12.

PALAGANAS VS PALAGANAS – 2011

FACTS:

Ruperta, a Filipino who became a naturalized US citizen, died single and childless.
Inthe last will and testament she executed in California, she designated her brother,
Sergio, as theexecutor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the
U.S.Ernesto, another brother of Ruperta, filed with the RTC, a petition for the probate of
Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as special administrator of her estate. However,
Manueland Benjamin, nephews of Ruperta , opposed the petition on the ground that
Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where she
executed it. Manuel and Benjamin added that, assuming Ruperta’s will could be
probated in the Philippines, it is invalid nonetheless for having been executed under
duress and without the testator’s full understanding of the consequences of such act.
Ernesto, they claimed, is also not qualified toact as administrator of the estate. Ernesto
filed a motion with the RTC for leave totake their deposition, which it granted. The RTC
directed the parties to submit their memorandum on the issue of whether or not
Ruperta’s U.S. will may be probated in and allowed by a court in the Philippiines.The
RTC issued an order: (a) admitting to probate Ruperta’s last will; (b) appointingErnesto
as special administrator at the request of Sergio, the U.S.-based executor designated
inthe will; and (c) issuing the Letters of Special Administration to Ernesto. Manuel and
Benjaminappealed to the CA arguing that an unprobated will executed by an American
citizen in the U.S.cannot be probated for the first time in the Philippines. The appellate
court, in its decision,affirmed the order of the RTC, 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not 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?

RULING: 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.

In insisting that Ruperta’s will should have been first probated and allowed by the
courtof California, petitioners Manuel and Benjamin obviously have in mind the
procedure for thereprobate of will before admitting it here. But, reprobate or re-
authentication of a will alreadyprobated and allowed in a foreign country is different from
that probate where the will ispresented 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 courtacknowledges as binding
the findings of the foreign probate court provided its jurisdiction over the matter can be
established.

13. PASCUAL v. DELA CRUZ

FACTS:
1. 2 Jan 1960: Catalina Dela Cruz, 89, died, single and without any surviving
ascendants or descendants.
2. Andres Pascual filed a petition for the probate of her will. Pascual was named
executor and heir therein.
3. Respondents, nieces and nephews of Catalina, opposed, alleging that Catalina
was mentally incapable of disposing her properties by will at time of execution;
that such was procured through undue influence, etc; and that her signature was
procured through fraud.
4. Probate court admitted the will. Respondents appealed directly to SC (properties
involved were valued at over 300k)
5. Respondents: the testimonies of the witnesses and the Notary Public were
inconsistent and contradictory; that the will was not signed by all the witnesses in
the presence of one another. (TC: the instrument was signed in 1954, while the
testimony was given in 1962 – 8 years difference; not unreasonable for witness
to forget some details. What is important is that there be unanimity and certainty
in their testimony re: the signatures of the testatrix, the witnesses, and the notary
public, and the fact that they were all present at time of signing).
ISSUE: WN the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies would prohibit the
will from being probated? NO
HELD:
1. Where a will is contested, the subscribing with are generally regarded as the best
qualified to testify on its due execution. However, it is similarly recognized that for
the testimony of such witnesses to be entitled to full credit, it must be reasonable
and unbiased, and not overcome by competent evidence, direct or circumstantial,
for it must be remembered that the law does not simply require the presence of
three instrumental witnesses; it demands that the witnesses be credible
2. The Court agreed with the TC that the inconsistencies (weather condition at the
time the will was executed; the sequence of the signing by the witnesses; and the
length of time it took to complete the act) were not important details that could
have been affected by the lapse of time and the treachery of human
memory.
3. Inconsistencies, by themselves, would not alter the probative value of their
testimonies on the due execution of the will.
4. (Estate of Javellana v. Javellana) For the purpose of determining the due
execution of a will, it is not necessary that the instrumental witnesses should
give an accurate and detailed account of the proceeding, such as recalling
the order of the signing of the document by the said witnesses. It is
sufficient that they have seen or at least were so situated at the moment
that they could have seen each other sign, had they wanted to do so.
5. Catalina, at the time, was suffering from rheumatism (had to wear thick socks
and soft shoes), and it would not have been improbable that she had Pascual
secure witnesses. The main detail considered by the Court is the one that must
have stuck in their minds - that they did witness the signing of the will. That they
did so is attested by their signatures and those of the deceased testatrix, which
are nowhere impugned; nor is there any claim by appellants that the latter was
incapable of reading and understanding the will that she signed. In fact, the
evidence is that she did read it before signing. The authorities are to the effect
that friendly relations of the witnesses with the testator or the beneficiaries do not
affect the credibility of the former.
6. Respondent’s main contention: Tape recording (taken without their knowledge)
between the witnesses (Jiongco and Cruz) wherein one of them said that when
he signed the will, the other signatures were already there, and that the other
witnesses were not present then.
7. TC, as adopted by the SC:
a. Jiongco denied that the voice in the recording was his, and no proof was
given to show that Jiongco was indeed the one in the recording.
Apparently, there were similarities in Jiongco’s voice during trial and in the
recording, but the Court gave credence to the testimony made by him
under oath as he was subjected to cross-examination.
b. The recording said that he signed the will only on 1958/1959, but in the
Notarial Registry, the will was recorded on 1954.
8. SC stated that it was not the first time it admitted probate of a will despite
inconsistencies in the testimonies, for as long as it is satisfied that the will was
executed and attested to in the manner prescribed by law.
9. (As to fraud) the Court noted that Pascual was not a stranger in the life of
Catalina. It was also found that he had also been named sole heir to the
properties of the sisters of Catalina. Further, respondents presented no proof to
prove that such fraud was present in this case. Their main contention lied upon
the statement by Pascual that Catalina “did not like to sign anything unless I
knew it”.
10. (As to the selection of the witnesses) Pascual selected Dr. Sanchez, and not the
relatives of Catalina, as it would have meant the disclosure of the terms of her
will to those interested in her succession but who were not favored by her,
thereby exposing her to unpleasant importunity and recriminations that an aged
person would naturally seek to avoid.
11. Respondents: (American jurisprudence) assumption of undue influence if
beneficiary participates in drafting and execution of will.
12. SC: Not applicable in this case. Pascual was a lawyer, and in the normal course
of events, a lawyer would follow the instructions of the testatrix. Further, a
member of the bar in good standing may not be convicted of unprofessional
conduct or of having conspired to falsify a statement, except upon clear proof.