VDA. DE PEREZ v. TOLETE

VDA. DE PEREZ v.
TOLETE
G.R. No. 76714
June 2, 1994
Digest Author: Ana Alvarez
DOCTRINE:
With regard to notices, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an original will or a will
that is presented for probate for the first time and accordingly must comply with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule
76, which require publication and notice to the known heirs, legatees and devisees, and to the executor, if
he is not the petitioner.
FACTS:
1. Dr. Jose F. Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan became American citizens. They
lived in the US with their children Jocelyn, Jacqueline and Josephine.
2. Dr. Jose Cunanan executed a last will and testament, bequeathing to his wife all the remainder
of his real and personal property at the time of his death wheresoever situated. In the event he
would survive his wife, he bequeathed all his property to his children and grandchildren with Dr.
Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as trustee. He appointed his wife as executrix of his last will and
testament and Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as substitute executor.
If my wife, EVELYN PEREZ-CUNANAN, and I shall die under such
circumstances that there is not sufficient evidence to determine the order of our
deaths, then it shall be presumed that I predeceased her, and my estate shall be
administered and distributed, in all respects, in accordance with such
presumption (Rollo, p. 41).
3. Four days later, Dr. Evelyn P. Cunanan executed her own last will and testament containing the
same provisions as that of the will of her husband.
4. Dr. Cunanan and his entire family perished when they were trapped by fire that gutted their home.
5. Thereafter, Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr. as trustee and substitute executor of the two wills, filed
separate proceedings for the probate thereof with the Surrogate Court of the County of
Onondaga, New York. These two wills were admitted to probate and letters testamentary were
issued in his favor.
6. Subsequently, Salud Teodroro Perez, the mother of Dr. Evelyn filed with the RTC a petition for the
reprobate of the two wills ancillary to the probate proceedings in New York. She also asked that
she be appointed the special administratrix of the estate of the deceased couple consisting
primarily of a farm land in San Miguel, Bulacan. Letters of administration were issued in her favor.
7. Perez filed motions praying for certain life insurance companies(Philippine Life Insurance
Company and Philippine American Life Insurance Company) be directed to deliver the proceeds
of the life insurance policy taken by the deceased Cunanan spouses.
8. In another motion, Perez asked that Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Sr. be ordered to deliver to her a
Philippine Trust Company passbook savings deposit, and the Family Savings Bank time deposit
certificates
9. Atty. Federico Alday filed a notice of appearance as counsel for the heirs of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan,
namely, Dr. Rafael Cunanan, Sr., Priscilla Cunanan Bautista, Lydia Cunanan Ignacio, Felipe F.
Cunanan and Loreto Cunanan Concepcion (Cunanan heirs). He also manifested that before
receiving petitioners motion his clients were unaware of the filing of the testate estate case and
therefore, in the interest of simple fair play, they should be notified of the proceedings.
Note: I just took the allegations of both parties that relate to Specpro
10. Perez then filed a counter manifestation basically alleging that the Cunanan collaterals had not
legal or proprietary interests to protect and no right to intervene. Probate court granted Perezs
motion.
11. Cunanan heirs filed a motion to nullify the proceedings and to set aside the appointment of, or to
disqualify, petitioner as special administratrix of the estates. They alleged that that being the
brothers and sisters and the legal and surviving heirs of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, they had been
deliberately excluded in the petition for the probate of the separate wills of the Cunanan
spouses thereby misleading the Bulacan court to believe that petitioner was the sole heir of the
spouses; that such misrepresentation deprived them of their right to due process in violation of
Section 4, Rule 76 of the Revised Rules of Court.
12. In her opposition, Perez asserted:
a. that she was the sole and only heir of her daughter, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan to the
exclusion of the Cunanan collaterals; hence they were complete strangers to the
proceedings and were not entitled to notice;
b. that she could not have concealed the name and address of Dr. Rafael G. Cunanan, Jr.
because his name was prominently mentioned not only in the two wills but also in the
decrees of the American surrogate court;
c. that the rule applicable to the case is Rule 77, not Rule 76, because it involved the
allowance of wills proved outside of the Philippines and that nowhere in Section 2 of Rule
77 is there a mention of notice being given to the executor who, by the same provision,
should himself file the necessary ancillary proceedings in this country;
13. In their reply, the Cunanan heirs stressed that petitioner and the Cunanan heirs had entered into
an agreement in the United States to settle and divide equally the estates, and that under
Section 2 of Rule 77 the 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
a. They further asserted that by virtue of Section 2 of Rule 77 of the Rules of Court, the
provision of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 76 on the requirement of notice to all heirs,
executors, devisees and legatees must be complied with.
14. A lot of motions and exchanges happened between the parties and along the line the original
Perez petitioner was substituted by her daughter because she was ailing.
ISSUE:
W/N the Cunanan heirs should have been notified. ( This is the specpro issue but the main issue was
regarding the effectivity of the will here in the Philippines and the requisites it needed to comply with for it
to take effect Also if both wills should be jointly probated. It dealt more with Conflicts of laws). YES.
HELD:
YES.
1. Petitioner has always considered herself the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan and because
she does not consider herself an heir of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, she noticeably failed to notify his
heirs of the filing of the proceedings.
2. The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall cause notice thereof to
be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance means that with regard to notices,
the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an original will or a will that is presented
for probate for the first time.
3. Accordingly, compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76, which require publication and notice by
mail or personally to the known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the
Philippines and to the executor, if he is not the petitioner, are required.
4. The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to petitioners claim, are entitled to
notices of the time and place for proving the wills. Under Section 4 of Rule 76 of the Revised
Rules of Court, the court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for
proving the will to be addressed to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees
of the testator

VDA. DE PEREZ v. TOLETE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VDA. DE PEREZ v. TOLETE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VDA. DE PEREZ v. TOLETE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the dispute between the parties?

What rule did the court apply regarding notice requirements?

VDA. DE PEREZ v.

You might also like