Suntay v.

Suntay
G.R. No. L-3087-88 July 31, 1954 J. Padilla Pagda
petitioners Silvino Suntay, APPELLANT
respondents Federico Suntay, ADMINISTRATOR-APPELLEE
summary Child of the second wife of the decedent sought to have two wills probated a lost attested
will, and a will executed in China. The Court denied his petition because (1) he failed to
prove that the first will was lost, and (2) he failed to offer evidence that the court in China
was a probate court and that it had the authority to probate the will.

facts of the case

Decedent Jose B. Suntay, died May 14, 1934
Value of Estate P50,000 consisting of real and personal property in the PHL and a house in Amoy, Fookien
Province, China
Family Details:
First Marriage of Jose B. Suntay (APPELLEES)
Wife (deceased): Manuela T. Cruz
Children: Apolonio, Concepcion, Angel, Manuel, Federico (ADMINISTRATOR), Ana, Aurora, Emiliano, and
Jose, Jr.
Second Marriage (APPELLANT)
Wife: Maria Natividad Lim Billian
Child: Silvino

Jose B. Suntay died. Intestate proceedings were instituted in the CFI of Bulacan, where letters of admin were
granted to Apolonio. Apolonio died, so Federico was appointed admin of the estate of Jose.
In October of 1934, the surviving widow Maria filed a petition in the CFI of Bulacan for the probate of a will
claimed to have been executed by Jose in 1929. This petition was denied because of (1) the loss of said will
after the filing of the petition and before the hearing thereof and of (2) the insufficiency of the evidence to
establish the loss of the said will.
After the liberation of Manila in the Pacific War, Silvino claimed to have found a will executed by Jose in
Chinese, filed, recorded, and probated in the Amoy District Court. He filed a petition in the intestate
proceedings praying for the probate of either the 1929 will (Philippines), or the 1931 will (the one found in
China). The CFI disallowed both.

issue
WON loss of the Philippine will was proven. NO.
WON the Amoy will may be probated. NO

ratio
Preliminary Issues:

The issue of estoppel

It was contended that Silvino and Maria were estopped from asking for the probate of the two wills
because they assigned their share/right/title/interest in the estate of Jose to a third party (Gutierrez
and Gono). The Court held that there is no merit in such contention that they were estopped. Validity
of such assignment cannot be threshed out in probate proceedings which are concerned merely with
the validity and due execution of the will.

The issue of prescription

1
 The dismissal of the petition for probate of the will was no bar to the filing of this petition on 18 June
1947, or before the expiration of ten years.

Moving on to the issue of the lost will.

The Rule Sec. 6, Rule 771

The Witnesses Presented (to testify on the provisions of the lost will):
Go Toh (attesting witness to the will)
Testified that he, along with Manuel Lopez and Alberto Barretto, was one of the attesting witnesses to
the 23 page will of Jose B. Suntay. He also said that Jose signed at the bottom of the will and each and
every page thereof (Succession stuff).
Go Toh also testified that he did not take part in the drafting of the will (it was in Spanish, which he
knew very little of). Nonetheless, Jose told him about the contents of such will.
Go Toh also said that Jose told him that the contents of the lost will and the draft were the same
(IMPT).
Ana Suntay
She testified that she learned that her dad left a will when her brother Manuel came home one day in
Sept 1934 bearing a document which he referred to as the will of their father. She also said that her
brother Apolonio read the will out loud, and that the adjudications therein were to wit (hehe): one-
third to his children, one-third to Silvino and his mother and the other third to Silvino, Apolonio,
Concepcion and Jose, Jr. (Note that in cross, she testified that she read the dispositions)
Anastacio Teodoro
Testified that in Nov 1934, before the last postponement of the hearing of the Court, Go Toh arrived at
his law office and left an envelope wrapped in a red handkerchief. The will placed in the envelope was
the same as the draft.
(Manuel Lopez, allegedly an attesting witness to the will, was dead at the time of the hearing)

The Courts Interpretation/Ruling

1) (Tried my best to make sense of what the Court was trying to say here) The testimony of Ana that she
saw and heard her brother read out the stipulations of the will cannot be true.
How did they come up with this conclusion?
Remember that Go Toh delivered the will to Anastacio on Nov 1934. Apparently Go Toh came from
China right and went straight to Anastacio after disembarking from the boat. The Court said that if this
were true, then Anas testimony that she saw her brother read the will in Sept 1934 cant be true.
Moreover, Anas testimony was riddled with inconsistencies; on cross she testified that she read the
will, but prior to that she said that her brother read it out loud.

2) Assuming there was a will executed by Jose, and that it was in existence at the time of, and not revoked
before, his death, still, Anastacios testimony alone falls short of the legal requirement that the provisions
of the lost will must be "clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses.
Credible witnesses mean competent witnesses and those who testify to facts from or upon hearsay are
neither competent nor credible witnesses.

The issue of the Amoy Will (executed in China DAW)

1 No will shall be proved as a lost or destroyed will unless the execution and validity of the same be established, and the will is proved to
have been in existence at the time of the death of the testator, or is shown to have been fraudulently or accidentally destroyed in the
lifetime of the testator without his knowledge, nor unless its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses.
When a lost will is proved, the provisions thereof must be distinctly stated and certified by the judge, under the seal of the court, and the
certificate must be filed and recorded as other wills are filed and recorded.

2
The Rules: Secs. 1-3, Rule 782
The Courts Ruling

No proof was given as regards the following: 1) The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy,
China, is a probate court 2) The law of China on procedure in the probate or allowance of wills 3) The
legal requirements for the execution of a valid will in China in 1931
The unverified answers to the questions propounded by the side of Silvino to the Consul General of the
Republic of China are inadmissible because aside from the fact that the office of Consul General does
not qualify as 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. Moreover,
consuls are appointed to attend to trade matters.
The order of the supposed probate court of Amoy also does not purport to probate or allow the will
which was the subject of the proceedings. It merely declared that there were no errors therein.

Dissent to follow

2Sec. 1 - 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.
Sec. 2 - 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.
Sec 3 - 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.