Suntay vs. Suntay – GR Nos.

L-3087 & L-3088 (July 31, 1954)

Facts:
In 1934, Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines, died in Amoy, China. He left real and
personal properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy. During his lifetime, he married twice. The first wife was
Manuela Cruz, with whom he had several children. The second marriage was with Maria Natividad Lim Brillian,
with whom he had a son, petitioner Silvino Suntay. Intestate proceedings were instituted by the heirs from the first
marriage.
While the second wife, the surviving widow who remained in Amoy China, filed a petition for the probate of the last
will and testament of the deceased which was claimed to have been executed and signed in the Philippines on
November 1929. The petition was denied due to the loss of the will before the hearing thereof.
After the Pacific War, Silvino claimed to have found, among the records of his father, a last will and testament in
Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased on January, 1931 and probated in the Amoy District Court.
He filed a petition in the intestate proceedings for the probate of the will executed in the Philippines on November
1929 or the will executed in Amoy China on November, 1931.
Issue:
Whether or not the will executed in Amoy, China can still be validly probated in the Philippines. – NO.
Held:
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 the
will in China in 1931 should also be established by competent evidence.
There is no proof on these points. 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 same as those provided for in our laws on the subject. It is
a proceeding in rem and for the validity of such proceedings personal notice or by publication or both to all
interested parties must be made.
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 a deposition or to a perpetuation
of testimony, and even if it were so, it does not measure or come up to the standard of such proceedings in the
Philippines for lack of notice to all interested parties.
Furthermore, the order of the municipal district court of Amoy, China, which reads, as follows:
x x x 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.
x x x 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.