G.R. No. L-3087 - Suntay vs. Suntay

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3087)

Factual Background

Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino who at the time of his death resided in Amoy, China, died on May 14, 1934. He left real and personal property in the Philippines and a house in Amoy. He had nine children by his first marriage with Manuela T. Cruz — Apolonio, Concepcion, Angel, Manuel, Federico, Ana, Aurora, Emiliano and Jose, Jr. — and one child, Silvino, by his second marriage with Maria Natividad Lim Billian, who survived him. After his death intestate proceedings (Special Proceeding No. 4892) were begun in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan and letters of administration issued to Apolonio, later succeeded by Federico C. Suntay as administrator.

Origin of the Testamentary Controversy

On October 15, 1934, the surviving widow, Maria Natividad Lim Billian, filed a petition for probate of a will claimed to have been executed in Manila in November 1929. The petition alleged that the original will had been placed in a sealed envelope (Exhibit A) and that a draft or copy of the will (Exhibit B) existed. The petition was denied at first instance for loss of the will and insufficiency of proof as to loss; on appeal this Court held the probate court’s record sufficient to establish loss and remanded for further proceedings (63 Phil. 793). Subsequent efforts to take the deposition of one attesting witness, Go Toh, and a continuance were frustrated before the war and the case lay dormant until after liberation.

Postwar Alternative Petition and Claims

After the war Silvino Suntay filed, on June 18, 1947, an alternative petition in the consolidated special proceedings seeking probate either of the Philippine will of November 1929 (Exhibit B as secondary evidence of the lost instrument) or of a will in Chinese characters executed in Amoy on January 4, 1931 and allegedly probated in the Amoy courts (Exhibit P and related Amoy transcripts). The petitioner alleged recovery of the Chinese-paper will among the decedent’s papers and contended that the draft Exhibit B corresponded to the lost Philippine will.

Evidence on the Lost Philippine Will

The primary testimonial evidence consisted of the deposition of attesting witness Go Toh, the testimony of attorney and custodian Anastacio Teodoro, the testimony of heir Ana Suntay, and the testimony of lawyer Alberto Barretto, who prepared drafts. Go Toh deposed that he witnessed a twenty-three-page will signed by Jose B. Suntay and the three attesting witnesses, that he knew its contents only to a limited degree because it was in Spanish, and that his knowledge of the provisions derived from the testator’s explanations and a Chinese translation of Exhibit B. Anastacio Teodoro testified that an envelope containing a will (Exhibit A) had been brought to his office and that the document in the envelope corresponded exactly to the draft Exhibit B. Ana Suntay testified she had seen her brother Apolonio read the document and that the distribution in Exhibit B matched the original she had seen; on cross-examination her testimony showed that she read only the adjudication portion and there were inconsistencies about who handled the paper. Alberto Barretto testified that he prepared two drafts in 1929, that the first draft favored all children and the second draft favored the widow and Silvino, that the executed will had been signed in his office and placed in Exhibit A, that he saw Exhibit A again in 1934, and that he demanded professional fees.

Trial Court’s First Decision and Its Findings

On April 19, 1948 the Court of First Instance of Bulacan concluded that the decedent had executed a will in November 1929, that the will in the envelope was snatched and lost, and that the draft Exhibit B corresponded to the contents of the lost will. The court found the execution and validity of the lost will established by the testimony of Judge Anastacio Teodoro and Go Toh, and it received Ana Suntay in rebuttal. The trial court ruled that the foreign Chinese will (Exhibit P) corroborated the Philippine draft and ordered the draft legalized and the Chinese will allowed and recorded, awarding costs against oppositor Federico C. Suntay.

Motion for New Trial and Trial Court’s Reversal

Oppositor Federico C. Suntay moved for new trial. Without receiving new evidence, the probate court, by resolution dated September 29, 1948, set aside its April 19 decision and disallowed both the lost Philippine will and the Chinese will. The court reaffirmed its factual findings about loss and execution but concluded that the petitioners had failed to prove “the provisions” of the lost will “clearly and distinctly by at least two credible witnesses,” as required by Section 6, Rule 77. The court also held that the Chinese probate proceedings were not shown to have been conducted in a probate court under Chinese law, that requirements for authentication and notice were not met, and that the purported Amoy order did not on its face probate the will.

Legal Standards Applied to Lost Wills

The trial court and this Court applied Section 6, Rule 77 which prescribes that a lost will may be proved only if its execution and validity are established, the will is shown to have existed at the testator’s death, and its provisions are “clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses.” The court also considered Section 8, Rule 77 for proof when subscribing witnesses are dead or reside abroad, and authorities construing the degree of proof required for secondary evidence of a destroyed or lost will.

Legal Standards Applied to Foreign Wills

As to the will allegedly probated in Amoy, the courts applied Rule 78 which permits courts in the Philippines to allow wills proved and allowed abroad provided the foreign probate is shown to have been in accordance with the foreign law and is duly authenticated. The court required proof that the Amoy municipal district court was a probate court, that Chinese procedural and substantive law on wills was satisfied, and that the foreign proceedings afforded notice to interested parties; the court found these prerequisites unproven and found exhibits from the Chinese Consul General inadmissible as proof of foreign law under Sections 41 and 42, Rule 123, and the standards of prior jurisprudence.

Supreme Court Majority Analysis on the Lost Will

The Supreme Court majority affirmed the probate court’s disallowance. The Court agreed that the existence and execution of the original will were established and that the will was lost. The Court held, however, that the statutory requirement that the provisions of a lost will be “clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses” was not satisfied. The Court reasoned that testimony offered as to the contents by Go Toh amounted to hearsay since he derived knowledge from explanations by the testator and translations rather than from reading and personal comprehension of the instrument; Ana Suntay’s testimony was inconsistent and limited to the adjudication portion; and Anastacio Teodoro, although credible, stood alone in presenting clear proof of the provisions. The Court emphasized that credible testimony as to provisions must be direct and competent, not secondhand. Accordingly, the draft Exhibit B as secondary evidence did not meet the statutory threshold for probate of a lost will.

Supreme Court Majority Analysis on the Foreign Will

On the Chinese will, the Court held that the petitioner failed to prove necessary factual and legal prerequisites under Rule 78. There was no proof that the municipal district court of Amoy was a probate court, no admissible proof of applicable Chinese probate procedure and law, and no competent evidence that the Amoy proceeding afforded notice to interested parties in the Philippines. The Court rejected unverified answers from the Chinese Consul General in the Philippines as insufficient and inadmissible to establish Chinese law and proper authentication under Rule 123 and the prior decisions cited in the record. The Amoy minutes did not on their face show allowance or probate of the will. For these reasons the Court found that the Amoy proceeding could not be deemed a foreign probate entitling the will to recognition and recording in the Philippines.

Disposition by the Supreme Court Majority

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan disallowing both the alleged Philippine will of November 1929 and the Chinese will of January 4, 1931, and entered affirmation without pronouncement as to costs.

Dissenting Opinion (Chief Justice Paras)

Chief Justice Paras, in dissent, urged reversal. He relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier remand (63 Phil. 793), the trial court’s initial findings of April 19, 1948, and the totality of the evidence — the draft Exhibit B, the testimony of Judge Anastacio Teodoro, the deposition of Go Toh, and corroboration by Ana Suntay and the Chinese will — to conclude that the provisions affecting disposition had been proved b

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-3087)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Silvino Suntay filed an alternative petition in Special Proceeding No. 4892 seeking probate of a lost Philippine will dated November 1929 or allowance and recording of a foreign will dated 4 January 1931 allegedly probated in Amoy, China.
Federico C. Suntay, administrator and son by the first marriage, opposed the alternative petition and defended the intestate administration.
The case is an appeal from the decree of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan disallowing both the alleged Philippine will and the alleged Amoy will.
The appeal followed prior Supreme Court proceedings in which the Court held that the loss of the Philippine will had been sufficiently proven and remanded for further proceedings (63 Phil., 793).
The majority affirmed the CFI decree disallowing both wills and denied costs, with a dissent by Chief Justice Paras joined by Montemayor and Jugo.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by appellant was denied and that denial was likewise dissented from by Chief Justice Paras.

Key Factual Allegations

Jose B. Suntay, Filipino resident, died in Amoy, China on May 14, 1934, leaving Philippine real and personal property and one house in Amoy.
The deceased left children by a first marriage and one child, Silvino, by a second marriage to Maria Natividad Lim Billian.
A sealed envelope, marked “Testamento de Jose B. Suntay” and identified as Exhibit A, allegedly contained the signed original will executed in Manila in November 1929.
A typed draft or copy, identified as Exhibit B, purported to be the contents of the lost will and consisted of twenty-three pages.
A later will in Chinese characters, identified in the record as the Amoy will (Exhibit P/N), was alleged to have been executed on 4 January 1931 and probated in the municipal district court of Amoy.
The envelope allegedly was delivered to and then snatched from counsel’s possession during efforts to procure probate, and the original will was never produced thereafter.

Procedural History

Letters of administration were first issued in the intestate proceedings and later Federico was appointed administrator after Apolonio’s death.
On October 15, 1934, the surviving widow filed for probate of the November 1929 will and the petition was initially denied for insufficiency of evidence and because the will was lost before hearing.
This Court in 1936 (63 Phil., 793) found the loss sufficiently proven and remanded for further proceedings limited to proving contents and due execution by secondary evidence.
The probate court set hearings, sought depositions (including Go Toh), dismissed a motion for continuance on February 7, 1938, and later dismissed the petition; the Pacific War intervened.
On June 18, 1947, Silvino filed the alternative petition seeking probate of the Philippine lost will or allowance of the Amoy will, leading to hearings and conflicting trial-court rulings in 1948 that were eventually set aside and resulted in disallowance of both wills.
This appeal followed the trial court’s final decree disallowing both the lost Philippine will and the foreign Amoy will.

Evidentiary Record

Go Toh testified by deposition he was an attesting witness, that the original will consisted of twenty-three pages, that the testator signed every page, and that the draft Exhibit B represented the same provisions; much of his knowledge of contents came from the testator or from a Chinese translation of Exhibit B.
Anastacio Teodoro testified that Exhibit A and the will checked with Exhibit B and that he examined the original will when it was brought to his office and later returned it for fee disagreements.
Ana Suntay testified she had seen the will and read the adjudication portion and identified signatures of the testator and witnesses.
Alberto Barretto, the drafter, testified inconsistently about which draft was executed, admitted preparing two drafts, and denied authorship of certain handwritten insertions in Exhibit B while acknowledging a rough draft and his role as attesting witness to a signed instrument.
Manuel Lopez, an attesting witness to the alleged original will, was deceased at trial and his testimony could not be taken.
The record includes an authenticated transcript of Amoy proceedings (Exhibit N-13) and unverified answers from the Chinese Consul General (Exhibits R-1, R-2), which the trial court treated as inadmissible for lack of proper authentication and confrontation.

Issues Presented

Whether the lost Philippine will could be proved and allowed on secondary evidence under section 6, Rule 77 when the provisions were testified to by the available witnesses.
Whether a will alleged to have been proved and allowed in Amoy, China could be allowed, filed, and recorded in the Philippines under Rule 78 in the absence of proof that the Amoy municipal district court was a probate court and without satisfactory proof of Chinese probate procedure.
Whether assignments of interests by the widow and child estopped them from seeking probate.
Whether prescription or prior dismissal of the petition in 1938 barred the 1947 petition.

Contentions of the Parties

Appellant Silvino contended that the lost Philippine will was properly proven by at least two credible witnes