Title
Supreme Court
Kucskar vs. Sekito, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 237449
Decision Date
Dec 2, 2020
Aida Bambao's will, executed in California, faced probate in the Philippines. The Supreme Court denied probate due to non-compliance with Philippine formalities and failure to prove foreign law, remanding the case for proper legal procedures.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209969)

Procedural History

Upon Aida’s death, Cosme petitioned the RTC to allow the California–executed will, to appoint him special administrator, and guardian ad litem for Elsa. Linda opposed, citing omitted Philippine real property, guardianship expenses, and lack of formal compliance. The RTC admitted the will, appointed Cosme administrator and co-guardians for Elsa, then granted allowance of the will. Motions for reconsideration by both parties were denied. Linda appealed to the CA, which affirmed under the substantial compliance doctrine. Linda sought certiorari review before the Supreme Court.

Will Execution and Contents

Aida’s will, drafted in California, named Cosme as special independent executor over her Philippine assets. It bore an attestation clause signed by two witnesses, reciting Aida’s sound mind and voluntary execution. The document lacked (a) acknowledgment before a notary public, (b) subscription by three witnesses, (c) signatures on each page, and (d) a statement of total pages used.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA applied Civil Code Art. 809 and Rule 76 Sec. 9 to uphold the will despite the attestation defects. Finding no fraud or incapacity and sufficient formalities discernible on the face of the will, the CA held that imperfections did not warrant disallowance and affirmed the RTC’s allowance.

Issues on Review

  1. Whether the foreign (California) law governing will formalities was properly alleged and proved.
  2. Whether the will complied with Philippine formalities for notarial wills in the absence of proven foreign law.

Applicable Law on Foreign Wills

Under Civil Code Art. 816, a foreigner’s will abroad is effective in the Philippines if executed under the formalities of (a) the place of residence, (b) the country of nationality, or (c) Philippine law. Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws; they must be pleaded and proved under Rule 132 Secs. 24–25.

Burden of Proving Foreign Law

Pursuant to the doctrine of processual presumption, a party invoking foreign law bears the burden of proof. Absent authenticated evidence (official publication or consular-attested copy) of relevant California statutes or regulations, a foreign law is presumed identical to Philippine law.

Philippine Formalities for Notarial Wills

A notarial will under Civil Code Art. 805 must be:
• Subscribed by the testator (or in his direction) at the end;
• Attested and subscribed by three credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and one another;
• Signed by testator and witnesses on each page (except the last) and pages numbered;
• Accompanied by an attestation clause stating total pages and signing formalities;
• Acknowledged before a notary public by testator and witnesses (Art. 806).

Doctrine on Substantial Compliance

Substantial compliance may cure only defects ascertainable from the instrument itself (e.g., numbering, signatures), not procedural or jurisdictional formalities requiring distinct acts such as acknowledgment before a notary public.

Acknowledgment Requirement

Aida’s will was neither acknowledged by testator and witnesses before a notary public nor complied with the minimum three-witness re

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.