SALUD TEODORO VDA. DE PEREZ vs. ZOTICO A.

TOLETE
GR No. 76714
June 2, 1994

(Case Digest by Lou Angelique Heruela)

Facts

Dr. Jose Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who became American citizens
and residents of New York, each executed a will, also in New York, containing provisions on
presumption of survivorship (in the event that it is not known which one of the spouses died first,
the husband shall be presumed to have predeceased his wife). Later, the entire family perished in
a fire that gutted their home. Thus, Rafael, who was named trustee in Jose’s will, filed for separate
probate proceedings of the wills.

Later, Evelyn’s mother, Salud Perez, filed a petition for reprobate in Bulacan. Rafael
opposed, arguing that Salud was not an heir according to New York law. He contended that since
the wills were executed in New York, New York law should govern. He further argued that, by
New York law, he and his brothers and sisters were Jose’s heirs and, as such, entitled to notice of
the reprobate proceedings, which Salud failed to give.

For her part, Salud said she was the sole heir of her daughter Evelyn and that the two wills
were in accordance with New York law. But before she could present evidence to prove the law
of New York, the reprobate court already issued an order, disallowing the wills.

Issue

Whether or not the reprobate of the wills should be allowed.

Ruling

The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were American citizens, will only be
effective in this country upon compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of the
Philippines:

Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with
the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the
formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.

Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities prescribed by New York laws or
by Philippine laws is imperative.
 The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have been probated
outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in accordance with the
foreign laws; (2) the testator has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; (3)
the will has been admitted to probate in such country; (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a
probate court, and (5) the laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills. Except
for the first and last requirements, the petitioner submitted all the needed evidence.

The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the probate in the
foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice of them.

This petition cannot be completely resolved without touching on a very glaring fact—
petitioner has always considered herself the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn Perez Cunanan, and because
she does not consider herself an heir of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, she noticeably failed to notify his
heirs of the filing of the proceedings.

The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall “cause notice
thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance” means that with regard
to notices, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an “original will” or a will that
is presented for probate for the first time. Accordingly, compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule
76, which require publication and notice by mail or personally to the “known heirs, legatees, and
devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines” and to the executor, if he is not the petitioner,
are required.

The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to petitioner’s claim, are entitled
to notices of the time and place for proving the wills. Under Section 4 of Rule 76 of the Revised
Rules of Court, the “court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for
proving the will to be addressed to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of
the testator, . . .”

WHEREFORE, the questioned Order is SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge shall allow
petitioner reasonable time within which to submit evidence needed for the joint probate of the wills
of the Cunanan spouses and see to it that the brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan are given
all notices and copies of all pleadings pertinent to the probate proceedings.
 IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RUPERTA
PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR
GR No. 169144
January 26, 2011

(Case Digest by Lou Angelique Heruela)

Facts

On November 8, 2001, Ruperta C. Palaganas, a Filipino who became a naturalized US

citizen, died single and childless. In the last will and testament she executed in California, she
designated her brother Sergio as the executor of her will for she had left properties in the
Philippines and in the United States.

On May 19, 2003, respondent Ernesto, another brother of Ruperta, filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, a petition for the probate of Ruperta’s will and for his
appointment as special administrator of her estate. On October 15, 2003, however, petitioners
Manuel and Benjamin, nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will
should not be probated in the Philippines, but in the United States where she executed it.

On June 17, 2004, the RTC issued an order: (a) admitting to probate Ruperta’s last will;
(b) appointing respondent Ernesto as special administrator at the request of Sergio, the US-based
executor designated in the will; and (c) issuing the Letters of Special Administration to Ernesto.

Aggrieved by the RTC’s order, petitioners Manuel and Benjamin appealed to the Court of
Appeals, arguing that an unprobated will executed by an American citizen in the United States
cannot be probated for the first time in the Philippines.

On July 29, 2005, the CA rendered a decision affirming the assailed order of the RTC,
holding that the RTC properly allowed the probate of the will, subject to respondent Ernesto’s
submission of the authenticated copies of the documents specified in the order and his posting of
the required bond. Unsatisfied with the decision, Manuel and Benjamin came to this Court.

Issue

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.

Ruling

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.

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. The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed and
probated in the country of its execution.

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 Ruperta’s 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 testator’s state of mind at the time of the
execution and compliance with the formalities required of wills by the laws of California.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals
decision.
 LEONIDA CORONADO et al. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and JUANA BUENO
ALBOVIAS
GR No. 78778
December 3, 1990

(Case Digest by Lou Angelique Heruela)

Facts

The property subject of this case is a parcel of land situated in Nagcarlan, Laguna,
containing 277 square meters. Said parcel of land is being contested by Juana Albovias, herein
private respondent, on the one hand, and Leonida Coronado, Felix Bueno, Melania Retizos,
Bernardino Buenseda, and Jovita Montefalcon, herein petitioners, on the other hand.

Juana claims that the property in question is a portion of a bigger lot referred to as Parcel
G in the last will and testament executed in 1918 by Melecio Artiaga, grandfather of Juana. This
bigger lot was inherited under that will by Juana, her brother Domingo Bueno, and two other
grandchildren, namely Bonifacio and Herminigildo, both surnamed Formentera.

Juana further claims that her property was included together with the two parcels of land
owned by Dalmacio Monterola, which were sold by Monterola’s successor-in-interest Leonida
Coronado (now married to Felix Bueno) to Melania Retizos on April 18, 1970. Melania Retizos in
turn sold the lots, including that one being claimed by Juana, to the spouses Bernardino Buenaseda
and Jovita Montefalcon, now the present possessors thereof, sometime in 1974.

On the other hand, Leonida and her co-petitioners claim that the property in question was
bequeathed to Leonida under a will executed by Dr. Dalmacio Monterola, who was allegedly in
possession thereof even before the outbreak of World War II. Parenthetically, said will was
probated. Juana, together with her husband, opposed the said probate. Despite their opposition,
however, the will was allowed by the then Court of First Instance of Laguna, Sta. Cruz Branch.
On appeal, said decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

As a result of the conflicting claims over the property in question, Juana filed an action for
quieting of title, declaratory relief, and damages against Leonida. The lower court rendered
judgment in favor of Juana. Not satisfied with the decision of the lower court, Leonida elevated
the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision appealed from. Hence, this petition.

Issues

I. Whether or not the transfer of ownership of the property in question to Juana from her
grandfather Melecio Artiaga was effectual, considering that the latter’s will was never
probated.
 II. Whether or not Juana is estopped from questioning the ownership of Leonida over the
land in question, having failed to raise the same in the estate proceedings in the trial
court and even on appeal.

Ruling

I.

While it is true that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved
and allowed in the proper court (Art. 838, Civil Code), the questioned will, however, may be
sustained on the basis of Article 1056 of the Civil Code of 1899, which was in force at the time
said document was executed by Melecio Artiaga in 1918. The said article read as follows:

Article 1056. If the testator should make a partition of his properties by an act inter vivos,
or by will, such partition shall stand in so far as it does not prejudice the legitime of the
forced heir.

In this case, nowhere was it alleged nor shown that Leonida Coronado is entitled to legitime
from Melecio Artiaga. The truth of the matter is that the record is bereft of any showing that
Leonida Coronado and the late Melecio Artiaga were related to each other.

II.

Normally, the probate of a will does not look into its intrinsic validity. The authentication
of a will decides no other questions than such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the
compliance with those requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of the
wills. It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency of the
provisions of the will, thus may be impugned as being vicious or null, notwithstanding its
authentication. The question relating to these points remain entirely unaffected, and may be raised
even after the will has been authenticated. Consequently, Juana is not estopped from questioning
the ownership of the property in question, notwithstanding her having objected to the probate of
the will executed by Monterola under which Leonida Coronado is claiming title to the said
property.

Moreover, the lower court found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the
property in question is the same property adjudicated to Juana under the will of Melecio Artiaga
and that Coronado has no right whatsoever to said property. Such findings are conclusive upon
this Court.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.