"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 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. 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 impracticality.
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.
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 California. This explains the trial court’s directive for Ernesto
to submit the duly authenticated copy of Ruperta’s will and the certified copies
of the Laws of Succession and Probate of Will of California."
(Abad, J., In Re:
In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Willof Ruperta Palaganas with
Prayer for the Appointment of Special Administrator, Manuel Miguel Palaganas
and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas v. Ernesto Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, January
26, 2011.)
