Title
Vda. de Perez vs. Tolete
Case
G.R. No. 76714
Decision Date
Jun 2, 1994
American spouses executed wills in New York; perished in a fire. Philippine reprobate petition contested by heirs; Supreme Court allowed joint probate, required notice to heirs, and remanded for additional evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 76714)

Petitioner

Salud Teodoro Perez (mother of Dr. Evelyn), appointed special administratrix by the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, in ancillary proceedings to probate the foreign wills and administer Philippine property.

Respondent

Hon. Zotico A. Tolete, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 18, Bulacan, whose November 19, 1986 order denying joint probate of the two wills prompted this certiorari.

Key Dates

• August 23 & 27, 1979 – Spouses execute separate wills in New York.
• January 9, 1982 – Entire Cunanan family dies in fire.
• April 7, 1982 – Surrogate Court of Onondaga admits both wills to probate.
• February 21, 1983 – Petitioner files ancillary reprobate petition in Bulacan.
• February 21, 1984 – Branch 16 judge denies reprobate for lack of proof of New York formalities.
• November 19, 1986 – Branch 18 order denies joint probate, prompting certiorari.
• June 2, 1994 – Supreme Court resolves certiorari under 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution (decision post-1990).
• Civil Code, Art. 816 (foreign wills produce effect if made with foreign formalities).
• Civil Code, Art. 818 (joint wills prohibited; separate wills permissible).
• Revised Rules of Court, Rule 65 (certiorari); Rule 76, Sections 2–5 and Rule 77 (foreign wills).

Procedural History

  1. Petitioner secures letters of special administration in RTC Malolos and obtains Philippine assets (insurance proceeds, bank deposits).
  2. Cunanan collateral heirs (Dr. Rafael Sr. et al.) move to nullify proceedings, disqualify petitioner, and seek regular administration.
  3. Branch 16 judge disallows ancillary probate for lack of proof of New York law and formalities (two witnesses, no page-by-page signature).
  4. Case reassigned to Branch 18; petitioner repeatedly seeks to present evidence of New York probate procedure; judge denies joint probate and refuses to admit further foreign-law evidence.
  5. Petitioner files certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge the November 1986 order.

Issues Raised

• Whether petitioner sufficiently proved compliance with New York formalities for will execution and probate.
• Whether separate wills of spouses may be probated jointly in one ancillary proceeding.
• Whether due process required notice to all Philippine-resident heirs of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan.

Supreme Court Analysis

• Foreign wills admitted in New York must be proved in Philippine courts under Civil Code Art. 816 with evidence of (1) due foreign execution, (2) foreign domicile, (3) foreign probate, (4) tribunal’s jurisdiction, and (5) foreign probate procedure. Petitioner demonstrated all but the fifth, and was allowed to supplement evidence.
• Rules on foreign wills (Rule 77) require “notice as in case of an original will” (Rule 76, Sections 3–5) to known Philippine-resident heirs and to the executor. The Cunanan siblings were entitled to personal or mailed notice.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.