Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3087)
Facts:
In re: Testate Estate of the Deceased Jose B. Suntay, G.R. Nos. L-3087 and L-3088, July 31, 1954, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arises from competing efforts to probate two alleged wills of Jose B. Suntay, who died on May 14, 1934 in Amoy (Kulangsu), Fookien, Republic of China. He left children by a first marriage (Apolonio, Concepcion, Angel, Manuel, Federico, Ana, Aurora, Emiliano and Jose, Jr.) and a surviving widow, Maria Natividad Lim Billian, with one child of that marriage, Silvino Suntay. The estate included property in the Philippines and a house in Amoy.
After Jose’s death intestate proceedings (Special Proceedings No. 4892) were opened in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan and letters of administration issued initially to Apolonio and later to Federico C. Suntay as administrator. On October 15, 1934 the widow filed for probate in Manila of a purported Philippine will signed in November 1929 (the alleged original placed in a sealed envelope, Exhibit A, with a draft Exhibit B). The CFI initially denied probate because the will had been lost and the evidence insufficient; on appeal this Court (reported at 63 Phil. 793) found the loss proved and remanded for further proceedings. A hearing set for February 7, 1938 was dismissed by the probate court when a telegraphic motion for postponement from China was denied. World War II intervened.
After liberation, Silvino filed on June 18, 1947 an alternative petition in the Bulacan intestate proceeding seeking (a) continuation of the remanded probate of the Philippine lost will (Exhibit B as secondary evidence) or (b) allowance and recording in the Philippines of a Chinese will alleged to have been executed in Amoy on January 4, 1931 and probated in the Amoy municipal district court (Exhibit P/N). The petition was opposed by Federico C. Suntay; several other children filed answers stating they had no opposition.
At the CFI of Bulacan, the trial judge initially (April 19, 1948) found the execution and existence of the Philippine will established and allowed probate of the draft (Exhibit B) and, alternatively, allowed and recorded the Chinese will (Exhibit P), relying on testimony including that of Anastacio Teodoro, attesting witness Go Toh (deposition), Ana Suntay and Alberto Barretto. On motion for new trial, however, the trial court on September 29, 1948 set aside its first decision and disallowed both the lost Philippine will and the Chinese will. The court concluded that, while execution was established, the statutory requirement that the provisions be “clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses” (Rule 77, sec. 6) was not satisfied and that the evidence proving the Chinese law and the Amoy probate was inadequate and improperly authenticated.
Because the estate exce...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are petitioners estopped from seeking probate by virtue of assignments of their shares in the estate?
- Is the 1947 alternative petition barred by prescription because a prior petition was dismissed in 1938?
- Were the provisions of the alleged lost Philippine will (November 1929) proved “clearly and distinctly by at least two credible witnesses” so as to permit probate under Rule 77, sec. 6?
- May the will alleged to have been executed and allowed in Amoy, China (January 4, 1931) be allowed, filed and recorded in the Philippines under Rule 78...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)