Suntay vs Suntay

95 Phil. 500

Facts:

Jose Suntay executed two wills one here in the Philippines and the other in Fookien Amoy in China. The
probate for the will that was executed in the Philippines was denied due to the will being lost. Silvino
Suntay then stated that he found the will of Jose Suntay among his documents and it was written in
Chinese characters. He also stated that this will was filed, recorded and probated in Amoy District of
China.

Issue:

Whether or not the will that was probated in China according to Silvino Suntay may be probated here in
the Philippines.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court stated that the will allegedly executed in China cannot be probated in this case.
Under Rule 78 of Rules of Court section 1 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. Section 2 of Rule 78 provides that when a copy of such will and the allowance thereof, duly
authenticated, is 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. Section 3 provides
that 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 proved and allowed in such court.

In this case the Supreme Court stated that the Municipal district court in China must be proven to be a
probate court and that the laws for the procedure of probate, allowance and execution in China must
also be proven by competent evidence. This was not done in this case. But the order from the Municipal
district court of Amoy does not purport for the will to be probated rather it only takes the testimony of
two attesting witnesses. The probate of a will is a proceeding in rem thus personal notice must be given
to interested parties in order for it to be valid. No personal notice was given to the interested parties
here in the Philippines for the probate of the subject will and also the proceedings in China does not
purport the probate of the said will therefore it cannot be probated.

Since there was no proof of the Municipal district court in China being a probate court and of its probate
procedures it may be presumed that the proceedings for the probate and allowance of wills in Chinese
courts is the same in Philippines Courts.