Suntay v. Suntay

-
ISSUE:
-
SC:
-
Jose B. Suntay died in the City of Amoy, China. He married twice, the first time to
Manuela T. Cruz with whom he had several children now residing in the Philippines,
and the second time to Maria Natividad Lim Billian with whom he had a son.
Apolonio Suntay, eldest son of the deceased by his first marriage, filed the latter's
intestate in the Court of First Instance of Manila (civil case No. 4892).
Maria Natividad Lim Billian also instituted the present proceedings for the probate of a
will allegedly left by the deceased.
According to the petitioner, before the deceased died in China he left with her a
sealed envelope (Exhibit A) containing his will and, also another document (Exhibit B of
the petitioner) said to be a true copy of the original contained in the envelope.
The will in the envelope was executed in the Philippines, with Messrs. Go Toh, Alberto
Barretto and Manuel Lopez as attesting witnesses. On August 25, 1934, Go Toh, as
attorney-in-fact of the petitioner, arrived in the Philippines with the will in the envelope
and its copy Exhibit B.
While Go Toh was showing this envelope to Apolonio Suntay and Angel Suntay,
children by first marriage of the deceased, they snatched and opened it and, after
getting its contents and throwing away the envelope, they fled.
Upon these allegations, the petitioner asks in this case that the brothers Apolonio,
Angel, Manuel and Jose Suntay, children by the first marriage of the deceased, who
allegedly have the document contained in the envelope which is the will of the
deceased, be ordered to present it in court, that a day be set for the reception of
evidence on the will, and that the petitioner be appointed executrix pursuant to the
designation made by the deceased in the will.
In answer to the court's order to present the alleged will, the brothers Apolonio. Angel,
Manuel and Jose Suntay, stated that they did not have the said will and denied
having snatched it from Go Toh.
In view of the allegations of the petition and the answer of the brothers Apolonio,
Angel, Manuel and Jose Suntay, the questions raised herein are: The loss of the alleged
will of the deceased, whether Exhibit B accompanying the petition is an authentic
copy thereof, and whether it has been executed with all the essential and necessary
formalities required by law for its probate.
petitioner put two witnesses upon the stand, Go Toh and Tan Boon Chong, who
corroborated the allegation that the brothers Apolonio and Angel appropriated the
envelope in the circumstances above-mentioned.
The oppositors have not adduced any evidence counter to the testimony of these two
witnesses.
The court, while making no express finding on this fact, took it for granted in its
decision; but it dismissed the petition believing that the evidence is insufficient to
establish that the envelope seized from Go Toh contained the will of the deceased,
and that the said will was executed with all the essential and necessary formalities
required by law for its probate.
In our opinion, the evidence is sufficient to establish the loss of the document
contained in the envelope.
Oppositors' answer admits that, according to Barretto he prepared a will of the
deceased to which he later became a witness together with Go Toh and Manuel
Lopez, and that this will was placed in an envelope which was signed by the
deceased and by the instrumental witnesses.
In court there was presented and attached to the case an open and empty envelope
signed by Jose B. Suntay, Alberto Barretto, Go Toh and Manuel Lopez.
It is thus undeniable that this envelope Exhibit A is the same one that contained the will
executed by the deceased drafted by Barretto and with the latter, Go Toh and
Manuel Lopez as attesting witnesses.
These tokens sufficiently point to the loss of the will of the deceased., a circumstance
justifying the presentation of secondary evidence of its contents and of whether it was
executed with all the essential and necessary legal formalities.
The trial of this case was limited to the proof of loss of the will, and from what has taken
place we deduce that it was not petitioner's intention to raise, upon the evidence
adduced by her, the other points involved herein, namely, as we have heretofore
indicated, whether Exhibit B is a true copy of the will and whether the latter was
executed with all the formalities required by law for its probate. The testimony of
Alberto Barretto bears importantly in this connection.
Wherefore, the loss of the will executed by the deceased having been sufficiently
established, it is ordered that this case be remanded to the court of origin for further
proceedings in obedience to this decision, without any pronouncement as to the
costs. So ordered.

Suntay v. Suntay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suntay v. Suntay

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Suntay v. Suntay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-

You might also like