Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3087)
Lost Will Proceedings and Remand
Widow’s 1934 petition for the Philippine will’s probate was denied due to will loss and insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court (63 Phil. 793) found loss proved and remanded for further proof of will validity and contents. CFI later dismissed the petition in 1938.
Alternative Petition of 1947
Silvino filed to probate:
- Lost November 1929 Philippine will (Exhibit B)
- Chinese will of January 1931 (Exhibit P)
He asserted no estoppel despite assignments of shares, and that ten-year prescription had not run.
Requirements for Proving a Lost Will
Under Rule 77, Sec. 6:
• Due execution and validity must be established
• Will must have existed at testator’s death or been destroyed without his knowledge
• Provisions must be “clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses”
Evidence on Execution and Validity
Attesting witnesses Go Toh and Manuel Lopez (deceased) plus drafter Alberto Barretto confirmed execution formalities. Judge Anastacio Teodoro, to whom the sealed will was delivered in 1934, examined it, noted 23 signed pages, and opened it for probate preparation.
Witnesses on Will Contents
• Judge Teodoro: Detailed disposition—estate divided in thirds (legitime, betterment, free disposal) among first- and second-marriage heirs
• Go Toh: Learned contents from testator’s statements and a Chinese translation of Exhibit B (he knew little Spanish)
• Ana Suntay: Saw her brother read the adjudication portion and corroborated distribution scheme
Authenticity of Draft Will (Exhibit B)
Barretto acknowledged Exhibit B matched his final typed draft; handwritten pencil insertions matched his signature style. No evidence contradicted its identity as the lost will’s true copy.
Foreign Will Executed in China
Suntay’s Chinese will (Exhibit P) was purportedly probated in Amoy District Court. No proof established that Amoy court was a probate court or that Chinese probate formalities and notice requirements had been observed. Certificates from the Philippine consul lacked requisite authentication under Rule 123, Secs. 41–42.
Trial Court’s Two Decrees
• First decree (April 19, 1948): Allowed probate of both Exhibit B and Exhibit P, finding sufficient proof of will execution and contents
• Resolution on new-trial motion (September 29, 1948): Reversed itself and disallowed both wills, citing inadequate proof of will provisions by two competent witnesses and inadmissibility of Chinese law certification
Supreme Court Analysis of Lost Will
• Affirmed that execution and validity were duly proven
• Found insufficiency in proving provisions “clearly and distinctly” by at least two credible witnesses, as Go Toh’s
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-3087)
Facts of the Case
- Jose B. Suntay, Filipino citizen and resident, died on May 14, 1934, in Amoy (Xiamen), China.
- He left real and personal properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy.
- First marriage to Manuela T. Cruz produced nine children: Apolonio, Concepcion, Angel, Manuel, Federico, Ana, Aurora, Emiliano, and Jose, Jr.
- Second marriage to Maria Natividad Lim Billian produced one child: Silvino.
- Two alleged wills: one executed in Manila in November 1929 (in Spanish, 23 pages, placed in sealed envelope “Exhibit A”), and a second in Amoy on January 4, 1931 (in Chinese characters).
Procedural History
- May 14, 1934: Apolonio Suntay filed intestate proceedings in Bulacan (SP No. 4892); letters of administration issued.
- October 15, 1934: Widow filed petition to probate the 1929 will; denied for lost will and insufficient evidence.
- November 25, 1936: Supreme Court held loss of will proved, remanded for further proceedings.
- February 7, 1938: Probate court dismissed petition for non-continuance.
- Post-World War II (June 18, 1947): Silvino filed alternative petition to probate either the lost 1929 will (Exhibit B draft) or the probated Amoy 1931 will.
- Trial court initially allowed both wills (April 19, 1948), then on motion for new trial set aside its own decree and disallowed them (September 29, 1948).
- Appeal taken to Supreme Court under G.R. Nos. L-3087 and L-3088.
Issues Presented
- Can a lost Philippine-executed will (November 1929) be probated on secondary evidence?
- Can a will probated in China (January 1931) be allowed, filed, and recorded in the Philippines without full proof of foreign probate procedure and notice to interested Philippine heirs?
- Are the petitioners estopped by prior assignments of their inheritance shares?
- Did prescription bar the 1947 petition?
- Were the proffered documents and testimonies admissible under Philippine rules of evidence?
Applicable Law
- Rule 77, Sec. 6 (proof of lost or destroyed will: execution, existence at testator’s death, clear and distinct proof of provisions by at least two credible witnesses).
- Rule 78 (allowance of wills probated abroad; authenticated copy; notice; same effect as domestic probate).
- Rule 123, Secs. 41–42 (authentication of foreign official records; certified copies under seal).
- Sections 300–301, Act No. 190 (proof of foreign statutes).
- Prescription: ten-year period;