COL Heirs of Suntay V Suntay

IN RE: TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED JOSE B.
SUNTAY; the municipal district court of Amoy were for the purpose of taking
SILVINO SUNTAY vs. IN RE: INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED the testimony of two attesting witnesses to the will and that the
JOSE B. SUNTAY; FEDERICO C. SUNTAY G.R. Nos. L-3087 and L-3088 order of the municipal district court of Amoy does not purport to
July 31, 1954 probate the will. In the absence of proof that the municipal district
court of Amoy is a probate court and on the Chinese law of
FACTS: procedure in probate matters, it may be presumed that the
proceedings in the matter of probating or allowing a will in the
In 1934, Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Chinese courts are the a deposition or to a perpetuation of
Philippines, died in Amoy, China. He left real and personal properties testimony, and even if it were so it does not measure same as those
in the Philippines and a house in Amoy. During his lifetime, he provided for in our laws on the subject. It is a proceedings in rem
married twice, the first wife was Manuela Cruz, with whom he had and for the validity of such proceedings personal notice or by
several children. The second marriage was with Maria Natividad Lim publication or both to all interested parties must be made. The
Brillian, with whom he had a son, Silvino Suntay. Intestate interested parties in the case were known to reside in the
proceedings were instituted by the heirs from the first marriage. Philippines. The evidence shows that no such notice was received by
While the second wife, the surviving widow who remained in Amoy the interested parties residing in the Philippines. The proceedings
China, filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament had in the municipal district court of Amoy, China, may be likened to
of the deceased which was claimed to have been executed and or come up to the standard of such proceedings in the Philippines
signed in the Philippines on November, 1929. The petition was for lack of notice to all interested parties and the proceedings were
denied due to the loss of the will before the hearing thereof. After held at the back of such interested parties.
the war, Silvino filed a petition in the intestate proceedings praying
for the probate of the will executed in the Philippines in November
1929 or of the will executed in Amoy, China in January 1931. He
claimed that he had found among the files, records and documents
of his late father, a will and testament in Chinese characters
executed and signed by the deceased in January 1931, and that the
same was filed, recorded, and probated in the Amoy District Court in
China. The CFI disallowed the alleged last will and testament
executed in November 1929 and the alleged last will and testament
executed in Amoy, China.
ISSUE:
May the will executed in Amoy, China still be validly probated in the
Philippines?
RULING:
No. it should not be allowed because certain facts as to the due

execution of the China Will were not established. Sections 1, 2, and
3 of Rule 78 provide that wills proved and allowed in a foreign
country according to the laws of such country maybe allowed, filed,
and recorded by the proper CFI in the Philippines provided that a
copy of such will and the allowance thereof be duly authenticated
and filed with a petition for allowance in the Philippines in the court
having jurisdiction. Such court shall fix a time and place for the
hearing and cause notice thereof to be given. 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.
Thus, the will shall have the same effect as if originally proved and
allowed in such court.
In the case at bar, 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 a valid will in China in
1931 should also be established by competent evidence. There is no
proof on these points. The unverified answers to the questions
propounded by counsel for the appellant to the Consul General of
the Republic of China objected to by counsel for the appellee, are
inadmissible, because the office of Consul General does not qualify
and make the person who holds it an expert on the Chinese law on
procedure in probate matters. Consuls are appointed to attend to
trade matters. Moreover, it appears that all the proceedings had in

COL Heirs of Suntay V Suntay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COL Heirs of Suntay V Suntay

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

COL Heirs of Suntay V Suntay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN RE: TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED JOSE B.

No. it should not be allowed because certain facts as to the due

You might also like