IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE G.R. No. 169144
PETITION TO
APPROVE THE WILL
OF RUPERTA
PALAGANAS WITH
PRAYER FOR
THE APPOINTMENT
OF SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR,
MANUEL
MIGUEL PALAGANAS and
BENJAMIN
GREGORIO PALAGANAS,
Petitioners, Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,
ABAD,
MENDOZA, and
SERENO,* JJ.
ERNESTO PALAGANAS,
Respondent. Promulgated:
January 26, 2011
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
This
case is about the probate before Philippine court of a will executed abroad by
a foreigner although it has not been probated in its place of execution.
The
Facts and the Case
On
November 8, 2001 Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a Filipino who became a naturalized
United States (U.S.) citizen, died single and childless. In the last will and testament she executed in
On
May 19, 2003 respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas (Ernesto), another brother of Ruperta, filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, a petition for the probate of Ruperta’s
will and for his appointment as special administrator of her estate.[1] On October 15, 2003, however, petitioners
Manuel Miguel Palaganas (Manuel) and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas (Benjamin),
nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will should
not be probated in the
Meantime,
since Ruperta’s foreign-based siblings, Gloria Villaluz and Sergio, were on separate
occasions in the
On
June 17, 2004 the RTC issued an order:[2] (a)
admitting to probate Ruperta’s last will; (b) appointing respondent Ernesto as
special administrator at the request of Sergio, the U.S.-based executor
designated in the will; and (c) issuing the Letters of Special Administration
to Ernesto.
Aggrieved
by the RTC’s order, petitioner nephews Manuel and Benjamin appealed to the Court
of Appeals (CA),[3] arguing
that an unprobated will executed by an American citizen in the
On
July 29, 2005 the CA rendered a decision,[4] affirming
the assailed order of the RTC,[5] holding
that the RTC properly allowed the probate of the will, subject to respondent
Ernesto’s submission of the authenticated copies of the documents specified in the
order and his posting of required bond. The
CA pointed out that Section 2, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court does not require prior
probate and allowance of the will in the country of its execution, before it
can be probated in the
The
Issue Presented
The
key issue presented in this case is whether or not a will executed by a
foreigner abroad may be probated in the
The
Court’s Ruling
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 with the legal formalities of the country of its execution. They insist that local courts can only allow
probate of such wills if the proponent proves that: (a) the testator has been
admitted for probate in such foreign country, (b) the will has been admitted to
probate there under its laws, (c) the probate court has jurisdiction over the
proceedings, (d) the law on probate procedure in that foreign country and proof
of compliance with the same, and (e) the legal requirements for the valid
execution of a will.
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
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 settlement of such estate. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state
that the executor, devisee, or legatee named in 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.
Our
rules require merely that the petition for the allowance of a will must show, so
far as known to the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional facts; (b) the names,
ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or
decedent; (c) the probable value and character of the property of the estate; (d)
the name of the person for whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will
has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of
it. Jurisdictional
facts refer to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the time
of his death in the province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an
inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left in such province.[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 Ruperta’s will should have been first probated and allowed by
the court of California, petitioners Manuel and Benjamin obviously have in mind
the procedure for the reprobate of will before admitting
it here. But, reprobate or re-authentication
of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign country is different from that
probate where the will is presented for the first time before a competent court. Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule 77
of the Rules of Court. Contrary to
petitioners’ stance, since this latter rule applies only to reprobate of a will,
it cannot be made to apply to the present case.
In reprobate, the local court acknowledges as binding the findings of
the foreign probate court provided its jurisdiction over the matter can be
established.
Besides,
petitioners’ stand is fraught with impractically. 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.[8]
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 Ruperta’s
will and that, in the meantime, it was designating Ernesto as special
administrator of the estate. The parties
have yet to present evidence of the due execution of the will, i.e. the testator’s state of mind at the
time of the execution and compliance with the formalities required of wills by
the laws of
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals decision
in CA-G.R. CV 83564 dated July 29, 2005.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA JOSE
CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional member
in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per raffle dated January 24,
2011.
[1] Docketed as Special Proceedings 112-M-2003,
Branch 10, RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 73-77.
[3]
CA-G.R. CV 83564.
[4] Penned by Associate Justice
Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia Salvador
and Fernanda Lampas Peralta.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 26-39.
[6]
Civil Code of the
[7] Cuenco v. Court of Appeals, 153 Phil. 115, 133 (1973); Herrera,
Remedial Law, Vol. III-A, Rex Bookstore, 1996 ed., p. 46.
[8]
Civil Code of the