In re Estate of Johnson 39 Phil 156
The testatrix was an American citizen at the time of her death and was a
FACTS:
1. This is the case where one of the daughters in the first marriage wanted to
invalidate the will so that intestate proceedings may instead be conducted
(i.e. she will be an heir).
2. Will was earlier probated, allegedly in accordance with Illinois law (TC
judge took JN of the law just based on an annotation), and is sought to be
nullified on the grounds that it was not made in accordance with Illinois law
and that the decedent is an RP resident.
3. Court held that since no Illinois law showed (to prove that it was indeed
not made in accordance with Illinois law) and since what matters is that
the decedent is a CITIZEN of Illinois and since she did not contest the
taking of JN of the TC of a foreign law w/o the proof required, then deemed
admitted that the will was in accordance with Illinois law.
ISSUE 1: W/N Section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to
wills of aliens residing in RP?
LB: Section 636: authorizes probate by our courts of a will made within the
Philippine Islands by a citizen or subject of another state or country, when such will
is executed in accordance with the law of the state or country of which the testator
is a citizen of subject, and which might be proved under the law of such state or
country.
AP: -IT IS APPLICABLE: the "state" would include US, and the operation of law is
not limited to wills of aliens.
-if Johnson was at the time of his death a citizen of US and of the state of
Illinois, his will was provable under this section in the courts of the
Philippines, provided the instrument was so executed as to be admissible to
probate under laws of the State of Illinois
ISSUE 2: W/N Decedent is a national of Illinois (to warrant the application of
Illinois law)
YES. Proof adduced before TC showed he was indeed a national of Illinois. Petition
merely contests the residence of the decedent to be in the Philippines, but not the
nationality
Why contested residence: US naturalization laws require residence of at least 5
years in US and 1 year w/n the State or territory where the court granting the
naturalization papers is held to grant the certificate of naturalization
AP: -still, no other proof to rebut the presumption that he was indeed naturalized as
a US citizen (particularly of Illinois)
Babcock Templeton v. Rider Babcock
Cayetano v. Leonidas
FACTS
1.
permanent resident of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that the testatrix died in
Manila while temporarily residing with her sister; that during her lifetime,
the testatrix made her last will and testament according to the laws of
Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that after the testatrix death, her last will and
testament was presented, probated, allowed, and registered with the
Registry of Wills at the County of Philadelphia, U.S.A.
2. An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by herein petitioner
alleging among other things that the intrinsic provisions of the will are null
and void.
3. The petitioner maintains that since the respondent judge allowed the
reprobate of Adoracion’s will, Campos was divested of his legitime which
was reserved by the law for him.
ISSUES
[1]Whether or not the Philippine law will apply to determine the intrinsic validity of a
will executed by an undisputed foreigner.
[2] Whether or not Philippine law will apply to determine the capacity to succeed of
Adoracion’s heirs.
RULING
[1] NO. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of
the will, as provided for by Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the national law
of the decedent must apply. This was squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis
(20 SCRA 358).“It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs
may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend
the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to
leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent’s national law.
Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.”
[2] NO. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
(Article 1039, Civil Code) The law which governs Adoracion Campo’s will is the law
of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent. Although the
parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all
the estate may be given away by the testatrix to a complete stranger, the petitioner
argues that such law should not apply because it would be contrary to the sound
and established public policy and would run counter to the specific provisions of
Philippine Law.
Miciano v. Brimo
FACTS:
1. Joseph Brimo, an alien testator (Turk) who made his will in the Philippines
stated in the will thathis property should be distributed in accordance with
Philippine law, and not that of his nation.
2. The judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased filed a scheme of
partition. However, one of the brothers of the deceased opposed the said
partition.
 3. The appellant in the case, who opposed the same, based his opposition on
the fact that the deceased was a Turkish citizen, which his disposition
should be in accordance with the laws of his nationality.
ISSUE: Whether or not the disposition shall be made in accordance with Philippine
Laws.
RULING:
No, the Turkish law should govern the disposition of his property pursuant to Article
16.
According to Article 16 of the Civil Code, such national law of the testator is the one
to governhis testamentary dispositions.
The provision in the will is not valid. Said condition then is considered unwritten,
hence the institution of legatees is unconditional and consequently valid and
effective.
IMPOSSIBLE CONDITION
Though the last part of the second clause of the will expressly said that “it be made
and disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the Philippine Island”, this
condition, described as impossible conditions, shall be considered as not imposed
and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever, even should
the testator otherwise provide. Impossible conditions are further defined as those
contrary to law or good morals. Thus, national law of the testator shall govern in
his testamentary dispositions.
The court approved the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial administrator,
in such manner as to include Andre Brimo, as one of the legatees.
Bohanan v. Bohanan
Dalton v. Giberson
FACTS
Lela G. Dalton presented on February 10, 1949 an application with the Court of First
Instance of Cebu for the probate of the holographic will of William R. Giberson, a
citizen of the State of Illinois, United States, dated April 29, 1920 in San Francisco,
California. Spring Giberson, legitimate son of William R. Giberson, presented an
opposition alleging that the will is apocrypha (with questionable authenticity), it
does not represent the true will of the late Giberson, and has not been granted
according to the law.
ISSUE Whether the wills executed outside the Philippines may be probated without
being first probated in the country of its execution.
RULING
YES.
LB: Section 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that “a will made out of the
Philippine Islands… may be proved, allowed, and recorded in the Philippine Islands,
and shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of these Islands”
is still in force and has not been abrogated by Rule 78 of the Rules of Court.
AP: Here, the will of William Giberson need not be probated first in the State of
Illinois, USA before it may be probated here in the Philippines. The Court opined
that Section 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure is substantive in nature and
therefore could not have been repealed by the Rules of Court which are only
procedural in nature.
Suntay v. Suntay
FACTS:
1. Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines, died in
Amoy, China. He left real and personal properties in the Philippines and a
house in Amoy.
2. During his lifetime, he married twice, the first wife was Manuela Cruz, with
whom he had several children. The second marriage was with Maria
Natividad Lim Brillian, with whom he had a son, petitioner Silvino Suntay.
3. Intestate proceedings were instituted by the heirs from the first marriage.
While the second wife, the surviving widow who remained in Amoy China,
filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the
deceased which was claimed to have been executed and signed in the
Philippines on November, 1929.
4. The petition was denied due to the loss of the will before the hearing
thereof.
5. After the pacific war, Silvino, claimed to have found among the records of
his father, a last will and testament in Chinese characters executed and
signed by the deceased on January, 1931 and probated in the Amoy
District Court.
6. He filed a petition in the intestate proceedings for the probate of the will
executed in the Philippines on November 1929 or the will executed in Amoy
China on November, 1931.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will executed in Amoy, China can still be validly
probated in the Philippines
RULING: NO.
The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, China is a probate court must be
proved. The law of China on procedure in the probate or allowance of wills must also
be proved. The legal requirements for the execution of the will in China in 1931
should also be established by competent evidence. There is no proof on these
points.
Moreover, it appears that all the proceedings had in the municipal district court of
Amoy were for the purpose of taking the testimony of two attesting witnesses to the
will and that the order of the municipal district court of Amoy does not purport to
probate the will.
The order of the municipal district court of Amoy, China does not purport to probate
or allow the will which was the subject of the proceedings. In view thereof, the will
and the alleged probate thereof cannot be said to have been done in accordance
with the accepted basic and fundamental concepts and principles followed in the
probate and allowance of wills.
Consequently, the authenticated transcript of proceedings held in the municipal
district court of Amoy, China, cannot be deemed and accepted as proceedings
leading to the probate of allowance of a will and therefore, the will referred to
therein cannot be allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court of this country.
Vda de Perez v. Tolete
FACTS:
1. Dr. Jose Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who became
American citizens and residents of New York, each executed a will also in
New York, containing provisions on presumption of survivorship (in the
event that it is not known which one of the spouses died first, the husband
shall be presumed to have predeceased his wife). Later, the entire family
perished in a fire that gutted their home. Thus, Rafael, who was named
trustee in Jose’s will, filed for separate probate proceedings of the wills.
2. Later, Evelyn’s mother, Salud Perez, filed a petition for reprobate in
Bulacan. Rafael opposed, arguing that Salud was not an heir according to
New York law. He contended that since the wills were executed in New
York, New York law should govern. He further argued that, by New York
law, he and his brothers and sisters were Jose’s heirs and as such entitled
to notice of the reprobate proceedings, which Salud failed to give.
3. For her part, Salud said she was the sole heir of her daughter, Evelyn, and
that the two wills were in accordance with New York law. But before she
could present evidence to prove the law of New York, the reprobate court
already issued an order, disallowing the wills.
ISSUE: Whether or not the reprobate of the wills should be allowed
HELD:
Extrinsic Validity of Wills of Non-Resident Aliens
The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were American citizens, will only
be effective in this country upon compliance with the following provision of the Civil
Code of the Philippines:
Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if
made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or
according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those
which this Code prescribes.
Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities prescribed by New York laws
or by Philippine laws is imperative.
Evidence for Reprobate of Wills Probated outside the Philippines
The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have been
probated outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will
in accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his domicile in the foreign
country and not in the Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted to probate in such
country; (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws of
a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills (III Moran Commentaries on
the Rules of Court, 1970 ed., pp. 419-429; Suntay v. Suntay, 95 Phil. 500 [1954];
Fluemer v. Hix, 54 Phil. 610 [1930]). Except for the first and last requirements, the
petitioner submitted all the needed evidence.
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.
On Lack of Notice to Jose’s Heirs
This petition cannot be completely resolved without touching on a very glaring fact -
petitioner has always considered herself the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn Perez Cunanan
and because she does not consider herself an heir of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, she
noticeably failed to notify his heirs of the filing of the proceedings. Thus, even in the
instant petition, she only impleaded respondent Judge, forgetting that a judge
whose order is being assailed is merely a nominal or formal party (Calderon v.
Solicitor General, 215 SCRA 876 [1992]).
The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall "cause
notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance"
(Revised Rules of Court, Rule 27, Section 2) means that with regard to notices, the
will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will" or 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, are required.
The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to petitioner's claim, are
entitled to notices of the time and place for proving the wills. Under Section 4 of
Rule 76 of the Revised Rules of Court, the "court shall also cause copies of the
notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the
designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator, . . . "
WHEREFORE, the questioned Order is SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge shall allow
petitioner reasonable time within which to submit evidence needed for the joint
probate of the wills of the Cunanan spouses and see to it that the brothers and
sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan are given all notices and copies of all pleadings
pertinent to the probate proceedings.
Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated Inc
Since there is refusal, persistently adhered to by the domiciliary administration in
New York, to deliver the shares of stocks of appellant corporation owned by the
decedent to the ancillary administration in the Philippines, there was nothing
unreasonable or arbitrary in considering them lost and requiring the appellant to
issue new certificates in lieu thereof. Thereby the task incumbent under the law on
the ancillary administration could be discharged and his responsibility fulfilled.
Assuming that a contrariety exist between the provision of the laws and the
command of a court decree, the latter is to be followed.
A corporation as known to Philippine jurisprudence is a creature without any
existence until it has received the imprimatur of state according to law. It is logically
inconceivable therefore it will have rights and privileges of a higher priority than
that of its creator, more than that, it cannot legitimately refuse to yield obedience to
acts of its state organs, certainly not excluding the judiciary, whenever called upon
to do so.

Facts: County Trust Company of New York, United States of America is the
domiciliary administration of the decedent, Idonah Slade Perkins who owned 33,002
shares of stocks in the appellant, domestic corporation, Benguet Consolidated Inc.
located in the Philippines. A dispute arose between the appellee, Tayag who is the
appointed ancillary of Perkins in the Philippines and the domiciliary administration
as to who is entitled to the possession of the certificate of shares, however, County
Trust Company refuses to transfer the said certificate to Tayag despite the order of
the court. Hence, the appellee was compelled to petition the court for the appellant
to declare the subject certificates as lost to which appellant allegeed that no new
certificate can be issued and the same cannot be rendered as lost in accordance
with their by-laws.

Issue: Whether or not the certificate of shares of stock can be declared lost.

Held: Yes. Administration whether principal or ancillary certainly extends to the

assets of a decedent found within the state or country where it was granted.

It is often necessary to have more than one administration of an estate. When a

person dies intestate owning property located in the country of his domicile as well
as in a foreign country, administration is had in both countries. That which is
granted in the jurisdiction of decedent’s last domicile is termed the principal
administration, while any other administration is termed the ancillary
administration. The reason for the latter is because a grant of administration does
not ex proprio vigore have any effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is
granted. Hence, an administration appointed in a foreign state has no authority in
the Philippines. The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies,
leaving in a country other than that of his last domicile, property to be administered
in the nature of the deceased’s liable for his individual debts or to be distributed
among his heirs.