Palaganas Vs Palaganas

Palaganas vs.
Palaganas
GR. No. 169144, January 26, 2011
Doctrine: Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same has not
yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution.
Recit-Ready Summary:
Ruperta Palaganas is a naturalized US citizen who died single and childless and executed her last will and
testament in California. Her nephews insisted that the will cannot be probated in the Philippines and it should be
probated in the US where she executed it. The issue is whether or not Ruperta’s will can be probated in the
Philippines. The Court held that it can because our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by
foreigners abroad although the same has not yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. It
would be impractical 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 of their inheritance.
Facts:
 Ruperta Palaganas, a Filipino who became a naturalized US citizen, died single and childless (bakit
parang ang sakit)
o She executed her last will and testament in California and designated her brother, Sergio
Palaganas, as the executor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and the US
 Ernesto Palaganas (respondent), another brother of Ruperta, filed with RTC Malolos, Bulacan a petition
for the probate of Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as special administrator of her estate
 Manuel Palaganas and Benjamin Palaganas (petitioners), nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petitioni on
the ground that Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the US where she executed
it
o Added that, assuming Ruperta’s will could be probated in the Philippines, it is invalid for having
been executed under duress and without the testator’s full understanding of the consequences of
each act
o Claimed that Ernesto is not qualified as administrator of the estate
 Ruperta’s foreign-based siblings, Gloria Villaluz and Sergio, were in the Philippines for a shortbisit and
Ernesto filed a motion with the RTC for leave to take their desposition, which it granted
 RTC issued an order:
o Admitting to probate Ruperta’s last will
o Appointing Ernesto as special administrator at the request of Sergio, the US Based executor
destingated in the will
o Issuing the Letters of Special Administration to Ernesto
 Manuel and Benjamin argued that an unprobated will executed by a US citizen in the US cannot be
probated for the first time Philippines
 CA: affirmed RTC decision
o RTC properly allowed the probate of the will, subject to Ernesto’s submission of the
authenticated copies fo the documents specified in the order and his posting of required bond
o Sec 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
o CAB is different from reprobate which refers to a will already probated and allowed abroad
 Manuel and Benjamin claim that:
o Wills executed by foreigners abroad must first be probated and allowed in the country of its
execution before it can be probated here
o Insist that local courts can only allow probate of such wills if the proponent proves that:
 The testator has been admitted for probate in such foreign country
 The will has been admitted to probate there under its laws
 The probate court has jurisdiction over the proceedings
 The law on probate procedure in that foreign country and proof of compliance with the
same
 The legal requirements for the valid execution of a will
Issue:
1. W/N 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? – idk
Held:
1. Wait lang
 Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same has not yet
been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution
 A foreign will can be given legal effects of our jurisdiction
o 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
 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 merely require that the petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to the
petitioner:
o The jurisdictional facts
 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 provicnce
o The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or decedent
o The probable value and character of the property of the estate
o The name of the person for whom letters are prayed
o If the will has not been delivered to court, the name of the person having custody of it
 CAB: Manuel and Benjamin have in mind the procedure for the reprobate of the will
o Reprobate is the re-authentication of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign country is
different from probate where the will is presented for the first time before a competent court
o Impractical because 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 of their inheritance
 No will shall pass either real or personal property unless will has been proved and
allowed by proper courts
o RTC order is an initial ruling that the court can take cognizance of the petition for probate of
Ruperta’s will and that it was designating Ernesto as special administrator of the estate.
 They have yet to present evidence of the due execution of the will.

Palaganas Vs Palaganas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Palaganas Vs Palaganas

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

Palaganas Vs Palaganas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Palaganas vs.

You might also like