- CASE DIGEST -
Vda. De
Perez v. Tolete
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.
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.
The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose opposed. 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the two wills probated outside
the Philippines may be reprobated in the Philippines.
RULING: Yes. 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 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.
The separate wills of the Cunanan spouses should be probated jointly. 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.
However, a prior notice to Cunanan Heirs is required before the wills
are reprobated. 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" (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 27,
Section 2) 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.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW FULL TEXT OF THE CASE
No comments:
Post a Comment