Case Digest (G.R. No. 158857) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In In re Testate Estate of the Deceased Jose B. Suntay; In re Intestate Estate of the Deceased Jose B. Suntay (G.R. Nos. L-3087 & L-3088, July 31, 1954), Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen, died on May 14, 1934 in Amoy, China, leaving real and personal properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy. He had nine children by his first marriage to Manuela T. Cruz—Apolonio (deceased), Concepcion, Angel, Manuel, Federico, Ana, Aurora, Emiliano and Jose Jr.—and one child, Silvino, by his second marriage to Maria Natividad Lim Billian. Upon his death intestate proceedings (Special No. 4892) were opened in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan, and letters of administration issued first to Apolonio and then to Federico. On October 15, 1934, Widow Billian petitioned for probate of an alleged Philippine will executed in November 1929. The CFI denied probate for loss of the will and insufficient proof of its loss, but on appeal this Court found loss shown and remanded. Before fur Case Digest (G.R. No. 158857) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Jose B. Suntay, Filipino citizen, died May 14, 1934 in Amoy, China, leaving real and personal properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy.
- He had nine children by first wife Manuela T. Cruz (Apolonio, Concepcion, Angel, Manuel, Federico, Ana, Aurora, Emiliano, Jose Jr.) and one child, Silvino, by second wife Maria Natividad Lim Billian.
- Probate Proceedings
- May 1934: Intestate proceedings (No. 4892) in CFI Bulacan; letters of administration to Apolonio, then to Federico C. Suntay after Apolonio’s death.
- Oct. 15, 1934: Widow filed to probate alleged will executed Nov. 1929 in Manila (Exhibit B); denied for loss of will and insufficient proof; Supreme Court (63 Phil. 793) remanded, finding proof of loss sufficient.
- Feb. 7, 1938: Probate court dismissed widow’s petition after refusing continuance; WWII delayed further actions.
- June 18, 1947: Silvino filed alternative petition for probate of (a) lost will of Nov. 1929 or (b) foreign will executed Jan. 4, 1931 in Amoy (claimed probated there).
- Evidence on Lost Will
- Go Toh (attesting witness): Deposed he saw a 23-page Spanish will signed by testator and witnesses; learned contents second-hand from testator and Chinese translation; did not draft or compare will with draft.
- Anastacio Teodoro: Received sealed envelope (Exhibit A) from Go Toh in Nov. 1934, opened it, examined original will, compared it with draft Exhibit B, found them identical.
- Ana Suntay: In Sept. 1934 saw brother Apolonio read will’s adjudication clause, recognized testator’s and witnesses’ signatures; read part re shares but testimony inconsistent on who “went away.”
- Alberto Barretto (draftsman): Prepared two drafts in early 1929—first favoring all heirs, second (Exhibit B) favoring widow and Silvino; denied witnessing second, saw only one final copy placed in Exhibit A, returned it to Go Toh.
- Evidence on Foreign Will
- Chinese will (Exhibit P) executed Jan. 4, 1931 in Amoy, purportedly probated in Amoy municipal court (Exhibit N).
- No proof Amoy court is probate court or of Chinese probate law; no notice to Philippine heirs; proceedings did not formally probate or allow the will.
Issues:
- Lost Will
- Was due execution and existence of the will at testator’s death established?
- Were its provisions clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses under §6, Rule 77?
- Foreign Will
- May a copy of a will probated abroad (China) be admitted under Rule 78 if duly authenticated?
- Did the Amoy proceedings satisfy Philippine requirements (probate court status, notice, procedural conformity)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)