TOPIC: REPROBATE; REQUISITES

SALUD TEODORO VDA. DE PEREZ, petitioner,

vs. HON. ZOTICO A. TOLETE in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 18, RTC,
Bulacan, respondent.

G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994

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.

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. Four days later, Dr. Evelyn
executed her own last will and testament, containing the same provisions as that of her
husband.

Both wills provided that should Dr. Jose and Dr. Evelyn died under such circumstances
that there is no sufficient evidence to determine the order of their deaths, it should be
presumed that Dr. Jose 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 to which was granted.

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.

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.

ISSUE:

WON THE TWO WILLS CAN BE PROBATED IN THE PHILIPPINES (This is the issue under the
topic of the case)

No, because Salud Perez failed to submit all the necessary evidence for the reprobate
of the will.
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.

TOPIC: (Order of Preference; Appointment of Co-administrator)

WILSON S. UY, as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the Deceased

JOSE K. C. UY, Petitioner,
vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ANASTACIO C. RUFON, As Presiding
Judge of Branch 52, of the Regional Trial Court, Sixth Judicial Region, sitting at
Bacolod City, and JOHNNY K. H. UY, Respondents.

G.R. No. 167979             March 15, 2006

Jose K.C. Uy died intestate and is survived by his spouse, Sy Iok Ing Uy, and his five
children,.

A Special Proceeding was instituted and letters of administration were granted to

petitioner. On the other hand, Johnny K. H. Uy (respondent) filed a motion to intervene
alleging that he is the brother and a creditor of the deceased, and has knowledge of the
properties that should be included in the estate. He was then appointed as co-
administrator.

Not satisfied with the compliance of private respondent to bring into the estate
properties belonging to the deceased, petitioner reiterated his motion for removal of the
former as co-administrator, but the same was denied. Petitioner asserts that his
appointment as a regular administrator is already final, unassailable or res judicata; that
the inferior court has no authority to re-open the issue of the appointment of an
administrator without removing the incumbent administrator; that private respondent is
not only alien to the estate, but has a conflict of interest with it; that the trial court’s
appointment of private respondent as co-administrator constitutes grave abuse of
discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.
Issue: WON the appointment of co-administrator was proper?

Yes. Under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the preference to whom letters of
administration may be granted are as follows:

SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. – If no executor is named

in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give
bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:

(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both,
in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or
wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;

(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the
person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or
widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to
apply for administration or to request that administration be granted to some
other person, it may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if
competent and willing to serve;

(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted
to such other person as the court may select.

It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient reason
disregard the preferential rights of the surviving spouse to the administration of the
estate of the deceased spouse. But, if the person enjoying such preferential rights
is unsuitable, the court may appoint another person. Unsuitableness may consist
in adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the
estate. 

In the instant case, the order of preference was not disregarded by the trial court.
Instead of removing petitioner, it appointed private respondent (the patriarch of the Uy
family and who claims to have enormous knowledge of the businesses and properties of
the decedent), a creditor, as co-administrator since the estate was sizeable and
petitioner was having a difficult time attending to it alone. In fact, petitioner did not
submit any report regarding the estate under his administration.

FOR CASE NO. 26

TOPIC: APPOINTMENT OF CO-ADMINISTRATOR

SAME FACTS:

ISSUE:

Whether trial court cannot re-open the issue of the appointment of an administrator
without removing the incumbent administrator.

HELD:

A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises all the powers of
a regular administrator, only that he is not alone in the administration. 15 The practice of
appointing co-administrators in estate proceedings is not prohibited. In fact, it is allowed
under certain circumstances, to wit: (1) to have the benefit of their judgment and
perhaps at all times to have different interests represented; (2) where justice and equity
demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the
estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate
and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all interested persons satisfied and the
representatives to work in harmony for the best interests of the estate; and (5) when a
person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have another competent
person associated with him in the office.
Thus, petitioner’s argument that the trial court cannot re-open the issue of the
appointment of an administrator without removing the incumbent administrator is
erroneous. In probate proceedings, considerable latitude is allowed a probate court in
modifying or revoking its own orders as long as the proceedings are pending in the
same court and timely applications or motions for such modifications or revocations are
made by the interested parties. In the instant case, the estate of the deceased has not
yet been settled and the case is still within the jurisdiction of the court.