Scribd
Upload
122 views1 page

Probate Denial of Chinese Will

This case involves two competing claims over the estate of Jose Suntay - one from his son from his first marriage, Federico, and one from his son from his second marriage, Silvino. Silvino claimed that Jose executed a will in Amoy, China in 1931 leaving his estate to Silvino. However, the court did not allow the Chinese will because certain facts regarding its due execution were not established, as required by Rule 78. Specifically, Silvino did not prove that the Amoy court was a probate court, the laws of China on will allowance, or that the will met legal requirements for a valid will in China in 1931. Without proving these points, the Chinese will could

Uploaded by

carlie lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
122 views1 page

Probate Denial of Chinese Will

This case involves two competing claims over the estate of Jose Suntay - one from his son from his first marriage, Federico, and one from his son from his second marriage, Silvino. Silvino claimed that Jose executed a will in Amoy, China in 1931 leaving his estate to Silvino. However, the court did not allow the Chinese will because certain facts regarding its due execution were not established, as required by Rule 78. Specifically, Silvino did not prove that the Amoy court was a probate court, the laws of China on will allowance, or that the will met legal requirements for a valid will in China in 1931. Without proving these points, the Chinese will could

Uploaded by

carlie lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Suntay vs.

Suntay
Facts:
Jose Suntay, a Filipino resident citizen, died in Amoy, China. He entered into a contract
of marriage twice in his lifetime. He had children by his first marriage with Manuela Cruz,
including appellee Federico. He also had a son, appellant Silvino, by his second marriage with
Maria Natividad, who survived him. Intestate proceedings were instituted in CFI Bulacan. On
October 15, 1934, his widow filed a petition in CFI Bulacan for the probate of his last will and
testament, claimed to have been executed and signed in the Philippines in November 1929.
Said petition was denied because of the loss of the will after the filing of the petition and before
the hearing thereof.
The probate court dismissed the petition. In the meantime, the Pacificwar supervened. After libe
ration, Silvino filed a petition in the intestate proceedings prayingfor the probate of the will execu
ted in the Philippines in November 1929 or of the will executedin Amoy, China in January 1931.
He claimed that he had found among the files, records anddocuments of his late father, a will an
d testament in Chinese characters executed and signed bythe deceased in January 1931, and t
hat the same was filed, recorded, and probated in theAmoy District Court in China. The CFI disa
llowed the alleged last will and testament executed in
November 1929 and the alleged last will and testament executed in Amoy, China.
Issue:
Whether or not the last will and testament executed in Amoy, China should be allowed.
Held:
No, it should not be allowed because certain facts as to the due execution of the China
will were not established. Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 78 provide that wills proved and allowed
in a foreign country according to the laws of such country maybe allowed, filed, and recorded
by the proper CFI in the Philippines provided that a copy of such will and the allowance thereof
be duly authenticated and filed with a petition for allowance in the Philippines in the court
having jurisdiction. Such court shall fix a time and place for the hearing and cause the notice
thereof to be given. If it appears at the hearing that the will should be allowed in the
Philippines, the court shall so allow it, and a 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. Thus, the will shall have the same effect as if originally proved and
allowed in such court.
In the case at bar, the fact that the court in Amoy, China is a probate court must be
proved. The law in China on the procedure for the allowance of wills must also be proved. The
legal requirements for the execution of a valid will in China in 1931 must also be established by
competent evidence. The case does not present proof on these points. Hence, the last will and
testament executed in Amoy, China should not be allowed in Philippine jurisdiction.

You might also like