SUCCESSION

Article 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of
the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by
operation of law.

Article 778. Succession may be:

(1) Testamentary;

(2) Legal or intestate; or

(3) Mixed

Article 779. Testamentary succession is that which results from the designation of an heir, made in a will executed in
the form prescribed by law.

Article 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. (n)

Article 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or
by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also
sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered
correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page.

The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed
the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the
presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in
the presence of the testator and of one another.

If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them. (n)

Article 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary
public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.(n)

Article 807. If the testator be deaf, or a deaf-mute, he must personally read the will, if able to do so; otherwise, he shall
designate two persons to read it and communicate to him, in some practicable manner, the contents thereof.

Article 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.

EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF WILLS IN GENERAL

Extrinsic validity of a will deals with the forms and solemnities (including the age and capacity of testator the to make
the will; the number of witnesses; the form of the will — oral, private instrument, public instrument; and so forth). Upon
the other hand intrinsic validity concerns itself with the order of succession, the amount of successional rights, and the
intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will.

Both kinds of validity are important: once a will is void extrinsically, itis clear that no effect can be given to it; a will that
has complied with all formalities can also be rendered useless if all the provisions it contains are contrary to the law.
The following are our conflicts rules on the extrinsic validity of wills:

(1) If the will is made by an alien abroad, he must comply with the formalities of the:
a. lex nationalii
b. lex domicilii
c. Philippine law (Art. 816, Civil’ Code)
d. lex loci celebrationis i (Art. 17, par. I, Civil Code)

Example: If a Japanese domiciled in Argentina makes a will in Mexico’ while: vacationing there, the will
may be considered extrinsically valid by our courts if it has complied . with the formalities prescribed in
Japan, Argentina, Mexico or the Philippines.

If a Filipino makes a will abroad, he may comply with the formalities of the lex nationalii (Philippine law or
the lex loci celebrationis (the law-of the place where he maybe — and where obviously he makes ‘the
will). (Art. 816, Civil Code).

If an alien makes a will in the Philippines he is allowed to comply with the formalities of his own country
(lex nationalii) or the law of the Philippines (Art. 817, Civil Code).

EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF JOINT WILLS

 Joint wills are those executed in the game instrument-by two or more testators. They are considered by our
Civil Code as null and avoid.
 Mutual or reciprocal wills, upon the other hand, are those Which contain reciprocal disposition in favor of the
testator. Mutual wills are valid.

Article 818. Two or more persons cannot make a will jointly, or in the same instrument, either for their reciprocal benefit
or for the benefit of a third person.
 1. If the joint wills were made by Filipinos abroad, the me shall be considered void in the Philippines, even if they
are valid in the Place where they were executed.

Article 819. Wills, prohibited by the preceding article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be
valid in the Philippines, even though authorized by the laws of the country where they may have been
executed.

2. Joint wills made by aliens abroad shall be considered as valid in the Philippines if valid according to the lex
nationalii or lex domicilii or lex celebrationis. (Arts. 816 and 17, Civil Code). Be it noted that the prohibition
referred to in Art. 819 applies only to Filipinos.
3. Joint wills made by aliens in' the Philippines, even if lid in accordance with their national law, will not be
countenanced the Philippines “because otherwise our public policy may be militated against:

CASE: Dacanay vs. Florendo

EXECUTION OF JOINT WlLL OR EXPRESSION BY TWO OR MORE TESTATORS OF THEIR WILLS IN A

DOCUMENT BY ONE ACT.—The prohibition of article 669 of the Civil Code is directed against the execution of a joint
will, or the expression by two or more testators of their wills in a single document and by one act, rather than against
mutual or reciprocal wills, which may be separately executed.

PROVISION OF ARTICLE 669, CIVIL CODE, Is STILL IN FORCE.—Considering the wisdom of the provision of this
article 669 and the fact that it has not been repealed, at least not expressly, as well as the consideration that its
provisions are not incompatible with those of the Code of Civil Procedure on the subject of wills, it is believed that said
article of the Civil Code is still in force.

INTRINSIC VALIDITY

The intrinsic validity of wills including the order of succession, amount of successional rights, and the intrinsic validity
of the provisions of the will shall be governed by the lex nationalii of the deceased regardless of the LOCATION and
NATURE of the property, whether real or personal.

Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the
amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the
property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.

CASES

Bellis v. Bellis, 1967 – benito p.40

Bohanan v. Bohanan – benito p.316

Miciano v. Brimo – benito p.315

Cayetano v. Leonidas, 1984

FACTS: The testatrix was an American citizen at the time of her death and was a permanent resident of Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.; that the testatrix died in Manila while temporarily residing with her sister; that during her lifetime, the testatrix
made her last will and testament according to the laws of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that after the testatrix death, her last
will and testament was presented, probated, allowed, and registered with the Registry of Wills at the County of
Philadelphia, U.S.A. An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by herein petitioner alleging among other things
that the intrinsic provisions of the will are null and void. The petitioner maintains that since the respondent judge allowed
the reprobate of Adoracion’s will, Hermogenes C. Campos was divested of his legitime which was reserved by the law
for him.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the Philippine law will apply to determine the intrinsic validity of a will executed by an
undisputed foreigner.
2. Whether or not Philippine law will apply to determine the capacity to succeed of Adoracion’s heirs.

RULING

[1] NO. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, as provided for by Article 16(2)
and 1039 of the Civil Code, the national law of the decedent must apply. This was squarely applied in the case of Bellis
v. Bellis (20 SCRA 358).“It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our
system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has
specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent’s national law. Specific
provisions must prevail over general ones.”

[2] NO. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent. (Article 1039, Civil Code) The law
which governs Adoracion Campo’s will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent.
Although the parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all the estate may be given
away by the testatrix to a complete stranger, the petitioner argues that such law should not apply because it would be
contrary to the sound and established public policy and would run counter to the specific provisions of Philippine Law.

Two Theories in determining the Proper Law for the Transmission of Successional Rights:

1. Unitary or Single System

one law determines transmission of real and personal properties, e.g., in countries following lex nationalii like
the Philippines, deceased’s national law governs (CIVIL CODE, Art. 16); in common law countries or those
that follow lex domicilii, the law of deceased's domicile governs
2. Split or Scission System Succession to real property — lex situs
Succession to personal property — law of the domicile of deceased at the time of death. (Adopted by Great
Britain and United States)

Capacity to Succeed

Article 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.

Revocation
Article 829. A revocation done outside the Philippines, by a person who does not have his domicile in this country, is
valid when it is done according to the law of the place where the will was made, or according to the law of the place in
which the testator had his domicile at the time; and if the revocation takes place in this country, when it is in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.

PROBATE

Probate is the act of proving before a competent court the due execution of a will possessed of testamentary capacity,
as well as approval thereof by the said court.

Necessity for Probate:

A probate is essential because under the law “Art. 838 No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is
proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court.”

Period of Prescription:

There is no period of prescription for the probate of a will. The Statute of Limitations fixes time limits for the filing of
“civil actions” but not for “special proceedings” of which probate is admittedly one.

Rules estoppel do not apply to probate proceedings for they are vested with public interest, and if estoppel would be
applied, the ascertainment of the truth may be blocked.

Probate of Wills Executed Abroad

a. If a will executed abroad has NOT yet been probated in a foreign country, the ordinary Philippine probate
procedure is required; that is, the lex fori of the Philippines applies as to the procedural aspects. It must be
shown to the court that the foreign will has been validly executed in accordance with the formalities already
discussed (concerning extrinsic validity)

NOTE: It has been held in this connection that an alleged foreign probate cannot be deemed one unless it is shown
that the foreign court was a duly authorized probate tribunal, and that the entire probate procedure there had been
complied with.

a. If a foreign will has already been probated in a foreign country, it still has to be probated here in the
Philippines because a foreign judgment, no matter how intrinsically meritorious, generally cannot have
automatic extraterritorial effect. The will has still to be probated here, BUT the due execution need not be
proved again it is ordinarily sufficient to ask for the ENFORCEMENT. Lex fori applies to the procedural
aspects.

Rule 76, Sec. 9

Section 9. Grounds for disallowing will. — The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:

(a) If not executed and attested as required by law;

(b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, at the time of its
execution;

(c) If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;

 (d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary,
or of some other person for his benefit;

(e) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, and he did not intend that the
instrument should be his will at the time of fixing his signature thereto.

Rule 77, Sec. 1

Section 1. Will proved outside Philippines may be allowed here. — 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.

Cases

Dalton v. Giberson – benito p.313

Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. – benito p.348

Suntay vs. Suntay

FACTS: In 1934, Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines, died in Amoy, China. He left real
and personal properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy. During his lifetime, he married twice, the first wife
was Manuela Cruz, with whom he had several children. The second marriage was with Maria Natividad Lim
Brillian, with whom he had a son, petitioner Silvino Suntay.

Intestate proceedings were instituted by the heirs from the first marriage. While the second wife, the surviving widow
who remained in Amoy China, filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the deceased which was
claimed to have been executed and signed in the Philippines on November, 1929. The petition was denied due to
the loss of the will before the hearing thereof. After the pacific war, Silvino, claimed to have found among the records
of his father, a last will and testament in Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased on January, 1931
and probated in the Amoy District Court. He filed a petition in the intestate proceedings for the probate of the will
executed in the Philippines on November 1929 or the will executed in Amoy China on November, 1931.

ISSUE: Whether or not the will executed in Amoy, China can still be validly probated in the Philippines

RULING: 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 the
will in China in 1931 should also be established by competent evidence. There is no proof on these points.

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.

The order of the municipal district court of Amoy, China does not purport to probate or allow the will which was the
subject of the proceedings. In view thereof, the will and the alleged probate thereof cannot be said to have been done
in accordance with the accepted basic and fundamental concepts and principles followed in the probate and allowance
of wills. Consequently, the authenticated transcript of proceedings held in the municipal district court of Amoy, China,
cannot be deemed and accepted as proceedings leading to the probate of allowance of a will and therefore, the will
referred to therein cannot be allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court of this country.

Vda. De Perez v. Tolete, 1994, Evidence needed for reprobate

FACTS: Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who became American citizens, established a
successful medical practice in New York, USA.

On August 23, 1979, Dr. Jose executed a last will and testament, bequeathing to his wife “all the remainder” of his real
and personal property at the time of his death “wheresoever situated.” In the event he would survive his wife, he
bequeathed all his property to his children and grandchildren with Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as trustee. He appointed
his wife as executrix of his last will and testament and Dr. Rafael Jr. as substitute executor.

In his will, Dr. Jose provided that should he and his wife die under such circumstances that there is not sufficient
evidence to determine the order of their deaths, the presumption is that he died first.

Four days later, Dr. Evelyn executed her own last will and testament, containing the same provisions as that of her
husband. Likewise, she provided that should she and her husband died under such circumstances that there is not
sufficient evidence to determine the order of their deaths, it should be presumed that he died first.

On January 9, 1982, Dr. Jose and his entire family perished when they were trapped by fire that gutted their home.
Thereafter, Dr. Rafael Jr. as trustee and substitute executor of the two wills, filed separate proceedings for the probate
thereof in the Surrogate Court of the County of Onondaga, New York. The wills were admitted to probate and letters
testamentary were issued in his favor.

On February 21, 1983, Salud Teodoro Perez, the mother of Dr. Evelyn, filed with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan a petition
for the reprobate of the two wills ancillary to the probate proceedings in New York. She also asked that she be appointed
as special administratrix of the estate of the deceased couple consisting primarily of a farm land in San Miguel, Bulacan.
She was granted letters of special administration and posted bond in the amount of PHP 10,000.00. As special
administratrix, Salud consolidated the assets of the Cunanan spouses, including the bank deposits of Dr. Jose.

The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose opposed and asked to be notified of the proceedings as heirs of Dr. Jose F.
Cunanan. But their status as heirs were disputed by Salud, who said that they were only collaterals and not heirs as
“heirship is only by institution” under a will or by operation of the law of New York. Since the will of Dr. Jose provided a
presumption that he predeceased his wife, his estate passed on to his wife, Dr. Evelyn. Salud, being the sole heir of
Dr. Evelyn, thus inherited the estate of the Cunanan spouses.

The Cunanan heirs soon asked that the RTC proceedings be nullified and that the appointment of Salud as special
administratrix be set aside. They also asked that Dr. Rafael Sr., brother of Dr. Jose, be appointed the regular
administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses. They alleged that the Cunanan heirs and Salud had entered into
an agreement in the United States “to settle and divide equally the estates.”

RTC issued an order, disallowing the reprobate of the two wills, recalling the appointment of petitioner as special
administratrix, requiring the submission of petitioner of an inventory of the property received by her as special
administratrix and declaring all pending incidents moot and academic. The RTC Judge reasoned out that petitioner
failed to prove the law of New York on procedure and allowance of wills and the court had no way of telling whether
the wills were executed in accordance with the law of New York. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption is
that the law of succession of the foreign country is the same as the law of the Philippines.

Salud’s motion for reconsideration was granted. In another order, the RTC Judge held that the documents presented
did not establish the law of New York on the procedure and allowance of wills but granted a motion to submit additional
evidence to prove the law of New York. However, the RTC Judge ruled that the probate of two wills in a single
proceeding is not procedural.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the reprobate of the two wills in a single proceeding is procedural

2. Whether or not the two wills probated outside the philippines may be reprobated in the philippines

RULING:

Requirements for allowance of foreign wills for probate in the Philippines

The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were American citizens, will only be effective in this country upon
compliance with the following provisions 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 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 law 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.

While the probate of a will is a special proceeding wherein courts should relax the rules on evidence, the goal is to
receive the best evidence of which the matter is susceptible before a purported will is probated or denied probate.

The separate wills of the Cunanan spouses should be probated jointly

There is merit in petitioner’s insistence that the separate wills of the Cunanan spouses should be probated jointly.
Respondent Judge’s view that the Rules on allowance of wills is couched in singular terms and therefore should be
interpreted to mean that there should be separate probate proceedings for the wills of the Cunanan spouses is too
literal and simplistic an approach. Such view overlooks the provisions of Section 2, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of
Court, which advise that the rules shall be “liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties
in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

A literal application of the Rules should be avoided if they would only result in the delay in the administration of justice.

What the law expressly prohibits is the making of joint wills either for the testator’s reciprocal benefit or for the benefit
of a third person. In the case at bench, the Cunanan spouses executed separate wills. Since the two will contains
essentially the same provisions and pertain to property which in all probability are conjugal in nature, practical
considerations dictate their joint probate. As this Court has held a number of times, it will always strive to settle the
entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation.

On the requirement of notice

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 regards 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,