You are on page 1of 9

[G.R. No. 2586. January 19, 1906.

]
TOMAS GUISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MARIA CONCEPCION, Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. WILLS; INABILITY TO SIGN; SIGNATURE BY ANOTHER. The testatrix was not able to sign her name to the will, and she
requested another person to sign it for her. Instead of writing her name he wrote his own upon the will. Held, That the will was not
duly executed. (Following Ex No. 2002, August 18, 1905.)

DECISION

WILLARD, J. :

Jacoba Concepcion Salcedo made her will in Manila, on January 3, 1904. The last part of the will is as
follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Asi lo otorgo ante los testigos Seores Ambrosio Reyes, Mariano de Leon y Felix Polintan, de Manila, Islas Filipinas, y por no yo
poder firmar, firma a mi ruego el mismo Feliciano Maglaqui, en mi presencia y de los mencionados testigos, quienes tambien
suscriben, cada uno de ellos en presencia de los otros y la mia.
"(Firmado) FELICIANO MAGLAQUI.
"(Firmado) AMBROSIO REYES.
"(Firmado) MARIANO DE LEON.
"(Firmado) FELIX POLINTAN.
"Nosotros Ambrosio Reyes, Mariano de Leon y Felix Polintan, atestiguamos que Filiciano Maglaqui, a ruego de la Sra. Jacoba
Concepcion Salcedo y en presencia de la misma y la nuestra, firmo el testamento que antecede; y que cada uno de nosotros lo
firmo en presencia de los otros y de dicha testadora.
"Manila, tres de Enero de mil novecientos cuatro.
"(Firmado) AMBROSIO REYES.
"(Firmado) MARIANO DE LEON.
"(Firmado) FELIX POLINTAN."cralaw virtua1aw library
It will be seen that the witness Feliciano Maglaqui, instead of writing the name of the testatrix on the will, wrote his own. Probate
of the will was refused in the court below on the ground that the name of the testatrix was not signed thereto, and the petitioner
has appealed. The question presented has been decided adversely to the appellant in the following cases: Ex parte Pedro
Arcenas Et. Al., 1 No. 1708, August 24, 1905 (4 Off. Gaz., 568); Ex parte Nemesio Delfin Santiago, 2 No. 2002, August 18, 1905
(4 Off. Gaz., 507.)
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant, and after the expiration of twenty
days judgment should be entered in accordance herewith and the case remanded to the court below for execution. So ordered.

G.R. No. 182894 : April 22, 2014


FE FLORO VALINO, Petitioner, v. ROSARIO ADRIANO, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS:
Atty. Adriano Adriano (Atty. Adriano), a partner in the Pelaez Adriano and Gregorio Law Office, married respondent Rosario
Adriano (Rosario) on November 15, 1955. The couple had two (2) sons, three (3) daughters, and one (1) adopted daughter, Leah
Antonette.
The marriage of Atty. Adriano and Rosario, however, turned sour and they were eventually separated-in-fact. Years later, Atty.
Adriano courted Valino, one of his clients, until they decided to live together as husband and wife. Despite such arrangement, he
continued to provide financial support to Rosario and their children (respondents).
In 1992, Atty. Adriano died of acute emphysema. At that time, Rosario was in the United States spending Christmas with her
children. As none of the family members was around, Valino took it upon herself to shoulder the funeral and burial expenses for
Atty. Adriano. When Rosario learned about the death of her husband, she immediately called Valino and requested that she delay
the interment for a few days but her request was not heeded. The remains of Atty. Adriano were then interred at the mausoleum of
the family of Valino at the Manila Memorial Park. Respondents were not able to attend the interment.
Claiming that they were deprived of the chance to view the remains of Atty. Adriano before he was buried and that his burial at the
Manila Memorial Park was contrary to his wishes, respondents commenced suit against Valino praying that they be indemnified
for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees and that the remains of Atty. Adriano be exhumed and transferred to
the family plot at the Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery in Novaliches, Quezon City.
In her defense, Valino countered that Rosario and Atty. Adriano had been separated for more than twenty (20) years before he
courted her. Valino claimed that throughout the time they were together, he had introduced her to his friends and associates as his
wife. Although they were living together, Valino admitted that he never forgot his obligation to support the respondents. She
contended that, unlike Rosario, she took good care of Atty. Adriano and paid for all his medical expenses when he got seriously ill.
She also claimed that despite knowing that Atty. Adriano was in a coma and dying, Rosario still left for the United States.
According to Valino, it wasAtty. Adrianos last wish that his remains be interred in the Valino family mausoleum at the Manila
Memorial Park.
Valino further claimed that she had suffered damages as result of the suit brought by respondents. Thus, she prayed that she be
awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
The RTC dismissed the complaint of respondents for lack of merit. On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision
and directed Valino to have the remains of Atty. Adriano exhumed at the expense of respondents. It likewise directed respondents,
at their expense, to transfer, transport and inter the remains of the decedent in the family plot at the Holy Cross Memorial Park in
Novaliches, Quezon City.
ISSUE: Who between Rosario and Valino is entitled to the remains of Atty. Adriano.
HELD:
CIVIL LAW: article 305 in relation to article 1996
Article 305 of the Civil Code, in relation to what is now Article 1996of the Family Code, specifies the persons who have the right
and duty to make funeral arrangements for the deceased. Thus:
Art. 305. The duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in accordance with the order
established for support, under Article 294. In case of descendants of the same degree, or of brothers and sisters, the oldest shall
be preferred. In case of ascendants, the paternal shall have a better right.
Art. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the
order herein provided:

(1) The spouse;


(2) The descendants in the nearest degree;
(3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and
(4) The brothers and sisters.
Further, Article 308 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 308. No human remains shall be retained, interred, disposed of or exhumed without the consent of the persons mentioned in
Articles 294 and 305.
In this connection, Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:
Section 1103. Persons charged with the duty of burial. The immediate duty of burying the body of a deceased person, regardless
of the ultimate liability for the expense thereof, shall devolve upon the persons herein below specified:
(a) If the deceased was a married man or woman, the duty of the burial shall devolve upon the surviving spouse if he or she
possesses sufficient means to pay the necessary expenses;
CIVIL LAW: common law relationships
From the aforecited provisions, it is undeniable that the law simply confines the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to
the members of the family to the exclusion of ones common law partner. In Tomas Eugenio, Sr. v. Velez, a petition for habeas
corpus was filed by the brothers and sisters of the late Vitaliana Vargas against her lover, Tomas Eugenio, Sr., alleging that the
latter forcibly took her and confined her in his residence. It appearing that she already died of heart failure due to toxemia of
pregnancy, Tomas Eugenio, Sr. sought the dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction and claimed the right to bury the
deceased, as the common-law husband.
In its decision, the Court resolved that the trial court continued to have jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the death of
Vitaliana Vargas. As to the claim of Tomas Eugenio, Sr. that he should be considered a spouse having the right and duty to make
funeral arrangements for his common-law wife, the Court ruled:
x x x Indeed, Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. A man and woman not legally married who cohabit for
many years as husband and wife, who represent themselves to the public as husband and wife, and who are reputed to be
husband and wife in the community where they live may be considered legally married in common law jurisdictions but not in the
Philippines.
While it is true that our laws do not just brush aside the fact that such relationships are present in our society, and that they
produce a community of properties and interests which is governed by law, authority exists in case law to the effect that such form
of co-ownership requires that the man and woman living togethermust not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage.
In any case, herein petitioner has a subsisting marriage with another woman, a legal impediment which disqualified him from even
legally marrying Vitaliana.
There is a view that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the term "spouse" embraces common law relation for purposes
of exemption from criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling and malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses.
The Penal Code article, it is said, makes no distinction between a couple whose cohabitation is sanctioned by a sacrament or
legal tie and another who are husband and wife de facto. But this view cannot even apply to the facts of the case at bar. We hold
that the provisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly providing to the contrary as in Article 144, when referring to a "spouse"
contemplate a lawfully wedded spouse. Petitioner vis-a-vis Vitaliana was not a lawfully-wedded spouse to her; in fact, he was not
legally capacitated to marry her in her lifetime.

As applied to this case, it is clear that the law gives the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to Rosario, she being the
surviving legal wife of Atty. Adriano. The fact that she was living separately from her husband and was in the United States when
he died has no controlling significance.
To say that Rosario had, in effect, waived or renounced, expressly or impliedly, her right and duty to make arrangements for the
funeral of her deceased husband is baseless. The right and duty to make funeral arrangements, like any other right, will not be
considered as having been waived or renounced, except upon clear and satisfactory proof of conduct indicative of a free and
voluntary intent to that end.
Valino insists that the expressed wishes of the deceased should nevertheless prevail pursuant to Article 307 of the Civil Code.
Valinos own testimony that it was Atty. Adrianos wish to be buried in their family plot is being relied upon heavily. It should be
noted, however, that other than Valinos claim that Atty. Adriano wished to be buried at the Manila Memorial Park, no other
evidence was presented to corroborate such claim. Considering that Rosario equally claims that Atty. Adriano wished to be buried
in the Adriano family plot in Novaliches, it becomes apparent that the supposed burial wish of Atty. Adriano was unclear and
undefinite.
Considering this ambiguity as to the true wishes of the deceased, it is the law that supplies the presumption as to his intent. No
presumption can be said to have been created in Valinos favor, solely on account of a long-time relationship with Atty. Adriano.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

RULE 73
VENUE AND PROCESS

Sec. 1. Where estate of the deceased person settled.


If the decedent was a resident of the Philippines at the time of his death whether a citizen or an alien, the RTC or MTC,
as the case may be, of the province in where he resides at the time of his death
If the decedent was not a resident of the Philippines at the time of his death in the RTC or MTC of any province where
he has his estate.

The RTC or MTC is acting as a probate court, therefore it is a court of limited jurisdiction-that it can only decide on
matters which are proper, matters that are alien to said proceedings cannot be decided upon.
Exceptions: Question on ownership may properly be decided upon by the probate court if the conflicting claimants as
owners are all heirs of the decedent and they all agree to submit the question of ownership for determination by the
probate court
During the process of inventory of the property of the estate of the decedent, in order to determine whether or not certain
properties should be included in such inventory, as belonging to the decedents estate, the probate court may decide
prima facie the ownership of said properties.

RULE 74
SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES
What are the requisites in Extrajudicial Settlement by agreement between heirs?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Decedent left no will and no debts


Heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized
A public instrument must be filed with the Office of the Register of Deeds
If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the Office of the
Register of Deeds
A bond must be posted with the Register of Deeds in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property

The decedent is presumed to have left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within 2
years after the death of the decedent..

In Summary Settlement of estates of small value what are the requisites?


a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Gross value of the estate does not exceed P 10,000.00


Application is filed in the MTC
Publication, once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province
Notice to interested persons
Debts, if there be any are all paid

Claims should be made within 2 years after the settlement and distribution of the estate

If the claimant is a minor or mentally incapacitated or in prison or outside of the Philippines, he may present his
claim within one year after such disability is removed.

How may liabilities of the estate or the distributees be enforced?


1.
2.

if there has been extrajudicial settlement of the estate, the heir who has been unlawfully deprived of his participation, or a
creditor may compel the judicial settlement of the estate, unless they agree otherwise or agree on a repartition or the
heir unduly deprived agrees to be paid in money or if he be a creditor, the heirs or distributes agree to pay him.
if thee was summary settlement, the heir or other person unlawfully deprived of participation may file a motion for
reopening in the same summary proceeding and the court after hearing, shall order a repartition of said share

Rule 75
PRODUCTION OF WILL. ALLOWANCE OF WILL NECESSARY
Q:
A:

When shall a will pass personal or real properties to the heirs?


A will shall pass either real or personal properties to the heirs when it shall have been proved and allowed in court, since
the Rules of court provide that no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the

proper court. (Sec. 1). Even if only one heir has been instituted in the will, there must still be the judicial order of
adjudication. (Lopez vs. Gonzaga, L-18788, 31 Jan. 1964)
Q:
A:

What is meant by probate?


Probate is the act of proving before a competent court the due execution of a will by a person possessed of testamentary
capacity and the approval thereof by the said court.

Q:
A:

What is the nature of a probate proceeding?


Probate of a will is proceeding in rem. It cannot be dispensed with and substituted by another proceeding, judicial or
extrajudicial, without offending public policy. It is mandatory as no will shall pass either real or personal property unless
proved and allowed in accordance with the rules of Court. It is imprescriptible, because it is required by public policy and
the estate could not have intended to defeat the same by applying thereto the statute of limitation of actions.(Guevara
vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479; Mirasol vs. Magsusi, L-12166, April 29,1959; Sec. 1, rule 75; Art. 838, NCC; see also Solivio
vs.CA, 129SCRA 119[1990]).

Q:
A:

What are the two stages in the probate of a will?


They are:
(1) The first is the probate proper. This deals with the extrinsic validity of the will where its legal existence will be
passed upon. Under this stage, the probate court decides only on the conclusiveness of the will as to its due
execution and validity. The court has no power to pass upon the validity of any provision made in the will until after
the will has been adjudged first as being extrinsically valid. (Castanede vs. Alemany , 3 Phil. 426)
(2) The second stage deals on the inquiry into the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will and the distribution of the
property according to the will. This second stage will commence only if the probate proper allows the will and the
order of allowance is final. If the will is disallowed in the probate proper, there is no occasion to proceed to the
second stage.

Q:
A:

What is the effect of the allowance of a will?


The allowance of a will shall be conclusive as to its due execution. (Sec. 1)

Q:

X executed his will instituting A, B and C, his children and Y, his wife as heirs. There is a pending case for
forgery filed by Y, A and B against C alleging that he forged the signature of his father. At the same time, the will
was submitted to probate and it was approved or allowed. State the effect of the allowance of the will.
The allowance of the will is conclusive as to its due execution; hence, the allowance shall effect the dismissal of the case
of forgery against C.

A:
Q:
A:

What is the duty of the custodian of a will after he comes to know of the death of the testator?
The person who has custody of a will shall, within 20 days after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver the will to
the court having jurisdiction, or to the executor named in the will. (Sec. 2).

Q:

What should the executor named in the will do upon his knowledge of the death of the testator or upon
knowledge of his having been named as executor?
He shall, within 20 days from obtaining knowledge of the death of the testator or of his having been named as executor,
present the will to the court having jurisdiction, unless it has reached the court in any other manner, and shall, within
such period, signify to the court in writing his acceptance of the trust or his refusal to accept it. (Sec.3).

A:

Q:
A:

If the custodian or executor of a will fails to submit the will, what may the court do?
If the neglect or failure to produce the will is without satisfactory excuse, the court may fine him in the amount not
exceeding P 2,000.00. (Sec. 4)

Q:

An order of the court for the custodian of the will of X was issued for the production of the will in court, but he
neglected to do it. What may the court do to him?
A person having custody of a will after the death of the testator who neglects without reasonable cause to deliver the
same, when ordered to do so to the court having jurisdiction, may be committed to prison and there kept until he delivers
the will. (Sec. 5).

A:

Q:
A:
Q:
A:

A, B and C are the heirs of X instituted in his will. After his death, they entered into an extrajudicial settlement of
X's estate without the will having been probated. Is their action proper? Why?
No, they shall have brought the will to the court first and have it probated, because no will shall pass either real or
personal property unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court.
X executed a will instituting his heirs. Can the heirs have an extrajudicial settlement of X's estate?
Yes, but they must first submit the will for probate. If admitted, they can divide the estate according to its terms which
cannot be varied. The rule is so because probate of a will is compulsory. (Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479).

Rule 76
ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL
Q:

Who may file a petition for allowance of a will?

A:

Any executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the
death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his possession
or not, or is lost or destroyed. (Sec. 1) The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court for the allowance of
his own will. (Sec.4).

Q:

Is there a prescriptive period for the probate of a will?

A:

There is no prescriptive period for the probate of a will. The petition for probate is required by public policy and may be
filed at any time after the death of the testator. (Guevarra vs. guevarra, 98 Phil. 249)

Q:

State the contents of a petition for the allowance of a will.

A:

A petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to the petitioner
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The names, ages, and residence of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or decedent;
(c) The probable value and character of the property of the estate;
(c) The name of the person for whom letters are prayed;
(d) If the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it.
But no defect in the petition shall render void the allowance of the will, or the issuance of letters testamentary or of
administration with the will annexed.

Q:

What are the jurisdictional facts required to be alleged in the petition for probate?

A:

They are:
(1) That a person died leaving a will;
(2) In the case of a resident, that he died in his residence within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or in the case of a
non-resident, that he left an estate within such territorial jurisdiction (Cuenco vs. CA, L-24742,26 Oct. 1973);
(3) That the will has been delivered to the court (Salazar vs. CFI of Laguna, 64 Phil. 785).

Q:

After filing of a petition for probate of a will, what shall the court do?

A:

It shall fix a time and place for proving the will where all concerned shall appear to contest the allowance thereof, and
shall cause notice of such time and place to be published three (3) weeks successively, in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province. (Sec.3). The heirs, devisees, legatees and executors shall also be notified at their places of
residence and deposited in the post office at least 20 days before the hearing. It shall also be mailed to the executor if he
is not the petitioner. Personal service at least 10 days before the day of hearing is equivalent to mailing (Sec. 4).

The personal service of notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite. (In
re estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156; In re testate estate of Suntay, 95 Phil. 500; Abut vs. abut, L-26743, 31 May 1972)
However, individual notice is necessary if the heirs, legatees or devisees are known and such requirement cannot be
satisfied by mere publication. (De Aranz vs. Galing, 161 SCRA 628 [1988]).
Q:
A:

Who shall be notified if the testator asks for the probate of his will?
In that case, notice shall be sent only to his compulsory heirs and no publication is required. (Sec. 4).

Q:
A:

Before the hearing of the probate of the will, what should be done?
Proof must be shown that notice required has been served. (Sec. 5).

Q:
A:

What is the effect if no one appears to contest a notarial will?


If no person appears to contest the allowance of a notarial will, the court may grant allowance thereof on the testimony of
one of the subscribing witnesses only, if such witness testify that the will was executed as is required by law. (Sec. 5) In
the absence of any opposition to such probate, the evidence for the petitioner may be received ex parte. (Cayetano vs.
Leonidas, G.R. No. 54919, 30 May 1984)

Q:
A:

What is the effect if no one appears to contest a holographic will?


In the case of a holographic will, it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature
of the testator explicitly declares that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. In the absence of
any such competent witness, and if the court deems it necessary, expert testimonies may be resorted to. (Sec. 5)

Q:
A:

State the manner of producing the witnesses in case the probate of a notarial will is contested.
If a notarial will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and the notary, if present in the Philippines and not insane,
must be produced and examined, and the death, absence, or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the
court. If all or some of the witnesses are in the Philippines but outside the province where the will has been filed, their
deposition must be taken. If any or all of them testify against the due execution of the will, or do not remember having
attested to it, or are otherwise of doubtful credibility, the will may nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the
testimony of other witnesses and from all the evidence presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner
required by law. (Sec. 11) In the case of a contested notarial will, it is the duty of the petitioner to produce all the available
attesting witnesses and the notary public but he is not concluded by the testimony of said witnesses even if adverse as
the court may still admit the will to probate on the basis of other satisfactory evidence. (Fernandez vs. Tantoco, 48 Phil.
380)

Q:
A:

State the manner of proving a holographic will if it is contested.


If a holographic will is contested, the same shall be allowed if at least three (3) witnesses who know the handwriting of
the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator; in the absence of any
competent witnesses, and if the court deems it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. (Sec. 11) In the case of
a holographic will, it is not mandatory that witnesses be first presented before expert testimony may be resorted to,
unlike notarial wills wherein the attesting witnesses must first be presented or accounted for.(Azaola vs. Singson, 109
Phil. 102)

Q:
A:

Before a last will may be proved as lost or destroyed, state the requirements that must be complied with.
No will shall be proved as lost or destroyed will unless the execution and validity of the same be established, and the will
is proved to have been in existence at the time of the death of the testator, or is shown to have been fraudulently or
accidentally destroyed in the lifetime of the testator without his knowledge, nor unless its provisions are clearly and
distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses. When a lost will is proved, the provisions thereof must be
distinctly stated and certified by the judge, under the seal of the court, and the certificate must be filed and recorded as
other wills are filed and recorded. (Sec. 6).

Q:

State the procedure in the probate of a will if the witnesses do not reside in the province where probate is being
done.
If it appears at the time fixed for the hearing that none of the subscribing witnesses resides in the province, but that the
deposition of one or more of them can be taken elsewhere, the court may, on motion, direct it to be taken, and may
authorize a photographic copy of the will to be made and to be presented to the witness of his examination, who may be
asked the same questions with respect to it, and to the handwriting of the testator and others, as would be pertinent and
competent if the original will were present. (Sec. 7).

A:

Q:
A:

State the procedure in the probate of a will if the witnesses are dead or insane or do not reside in the
Philippines.
If it appears at the time fixed for the hearing that the subscribing witnesses are dead or insane, or that none of them
resides in the Philippines, the court may admit the testimony of other witnesses to prove the sanity of the testator, and
the due execution of the will; and as evidence of the execution of the will, it may admit proof of the handwriting of the
testator and of the subscribing witnesses, or of any of them.(Sec. 8).

Q:
A:

State the grounds for the disallowance of a will.


The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases:
(a) If not executed and attested as required by law;
(b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, at the time of its execution;
(c) If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
(d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary, or of some other
person for his benefit;
(e) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, and he did not intend that the instrument should be his
will at the time of fixing his signature thereto.(Sec.9).

Q:
A:

What should a person contesting the allowance of a will do?


Anyone appearing to contest the will must state in writing the grounds for opposing its allowance, and serve a copy
thereof on the petitioner and other parties interested in the estate. (Sec. 10)

Q:
A:

What proof is necessary if the testator himself files the petition for probate?
Where the testator himself petitions for the probate of his holographic will and no contest is filed, the fact that he affirms
that the holographic will and the signature are in his own handwriting, shall be sufficient evidence of the genuineness and
due execution thereof. If the holographic will is contested, the burden of disproving the genuineness and due execution
thereof shall be on the contestant. The testator may, in his turn, present such additional proof as may be necessary to
rebut the evidence of the contestant.(Sec. 12).

Q:
A:

What shall be done if the will is proved?


If the court is satisfied, upon proof taken and filed, that the will was duly executed, and that the testator at the time of its
execution was of sound and disposing mind, and not acting under duress, menace, and undue influence, or fraud, a
certificate of its allowance, signed by the judge and attested by the seal of the court shall be attached to the will and
certificate filed and recorded by the clerk. Attested copies of the will devising real estate and of certificate of allowance
thereof, shall be recorded in the register of deeds of the province in which the lands lie.(Sec.13).

Rule 77
ALLOWANCE OF WILL PROVED OUTSIDE OF PHILIPPINES AND ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE THEREUNDER
Q.

May a will proved in a foreign country be allowed and filed in the Philippines?

A.

Yes wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed, and
recorded by the proper MTC or RTC in the Philippines.

Q.

What shall the court do upon the filing of a petition for allowance of a will allowed outside of the Philippines?

A.

The court shall fix the time and place for the hearing, and cause notice thereof to be given as in the case of an original
will presented for allowance.(Sec.13).
What must be proven in the re-probate of a will in the Philippines?

Q.
A.

The following must be proven:


(1) That the testator was domiciled in the foreign country;
(2) That the will has been admitted to probate in such country;
(3) That the foreign court was, under the laws of said foreign country, a probate court with jurisdiction over the
proceedings;
(4) The law on probate procedure in said foreign country and proof of compliance therewith; and,
(5) The legal requirements in said foreign country for the valid execution of the will. (Testate of Suntay, 95 Phil 500)

Q.

What is the effect if a will allowed in a foreign country is allowed in the Philippines?

A.

If it appears at the hearing that the will should be allowed in the Philippines, the court shall so allow it, and certificate of
its allowance, signed by the judge, and attested by the seal of the court, to which shall be attached a copy of the will,
shall be filed and recorded by the clerk, and the will shall have the same effect as if originally proved and allowed in such
court. (Sec 3)

Q.

What shall be done after a will allowed in a foreign country shall have been allowed in the Philippines?

A.

When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed,
and such letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines. Such
estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far
as such will may operate upon it; and the residue, if any shall be disposed of as is provided by law in cases of estates in
the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country. (Sec. 4).

You might also like