REQUIREMENT FOR REPROBATE

G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994

SALUD TEODORO VDA. DE PEREZ, petitioner,

vs.
HON. ZOTICO A. TOLETE in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 18, RTC,
Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS:

Spouses Dr. Jose Cunanan, and Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan , both American citizens,
executed a separate last will and testament, bequeathing to their other-half their real
and personal properties “wherever situated”. In the event one of them would survive,
he/she bequeathed all his/her property to their children and grandchildren with Dr.
Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as trustee. He/She appointed his wife/husband as executrix of
his/her last will and testament and Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as substitute executor.

Subsequently, Dr. Cunanan and his entire family perished when they were trapped by
fire that gutted their home. Thereafter, Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as trustee and
substitute executor of the two wills, filed separate proceedings for the probate thereof
with the Surrogate Court of the County of Onondaga, New York.

On April 7, these two wills were admitted to probate and letters testamentary were
issued in his favor.

On the other hand, Salud Teodoro Perez, the mother of Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan, and
petitioner herein, filed with the RTC a petition for the reprobate of the two wills
ancillary to the probate proceedings in New York. She asked to be appointed as the
special administratrix of the estate of the deceased couple consisting of a real property
in the Philippines, which the RTC granted.

The petitioner filed a motion that asked Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Sr. be ordered to deliver to
her a Philippine Trust Company passbook with P25,594.00 in savings deposit, and the
Family Savings Bank time deposit certificates in the total amount of P12,412.52.

The heirs of Dr. Jose Cunanan filed for the deferment of the hearing on the motions on
the grounds that they haven’t been notified of the proceedings.

The petitioner contends that the wills of the Spouses Cunanans being American citizens,
were executed in accordance with the solemnities and formalities of New York laws,
and produced "effects in this jurisdiction in accordance with Art. 16 in relation to Art.
816 of the Civil Code.

1
Judge de la Llana issued an order, disallowing the reprobate of the two wills. The latter
reasoned out that petitioner failed to prove the law of New York on procedure and
allowance of wills and the court had no way of telling whether the wills were executed
in accordance with the law of New York. In the absence of such evidence, the
presumption is that the law of succession of the foreign country is the same as the law
of the Philippines.

ISSUE: WON, the petitioner sufficiently suffices the requirements for reprobate of
wills?

RULING:

Art. 816 of NCC. 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.

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.

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.

While the probate of a will is a special proceeding wherein courts should relax the rules
on evidence, the goal is to receive the best evidence of which the matter is susceptible
before a purported will is probated or denied probate.

2
G.R. No. 169144 January 26, 2011

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF

RUPERTA PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR, MANUEL MIGUEL PALAGANAS and BENJAMIN
GREGORIO PALAGANAS, Petitioners,
vs.
ERNESTO PALAGANAS, Respondent.

FACTS:

Ruperta, an American citizen, single and childless, died. Her last will and testament
executed in California, designated her brother, Sergio C. Palaganas (Sergio), as the
executor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S.

Respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas (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.

Petitioners Manuel Palaganas (Manuel) and Benjamin Palaganas (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.

The RTC issued an order to admit to probate Ruperta’s last will. The petitioners filed an
appeal before CA on the grounds that an unprobated will executed by an American
citizen in the U.S. cannot be probated for the first time in the Philippines. The CA
affirmed the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE: WON, 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:

YES. 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.

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 addition, 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

3
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.

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.

Hence, 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.

GROUNDS FOR INCOMPETENCE OF A PERSON TO BE AN EXECUTOR OR

ADMINISTRATOR

4
G.R. No. L-17633 October 19, 1966

CIRILO LIM, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
BASILISA DIAZ-MILLAREZ, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS:

Cirilo Lim, claiming to be a nephew of the late Jose Millarez who died intestate filed
with the Court of First Instance a petition for his appointment as judicial administrator
of the estate of the deceased.

Basilisa Diaz-Millarez, claiming to be a widow of the late Jose Millarez, filed an

opposition on two grounds: that the petitioner has an adverse interest in the estate; and
that the properties of the estate are the subject matter of a litigation between her as
plaintiff and Cirilo Lim.

ISSUE: WON, the petitioner is competent to be an administrator of the estate of the

deceased?

RULING:

NO. The petitioner is incompetent to be an administrator of the estate of the

deceased.

Cirilo Lim, as a relative of the deceased, has some interest adverse to that of
Basilisa. Shown to have some liabilities to Basilisa and to the estate as a whole, Cirilo
cannot compatibly perform the duties of an administrator.

In this jurisdiction, one is considered to be unsuitable for appointment as

administrator when he has adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those
immediately interested in the estate.

Hence, the petitioner is incompetent to be an administrator of the estate of the

deceased.

RULE ON BONDS OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS AND

CONDITIONS

5
G.R. No. 187879 July 5, 2010

DALISAY E. OCAMPO, VINCE E. OCAMPO, MELINDA CARLA E. OCAMPO, and

LEONARDO E. OCAMPO, JR., Petitioners,
vs.
RENATO M. OCAMPO and ERLINDA M. OCAMPO, Respondents.

FACTS:

The petitioners are the surviving wife and the children of the decedent Leonardo
Ocampo. The latter and his siblings, herein respondents are the legitimate children and
only heirs of the spouses Vicente and Maxima Ocampo, which left several properties,
left no will and no debts.

Petitioners initiated a petition for intestate proceedings in the RTC. The petition alleged
that, upon the death of Vicente and Maxima, respondents and their brother Leonardo
jointly controlled, managed, and administered the estate of their parents. However,
when Leonardo died, respondents took possession, control and management of the
properties to the exclusion of petitioners.

The petition prayed for the settlement of the estate of Vicente and Maxima and the
estate of Leonardo. It, likewise, prayed for the appointment of an administrator to
apportion, divide, and award the two estates among the lawful heirs of the decedents.

On the other hand, the respondents filed their Opposition and Counter-Petition. The
RTC denied respondents’ opposition to the settlement proceedings but admitted their
counter-petition.

Through a Motion for Appointment of Joint Special Administrators dated October 11,
2005, respondents reiterated their prayer for appointment as special joint administrators
of the estate, and to serve as such without posting a bond.

The RTC appointed Dalisay and Renato as special joint administrators of the estate of
the deceased spouses, and required them to post a bond of ₱200,000.00 each.

Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration insisting that Dalisay was incompetent
and unfit to be appointed as administrator of the estate, considering that she even failed
to take care of her husband Leonardo.

The RTC revoked the appointment of Dalisay as co-special administratrix, substituting

her with Erlinda. The RTC took into consideration the fact that respondents were the
nearest of kin of Vicente and Maxima.

6
Respondents then filed a Motion for Exemption to File Administrators’ Bond praying
that they be allowed to enter their duties as special administrators without the need to
file an administrators’ bond due to their difficulty in raising the necessary amount.

Petitioners filed a Motion to Terminate or Revoke the Special Administration and to

Proceed to Judicial Partition or Appointment of Regular Administrator.

The RTC granted petitioners’ Motion, revoking and terminating the appointment of
Renato and Erlinda as joint special administrators, on account of their failure to comply
with its Order, particularly the posting of the required bond, and to enter their duties
and responsibilities as special administrators.

ISSUE: WON, the RTC is correct in denying the respondent’s application for an
exemption to post bond?

RULING:

YES. The RTC is correct in denying the respondent’s application for an

exemption to post bond.

Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 81, the bond secures the performance of the duties
and obligations of an administrator namely: (1) to administer the estate and pay the
debts; (2) to perform all judicial orders; (3) to account within one (1) year and at any
other time when required by the probate court; and (4) to make an inventory within
three (3) months.

More specifically, per Section 4 of the same Rule, the bond is conditioned on the
faithful execution of the administration of the decedent’s estate requiring the special
administrator to (1) make and return a true inventory of the goods, chattels, rights,
credits, and estate of the deceased which come to his possession or knowledge; (2) truly
account for such as received by him when required by the court; and (3) deliver the
same to the person appointed as executor or regular administrator, or to such other
person as may be authorized to receive them.

Verily, the administration bond is for the benefit of the creditors and the heirs, as
it compels the administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the trust reposed in,
and discharge the obligations incumbent upon, him. Its object and purpose is to
safeguard the properties of the decedent, and, therefore, the bond should not be
considered as part of the necessary expenses chargeable against the estate, not being
included among the acts constituting the care, management, and settlement of the
estate. Moreover, the ability to post the bond is in the nature of a qualification for the
office of administration.

7
 Hence, the RTC is correct in denying the respondent’s application for an
exemption to post bond.

G.R. No. 102372 November 15, 1994

8
FLAVIANO S. GASPAY, JR., AND ERIBERTA S. GASPAY, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND GUADALUPE GASPAY ALFARO, respondents.

FACTS:

Flaviano Gaspay, married, childless, died without a last will and testament. Private respondent
Guadalupe Gaspay Alfaro files a petition in the trial court alleging, among others, that she is the
acknowledged illegitimate daughter of the deceased Flaviano Gaspay. She prayed for issuance of
letters of administration of the decedent's estate.

Petitioners Flaviano S. Gaspay, Jr., and Eriberta Salvatieva Gaspay opposed the petition with
motion to dismiss. They alleged that private respondent is a stranger and even assuming her
illegitimate status, there is no proof of her recognition or acknowledgment.

The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. However, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: WON, the private respondent is entitled to Letters of Administration?

RULING:

YES. The private respondent is entitled to Letters of Administration.