9/25/2016

G.R. No. 169144

TodayisSunday,September25,2016

Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.169144January26,2011
INRE:INTHEMATTEROFTHEPETITIONTOAPPROVETHEWILLOFRUPERTAPALAGANASWITH
PRAYERFORTHEAPPOINTMENTOFSPECIALADMINISTRATOR,MANUELMIGUELPALAGANASand
BENJAMINGREGORIOPALAGANAS,Petitioners,
vs.
ERNESTOPALAGANAS,Respondent.
DECISION
ABAD,J.:
ThiscaseisabouttheprobatebeforePhilippinecourtofawillexecutedabroadbyaforeigneralthoughithasnot
beenprobatedinitsplaceofexecution.
TheFactsandtheCase
OnNovember8,2001RupertaC.Palaganas(Ruperta),aFilipinowhobecameanaturalizedUnitedStates(U.S.)
citizen, died single and childless. In the last will and testament she executed in California, she designated her
brother,SergioC.Palaganas(Sergio),astheexecutorofherwillforshehadleftpropertiesinthePhilippinesandin
theU.S.
OnMay19,2003respondentErnestoC.Palaganas(Ernesto),anotherbrotherofRuperta,filedwiththeRegional
TrialCourt(RTC)ofMalolos,Bulacan,apetitionfortheprobateofRupertaswillandforhisappointmentasspecial
administrator of her estate.1 On October 15, 2003, however, petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas (Manuel) and
BenjaminGregorioPalaganas(Benjamin),nephewsofRuperta,opposedthepetitiononthegroundthatRupertas
willshouldnotbeprobatedinthePhilippinesbutintheU.S.wheresheexecutedit.ManuelandBenjaminadded
that,assumingRupertaswillcouldbeprobatedinthePhilippines,itisinvalidnonethelessforhavingbeenexecuted
underduressandwithoutthetestatorsfullunderstandingoftheconsequencesofsuchact.Ernesto,theyclaimed,
isalsonotqualifiedtoactasadministratoroftheestate.
Meantime, since Rupertas foreignbased siblings, Gloria Villaluz and Sergio, were on separate occasions in the
Philippinesforashortvisit,respondentErnestofiledamotionwiththeRTCforleavetotaketheirdeposition,which
itgranted.OnApril,13,2004theRTCdirectedthepartiestosubmittheirmemorandumontheissueofwhetheror
notRupertasU.S.willmaybeprobatedinandallowedbyacourtinthePhilippines.
OnJune17,2004theRTCissuedanorder:2(a)admittingtoprobateRupertaslastwill(b)appointingrespondent
Ernesto as special administrator at the request of Sergio, the U.S.based executor designated in the will and (c)
issuingtheLettersofSpecialAdministrationtoErnesto.
AggrievedbytheRTCsorder,petitionernephewsManuelandBenjaminappealedtotheCourtofAppeals(CA),3
arguingthatanunprobatedwillexecutedbyanAmericancitizenintheU.S.cannotbeprobatedforthefirsttimein
thePhilippines.
On July 29, 2005 the CA rendered a decision,4 affirming the assailed order of the RTC,5 holding that the RTC
properlyallowedtheprobateofthewill,subjecttorespondentErnestossubmissionoftheauthenticatedcopiesof
thedocumentsspecifiedintheorderandhispostingofrequiredbond.TheCApointedoutthatSection2,Rule76of
theRulesofCourtdoesnotrequirepriorprobateandallowanceofthewillinthecountryofitsexecution,beforeit
canbeprobatedinthePhilippines.Thepresentcase,saidtheCA,isdifferentfromreprobate,whichreferstoawill
alreadyprobatedandallowedabroad.Reprobateisgovernedbydifferentrulesorprocedures.Unsatisfiedwiththe
decision,ManuelandBenjamincametothisCourt.
TheIssuePresented
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html

1/3

9/25/2016

G.R. No. 169144

Thekeyissuepresentedinthiscaseiswhetherornotawillexecutedbyaforeignerabroadmaybeprobatedinthe
Philippinesalthoughithasnotbeenpreviouslyprobatedandallowedinthecountrywhereitwasexecuted.
TheCourtsRuling
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
withthelegalformalitiesofthecountryofitsexecution.Theyinsistthatlocalcourtscanonlyallowprobateofsuch
willsiftheproponentprovesthat:(a)thetestatorhasbeenadmittedforprobateinsuchforeigncountry,(b)thewill
hasbeenadmittedtoprobatethereunderitslaws,(c)theprobatecourthasjurisdictionovertheproceedings,(d)
the law on probate procedure in that foreign country and proof of compliance with the same, and (e) the legal
requirementsforthevalidexecutionofawill.
Butourlawsdonotprohibittheprobateofwillsexecutedbyforeignersabroadalthoughthesamehavenotasyet
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
accordingtotheformalitiesobservedinhiscountry.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
settlementofsuchestate.Sections1and2ofRule76furtherstatethattheexecutor,devisee,orlegateenamedin
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.
Ourrulesrequiremerelythatthepetitionfortheallowanceofawillmustshow,sofarasknowntothepetitioner:(a)
thejurisdictionalfacts(b)thenames,ages,andresidencesoftheheirs,legatees,anddeviseesofthetestatoror
decedent(c)theprobablevalueandcharacterofthepropertyoftheestate(d)thenameofthepersonforwhom
lettersareprayedand(e)ifthewillhasnotbeendeliveredtothecourt,thenameofthepersonhavingcustodyofit.
Jurisdictionalfactsrefertothefactofdeathofthedecedent,hisresidenceatthetimeofhisdeathintheprovince
wheretheprobatecourtissitting,orifheisaninhabitantofaforeigncountry,theestateheleftinsuchprovince.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
ManuelandBenjaminobviouslyhaveinmindtheprocedureforthereprobateofwillbeforeadmittingithere.But,
reprobate or reauthentication of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign country is different from that
probatewherethewillispresentedforthefirsttimebeforeacompetentcourt.Reprobateisspecificallygovernedby
Rule77oftheRulesofCourt.Contrarytopetitionersstance,sincethislatterruleappliesonlytoreprobateofawill,
itcannotbemadetoapplytothepresentcase.Inreprobate,thelocalcourtacknowledgesasbindingthefindingsof
theforeignprobatecourtprovideditsjurisdictionoverthemattercanbeestablished.
Besides,petitionersstandisfraughtwithimpractically. Iftheinstitutedheirsdonothavethemeanstogoabroadfor
theprobateofthewill,itisasgoodasdeprivingthemoutrightoftheirinheritance,sinceourlawrequiresthatnowill
shallpasseitherrealorpersonalpropertyunlessthewillhasbeenprovedandallowedbythepropercourt.8
1wphi1

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
specialadministratoroftheestate.Thepartieshaveyettopresentevidenceofthedueexecutionofthewill,i.e.the
testatorsstateofmindatthetimeoftheexecutionandcompliancewiththeformalitiesrequiredofwillsbythelaws
ofCalifornia.ThisexplainsthetrialcourtsdirectiveforErnestotosubmitthedulyauthenticatedcopyofRupertas
willandthecertifiedcopiesoftheLawsofSuccessionandProbateofWillofCalifornia.
WHEREFORE,theCourtDENIESthepetitionandAFFIRMStheCourtofAppealsdecisioninCAG.R.CV83564
datedJuly29,2005.
SOORDERED.
ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html

2/3

9/25/2016

G.R. No. 169144

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

AssociateJustice

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO*
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*DesignatedasadditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeDiosdadoM.Peralta,perraffledatedJanuary

24,2011.
1DocketedasSpecialProceedings112M2003,Branch10,RTCofMalolos,Bulacan.
2Rollo,pp.7377.
3CAG.R.CV83564.
4 Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia

SalvadorandFernandaLampasPeralta.
5Rollo,pp.2639.
6CivilCodeofthePhilippines,Art.816.
7Cuencov.CourtofAppeals,153Phil.115,133(1973)Herrera,RemedialLaw,Vol.IIIA,RexBookstore,

1996ed.,p.46.
8CivilCodeofthePhilippines,Art.838RulesofCourt,Rule75,Sec.1.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_169144_2011.html

3/3