Dalton vs Giberson Lela g.

Dalton presented ' on February 10, 1949 an application in the Court of first instance of Cebu asking for the legalization of a document claiming, according to her, is testament holograph of William r. Giberson, awarded en on April 29, 1920 in San Francisco, California; Giberson was citizen of the State of Illinois, United States, and resident of Cebu; and that he died in August 6, 1943 in the concentration of the University of Sto Tomas, Manila, Philippines. Spring Giberson, son of William r. Giberson, legitimate present an opposition claiming that the Testament is apocryphon; that does not represent the true will of the decedent Giberson: and that has not been 9 gado in accordance with the law. On 1 July 1949, the opposition present a motion asking for the dismissal of the request, claiming that, before a given country foreigner can will be legalized in the Philippine Islands, must be shown that the will had been previously legalized in that country, in accordance with the article 1 of rule 78; that the request does not claim that Testament had already been legalized in California. The applicant objected to the motion for stay of proceedings. On June 20, 1950 the judge sobreseyo the request, stating: "... under our existing rules only those wills that have previously been proved and allowed in the United States, or any state or territory thereof, or any foreign country, according to the laws of such state, territory, or country, may be allowed, filed or recorded in the proper court of first instance in the Philippines...." The applicant appealed against this order. The opposition, in support of his theory, argues that the article 635 of the code of Civil procedure has been repealed by the 78 rule, by virtue of section 13, article VIII of the Constitution. Said article 635 of the code of Civil Procedure says so: The Testament outside the Philippines, awarded can authenticate and legalized in accordance with the laws of the State or country where I give my, may authenticate, legalize it and register in the Philippine Islands, and will have the same efficiency ques was given in accordance with the laws of these islands. This article and has been applied in the case of Babcock Templeton against Rider Babcock, 52 Jur. Fil., 134, in which declare that the Testament awarded in California and that could legalize in that State can be legalized in the Philippines. In the case of Varela against Varela Caldern, 57 Jur. Fil., 291, be legalized the Testament awarded in Paris, France, by the late Dr. Francisco Varela Caldern because it was a testament to legalized in accordance with the laws of France podiaser. A person can have their property after his death by Testament. The granting of a testamentoes an act legal that you can perform in the Philippines or abroad; If granted in a foreign country, you may be in accordance with the laws of that country, which is universally adopted rule. Abroad may be for after their death of their property in the Philippines by will and is not forced to give it in the Philippines; You can do so in their own country or elsewhere, but in accordance with the laws of the country in which granted it. Article 635 of the code of Civil procedure, respecting the freedom of the testator give his testament in any place, has the testament that can legalize in a foreign country in accordance with the laws of that country can legalizsarse also in the Philippines. Such a provision is substantive, creates the rights of beneficiaries of the Testament: be assured to legalize in the Philippines Islands granted outside wills if they can be legalized in the country in which they were granted, giving

them a cause of action for pedirjudicialmente compliance of the last will of the testator, whatever the place of their grant. Its said would be available truncated the Faculty of test. To this Court amend the code of Civil procedure, only enmendo the procedural part, but not the substantive part. "The substantive law can not be enmendadapor rules of procedure." (Kings against the widow of light, ** 16 Lawyer Journal, 623.) For both, is still subsisting as substantive law articulo635 of the code of Civil procedure. And the article 637 says so: "wills authenticated and authenticated in the United States or in any State or territory of the same, or a State or paisextranjero, in accordance with the laws of said State, territory or country, may be legalized, registered yarchivados in the Court of first instance in the provinciaen that the testator has movable property"", or estate so by such wills." This articulono this in conflict with the article 635; in fact, its not more than its corollary. If a testament given in foreign country which can be legalized in accordance with the laws of that country can also legalized in the Philippines, with greater reason wills already legalizadosen foreign countries according to the laws of those countries, also in the Philippines can be legalised. Article 1 of the 78 rule is not more than a transplant of the article 637 of the code of Civil procedure. We reproduce the two provisions: RULE 78,-SECTION 1. Wills 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. SEC. 637. Wills proved outside islands may be allowed here. Wills proved and allowed in the United States, or any State or Territory thereof, or in a foreign state or country, according to the laws of such State, Territory, or country, may be allowed, filed,and recorded in the Court of First Instance of the province in which the testator has real or personal estate on which such will may operate. The words highlighted in the second provision are not listed in the first. Article 1 of rule 78 does not preclude that a awarded in a foreign country, if it can be legalized in accordance with the laws of that country can legalize in the Philippines, nor requires either previously legalized in this country. It is therefore untenable, the theory of the opponent. The appeal with costs against the respondent order was revoked.