G.R. No. 131492 - Posadas vs. Ombudsman

Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, American citizens, maintained a medical practice in Syracuse, New York, and had three daughters.
On August 23, 1979, Dr. Jose executed his will, bequeathing his entire property to his wife, with residue to their descendants and appointing his wife as executrix and Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as substitute executor. Article VIII provided a presumption that he predeceased his wife if order of death could not be determined.
On August 27, 1979, Dr. Evelyn executed a mirror‐image will, appointing her husband as primary executor and Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as substitute, with the same presumption clause in Article VIII.

On January 9, 1982, the entire family died in a house fire.
Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr., as substitute executor, filed separate probate proceedings in the Surrogate’s Court of Onondaga County, New York. On April 7, 1982, both wills were admitted to probate and letters testamentary issued to him.

On February 21, 1983, petitioner Salud Teodoro Perez (Dr. Evelyn’s mother) filed for ancillary reprobate of both wills and for appointment as special administratrix over Philippine assets (primarily a farm in San Miguel, Bulacan).
The Bulacan RTC, Branch 16, issued letters of special administration on March 9, 1983, upon petitioner’s posting of bond. Petitioner then recovered insurance proceeds (~₱49,765.85) and bank deposits (~₱38,006.52) as estate assets.

Heirs of Dr. Jose (his siblings) appeared via counsel on May 31, 1983, alleging lack of notice and asserting heirship rights; they moved to defer hearings and later to nullify proceedings and disqualify petitioner, citing misrepresentation and due process violations.
Petitioner maintained the siblings had no interest, that the wills were valid under New York law (Civil Code, Art. 816), and that notice rules for ancillary proceedings did not require notifying executors under Rule 77.

On February 21, 1984, RTC disallowed probate, recalled the special administratrix appointment, and ordered inventory, citing petitioner’s failure to prove New York formalities (e.g., number of witnesses, signature formalities) and foreign procedural law.
Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration and for leave to present additional evidence on New York law were repeatedly denied or partially granted but ultimately culminated in an order (November 19, 1986) holding that separate wills of different persons cannot be probated jointly in one petition.

Petitioner invoked Rule 65, seeking to set aside the November 19, 1986 order for prematurely refusing further evidence on foreign law and for misapplication of rules on joint probate and notice.

Whether petitioner sufficiently proved compliance with New York formalities and procedure for allowance of foreign wills under Civil Code Article 816.
Whether separate wills of husband and wife, containing essentially identical provisions, may be probated jointly in a single ancillary proceeding.
Whether known heirs of the testator domiciled abroad must be given notice and copies of pleadings in ancillary probate proceedings in the Philippines.