RULE 75 ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR, ANTONIO L. MANGALINDAN, ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACHECO, VIRGILIO REGALA, JR.

, and RAFAEL TITCO vs. LORENZO LAXA, G.R. No. 1 !!"#, A$%&' 11, ()1( FACTS* Paciencia was a 78 year old spinster when she made her last will and testament entitled "Tauli Nang Bilin o Testamento Miss Paciencia Regala" (Will) in the Pampango dialect on eptem!er "#$ "%8"& The Will$ e'ecuted in the house o( retired )udge *rnestino +& ,impin ()udge ,impin)$ was read to Paciencia twice& -(ter which$ Paciencia e'pressed in the presence o( the instrumental witnesses that the document is her last will and testament& he therea(ter a((i'ed her signature at the end o( the said document on page # and then on the le(t margin o( pages "$ . and / thereo(& The witnesses to the Will were 0ra& Maria ,io!a -& ,impin (0ra& ,impin)$ 1rancisco +arcia (1rancisco) and 1austino R& Mercado (1austino)& The three attested to the Will2s due e'ecution !y a((i'ing their signatures !elow its attestation clause and on the le(t margin o( pages "$ . and / thereo($ in the presence o( Paciencia and o( one another and o( )udge ,impin who acted as notary pu!lic& ISS+E* Whether the authenticity and due e'ecution o( the notarial Will was su((iciently esta!lished to warrant its allowance (or pro!ate& HELD* The court denies the petition& 1aith(ul compliance with the (ormalities laid down !y law is apparent (rom the (ace o( the Will& 3ourts are tas4ed to determine nothing more than the e'trinsic 5alidity o( a Will in pro!ate proceedings&6/ This is e'pressly pro5ided (or in Rule 77$ ection " o( the Rules o( 3ourt$ which states8 Rule 77 Production o( Will& -llowance o( Will Necessary& ection "& -llowance necessary& 3onclusi5e as to e'ecution& 9 No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is pro5ed and allowed in the proper court& u!:ect to the right o( appeal$ such allowance o( the will shall !e conclusi5e as to its due e'ecution& 0ue e'ecution o( the will or its e'trinsic 5alidity pertains to whether the testator$ !eing o( sound mind$ (reely e'ecuted the will in accordance with the (ormalities prescri!ed !y law& ;ere$ a care(ul e'amination o( the (ace o( the Will shows (aith(ul compliance with the (ormalities laid

down !y law& The signatures o( the testatri'$ Paciencia$ her instrumental witnesses and the notary pu!lic$ are all present and e5ident on the Will& 1urther$ the attestation clause e'plicitly states the critical re<uirement that the testatri' and her instrumental witnesses signed the Will in the presence o( one another and that the witnesses attested and su!scri!ed to the Will in the presence o( the testator and o( one another& =n (act$ e5en the petitioners acceded that the signature o( Paciencia in the Will may !e authentic although they <uestion her state o( mind when she signed the same as well as the 5oluntary nature o( said act& The !urden to pro5e that Paciencia was o( unsound mind at the time o( the e'ecution o( the will lies on the shoulders o( the petitioners& DOCTRINE* =t is incum!ent upon those who oppose the pro!ate o( a will to clearly esta!lish that the decedent was not o( sound and disposing mind at the time o( the e'ecution o( said will& >therwise$ the state is duty?!ound to gi5e (ull e((ect to the wishes o( the testator to distri!ute his estate in the manner pro5ided in his will so long as it is legally tena!le&

RULE 76 and 77 IN RE* IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE ,ILL OF R+PERTA PALAGANAS ,ITH PRA-ER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, MAN+EL MIG+EL PALAGANAS and BENJAMIN GREGORIO PALAGANAS 5s&ERNESTO PALAGANAS, G.R. No. 1.#1!!, Jan/a%0 (., ()11 FACTS* >n No5em!er 8$ .@@" Ruperta 3& Palaganas (Ruperta)$ a 1ilipino who !ecame a naturaliAed Bnited tates (B& &) citiAen$ died single and childless& =n the last will and testament she e'ecuted in 3ali(ornia$ she designated her !rother$ ergio 3& Palaganas ( ergio)$ as the e'ecutor o( her will (or she had le(t properties in the Philippines and in the B& & >n May "%$ .@@# respondent *rnesto 3& Palaganas (*rnesto)$ another !rother o( Ruperta$ (iled with the Regional Trial 3ourt (RT3) o( Malolos$ Bulacan$ a petition (or the pro!ate o( Ruperta2s will and (or his appointment as special administrator o( her estate& >n >cto!er "7$ .@@#$ howe5er$ petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas (Manuel) and Ben:amin +regorio Palaganas (Ben:amin)$ nephews o( Ruperta$ opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta2s will should not !e pro!ated in the Philippines !ut in the B& & where she e'ecuted it& Manuel and Ben:amin added that$ assuming Ruperta2s will could !e pro!ated in the Philippines$ it is in5alid nonetheless (or ha5ing !een e'ecuted under duress and without the testator2s (ull understanding o( the conse<uences o( such act& *rnesto$ they claimed$ is also not <uali(ied to act as administrator o( the estate& ISS+E* Whether or not a will e'ecuted !y a (oreigner a!road may !e pro!ated in the Philippines although it has not !een pre5iously pro!ated and allowed in the country where it was e'ecuted& HELD* Petitioners Manuel and Ben:amin maintain that wills e'ecuted !y (oreigners a!road must (irst !e pro!ated and allowed in the country o( its e'ecution !e(ore it can !e pro!ated here& This$ they claim$ ensures prior compliance with the legal (ormalities o( the country o( its e'ecution& They insist that local courts can only allow pro!ate o( such wills i( the proponent pro5es that8 (a) the testator has !een admitted (or pro!ate in such (oreign country$ (!) the will has !een admitted to pro!ate there under its laws$ (c) the pro!ate court has :urisdiction o5er the proceedings$ (d) the law on pro!ate procedure in that (oreign country and proo( o( compliance with the same$ and (e) the legal re<uirements (or the 5alid e'ecution o( a will& But our laws do not prohi!it the pro!ate o( wills e'ecuted !y (oreigners a!road although the same ha5e not as yet !een pro!ated and allowed in the countries o( their e'ecution& - (oreign will can !e gi5en legal e((ects in our :urisdiction& -rticle 8"6 o( the 3i5il 3ode states that the will o( an alien who is a!road produces e((ect in the Philippines i( made in accordance with the

(ormalities prescri!ed !y the law o( the place where he resides$ or according to the (ormalities o!ser5ed in his country& ections " and . o( Rule 76 (urther state that the e'ecutor$ de5isee$ or legatee named in the will$ or any other person interested in the estate$ may$ at any time a(ter the death o( the testator$ petition the court ha5ing :urisdiction to ha5e the will allowed$ whether the same !e in his possession or not$ or is lost or destroyed& (for Rule 76) =n insisting that Ruperta2s will should ha5e !een (irst pro!ated and allowed !y the court o( 3ali(ornia$ petitioners Manuel and Ben:amin o!5iously ha5e in mind the procedure (or the repro!ate o( will !e(ore admitting it here& But$ repro!ate or re?authentication o( a will already pro!ated and allowed in a (oreign country is di((erent (rom that pro!ate where the will is presented (or the (irst time !e(ore a competent court& Repro!ate is speci(ically go5erned !y Rule 77 o( the Rules o( 3ourt& 3ontrary to petitioners2 stance$ since this latter rule applies only to repro!ate o( a will$ it cannot !e made to apply to the present case& =n repro!ate$ the local court ac4nowledges as !inding the (indings o( the (oreign pro!ate court pro5ided its :urisdiction o5er the matter can !e esta!lished& (for Rule 77) DOCTRINE* =( the instituted heirs do not ha5e the means to go a!road (or the pro!ate o( the will$ it is as good as depri5ing them outright o( their inheritance$ since our law re<uires that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless the will has !een pro5ed and allowed !y the proper court&