2/24/2020 G.R. No. 169144 | Palaganas v.

Palaganas

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 169144. January 26, 2011.]

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE

WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR,

MANUEL MIGUEL PALAGANAS and BENJAMIN GREGORIO

PALAGANAS, petitioners, vs. ERNESTO PALAGANAS,
respondent.

DECISION

ABAD, J : p

This case is about the probate before Philippine court of a will executed
abroad by a foreigner although it has not been probated in its place of
execution. AIcaDC

The Facts and the Case

On November 8, 2001 Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a Filipino who
became a naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen, died single and childless. In
the last will and testament she executed in California, she designated her
brother, Sergio C. Palaganas (Sergio), as the executor of her will for she had left
properties in the Philippines and in the U.S.
On May 19, 2003 respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas (Ernesto), another
brother of Ruperta, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos,
Bulacan, a petition for the probate of Ruperta's will and for his appointment as
special administrator of her estate. 1 On October 15, 2003, however, petitioners
Manuel Miguel Palaganas (Manuel) and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas
(Benjamin), nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition on the ground that
Ruperta's will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where
she executed it. Manuel and Benjamin added that, assuming Ruperta's will
could be probated in the Philippines, it is invalid nonetheless for having been
executed under duress and without the testator's full understanding of the
consequences of such act. Ernesto, they claimed, is also not qualified to act as
administrator of the estate.
Meantime, since Ruperta's foreign-based siblings, Gloria Villaluz and
Sergio, were on separate occasions in the Philippines for a short visit,
respondent Ernesto filed a motion with the RTC for leave to take their
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54157/print 1/4
2/24/2020 G.R. No. 169144 | Palaganas v. Palaganas

deposition, which it granted. On April 13, 2004 the RTC directed the parties to
submit their memorandum on the issue of whether or not Ruperta's U.S. will
may be probated in and allowed by a court in the Philippines.
On June 17, 2004 the RTC issued an order: 2 (a) admitting to probate
Ruperta's last will; (b) appointing respondent Ernesto as special administrator at
the request of Sergio, the U.S.-based executor designated in the will; and (c)
issuing the Letters of Special Administration to Ernesto.
Aggrieved by the RTC's order, petitioner nephews Manuel and Benjamin
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), 3 arguing that an unprobated will
executed by an American citizen in the U.S. cannot be probated for the first time
in the Philippines.
On July 29, 2005 the CA rendered a decision, 4 affirming the assailed
order of the RTC, 5 holding that the RTC properly allowed the probate of the will,
subject to respondent Ernesto's submission of the authenticated copies of the
documents specified in the order and his posting of required bond. The CA
pointed out that Section 2, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court does not require prior
probate and allowance of the will in the country of its execution, before it can be
probated in the Philippines. The present case, said the CA, is different from
reprobate, which refers to a will already probated and allowed abroad.
Reprobate is governed by different rules or procedures. Unsatisfied with the
decision, Manuel and Benjamin came to this Court. TCDHIc

The Issue Presented

The key issue presented in this case is whether or not a will executed by
a foreigner abroad may be probated in the Philippines although it has not been
previously probated and allowed in the country where it was executed.
The Court's Ruling
Petitioners Manuel and Benjamin maintain that wills executed by
foreigners abroad must first be probated and allowed in the country of its
execution before it can be probated here. This, they claim, ensures prior
compliance with the legal formalities of the country of its execution. They insist
that local courts can only allow probate of such wills if the proponent proves
that: (a) the testator has been admitted for probate in such foreign country, (b)
the will has been admitted to probate there under its laws, (c) the probate court
has jurisdiction over the proceedings, (d) the law on probate procedure in that
foreign country and proof of compliance with the same, and (e) the legal
requirements for the valid execution of a will.
But our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners
abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and allowed in the
countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our
jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is
abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or according to
the formalities observed in his country. 6

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54157/print 2/4
2/24/2020 G.R. No. 169144 | Palaganas v. Palaganas

In this connection, Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the RTC of the
province where he has an estate may take cognizance of the settlement of such
estate. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state that the executor, devisee, or
legatee named in the 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.
Our rules require merely that the 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 residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator
or decedent; (c) the probable value and character of the property of the estate;
(d) the name of the person for whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will has
not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it.
Jurisdictional facts refer to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the
time of his death in the province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an
inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left in such province. 7 The rules do
not require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed and probated in
the country of its execution.
In insisting that Ruperta's will should have been first probated and allowed
by the court of California, petitioners Manuel and Benjamin obviously have in
mind the procedure for the reprobate of will before admitting it here. But,
reprobate or re-authentication of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign
country is different from that probate where the will is presented for the first time
before a competent court. Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule 77 of the
Rules of Court. Contrary to petitioners' stance, since this latter rule applies only
to reprobate of a will, it cannot be made to apply to the present case. In
reprobate, the local court acknowledges as binding the findings of the foreign
probate court provided its jurisdiction over the matter can be established. caTIDE

Besides, petitioners' stand is fraught with impractically. If the instituted

heirs do not have the means to go abroad for the probate of the will, it is as
good as depriving them outright of their inheritance, since our law requires that
no will shall pass either real or personal property unless the will has been
proved and allowed by the proper court. 8
Notably, the assailed RTC order of June 17, 2004 is nothing more than an
initial ruling that the court can take cognizance of the petition for probate of
Ruperta's will and that, in the meantime, it was designating Ernesto as special
administrator of the estate. The parties have yet to present evidence of the due
execution of the will, i.e., the testator's state of mind at the time of the execution
and compliance with the formalities required of wills by the laws of California.
This explains the trial court's directive for Ernesto to submit the duly
authenticated copy of Ruperta's will and the certified copies of the Laws of
Succession and Probate of Will of California.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMSthe Court of
Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CV 83564 dated July 29, 2005.
SO ORDERED.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54157/print 3/4
2/24/2020 G.R. No. 169144 | Palaganas v. Palaganas

Carpio, Nachura, Mendoza and Sereno, * JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M.
Peralta, per raffle dated January 24, 2011.
1. Docketed as Special Proceedings 112-M-2003, Branch 10, RTC of Malolos,
Bulacan.
2. Rollo, pp. 73-77.
3. CA-G.R. CV 83564.
4. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in by Associate
Justices Rebecca De Guia Salvador and Fernanda Lampas Peralta.
5. Rollo, pp. 26-39.
6. CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 816.
7. Cuenco v. Court of Appeals, 153 Phil. 115, 133 (1973); Herrera, Remedial
Law, Vol. III-A, Rex Bookstore, 1996 ed., p. 46.
8. CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 838; RULES OF COURT, Rule 75,
Sec. 1.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54157/print 4/4