Case Digest: Vda de Perez vs. Tolete, G.R. No. 76714, June 2, 1994

 Arts. 816, 818 | Succession, Alien, Joint Will

Provision:

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.

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. 

Ponente:
Quiason, J.,

Recit Version:

-

Facts:

Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, established a medical practice in New York, U.S.A., living with their children in Syracuse, New York.

On August 23, 1979, Dr. Jose F. Cunanan executed a last will and testament, leaving his property to his wife and, in case of her survival, to their children and grandchildren, with Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as trustee and substitute executor.

On August 27, 1979, Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan executed a similar will, with the same provisions as her husband's will.

On January 9, 1982, tragically, the entire Cunanan family died in a fire.

Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr., trustee and substitute executor, filed proceedings for the probate of the wills with the Surrogate Court of the County of Onondaga, New York. 

In April 1983, the wills were admitted to probate.

Salud Teodoro Perez, Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan's mother, filed a petition in the Philippines for the reprobate of the wills and appointment as special administratrix of the estates.

The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose Cunanan contested the proceedings, claiming exclusion and lack of notification about the hearings in the Philippines. But their status as heirs were disputed by Salud, saying 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-Bulacan: Disallowed 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.

Issue:

WoN the two will probated outside the Philippines may be reprobated . YES

Held:

Petitioner contends that the following pieces of evidence she had submitted before respondent Judge are sufficient to warrant the allowance of the wills:

(a) two certificates of authentication of the respective wills of Evelyn and Jose by the Consulate General of the Philippines (Exhs. "F" and "G");

(b) two certifications from the Secretary of State of New York and Custodian of the Great Seal on the facts that Judge Bernard L. Reagan is the Surrogate of the Country of Onondaga which is a court of record, that his signature and seal of office are genuine, and that the Surrogate is duly authorized to grant copy of the respective wills of Evelyn and Jose

(Exhs. "F-1" and "G-1");

(c) two certificates of Judge Reagan and Chief Clerk Donald E. Moore stating that they have in their records and files the said wills which were recorded on April 7, 1982 (Exhs. "F-2" and "G-2");

(d) the respective wills of Evelyn and Jose (Exhs. "F-3", "F-6" and Exh. "G-3" — "G-6");

(e) certificates of Judge Reagan and the Chief Clerk certifying to the genuineness and authenticity of the exemplified copies of the two wills (Exhs. "F-7" and "F-7");

(f) two certificates of authentication from the Consulate General of the Philippines in New York (Exh. "H" and "F").

(g) certifications from the Secretary of State that Judge Reagan is duly authorized to grant exemplified copies of the decree of probate, letters testamentary and all proceedings had and proofs duly taken

(Exhs. "H-1" and "I-1");

(h) certificates of Judge Reagan and the Chief Clerk that letters testamentary were issued to Rafael G. Cunanan (Exhs. "H-2" and "I-2");

(i) certification to the effect that it was during the term of Judge Reagan that a decree admitting the wills to probate had been issued and appointing Rafael G. Cunanan as alternate executor (Exhs. "H-3" and

"I-10");

(j) the decrees on probate of the two wills specifying that proceedings were held and proofs duly taken (Exhs. "H-4" and "I-5");

(k) decrees on probate of the two wills stating that they were properly executed, genuine and valid and that the said instruments were admitted to probate and established as wills valid to pass real and personal property (Exhs. "H-5" and "I-5"); and

(l) certificates of Judge Reagan and the Chief Clerk on the genuineness and authenticity of each other’s signatures in the exemplified copies of the decrees of probate, letters testamentary and proceedings held in their court (Exhs. "H-6" and "I-6") (Rollo, pp. 13-16).

Petitioner adds that the wills had been admitted to probate in the Surrogate Court’s Decision of April 13, 1983 and that the proceedings were terminated on November 29, 1984.

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 (III Moran Commentaries on the Rules of Court, 1970 ed., pp. 419-429; Suntay v. Suntay, 95 Phil. 500 [1954]; Fluemer v. Hix, 54 Phil. 610 [1930]). 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 (Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Escolin, 56 SCRA 266 [1974]).

Petitioner must have perceived this omission as in fact she moved for more time to submit the pertinent procedural and substantive New York laws but which request respondent Judge just glossed over. 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 (Vda. de Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 393 [1978]).

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 (Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 155 SCRA 100 [1987]; Roberts v. Leonidas, 129 SCRA 33 [1984]).

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 (Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 818). 

In the case at bench, the Cunanan spouses executed separate wills. Since the two wills contain 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 (Motoomull v. Dela Paz, 187 SCRA 743 [1990]).

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. Thus, even in the instant petition, she only impleaded respondent Judge, forgetting that a judge whose order is being assailed is merely a nominal or formal party (Calderon v. Solicitor General, 215 SCRA 876 [1992]).

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. 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.