Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 77
Rule 77. Allowance of Will Proved Outside of Philippines
And Administration of Estate Thereunder
(Sections 1 to 4)
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.
When a person executes a will that produces effects in the Philippines, the will must be reprobated in the Philippines to effectuate its provisions.
Otherwise stated, reprobate is a special proceeding to establish the validity of a will proved in a foreign country.
Reprobate or reauthentication of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign country is different from probate of a will, albeit executed abroad, presented for the first time before a competent court here.
Palaganas vs Palaganas, GR No. 169144, January 26, 2011:
It was argued that wills executed by foreigners abroad must first be probated and allowed in the country of its execution before it can be probated here. Finding no merit in such argument, the Supreme Court explained:
"But our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet 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 according to the formalities observed in his country. The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed and probated in the country of its execution. Besides, petitioners' stand is fraught with impracticality. If the instituted heirs do not have the means to go abroad for the probate of the will, it is as good as depriving them outright of their inheritance, since our law requires that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless the will has been proved and allowed by the proper court."
Section 2. Notice of hearing for allowance. —
When a copy of such will
and of the order or decree of the allowance thereof,
both duly authenticated,
are filed with a petition for allowance in the Philippines,
by the executor or other person interested,
in the court having jurisdiction,
such court shall fix a time and place for the hearing,
and cause notice thereof to be given
as in case of an original will presented for allowance.
A petition for allowance of a will that is already admitted into probate in a foreign country should be accompanied by an authenticated copy of the will and an authenticated decree of the allowance.
Similar to regular probate proceedings, the petition must be filed by the executor or other person interested in the court where he had estate, following Rule 73, Section 1.
The same procedure for the probate of wills is adopted with respect to wills executed in a foreign country.
The petitioner must present evidence of the following before the reprobate of the will:
Due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws;
Testator has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines;
The will has been admitted to probate in such country;
The fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court;
The laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills.
A person who seeks to reprobate a will executed in a foreign country must prove the laws and procedure of that foreign country on wills.
As foreign laws do not prove themselves and our courts do not take judicial notice of them, the petitioner in the probate proceedings has the burden to prove evidence of such foreign law.
Courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as local law following the doctrine of processual presumption in the absence of proof of the applicable foreign law.
Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that the foreign law is the same as Philippine law.
In accordance with the notice requirement set above, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will" of 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, is required.
Section 3. When will allowed, and effect thereof. —
If it appears at the hearing
that the will should be allowed in the Philippines,
the court shall so allow it,
and a certificate of its allowance,
signed by the judge, and attested by the seal of the court,
to which shall be attached a copy of the will,
shall be filed and recorded by the clerk,
and the will shall have the same effect
as if originally proves and allowed in such court.
The following requisites must be shown before a will proved abroad may be allowed in the Philippines:
The testator was domiciled in a foreign country;
The will has been admitted to probate in such country;
The foreign court is, under the laws of said foreign country, a probate court with jurisdiction over the proceedings;
Proof of compliance with the law on probate procedure in said foreign country;
The legal requirements in said foreign country for the valid execution of the will have been complied with;
Filing a petition in the Philippines with a copy of the will and of its decree of allowance; and
Notice and hearing.
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.
When the will is allowed, it shall have the same effect as if originally proved and allowed in such court.
Section 4. Estate, how administered. —
When a will is thus allowed,
the court shall grant letters testamentary,
or letters of administration with the will annexed,
and such letters testamentary or of administration,
shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines.
Such estate, after the payment of just debts
and expenses of administration,
shall be disposed of according to such will,
so far as such will may operate upon it;
and the residue, if any shall be disposed of
as is provided by law in cases of estates
in the Philippines belonging to persons
who are inhabitants of another state or country.
The domiciliary administrator does not have the power to administer properties located outside the Philippines by virtue of the will.
The general rule universally recognized is that administration extends only to the assets of a decedent found within the state or country where it was granted, so that an administrator appointed in one state or country has no power over property in another state or country.
Admission of a foreign will to probate shall have the following effects:
The court shall grant letters testamentary or letters of administration with the will annexed;
The said letters shall extend only to the testator's estate located in the Philippines;
The estate shall be disposed of following the will after just debts and expenses of administration are paid; and
Any residue shall be disposed of as provided for estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who do not reside in the country.
Cases:
Suntay vs. Suntay (95 Phil 500)
Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and resident of the Philippines, died on May 14, 1934, in Amoy, Fookien province, China.
He left behind real and personal properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy, China.
He had nine children from his first marriage with Manuela T. Cruz, namely: Apolonio, Concepcion, Angel, Manuel, Federico, Ana, Aurora, Emiliano, and Jose Jr.
He had a son, Silvino, with his second wife, Maria Natividad Lim Billian, who survived him.
Intestate proceedings:
Intestate proceedings were initiated in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Special Proceedings No. 4892), and Apolonio Suntay was appointed administrator.
After Apolonio's death, Federico C. Suntay was appointed as the new administrator.
Alleged wills:
First Will (Executed in Manila, November 1929)
On October 15, 1934, Maria Natividad Lim Billian (surviving widow) filed a petition to probate the will allegedly executed by Jose B. Suntay in November 1929.
The petition was denied due to the loss of the will and insufficient evidence to prove its contents.
An appeal was made, and the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings.
Despite efforts, including taking Go Toh's deposition (an attesting witness), the probate court dismissed the petition on February 7, 1938.
Second Will (Executed in Amoy, China, January 4, 1931)
After liberation, Silvino Suntay claimed to have found a will executed in Amoy, China, on January 4, 1931, allegedly probated in the Amoy district court.
Silvino filed a petition in the intestate proceedings, seeking the probate of either the lost will (November 1929) or the foreign will (January 1931).
Testimonies and Evidence
Go Toh (Attesting Witness):
Testified via deposition regarding the execution of the lost will (November 1929).
Claimed the will was signed by Jose B. Suntay and witnessed by Alberto Barretto, Manuel Lopez, and himself.
Admitted he did not read the will and only knew its contents from Jose B. Suntay and a Chinese translation of the draft.
Ana Suntay:
Claimed she saw Apolonio read the will in September 1934 and learned about the adjudication of the estate.
Her testimony was inconsistent and only partially corroborated the will's contents.
Anastacio Teodoro:
Claimed Go Toh delivered an envelope containing the will to him in November 1934, but it was later snatched.
Stated the will matched the draft (Exhibit B).
Federico C. Suntay:
Testified that he read the will, which stated that the surviving widow was entitled to two-thirds of the estate.
His testimony was inconsistent with Exhibit B and other evidence.
Whether the alleged November 1929 will executed in Manila should be probated despite its loss.
The November 1929 will could not be admitted as a lost will because its provisions were not clearly and distinctly proven by at least two credible witnesses, as required by Section 6, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court.
The testimony of Go Toh, who relied on information from Jose B. Suntay and a Chinese translation of the draft, was inadmissible hearsay and could not be used to prove the contents of the lost will.
The inconsistencies in the testimonies of Ana Suntay and Federico C. Suntay undermined the credibility of their claims about the will's contents.
Whether the alleged January 4, 1931, will executed in Amoy, China, should be admitted as a valid foreign will.
The January 4, 1931, foreign will allegedly probated in Amoy was also not sufficiently proven to justify its admission in Philippine probate proceedings.
Whether Silvino Suntay and Maria Natividad Lim Billian were estopped from seeking probate due to their previous transfer of interests in the estate.
Silvino Suntay and Maria Natividad Lim Billian were not estopped from asking for probate, as the validity of the transfers of their estate shares was not at issue in this probate proceeding.
Whether the petition for probate was barred by prescription.
The petition filed in 1947 was not barred by prescription, as it was filed within the 10-year period from the previous dismissal in 1938.
The petition for probate of both wills was denied, and the estate remained under intestate proceedings.
Petitioner A.W. Fluemer is the special administrator of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix.
He claimed that the will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia, on November 3, 1925.
He sought to have it recognized in the Philippines under the laws of West Virginia.
The petitioner attempted to prove the will by presenting an extract from West Virginia’s laws but failed to meet legal requirements for proving foreign laws in Philippine courts.
The due execution of the will was not properly established:
The only testimony came from the petitioner.
No proof showed that the testator acknowledged the will before two witnesses, as required by West Virginia law.
No alternative proof was provided since the witnesses resided outside the Philippines.
The petitioner also failed to prove Hix’s domicile in West Virginia, contradicting his own argument by initiating principal administration proceedings in the Philippines instead of West Virginia.
Whether the alleged will of Edward Randolph Hix properly proven and entitled to probate in the Philippines.
The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts.
The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of the various States of the American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts.
The requirements for proving foreign law were not met (failure to comply with Sections 300 and 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
The due execution of the will was not sufficiently established by competent witnesses or alternative means.
The petitioner’s actions indicated an intention to make the Philippines the principal place of administration, rather than West Virginia.
There was no proof that the deceased left any property in West Virginia, further questioning the claim of domicile.
Palaganas vs Palaganas (GR No. 169144, January 26, 2011)
In 2001, Ruperta C. Palaganas, a Filipino who became a naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen, died single and childless.
She executed a last will and testament in California, designating her brother, Sergio C. Palaganas, as the executor of her will since left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S.
In 2003, respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas, another brother of Ruperta, filed a petition for the probate of Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as special administrator of her estate.
Petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas, nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition.
They argued that the will should be probated in the U.S. where it was executed.
They also claimed the will was invalid due to duress and lack of full understanding by Ruperta.
Sergio, were on separate occasions in the Philippines for a short visit, respondent Ernesto filed a motion with the RTC for leave to take their deposition, which it granted.Since Ruperta’s foreign-based siblings, Gloria Villaluz and
RTC-Bulacan: Admitted to probate Ruperta’s last will and appointed respondent Ernesto as special administrator at the request of Sergio, the U.S.-based executor designated in the will.
CA: Affirmed the assailed order of the RTC.
Whether a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the Philippines although it has not been previously probated and allowed in the country where it was executed. YES
No law prohibits probate of a foreigner’s will in the Philippines even if it has not yet been probated abroad.
Article 816 of the Civil Code: A will of an alien produces effect in the Philippines if executed according to the laws of:
The place where the testator resided at the time, or
The testator’s home country.
Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court:
If a decedent was a foreign inhabitant, the RTC of the province where the estate is located has jurisdiction.
Rules 76, Sections 1 & 2:
Probate of a foreign will may be initiated by any interested party.
Reprobate vs. First-Time Probate:
Reprobate (Rule 77): When a will has already been probated abroad, the local court merely acknowledges the foreign probate findings.
First-Time Probate: The will is directly presented to a Philippine court for probate.
Requiring probate abroad first may deprive heirs of their inheritance if they lack means to initiate foreign proceedings.
Vda. De Perez vs. Tolete (GR No. 76714,June 2, 1994)
Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan established a medical practice in New York, U.S.A.
They lived with their children in Syracuse, New York.
On August 23, 1979, Dr. Jose executed a will leaving his estate to his wife and, in her absence, to their children and grandchildren, with Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as trustee and substitute executor.
On August 27, 1979, Dr. Evelyn executed a similar will.
On January 9, 1982, the entire Cunanan family perished in a fire.
Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. filed probate proceedings in New York.
In April 1983, the wills were admitted to probate.
Salud Teodoro Perez (Dr. Evelyn's mother) petitioned for the reprobate of the wills and her appointment as special administratrix.
Dr. Jose's siblings contested, arguing they were excluded and not notified.
Petitioner was estopped from denying their heirship due to the prior agreement.
Asserted that Rule 77, Section 2 requires compliance with Rule 76, Sections 3, 4, and 5 regarding notice to heirs.
Salud countered that under New York law, they were not legal heirs.
Petitioner claimed to be the “sole and only heir” of Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan.
Argued that the Cunanan heirs were “complete strangers” and not entitled to notice.
Since Dr. Jose's will presumed his wife survived him, his estate passed to Dr. Evelyn, making Salud the sole heir.
Contended that Rule 77, not Rule 76, applied since it involved wills proved outside the Philippines, and Rule 77, Section 2 does not require notice to the executor.
RTC Bulacan: Disallowed reprobate of the wills.
Revoked Salud’s appointment as special administratrix.
Required Salud to submit an inventory of properties she received.
Reason: No proof of New York law on will execution and allowance.
RTC: Granted motion to submit additional evidence on New York laws.
However, RTC ruled that joint probate of two wills was not procedural.
Whether the two wills probated in New York could be reprobated in the Philippines.
Article 816, Civil Code: A foreigner’s will is valid in the Philippines if it follows the law of the place of residence, the testator's country, or Philippine law.
Requirements for Reprobate of Foreign Wills:
Due execution of the will under foreign law.
Testator's domicile was abroad.
Will was probated in the foreign country.
Foreign tribunal was a probate court.
Proof of foreign laws on probate.
Petitioner failed to prove (1) and (5), but sought time to submit additional evidence.
Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws.
Joint Probate of Wills Allowed:
Since the wills contained similar provisions, joint probate would prevent delays.
Rule 1, Section 2 of the Rules of Court mandates liberal interpretation to ensure just, speedy, and inexpensive proceedings.
Dr. Jose’s Siblings Were Entitled to Notice:
Petitioner treated herself as the sole heir of Evelyn Cunanan but did not recognize Jose Cunanan’s heirs.
She failed to notify Jose Cunanan’s siblings of the probate proceedings.
The reprobate of a foreign will requires compliance with Rule 76, Sections 3 and 4 of the Rules of Court, mandating notice to heirs, legatees, and devisees.
Charles and Linnie Jane Hodges executed mutual wills stating that the surviving spouse would inherit the entire estate for their lifetime, after which the remainder would go to the deceased spouse’s siblings.
In 1957, Mrs. Hodges died first.
Mr. Hodges was appointed special administrator and eventually executor of the will.
However, no liquidation was undertaken.
Charles allegedly renounced his inheritance in favor of Linnie Jane’s other heirs for U.S. tax purposes.
In 1962, Mr. Hodges died.
Avelina Magno was appointed Administratrix of the testate estate of Mrs. Hodges.
She was also the Special Administratrix of the estate of Mr. Hodges but was later on replaced by PCIB.
The probate proceedings for both estates initially proceeded jointly but later diverged, leading to legal complications.
PCIB argued that since the spouses were Philippine residents, Mrs. Hodges’ estate should be limited to one-half of the conjugal partnership, per Philippine law.
Magno contended that Texas law (national law) should apply, which did not recognize a system of legitime, allowing Mrs. Hodges to dispose of her entire share.
Existence of Linnie's Estate:
Linnie's estate was not fully adjudicated to Charles in 1957. The will provided for a life estate to Charles, with the remainder to Linnie's brothers and sisters.
Thus, the estate continued to exist after Charles' death.
Mrs. Hodges’ estate consisted of at least one-fourth of the conjugal estate at the time of her death, minus any gratuitous dispositions made by Charles Hodges.
The provision in Mrs. Hodges’ will was not an invalid testamentary substitution but a conditional simultaneous institution of heirs.
PCIB was estopped from claiming that Mrs. Hodges’ estate was less than one-fourth of the conjugal estate, based on its own admissions.
The determination of whether Charles Hodges had renounced his inheritance and whether the estate of Mrs. Hodges could be more than one-fourth was left for further proceedings.
The probate case of Mrs. Hodges must continue, and Magno remains the legal administratrix.
Pending final liquidation, both administrators should act jointly in managing the estates.
The applicable law, whether Philippine or Texan, remained a factual issue requiring further evidence before the lower court.
Jurisdiction of the Probate Court:
The probate court retained jurisdiction over Linnie's estate, as the estate had not been fully distributed. The court had the authority to issue orders related to the administration of the estate.
Validity of Magno's Acts:
The Court upheld the validity of the orders approving Magno's acts of administration, as they were in accordance with the will and the probate court's jurisdiction.