to reside in the Philippines. The evidence shows that no such notice was received by
the interested parties residing in the Philippines (pp. 474, 476, 481, 503-4, t. s. n., hearing of 24 February 1948). The proceedings had in the
municipal district court of Amoy, China, may be likened toe or come up to the standard of such proceedings in the Philippines for lack of notice
to all interested parties and the proceedings were held at the back of such interested parties.
The order of the municipal district court of Amoy, China, which reads as follows:
ORDER:
SEE BELOW
The above minutes were satisfactorily confirmed by the interrogated parties, who declare that there are no errors, after said minutes
were loudly read and announced actually in the court.
Done and subscribed on the Nineteenth day of the English month of the 35th year of the Republic of China in the Civil Section of the
Municipal District Court of Amoy, China.
IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, MANUEL MIGUEL PALAGANAS and BENJAMIN GREGORIO PALAGANAS, Petitioners,
vs.
ERNESTO PALAGANAS, Respondent.
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the probate before Philippine court of a will executed abroad by a foreigner although it has not been probated in its place of
execution.
The Facts and the Case
On November 8, 2001 Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a Filipino who became a naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen, died single and
childless. In the last will and testament she executed in California, she designated her brother, Sergio C. Palaganas (Sergio), as the executor of
her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S.
On May 19, 2003 respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas (Ernesto), another brother of Ruperta, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos,
Bulacan, a petition for the probate of Rupertas will and for his appointment as special administrator of her estate. 1 On October 15, 2003,
however, petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas (Manuel) and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas (Benjamin), nephews of Ruperta, opposed the
petition on the ground that Rupertas will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where she executed it. Manuel and Benjamin
added that, assuming Rupertas will could be probated in the Philippines, it is invalid nonetheless for having been executed under duress and
without the testators full understanding of the consequences of such act. Ernesto, they claimed, is also not qualified to act as administrator of
the estate.
Meantime, since Rupertas foreign-based siblings, Gloria Villaluz and Sergio, were on separate occasions in the Philippines for a short visit,
respondent Ernesto filed a motion with the RTC for leave to take their deposition, which it granted. On April, 13, 2004 the RTC directed the
parties to submit their memorandum on the issue of whether or not Rupertas U.S. will may be probated in and allowed by a court in the
Philippines.
On June 17, 2004 the RTC issued an order: 2 (a) admitting to probate Rupertas last will; (b) appointing respondent Ernesto as special
administrator at the request of Sergio, the U.S.-based executor designated in the will; and (c) issuing the Letters of Special Administration to
Ernesto.
Aggrieved by the RTCs order, petitioner nephews Manuel and Benjamin appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), 3arguing that an unprobated will
executed by an American citizen in the U.S. cannot be probated for the first time in the Philippines.
On July 29, 2005 the CA rendered a decision,4 affirming the assailed order of the RTC, 5 holding that the RTC properly allowed the probate of
the will, subject to respondent Ernestos submission of the authenticated copies of the documents specified in the order and his posting of
required bond. The CA pointed out that Section 2, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court does not require prior probate and allowance of the will in the
country of its execution, before it can be probated in the Philippines. The present case, said the CA, is different from reprobate, which refers to
a will already probated and allowed abroad. Reprobate is governed by different rules or procedures. Unsatisfied with the decision, Manuel and
Benjamin came to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The key issue presented in this case is whether or not a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the Philippines although it has
not been previously probated and allowed in the country where it was executed.
The Courts Ruling
Petitioners Manuel and Benjamin maintain that wills executed by foreigners abroad must first be probated and allowed in the country of its
execution before it can be probated here. This, they claim, ensures prior compliance with the legal formalities of the country of its execution.
They insist that local courts can only allow probate of such wills if the proponent proves that: (a) the testator has been admitted for probate in
such foreign country, (b) the will has been admitted to probate there under its laws, (c) the probate court has jurisdiction over the proceedings,
(d) the law on probate procedure in that foreign country and proof of compliance with the same, and (e) the legal requirements for the valid
execution of a will.
But our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and allowed in
the countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an
alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he
resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country.6
In this connection, Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the
RTC of the province where he has an estate may take cognizance of the settlement of such estate. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state
that the executor, devisee, or legatee named in the will, or any other person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the death of the
testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.
Our rules require merely that the petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional facts; (b)
the names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or decedent; (c) the probable value and character of the
property of the estate; (d) the name of the person for whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will has not been delivered to the court, the name
of the person having custody of it. Jurisdictional facts refer to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the time of his death in the
province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left in such province. 7 The rules do not
require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed and probated in the country of its execution.
In insisting that Rupertas will should have been first probated and allowed by the court of California, petitioners Manuel and Benjamin obviously
have in mind the procedure for the reprobate of will before admitting it here. But, reprobate or re-authentication of a will already probated and
allowed in a foreign country is different from that probate where the will is presented for the first time before a competent court. Reprobate is
specifically governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of Court. Contrary to petitioners stance, since this latter rule applies only to reprobate of a will, it
cannot be made to apply to the present case. In reprobate, the local court acknowledges as binding the findings of the foreign probate court
provided its jurisdiction over the matter can be established.
Besides, petitioners stand is fraught with impractically.1wphi1 If the instituted heirs do not have the means to go abroad for the probate of the
will, it is as good as depriving them outright of their inheritance, since our law requires that no will shall pass either real or personal property
unless the will has been proved and allowed by the proper court.8
Notably, the assailed RTC order of June 17, 2004 is nothing more than an initial ruling that the court can take cognizance of the petition for
probate of Rupertas will and that, in the meantime, it was designating Ernesto as special administrator of the estate. The parties have yet to
present evidence of the due execution of the will, i.e. the testators state of mind at the time of the execution and compliance with the formalities
required of wills by the laws of California. This explains the trial courts directive for Ernesto to submit the duly authenticated copy of Rupertas
will and the certified copies of the Laws of Succession and Probate of Will of California.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CV 83564 dated July 29, 2005.
SO ORDERED.