In re: Testate Estate of the deceased JOSE B. SUNTAY. SILVINO SUNTAY v.

In re: Intestate Estate of the deceased JOSE

FACTS: On 14 May 1934 Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and resident of the Philippines, died in the city of Amoy,
Fookien province, Republic of China, leaving real and personal properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy,
Fookien province, China, and children by the first marriage had with the late Manuela T. Cruz namely, Apolonio,
Concepcion, Angel, Manuel, Federico, Ana, Aurora, Emiliano, and Jose, Jr. and a child named Silvino by the second
marriage had with Maria Natividad Lim Billian who survived him.
On 15 October 1934 the surviving widow filed a petition in the CFI of Bulacan for the probate of a last will and
testament claimed to have been executed and signed in the Philippines on November 1929 by the late Jose B. Suntay.
This petition was denied because of the loss of said will after the filing of the petition and before the hearing thereof
and of the insufficiency of the evidence to establish the loss of the said will.
On appeal, this Court held the evidence before the probate court sufficient to prove the loss of the will and
remanded the case to the CFI of Bulacan for the further proceedings.
In spite of the fact that a commission from the probate court was issued on 24 April 1937 for the taking of the
deposition of Go Toh, an attesting witness to the will, on 7 February 1938 the probate court denied a motion for
continuance of the hearing sent by cablegram from China by the surviving widow and dismissed the petition. In the
meantime the Pacific War supervened.
After liberation, claiming that he had found among the files, records and documents of his late father a will and
testament in Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased on 4 January 1931 and that the same was filed,
recorded and probated in the Amoy district court, Province of Fookien, China, Silvino Suntay filed a petition in the
intestate proceedings praying for the probate of the will executed in the Philippines on November 1929 or of the will
executed in Amoy, Fookien, China, on 4 January 1931.
CFI disallowed the said last will and testament executed here in the Philippines and in China.

ISSUE: Whether the will executed in China can be allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court of this country.

RULING: NO. As to the will claimed to have been executed on 4 January 1931 in Amoy, China, the law on the point in
Rule 78. Section 1 of the rule provides:

Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed, and
recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the Philippines.

Section 2 provides:

When a copy of such will and the allowance thereof, duly authenticated, is filed with a petition for allowance in the
Philippines, by the executor or other person interested, in the court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and
place for the hearing, and cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance.

Section 3 provides:

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 courts, 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.

The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, China, is a probate court must be proved. The law of China on
procedure in the probate or allowance of wills must also be proved. The legal requirements for the execution of a valid
will in China in 1931 should also be established by competent evidence. There is no proof on these points. The
unverified answers to the questions propounded by counsel for the appellant to the Consul General of the Republic of
China set forth in Exhibits R-1 and R-2, objected to by counsel for the appellee, are inadmissible, because apart from
the fact that the office of Consul General does not qualify and make the person who holds it an expert on the Chinese
law on procedure in probate matters, if the same be admitted, the adverse party would be deprived of his right to
confront and cross-examine the witness. Consuls are appointed to attend to trade matters. Moreover, it appears that
all the proceedings had in the municipal district court of Amoy were for the purpose of taking the testimony of two
attesting witnesses to the will and that the order of the municipal district court of Amoy does not purport to probate
the will. In the absence of proof that the municipal district court of Amoy is a probate court and on the Chinese law of
procedure in probate matters, it may be presumed that the proceedings in the matter of probating or allowing a will in
the Chinese courts are the a deposition or to a perpetuation of testimony, and even if it were so it does not measure
same as those provided for in our laws on the subject. It is a proceedings in rem and for the validity of such
proceedings personal notice or by publication or both to all interested parties must be made. The interested parties in
the case were known to reside in the Philippines. The evidence shows that no such notice was received by the
interested parties residing in the Philippines. The proceedings had in the municipal district court of Amoy, China, may
be likened to or come up to the standard of such proceedings in the Philippines for lack of notice to all interested
parties and the proceedings were held at the back of such interested parties.

The order of the municipal district court of Amoy, China, which reads as follows:

ORDER:

SEE BELOW

The above minutes were satisfactorily confirmed by the interrogated parties, who declare that there are no errors,
after said minutes were loudly read and announced actually in the court.

Done and subscribed on the Nineteenth day of the English month of the 35th year of the Republic of China in the Civil
Section of the Municipal District Court of Amoy, China.

HUANG KUANG CHENG

CHIANG TENG HWA

(Exhibit N-13, p. 89 Folder of Exhibits.).

does not purport to probate or allow the will which was the subject of the proceedings. In view thereof, the will and
the alleged probate thereof cannot be said to have been done in accordance with the accepted basic and
fundamental concepts and principles followed in the probate and allowance of wills. Consequently, the
authenticated transcript of proceedings held in the municipal district court of Amoy, China, cannot be deemed and
accepted as proceedings leading to the probate or allowance of a will and, therefore, the will referred to therein
cannot be allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court of this country.

The decree appealed from was affirmed.